New Youth Curriculum, And Facilitation For Revelation

[David T]

The new Youth Curriculum has been presented, and I find the format fascinating. Somewhat like Preach My Gospel, it is centered around key framework concepts that are the 'focus of the month'.

What I find most fascinating is that there is not a series of set-in-stone talking points, or even stories or examples. The broad categories leave a great deal of flexibility for prophetic re-allignment and revealed updating of concepts.

The topics for Aaronic Priesthood, Young Women, and Youth Sunday School are:

• January: The Godhead
  
• February: The Plan of Salvation
  
• March: The Atonement of Jesus Christ
  
• April: The Apostasy and the Restoration
  
• May: Prophets and Revelation
  
• June: Priesthood and Priesthood Keys
  
• July: Ordinances and Covenants
  
• August: Marriage and Family
  
• September: Commandments
  
• October: Becoming More Christlike
  
• November: Spiritual and Temporal Self-Reliance
  
• December: Building the Kingdom of God in the Latter Days
  

At any point, if a new revelation comes on one of those general topics in Conference, the curriculum page , as well as the very short descriptions of the 'basic doctrinal principles' they are based on, can be instantly updated without the general outline being changed, or massive structural changes.

If the majority of Church curriculum begins to move to purely and substantially online content, this facilitates the ability for New Revelation to quickly be implemented and distributed, and old understandings to be removed.

If I was a worldwide Church leader, and I was discussing the practicalities of implementing a major potential policy or doctrinal revelation if it were to come, such a move to more reliance on digital curriculum would be one of the very first things I would look to.

While I know there are many church members who do not desire, wish, or look forward to any further paradigm-and-policy shifting revelations, it is fascinating to see a Church that proclaims Living Revelation and Open Canon as a major selling point begin to have a curriculum framework which would practically allow and provide for the implementation of the theoretical.

EDIT: I noticed the typo in the header. Mods have been requested to fix it.

Edited October 2, 2012 by David T

[cinepro]

I'm glad they got that done. Maybe now they can fix the EQ/HP/RS course of study.

[rongo]

How many presidents are there left to get through?

I don't think any gears will get switched until all presidents have been covered.

[MiserereNobis]

If the majority of Church curriculum begins to move to purely and substantially online content, this facilitates the ability for New Revelation to quickly be implemented and distributed, and old understandings to be removed.

I'm curious about your use of the phrase "old understandings." Care to clarify? I've wondered how much room there is in the LDS church for doctrines to change. If it is being taught in church, to the youth no less, and then later removed, that appears to be a tacit admission that it was somehow or in someway erroneous. Is that acceptable from the LDS point-of-view, to have old teachings be erroneous?

[Traela]

We're in one of the pilot stakes. As a Sunday School teacher, I'm not sold on the new curriculum. There's enough overlap that I've heard some of the kids complaining that YW/YM gets very boring. My class (17/18) really don't like the fact that they are no longer going systematically through the scriptures. I do fear that if we stick with the new format as it is, our teens will not know their scriptures nearly as much as they do now.

I continue to hope that there will somehow be a merging of the old and new for Sunday School. I would do it on my own, but I'm not a gifted enough teacher to figure out how.

[Calm]

There are a number of teacher aids online. Both through the church site, media info, at work, music. FAIR has one even or will shortly I believe. Several FAIRites have blogs and such for help in teaching scripture. My preparation for a class was to read all the references on the subject I could get a hold of a week early, just devour everything in sight and then the next week focus on what that experience led me to connect with the week's focus. Learn alot especially confidence because I could take lessons where the will of the spirit told me to.

I like using the institute manuals in Sunday School as they help add a more effective structure of study, you might consider using those scripture manuals and then the theme embedded within them.

I would love to teach again if the kids could come to my house.

[cinepro]

I thought the curriculum in the OP was for YM/YW. Is there a change for Sunday School as well?

[Calm]

We're in one of the pilot stakes. As a Sunday School teacher, I'm not sold on the new curriculum. There's enough overlap that I've heard some of the kids complaining that YW/YM gets very boring. My class (17/18) really don't like the fact that they are no longer going systematically through the scriptures. I do fear that if we stick with the new format as it is, our teens will not know their scriptures nearly as much as they do now.

I continue to hope that there will somehow be a merging of the old and new for Sunday School. I would do it on my own, but I'm not a gifted enough teacher to figure out how.

My opinion is if your students want to work a certain way that is not borne of trying to avoid learning, then have them set up the structure of the lesson as aren't they the leaders in their class and then let the adults help keep things on track through their advise. If the kids really are in change as hamba has described this seems to be the most effective approach.

[David T]

I thought the curriculum in the OP was for YM/YW. Is there a change for Sunday School as well?

It is for youth SS as well as AP/YM.

[DBMormon]

Was touched by the holy Ghost as I looked through this site. Awesome... what an advancement

[Duncan]

So this new curriculum will be for both YM/YW and SS? won't the kids get bored?

