Pros And Cons Of Chruch Schools

[Messenger]

The Church is not a government agency or a business, it should not be required to enforce certain behaviours but rather it should assume the role as teaching good behaviours. I don't see the Church as ignoring disabilities, even though it takes time to affect members but members make their own choices in how they respond as well. And considering how not all members learn even some of the basic spiritual lessons or abide by various worthiness and moral teachings, it should not be surprising that some refuse to learn how to deal with disabilities or take longer to learn then we would like.

Just a few evidences of the Church's official attitude:

http://lds.org/pa/di...,4854-1,00.html and http://lds.org/pa/di...,5727-1,00.html

http://www.provident...1---102,00.html

http://www.provident...,2131-1,00.html

http://lds.org/ensig...ndicap?lang=eng

Is there anything anywhere on the church website that talks about Adult ADHD? Are there any Videos? Is there a list of symptoms of Adult ADHD? Do you think this would be advantagous to home teachers, bishops, and church social workers? What about gospel doctrine teachers?

Again, I'm not trying to make any members defensive. I'm simply trying to promote education of the problem. For a moment I would ask that you at least consider my point. There is nothing wrong with pointing out things that the church can do better. The church isnt perfect as represented here on earth because its a telestial organization, but the gospel is perfect. I think our goal should be perfection. That in itself recognizes that we are not, the people here on earth who make the policies.

Just so you know, I have a firm testimony that the church is the Lords church, and he is indeed at the head. Its perfectly healthy in my mind to change the way we do things. Thats the difference between church policy and tradition vs doctrine. There is no doubt in my mind why I have discovered my ADHD late in life. Thats to educate and challenge those that do not have the understanding that I have.

[TAO]

Mmm... guys... I have a question regarding BYU and BYU-Idaho. At least down here in California, it is said "The CSU schools are practice based, where as the UC schools are research based", referring to the tendency of the CSU schools to have teachers who are there mainly to teach, compared to the UC schools who have a tendency to have teachers who are there mainly to research. Which sort of school is BYU like? And what about BYU-Idaho? And what about SVU or any of the other LDS schools?

Thanks in advance guys =D.

-TAO

[katherine the great]

Mmm... guys... I have a question regarding BYU and BYU-Idaho. At least down here in California, it is said "The CSU schools are practice based, where as the UC schools are research based", referring to the tendency of the CSU schools to have teachers who are there mainly to teach, compared to the UC schools who have a tendency to have teachers who are there mainly to research. Which sort of school is BYU like? And what about BYU-Idaho? And what about SVU or any of the other LDS schools?

Thanks in advance guys =D.

-TAO

I'm guessing there is a mix. I was an elementary ed major at BYU back in the day and there was an onsite preschool where they experimented with all kinds of positive reinforcement techniques with the kids. I'm not sure about the sciences, but I know there is some type of Biology research lab at BYUI where my daughter is a Biology major. My thought is that you get much better classroom instruction when you have a teacher with a master's degree, but probably a better hands on experience from a research PhD. The PhD's I've taken classes from are not very good teachers but they LOVE their research...

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

There is essentially two types of schools. Those that do basic research, and those that research basics. There is nothing wrong with either approach, and not even the UC system is free from that. BYU is primarily a teaching college, so falls into the later catagory.