David T Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Yes, it's me. With the new format of the board, I thought I'd return, and participate on a very limited basis, mostly in presenting new information I've seen, and looking for insights. I have no interest in participating in doctrinal debates/explanations or such at this time. the addictive nature of that's is what overly chewed up my time before.Anyway, it appears from here to be the first official note I've seen anywhere that the following Institute Manuals are currently being revised:New Testament (Gospels) * New Testament (Acts to Revelation) * Old Testament (Genesis to 2 Samuel) *Old Testament (1 Kings to Malachi) * Doctrine & Covenants *My thoughts? It's about dang time.Anyone in the know as to more details? Will more up-to-date (and accurate) biblical scholarship be addressed and incorporated in the OT and NT manuals? Will the documentary hypothesis be granted any validity? Will the anti-evolution rhetoric remain? Will the D&C make references to the Joseph Smith Papers, nature of editing the revelations, etc? Is there an ETA?
David Bokovoy Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Will more up-to-date (and accurate) biblical scholarship be addressed and incorporated in the OT and NT manuals? NoWill the anti-evolution rhetoric remain?Probably not.Will the D&C make references to the Joseph Smith Papers, nature of editing the revelations, etc?I highly doubt it.
volgadon Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Nor do I hold much hope that the realia will be portrayed very well.
David T Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 What department actually is in charge of the Institute Manuals?
BCSpace Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 My thoughts? It's about dang time.Well yes. I know that some of you absolutely hate some of the official doctrine found therein. Of course I've never said or implied that doctrine can't change. Such is part of our systematic theology. Me? There wasn't enough anti-evolution rhetoric in them I couldn't get around with other doctrines presented.The Book of Mormon manual was already recently revised and they all can be found and read here.As for actual changes, I think you're more likely to see a dumbing down and a cutting out rather than a revising and improving of some controversial or unanswered issues.
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 The great thing about the old manuals is that with them we can imagine some future manual where the poor scholarship and mistaken opinions of Church leaders are removed, and the college-age LDS are ushered into an era of knowledge and understanding of the scriptures and doctrine never before seen in the Church.If the new manuals come out and retain the weaknesses of the current ones, those illusions will be dashed.
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Me? There wasn't enough anti-evolution rhetoric in them I couldn't get around with other doctrines presented.The Book of Mormon manual was already recently revised and they all can be found and read here.As for actual changes, I think you're more likely to see a dumbing down and a cutting out rather than a revising and improving of some controversial or unanswered issues.Interestingly, the recently revised Book of Mormon Institute Manual (©2009, English Approval 1/07) retains these quotes. Sadly, I suspect many LDS aren't blessed with BCSpace's creative powers and might interpret these to say exactly what they say, which isn't friendly to most modern theories of evolution:2 Nephi 2:22.
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 A question about the manuals:My Gospel Doctrine teacher uses the New Testament Institute manual as a reference for his lessons. Is this appropriate?
David T Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 The great thing about the old manuals is that with them we can imagine some future manual where the poor scholarship and mistaken opinions of Church leaders are removed, and the college-age LDS are ushered into an era of knowledge and understanding of the scriptures and doctrine never before seen in the Church.If the new manuals come out and retain the weaknesses of the current ones, those illusions will be dashed. Sad, but true.It's also very similar to how I feel about the forthcoming BYU Rendition and Commentary on the New Testament... If only they'd let the guy who wrote this Deseret published book (see favorable bloggernacle review here ) get involved in the CES material...
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Sad, but true.It's also very similar to how I feel about the forthcoming BYU Rendition and Commentary on the New Testament... If only they'd let the guy who wrote this Deseret published book (see favorable bloggernacle review here ) get involved in the CES material...Sure, and as long as we're dreaming I think they should invite Bart Ehrman to give his input as well...
nicolasconnault Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 A question about the manuals:My Gospel Doctrine teacher uses the New Testament Institute manual as a reference for his lessons. Is this appropriate?It's better than using Mormon Doctrine I suppose...
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 It's better than using Mormon Doctrine I suppose...Considering the generous use of McConkie's "Doctrinal New Testament Commentary" in the manual, I'm not so sure...
