Byu Decides To Remove Scripture Courses As Required

[rockpond]

BYU leadership has voted to remove Book of Mormon, Old/New Testament, Doctrine & Covenants from the list of required religion courses.  They will be replaced with four "cornerstone courses":  

 

1. Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel: A study of the Savior and His roles in Heavenly Father’s plan as taught across all the standard works

2. Teachings and Doctrine of the Book of Mormon: A study of the teachings and doctrine of the Book of Mormon with emphasis on the Savior’s ministry

3. Foundations of the Restoration: A study of the key revelations, doctrine, people, and events of the Restoration

4. The Eternal Family: A study of the central role of the family in the plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures and the words of modem prophets

 

It looks like this is moving forward unimpeded but I am still hoping that someone will have the sense to stop it.  I think that the full contextualized study of the scriptures is important.  And I fear that if this change happens it could be proliferated through institutes, seminary, and then Sunday School.

 

Here's a link to the letter...

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/files/2014/10/Top-Letter.pdf

[Scott Lloyd]

 

BYU leadership has voted to remove Book of Mormon, Old/New Testament, Doctrine & Covenants from the list of required religion courses.  They will be replaced with four "cornerstone courses":  

 

1. Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel: A study of the Savior and His roles in Heavenly Father’s plan as taught across all the standard works

2. Teachings and Doctrine of the Book of Mormon: A study of the teachings and doctrine of the Book of Mormon with emphasis on the Savior’s ministry

3. Foundations of the Restoration: A study of the key revelations, doctrine, people, and events of the Restoration

4. The Eternal Family: A study of the central role of the family in the plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures and the words of modem prophets

 

It looks like this is moving forward unimpeded but I am still hoping that someone will have the sense to stop it.  I think that the full contextualized study of the scriptures is important.  And I fear that if this change happens it could be proliferated through institutes, seminary, and then Sunday School.

 

Here's a link to the letter...

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/files/2014/10/Top-Letter.pdf

 

Perhaps things have changed since I went to school there back in the '70s, but this is not far different from what I experienced. We were required to take one Book of Mormon class and then choose from a variety of religion courses that included but were not limited to the other Standard Works. They included such courses as the Gospel in Principle and Practice and, if memory serves me, Church history courses.

 

If anything, this may in effect amount to returning to the way things were previously.

 

In any event, I don't really see a problem with the new plan as, presumably, learning from all four of the Standard Works will pervade each of the courses.

[rockpond]

In any event, I don't really see a problem with the new plan as, presumably, learning from all four of the Standard Works will pervade each of the courses.

 

I'm sure it will but in a more de-contextualized, proof-texting type of way as you no longer get to study the books of scripture from cover-to-cover.

 

I could be wrong but my recollection from 20 years ago is that the standard works were all required courses.

Edited October 28, 2014 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure it will but in a more de-contextualized, proof-texting type of way as you no longer get to study the books of scripture from cover-to-cover.

I see no reason why it has to be that way.

 

It looks to me like the context of these courses is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing wrong with that, say I.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I see no reason why it has to be that way.

 

Because they are changing the curriculum to make it NOT that way.

[Hoosier]

When I was there in the 80's, it was only required to take Book of Mormon, but not all of the other standard works. You just had to have so many hours of religion classes. I took one on World Religions that only touched on Christianity for about a day or two. The rest of the semester was all about Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because they are changing the curriculum to make it NOT that way.

I meant I see no reason why it has to be as you predict: "de-contextualized, proof-texting type of way."

 

That's a cynical way to look at it, in fact.

[Scott Lloyd]

When I was there in the 80's, it was only required to take Book of Mormon, but not all of the other standard works. You just had to have so many hours of religion classes. I took one on World Religions that only touched on Christianity for about a day or two. The rest of the semester was all about Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

That sounds just like it was when I was there in the '70s.

[Nevo]

It looks like this is moving forward unimpeded but I am still hoping that someone will have the sense to stop it.  I think that the full contextualized study of the scriptures is important.  And I fear that if this change happens it could be proliferated through institutes, seminary, and then Sunday School.

