mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 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!)Oh yeah? What did it say before you edited it? Just kidding- I enjoy our chats too!
zerinus Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 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?You have misunderstood the nature and purpose of the new curriculum, and the OP has not clearly presented it either. It is not a question of "changing doctrine" or presenting "new doctrine". It a case of new teaching methodologies and concepts. It is the teaching method that is updated and improved, not the doctrine. If you follow the link he provided, and read that page carefully, and watch the videos presented under each subheading, you should get a better idea of what the new curriculum is all about.
zerinus Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 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.The lessons can be as boring or exciting as the teacher is able to make them. The new curriculum simply provides for greater flexibility for the teacher to adapt the lessons to calss as he or she sees fit. That places more responsibility on the teacher, and less on the curriculum.
zerinus Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 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. That is simply not true. Whoever have been giving you those ideas have told you wrong.
zerinus Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 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).Can you show me (and him) where in the new curriculum the doctrtine has changed, or a new doctrine is taught?
bluebell Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Can you show me (and him) where in the new curriculum the doctrtine has changed, or a new doctrine is taught?You'll have to read the entire thread to be able to follow this part of the conversation. No one has yet claimed that any new doctrine is being taught. 1
MiserereNobis Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 That is simply not true. Whoever have been giving you those ideas have told you wrong.Oh dear. Seems like a battle may be brewing here in which I am not involved Let me ask you this, as an example: could President Monson declare in conference (this weekend) a teaching contrary to previous absolute doctrines? Like, for example, that God has a body? Could he come out and say that God in fact does not have a body and that the traditional Trinitarian view is correct?From the Catholic perspective, a Pope could never declare the opposite of a declared dogma. God simply wouldn't let it happen because God is protecting His Holy Church.
zerinus Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Let me ask you this, as an example: could President Monson declare in conference (this weekend) a teaching contrary to previous absolute doctrines? Like, for example, that God has a body?No, he could not. And in any case, what has that to do with the new youth curriculum? Edited October 5, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) You'll have to read the entire thread to be able to follow this part of the conversation. No one has yet claimed that any new doctrine is being taught.I thought I did read the entire thread, at least up to the point of your post before replying to it. Edited October 5, 2012 by zerinus
David T Posted October 5, 2012 Author Posted October 5, 2012 Can you show me (and him) where in the new curriculum the doctrtine has changed, or a new doctrine is taught?Zerinus, no one has asserted that it has. My focus - which I think is made more clear in my above linked blog post - is that this facilitates and opens the door to the efficient implementation of New Revelation on those key subjects should it come. The official site has stated that one of the key purposes is to allow it to be easily updated, include most recent conference talks, latest information on the topic, etc. It also allow for the implementations in subtle shifts of emphasis and interpretation (as has already been done in Gospel Principles, and the explanatory material in the digital edition of the Book of Mormon).So again, the assertion is not that the new curriculum itself changes doctrine, but places the Church in a great position to quickly and efficiently promulgate and incorporate New Doctrinal Revelation into the curriculum in the off chance that such makes an appearance.
bluebell Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I thought I did read the entire thread, at least up to the point or your post before replying to it.Then you did not understand what was being said.DavidT commented that the new digital format made it possible for changes or additions to the doctrines being taught the moment the changes occurred (since we are a church that believes in continueing revelation),-"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."and MN asked for clarification on the idea of new revelation trumping old-"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."As part of the answer to his question, i spoke of the different reasons that 'truths' might need to be changed.As you can see, in none of that did anyone ever claim that the new youth manuals contained new doctrine.
Avatar4321 Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I'm glad they got that done. Maybe now they can fix the EQ/HP/RS course of study.and what's wrong with our course of study? I very much enjoy the Priesthood manuals and the inspired first/fourth week lessons.
Avatar4321 Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 So this new curriculum will be for both YM/YW and SS? won't the kids get bored?Not if we are doing our job and teaching by the Spirit.
Broker Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I know this is an inspired change because I've been teaching this way for a couple years, in Gospel Doctrine and Young Men's. My lesson preparation was to read the lesson manual, get the general topic idea and then write my own lesson, relying on the scriptures and incorporating recent general conference / BYU Devotional or CES talks by General Authorities. I downloaded alot of talks, edited the relevant portions down to a few minutes and played them for the class. Focusing on the principle was always more important than getting through the lesson manual.This is exactly the direction that Church instruction needs to go.
mfbukowski Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 You'll have to read the entire thread to be able to follow this part of the conversation. No one has yet claimed that any new doctrine is being taught.Well it doesn't teach polygamy or Adam-God or that Blacks should not have the priesthood, nor does it teach the Kirtland temple ordinances, or any previous versions to the present one, nor does it teach any of a few other things which I can think of which have been changed over the years. I think it probably doesn't say much about gay marriage and our stand on that either, but that is not surprising.But you are completely right- no one has claimed that any new doctrine is being taught.
Rob Osborn Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I will agree that this is the new direction church teaching needs to go. I have long mulled over the whole cookie cutter approach to teaching doctrine where no one thinks anymore and everyone knows all the correct seminary answeres. As for how or if this new format will help facilitate any changes in the doctrinal truths or untruths...you bet!Most of our basic doctrinal principles are misunderstood or untrue in some degree. This new format for teaching will help reveal this fact and help usher in a new enlightenment period for uncovering the real truth with the simplest of doctrinal material, but also the most important. We need to get back to thinking things through for ourselves instead of just memorizing all the cookie cutter seminary answeres.