BCSpace Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 My Gospel Doctrine teacher uses the New Testament Institute manual as a reference for his lessons. Is this appropriate?Yes. They are published by the Church and therefore qualify as official doctrine.Considering the generous use of McConkie's "Doctrinal New Testament Commentary" in the manual, I'm not so sure...I have those. Never liked them much. Not published by the Church either.....Interestingly, the recently revised Book of Mormon Institute Manual (
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Neither of your quotes precludes evolution in the least. And fortunately, there are certain definitions of first man, first flesh, and "temporal" (among other things) that are quite friendly to evolution. Also we have 2 Nephi 2:22 and the last most authoritative statement on the subject of preAdamites was in 1931.....I know you and I understand that. My concern is for the knuckle-draggers in Institute that haven't yet come to our more advanced understanding of words like "man", "death" and "procreation". We need to think of them as well, and work towards a better world (and Church) where a clearer understanding of these things is taught openly.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 While I have no problems with BCSpace's ideas on evolution. I don't believe they should be presented as LDS beliefs in the study manual. I'd also have a problem with BRM's Mormon Doctrine idea's on evolution there also. I support a more nuanced common ground approach with perhaps a slight tilt to "Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 While I have no problems with BCSpace's ideas on evolution. I don't believe they should be presented as LDS beliefs in the study manual. I'd also have a problem with BRM's Mormon Doctrine idea's on evolution there also. I support a more nuanced common ground approach with perhaps a slight tilt to "Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 It bothers me that we appear to be dumbing things down instead of "perfecting the saints".
nicolasconnault Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 It bothers me that we appear to be dumbing things down instead of "perfecting the saints".Teaching the Saints about the exact processes of creation will do little to perfect them. Reductionism can be beneficial if it helps members focus on the real deep doctrines (faith, repentance, charity etc.), which are often snobbed and set aside in favour of doctrinal junk food.
BCSpace Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I know you and I understand that. My concern is for the knuckle-draggers in Institute that haven't yet come to our more advanced understanding of words like "man", "death" and "procreation".My parents grew up on the nondoctrinal works of BRM and JFS. My Dad recognized them for what they were, good solid faith promoting works containing doctrine mixed with opinion. There are yet many others in the prime of life whose parents were also so raised but not necessarily so recognizing. I think Ballard is such a one as there is on the LDS news site an example of him being corrected on the issue by his junior companion. Actually, he stated his own opinion, but essentially agreed with his comp that what he had presented was just opinion and not doctrine of the Church.But such "advanced" understanding is going to be an evolutionary process.However, who can blame them? They want to soak in all that the prophets and apostles have said and accept that if they are wrong, the Lord will eventually correct.We need to think of them as well, and work towards a better world (and Church) where a clearer understanding of these things is taught openly.I teach it openly already. And yet they still won't release me from these positions.....While I have no problems with BCSpace's ideas on evolution. I don't believe they should be presented as LDS beliefs in the study manual.I agree. I don't teach my opinion on evolution as doctrine. What I do teach as doctrine is that LDS doctrine does not preclude evolution and one is free to accept creationism or evolution without being intrinsically in conflict with the doctrines or scriptures of the Church. I might however, present the details of my opinion on evolution as an example of how one does not need to conflict.
Lightbearer Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 I think this is a sad thread, hoping the Church will "dumb down" the Institute manuals so they fall in line with mainstream "scholarship" and the theories of men. That is all I will say to avoid being banned from this thread.
David T Posted January 14, 2011 Author Posted January 14, 2011 I think this is a sad thread, hoping the Church will "dumb down" the Institute manuals so they fall in line with mainstream "scholarship" and the theories of men. That is all I will say to avoid being banned from this thread. I think it's sad you feel presenting more information to the general Church membership to help the scriptures be more appreciated, studied, and understood in their historic and cultural context, and to give further information that can be used as launching pads for further inquiry and study and personal revelation is considered 'dumbing down'.
Gohan Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Has the PoGP manual already been redone? We had a copy in one of my mission apartments and it looked fairly new but I never got a look at the copyright date or anything.
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 cinepro:I have no problem with the Ancients sitting around the campfire and telling of their experiences with God. Just as I have no problem with watching General Conference on my digital TV. That's why I believe God used Evolution in the Creation of everything. I think an outright denial of the existence of God would be problematic for the Saints.
BCSpace Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Has the PoGP manual already been redone? We had a copy in one of my mission apartments and it looked fairly new but I never got a look at the copyright date or anything.The last revision was in 2000. It can be read online at the link I gave previously. If you go there, does the cover look the same as the one you saw?
BCSpace Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 I think this is a sad thread, hoping the Church will "dumb down" the Institute manuals so they fall in line with mainstream "scholarship" and the theories of men. That is all I will say to avoid being banned from this thread.I don't hope for such. My only hope would be they remove some inconsistencies between manuals.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.