[David T]

For those interested in this idea of dynamic digital curriculum as a means of efficiently promulgating new revelation and doctrinal readjustment, I've since fleshed out my initial thoughts on this for a blog post, which can be found at both Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable, as well as cross-posted on my personal blog, Improvement Era.

[bluebell]

So this new curriculum will be for both YM/YW and SS? won't the kids get bored?

That is my question as well.

[David T]

That is my question as well.

My understanding - and it may be wrong - but that the YM/YW classes should be specifically youth-led, and youth-organized. Think about that - the general principles are taught and fascilitated by adult teachers to all youth Sunday School hour, and then in Youth Hour, the students teach each other. If this isn't how it's designed to work, I kind if think it should be! It's kind of brilliant. Or even... inspired.

Edited October 4, 2012 by David T

[mfbukowski]

I'm curious about your use of the phrase "old understandings." Care to clarify? I've wondered how much room there is in the LDS church for doctrines to change. If it is being taught in church, to the youth no less, and then later removed, that appears to be a tacit admission that it was somehow or in someway erroneous. Is that acceptable from the LDS point-of-view, to have old teachings be erroneous?

It is acceptable for old science to be erroneous?

Times change, and we are flexible enough to adapt to the changes through continuing and personal revelation. This church really IS directed divinely and we all know it.

[mfbukowski]

There are a number of teacher aids online. Both through the church site, media info, at work, music. FAIR has one even or will shortly I believe. Several FAIRites have blogs and such for help in teaching scripture. My preparation for a class was to read all the references on the subject I could get a hold of a week early, just devour everything in sight and then the next week focus on what that experience led me to connect with the week's focus. Learn alot especially confidence because I could take lessons where the will of the spirit told me to.

I like using the institute manuals in Sunday School as they help add a more effective structure of study, you might consider using those scripture manuals and then the theme embedded within them.

I would love to teach again if the kids could come to my house.

I agree that this is indeed the best way to teach and the approach is totally endorsed by the church. I was called recently to teach a class in teacher development in the ward I oversee for HC and I found that by taking this kind of approach and making a few notes and writing a few questions all on one sheet of paper with some references- it is quite easy to have an entire class focused on one issue and yet teach it all in discussion, to open it all up to the spirit.

If the teacher is prepared topically with a few references ready at hand as back up and a few questions to stimulate discussion, that's about all you need. You can just talk about the topic and follow the discussion as it develops with class participation asking a few questions to get things going as needed. It works great!

[mfbukowski]

So this new curriculum will be for both YM/YW and SS? won't the kids get bored?

Only if the teacher is boring

How many new ways are there to teach old principles? As many as you can dream up!

Edited October 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[DBMormon]

April: The Apostasy and the Restoration

Today kids we are going to talk about peep stones. Every one pull out their biography on Hiram Page.

A lot of flexibility in these... by the way the above was a joke.

Edited October 4, 2012 by DBMormon

[MiserereNobis]

It is acceptable for old science to be erroneous?

Of course! (somehow I knew you'd answer my post -- I like our conversations, sir)

I guess I just have to really and fully wrap my head around the idea that for the LDS doctrines can change and its not a problem. I suppose the idea of dogma in Catholicism gives me a hard time with this. In Catholicism, we cannot have a dogma that was true yesterday and not true today. That would bring the whole house down. But then again, modernism and linguistic constructivism are an anathema to us... (I say we sick the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on Wittgenstein, Rorty and their ilk! ha! )

Times change, and we are flexible enough to adapt to the changes through continuing and personal revelation.

I'd say that Catholicism agrees with this to a point. Times change, yes, and we have to adapt to them, yes, but then truth is truth and is eternal and is unchangeable and unaffected by the times (I know you disagree, but I'm just pointing out the Catholic position for others reading).

This church really IS directed divinely and we all know it.

Well, not *all* of us

[bluebell]

Of course! (somehow I knew you'd answer my post -- I like our conversations, sir)

I guess I just have to really and fully wrap my head around the idea that for the LDS doctrines can change and its not a problem. I suppose the idea of dogma in Catholicism gives me a hard time with this. In Catholicism, we cannot have a dogma that was true yesterday and not true today. That would bring the whole house down. But then again, modernism and linguistic constructivism are an anathema to us... (I say we sick the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on Wittgenstein, Rorty and their ilk! ha! )

I'd say that Catholicism agrees with this to a point. Times change, yes, and we have to adapt to them, yes, but then truth is truth and is eternal and is unchangeable and unaffected by the times (I know you disagree, but I'm just pointing out the Catholic position for others reading).

Well, not *all* of us

We don't really disagree that truth is truth and will be true forever.

We just believe that in some cases, God is alright with letting us get it a little wrong, because discovering how to do it right helps us grow more spiritually mature and closer to HIm. We also believe in other cases that somethings are true for a specific kind of circumstance, but that when those circumstances change, new truth must supplant the old.