Bernard Gui Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I'm glad they got that done. Maybe now they can fix the EQ/HP/RS course of study.Can't agree with this. It's been wonderful reading the thoughts and words of the prophets of yesteryear.I have grown in my esteem and respect for them as prophets and has human beings. It's been agreat blessing to have this material available.
zerinus Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 Zerinus, no one has asserted that it has. My focus - which I think is made more clear in my above linked blog post - is that this facilitates and opens the door to the efficient implementation of New Revelation on those key subjects should it come. The official site has stated that one of the key purposes is to allow it to be easily updated, include most recent conference talks, latest information on the topic, etc. It also allow for the implementations in subtle shifts of emphasis and interpretation (as has already been done in Gospel Principles, and the explanatory material in the digital edition of the Book of Mormon).So again, the assertion is not that the new curriculum itself changes doctrine, but places the Church in a great position to quickly and efficiently promulgate and incorporate New Doctrinal Revelation into the curriculum in the off chance that such makes an appearance.What "New Revelation"? I don't know of any new revelation. The purpose of the new curriculum is to teach more effectively existing revelation, not to prepare for the eventuality of new ones. How much "new revelation" has the Church received during the past 200 years, that have needed to be incorporated into the curriculum, that the Church should be anxious about the means of incorporating them into the curriculum as soon as possible?
zerinus Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 Then you did not understand what was being said.DavidT commented that the new digital format made it possible for changes or additions to the doctrines being taught the moment the changes occurred (since we are a church that believes in continueing revelation),-"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."and MN asked for clarification on the idea of new revelation trumping old-"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."As part of the answer to his question, i spoke of the different reasons that 'truths' might need to be changed.As you can see, in none of that did anyone ever claim that the new youth manuals contained new doctrine.Then both of you have misunderstood the purpose of the new curriculum, and are giving confusing answers to MN. See my previous post. The Church does not chop and change doctrine, and dance around new doctrine with every wind that blows.
David T Posted October 5, 2012 Author Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) What "New Revelation"? I don't know of any new revelation. The purpose of the new curriculum is to teach more effectively existing revelation, not to prepare for the eventuality of new ones. How much "new revelation" has the Church received during the past 200 years, that have needed to be incorporated into the curriculum, that the Church should be anxious about the means of incorporating them into the curriculum as soon as possible?"We believe all that God ... will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." - Article of Faith 9"Each outline includes references and links to recent teachings from the living prophets and other Church leaders, especially those given in general conference and the general Young Women meeting. These teachings are continually updated so that you can help youth learn and live the counsel of living prophets soon after it is delivered. Refer back to these outlines often for the most current teachings of Church leaders. " -Teaching the Gospel in the Savior's Way, Learning OutlinesWhether or not one believes the Church will ever present any adjustments of doctrinal understanding through revelation or not, it appears that the curriculum is designed to be prepared for the off chance the Lord will indeed reveal more doctrinal matters to his prophets again. Perhaps to stave off attitudes of "A Doctrine and Covenants, a Doctrine and Covenants, we have a Doctrine and Covenants, and need no more Doctrine or Covenants." Edited October 5, 2012 by David T 1
bluebell Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 Then both of you have misunderstood the purpose of the new curriculum, and are giving confusing answers to MN. See my previous post. The Church does not chop and change doctrine, and dance around new doctrine with every wind that blows.No offense meant, but DavidT has provided references supporting the OP. It seems clear that we're not the ones presenting confusing and misleading answers.
zerinus Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 "We believe all that God ... will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." - Article of Faith 9"Each outline includes references and links to recent teachings from the living prophets and other Church leaders, especially those given in general conference and the general Young Women meeting. These teachings are continually updated so that you can help youth learn and live the counsel of living prophets soon after it is delivered. Refer back to these outlines often for the most current teachings of Church leaders. " -Teaching the Gospel in the Savior's Way, Learning OutlinesWhether or not one believes the Church will ever present any adjustments of doctrinal understanding through revelation or not, it appears that the curriculum is designed to be prepared for the off chance the Lord will indeed reveal more doctrinal matters to his prophets again. Perhaps to stave off attitudes of "A Doctrine and Covenants, a Doctrine and Covenants, we have a Doctrine and Covenants, and need no more Doctrine or Covenants."I don't call that "New Revelation". I call it inspired counsel coming from Church leaders on obeying the old revelations better.
zerinus Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 No offense meant, but DavidT has provided references supporting the OP. It seems clear that we're not the ones presenting confusing and misleading answers. Then you need to explain it properly so that people not members of our Church like MN don't get wrong ideas.
bluebell Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 Then you need to explain it properly so that people not members of our Church like MN don't get wrong ideas.I'm fine with the way that i explained it and see no reason to change anything that i have posted. I'm also fine that you don't approve. We rarely see eye to eye on things, which shouldn't be an issue for either of us since i'm guessing that you don't care that we disagree either.
Recommended Posts