Rivers Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Don't get me wrong. I loved seminary. It was a class I always looked forward to. The teachers were all wonderful men. Although looking back, I wished the the teachers would have spent a bit more time helping us understand the more difficult aspects of church history. I was reading about the futuremissionary.com website which has been called out for presenting problems without any answers. I think seminary is the percfect place to present young Latter-day Saints with the all of these issues within a full and faithful context. With so many more young people going on missions in this age of so much information available, the youth of the church needs to be better educated about the church's history. I've heard that changes in the curriculum are going to me made in the near future. Does anybody know of any forthcoming changes to seminary program?
Duncan Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 my seminary teacher for the most of it got disfellowshipped and she is now back in which is good, but she was NUTS. I had a professional teacher as one of my teachers, he used no notes, just opened up the BOM and it was like WOW, sitting at the feet of the original authors, like he was an older man and we all had a ton of respect for him. because of the first teacher I spent the better part of a decade unlearning what she taught-Other then that it was great! 1
Rivers Posted June 30, 2013 Author Posted June 30, 2013 my seminary teacher for the most of it got disfellowshipped and she is now back in which is good, but she was NUTS. I had a professional teacher as one of my teachers, he used no notes, just opened up the BOM and it was like WOW, sitting at the feet of the original authors, like he was an older man and we all had a ton of respect for him. because of the first teacher I spent the better part of a decade unlearning what she taught-Other then that it was great!Those were the good ol' days. 1
Nevo Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Does anybody know of any forthcoming changes to seminary program?The curriculum is currently undergoing a major overhaul, beginning with the Book of Mormon curriculum. The new Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual was released a few months ago. The new Doctrine and Covenants curriculum will likely appear next spring. The D&C manual may touch on some of the "more difficult aspects of church history"—Elder Marlin Jensen hinted at such a couple of years ago—but I'm not expecting much of a change from the status quo, since Seminaries and Institutes of Religion (S&I, formerly CES) is still a very conservative arm of the Church. For example, the new Book of Mormon manual condemns racism but still affirms that the Lamanites' dark skin marked them as being under a divine curse.
rpn Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 One of the most important ways would be to open the professional CES employment to women. Women commonly teach early morning seminary. When they are not visible in the released time and fulltime programs, it undermines all the teaching that women are beloved daughters of God.Another would be to insist that the manuals be reworked by faithful members who also know all the current historical scholarship --- especially in the biblical time periods. It is very harmful to teach things without understanding the accurate representation of the time period (and the limitations to that knowledge).
Bikeemikey Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 One of the most important ways would be to open the professional CES employment to women. Women commonly teach early morning seminary. When they are not visible in the released time and fulltime programs, it undermines all the teaching that women are beloved daughters of God. Another would be to insist that the manuals be reworked by faithful members who also know all the current historical scholarship --- especially in the biblical time periods. It is very harmful to teach things without understanding the accurate representation of the time period (and the limitations to that knowledge).I like both those ideas.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 ... the new Book of Mormon manual condemns racism but still affirms that the Lamanites' dark skin marked them as being under a divine curse.And you know that it didn't ... how?
Nevo Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 (edited) And you know that it didn't ... how?I don't know that God didn't darken the Lamanites' skin to show that they were accursed, but smarter folks than myself (e.g., Nibley, Gardner, Sorenson) have suggested that the "skin of blackness" that the Lord caused to come upon the Lamanites was metaphorical, not literal: http://www.fairlds.o...in-of-blackness.The new seminary manual doesn't cite any scholars, only general authorities, so, on this issue, instead of Nibley, Gardner, or Sorenson, we get a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. . . . The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66], 3:122–23).I'm not mentioning this as a criticism; I'm simply pointing out that the manual is very conservative in orientation. So anyone hoping that the new curriculum will provide students with the latest apologetic answers to difficult issues is likely to be disappointed. Edited June 30, 2013 by Nevo
rpn Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Yes, that is a truly strange quote to include, specially given the revelation and the way the scriptures were changed after the 1978 revelation. There should be ANY pre-1978 quotes on blacks and priesthood in current manuals.