For example, existence of the higher law in the New Testament does not mean that the law in the OT was false, right? That it was misguided or not of God? It was true for a seaon, even though it was not true for every person through out eternity. (hope that makes some kind of sense).

[MiserereNobis]

We don't really disagree that truth is truth and will be true forever.

We just believe that in some cases, God is alright with letting us get it a little wrong, because discovering how to do it right helps us grow more spiritually mature and closer to HIm.

I can see this from my point-of-view. And I'll add, though I'm not sure if you'll disagree, that sometimes God let's us get it wrong for awhile because it doesn't really matter yet, and when it does matter then He sets us straight. Almost all Catholic Ecumenical Councils were called to decide if a belief was a heresy or not. That belief may have been held for years and years but didn't yet matter. Once it became big, then a Council was called to decide. (And from a Catholic point-of-view, that Council was not declaring new doctrine, but simply affirming that which had not been officially affirmed previously).

We also believe in other cases that somethings are true for a specific kind of circumstance, but that when those circumstances change, new truth must supplant the old.

I might quibble with you on the use of new and old truth. If truth is truth and is eternal, then there is no new or old. What changed was the circumstance, not the truth. So the truth might be: "this is appropriate for situation X, but not for situation Y." When the situation changes, the approriateness changes, but the truth statement still remains the same.

For example, existence of the higher law in the New Testament does not mean that the law in the OT was false, right? That it was misguided or not of God? It was true for a seaon, even though it was not true for every person through out eternity. (hope that makes some kind of sense).

Yeah, I think it fits my situation X and situation Y idea above.

Edited October 4, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[bluebell]

I can see this from my point-of-view. And I'll add, though I'm not sure if you'll disagree, that sometimes God let's us get it wrong for awhile because it doesn't really matter yet, and when it does matter then He sets us straight. Almost all Catholic Ecumenical Councils were called to decide if a belief was a heresy or not. That belief may have been held for years and years but didn't yet matter. Once it became big, then a Council was called to decide. (And from a Catholic point-of-view, that Council was not declaring new doctrine, but simply affirming that which had not been officially affirmed previously).

I might quibble with you on the use of new and old truth. If truth is truth and is eternal, then there is no new or old. What changed was the circumstance, not the truth. "So the truth might be: this is appropriate for situation X, but not for situation Y." When the situation changes, the approriateness changes, but the truth statement still remains the same.

Yeah, I think it fits my situation X and situation Y idea above.

Can conditional truth also be eternal and unchanging? Hmmm.....deep thoughts.

[MiserereNobis]

Can conditional truth also be eternal and unchanging? Hmmm.....deep thoughts.

We need mfbukowski to show up and tell us we are all talking nonsense because truth is only equal to sentences

(I say that with the deepest respect and love of my truth sparring partner!)

Edited October 4, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

We don't really disagree that truth is truth and will be true forever.

In your context I would not disagree with that. It will always be wrong to murder people, for example. Humanity itself cannot tolerate it, in order to exist and keep on functioning in a civilized manner. There are certain practices which will always work and be "true" as long as people are people. Some call these "natural law" and say they are "unchanging"- I would describe them differently but for all PRACTICAL purposes, the two ideas are the same. As long as humans are humans- they will be..... humans!

We just believe that in some cases, God is alright with letting us get it a little wrong, because discovering how to do it right helps us grow more spiritually mature and closer to HIm. We also believe in other cases that somethings are true for a specific kind of circumstance, but that when those circumstances change, new truth must supplant the old.

I have no problem with putting it that way, at all.

For example, existence of the higher law in the New Testament does not mean that the law in the OT was false, right? That it was misguided or not of God? It was true for a seaon, even though it was not true for every person through out eternity. (hope that makes some kind of sense).

Exactimundo!

See Miserere? Even when we Mormons disagree on some vocabulary issues- as in the first paragraph- the underlying Pragmatic attitude is there.

Circumstances change, and doctrine must adapt to change, so continuing revelation is imperative.

[mfbukowski]

Can conditional truth also be eternal and unchanging? Hmmm.....deep thoughts.

Heraclitus said that the only constant is change (He didn't say those words- but that was the basic idea). He was an old Greek who was on the other side of this exact same debate against Parmenides and Plato.

His metaphysical notion was that the world was in constant flux- like a mighty river- eternally changing from moment to moment as each leaf floats down stream and every ripple disturbs the shore, but yet the "river" itself was eternal in its flux.

Today we might say that of the universe- continually changing but the change itself is eternally the same in its change.

We modify the world- the world modifies us. We create the internet and in turn the internet modifies the way we behave for example.

So there has already been a lot of talk about how the church adapts to the internet age, and I can guarantee there will be more. So yes, in that sense, old "truths" fade away in importance and new "truths" have to be created.

But I think this is a derail of an interesting thread! Maybe we should get back to the New Youth Curriculum?