Lightbearer Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 I don't know that God didn't darken the Lamanites' skin to show that they were accursed, but smarter folks than myself (e.g., Nibley, Gardner, Sorenson) have suggested that the "skin of blackness" that the Lord caused to come upon the Lamanites was metaphorical, not literal: http://www.fairlds.o...in-of-blackness.The new seminary manual doesn't cite any scholars, only general authorities, so, on this issue, instead of Nibley, Gardner, or Sorenson, we get a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:I'm not mentioning this as a criticism; I'm simply pointing out that the manual is very conservative in orientation. So anyone hoping that the new curriculum will provide students with the latest apologetic answers to difficult issues is likely to be disappointed. First let me say that the purpose of Seminary and Institute is not to introduce youth to "Higher Criticism" or scholarly pontifications... it is not an "academic" course of study. It's focus is to promote faith in our young people God knows the abominations and secular hogwash they are showered on in the public school system. Second it is not for some scholar or intellectual or somebody that has a PhD added to their name to determine what the meaning of the scriptures is. We saw that with the scribes in the time of Christ, how they removed the key of knowledge and had to "hedge up the law" with their own learning. God forbid that would be allowed to creep into the restored Church! As for only quoting General Autthority instead of a self appointed scholar I hope the day never comes when they do decide that "Nibley, Gardner, Sorenson" ever trump Joseph Fielding Smith or any of the prophets or apostles in their opinions on what the scriptures mean, If that day ever comes then we are no better off than our mainstream christian friends who are taught by the precepts of men instead of by revelation from God. As for the example you site: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done." (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 5:21-23) Now I realize that in our politically correct society it is taboo to mention anything about curses and skin color or race, but I do not see how anyone can strain a metaporical skin of blackness... how else could this be an identifying trait so that they would not be enticing so they would not mix their seed? It does violence to the text to even suggest such a thing. That is why for the most part the Native Americans (Indians) generally had a dark skin. It is rather apparent that it could not possibly mean anything else notwithstanding all the scholars who are far "smarter" than I. The point is as the Lamanites repented the curse (of spiritual blindness) was lifted even if the dark skin remained until they intermarried with the Nephites and others which caused it to fade.As for teaching apologetics in Seminary I believe it unnecessary, I have more faith in these kids, in fact they have more to fear from Porongraphy and drugs than any of the Anti-Mormon blige that is spewed out on the internet and elsewhere. I think control of the curriculim should be in the hands of the brethern as always. The Lord knows what they need to hear, and I doubt it is the speculations of apologetics.
Lightbearer Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Yes, that is a truly strange quote to include, specially given the revelation and the way the scriptures were changed after the 1978 revelation. There should be ANY pre-1978 quotes on blacks and priesthood in current manuals. The Lamanite curse had nothing whatever to do with the priesthood ban or the 1978 revelation. In fact the Lamanites could hold the priesthood as far back at least as Samuel the Lamanite! Read the Book of Mormon itself instead of speculations of apologists and or scholars!
Stone holm Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 I expect that any overhaul will just involve more sanitising. The most important thing they could do is upgrade the teaching staff. Have watched seminary wars in two wards now. The only times where there wasn't open warfare over the program was when either the teacher was so incredibly good that nobody wanted to pick a fight, or where the parents of the students were a combination of Bishopric kids and kids whose parents were functionally illiterate when it came to doctrine.
ERMD Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Get rid of release time. Everyone should share equally in the blessing of early morning Seminary. 1
Stone holm Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Get rid of release time. Everyone should share equally in the blessing of early morning Seminary.Hum how geographically spread out is your Ward? Some of our members have 45 minute drives to the chapel. Going to early morning started a war in our current ward.
ERMD Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Everyone does not have to come to the church. We have families that live a good distance away, so we called a teacher in the same area for those students. They meet in her home.The original response was in part, tongue in cheek. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 Everyone does not have to come to the church. We have families that live a good distance away, so we called a teacher in the same area for those students. They meet in her home.The original response was in part, tongue in cheek. Ever heard of Skype? Why not use something like this? 2
ERMD Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 It's hard enough to keep them awake when they're actually in the same room!When I was called to teach Seminary years ago, someone told not to worry if the kids looked like they were asleep. They were still learning something.No; if they look like they're asleep, they're asleep. :lazy: 2
Duncan Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 I have a friend in Edmonton, Alberta who is a seminary teacher and he skypes with his kids, it's the blessing of early morning...but you don't have to go out of the comfort of your own place. Granted not everyone have skype but maybe those kinks can be worked out
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 It's hard enough to keep them awake when they're actually in the same room!When I was called to teach Seminary years ago, someone told not to worry if the kids looked like they were asleep. They were still learning something.No; if they look like they're asleep, they're asleep. :lazy: Profound observation.
Calm Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 I have a friend in Edmonton, Alberta who is a seminary teacher and he skypes with his kids, it's the blessing of early morning...but you don't have to go out of the comfort of your own place. Granted not everyone have skype but maybe those kinks can be worked outHook them up to long range dog training devices and if they look like they are asleep, give them a little jolt. 1
futuremissionary Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 I never saw the value in memorizing scriptures. I feel like truly understanding them would be a better use of time. Do they still spend a lot of time teaching how to find specific scriptures in the combo quickly? It seems like that's a less useful skill when most teens just use their mobile devices, not the actual books.
rpn Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 If you don't have them memorized, how can the spirit prompt you to use them?
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 I never saw the value in memorizing scriptures. I feel like truly understanding them would be a better use of time. Do they still spend a lot of time teaching how to find specific scriptures in the combo quickly? It seems like that's a less useful skill when most teens just use their mobile devices, not the actual books.Actually from watching the kids thought the Scripture chases were possibly the most valuable thing they got out of it.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 I don't know that God didn't darken the Lamanites' skin to show that they were accursed, but smarter folks than myself (e.g., Nibley, Gardner, Sorenson) have suggested that the "skin of blackness" that the Lord caused to come upon the Lamanites was metaphorical, not literal: http://www.fairlds.o...in-of-blackness.The new seminary manual doesn't cite any scholars, only general authorities, so, on this issue, instead of Nibley, Gardner, or Sorenson, we get a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:I'm not mentioning this as a criticism; I'm simply pointing out that the manual is very conservative in orientation. So anyone hoping that the new curriculum will provide students with the latest apologetic answers to difficult issues is likely to be disappointed.There's a difference between an identifying mark and a curse. The mark had to do with skin color, but the curse was separation from God. I don't know that any of the "latest in apologetic thinking" is required beyond that.
Recommended Posts