 

Looks like a done deal to me. Things have been moving this way for a while. The youth Sunday School curriculum has already gone to a topic-based model and I understand the adult curriculum will follow suit in the next couple of years. The days of studying the Standard Works, book-by-book, in a church setting, look to be numbered. Seminary will soon be the only place where this happens.

 

But nothing is really changing. The names of the courses are just more accurate now. Studying the scriptures in a church setting has never been about "full contextualized study." It has always been about proof-texting and reading modern church beliefs and practices into the texts (eisegesis) rather than careful exegesis through the application of critical tools.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Nevo

[Boanerges]

I'm all for it. I have long thought the church has lost it's focus on the central Doctrine of Christ, and this isd a movein the right direction. Most kids who attend BYU have had all the standard works covered in Sunday School and in seminary anyway. While I do understand that the college level course is more in depth (although I'm not sure how much more in depth than the new seminary requirements), I think this kind of broader life applicable study is great.

[Scott Lloyd]

Looks like a done deal to me. Things have been moving this way for a while. The youth Sunday School curriculum has already gone to a topic-based model and I understand the adult curriculum will follow suit in the next couple of years. The days of studying the Standard Works, book-by-book, in a church setting, look to be numbered. Seminary will soon be the only place where this happens.

 

But nothing is really changing. The names of the courses are just more accurate now. Studying the scriptures in a Church setting has never been about "full contextualized study." It has always been about proof-texting and reading modern church beliefs and practices into the texts (eisegesis) rather than careful exegesis through the application of critical tools.

I'm not persuaded that Sabbath day meetings and classes are the appropriate setting for exegesis, as you define it here.

 

But in this context I would define eisegesis differently than you have here. I would define it as the application of scriptural writings, ancient and latter-day, to the gospel of Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I meant I see no reason why it has to be as you predict: "de-contextualized, proof-texting type of way."

 

That's a cynical way to look at it, in fact.

 

I understood what you meant.  And I'm not being cynical.  What would be the purpose of the proposal if not to change the curriculum from a study of the standard works to a topically guided doctrinal study?

[Scott Lloyd]

I understood what you meant.  And I'm not being cynical.  What would be the purpose of the proposal if not to change the curriculum from a study of the standard works to a topically guided doctrinal study?

I think the purpose would be just that. And I see nothing wrong with it.

[rockpond]

And I see nothing wrong with it.

 

I would never expect otherwise.

[Jeanne]

I am just speechless and very surprised. 

[BCSpace]

As an RM, the old classes were a breeze and a very refreshing part of the class day. Still should be a breeze for most young people unless the new curriculum goes more in depth. I've always wondered how non members attending felt about these classes. If they didn't grow up with reasonably consistent scripture study or at least familiarity, how was it?

Edited October 28, 2014 by BCSpace

[Mystery Meat]

That sounds just like it was when I was there in the '70s.

 

Its how it was when I was there in 2008.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am just speechless and very surprised. 

I don't see why.

 

If all we are seeking is an academic study of the book, as opposed to a broader study of the gospel and its principles, were are borderline bibliolaters, worshiping the book itself rather than the Author.

[Scott Lloyd]

As an RM, the old classes were a breeze and a very refreshing part of the class day. Still should be a breeze for most young people unless the new curriculum goes more in depth. I've always wondered how non members attending felt about these classes. If they didn't grow up with reasonably consistent scripture study or at least familiarity, how was it?

I've wondered that myself.

 

But I have to think that if they elect to go to BYU in the first place and pay a much higher tuition than do the LDS students, they must have some idea of what they're getting into and be OK with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Its how it was when I was there in 2008.

It sounds like, if anything, the curriculum has become more focused with the "cornerstone approach" on the required religion courses, though students will still be free to take courses based on the individual Standard Works as electives, if they so desire.

 

Again, I don't see a problem here, unless one desires to force his own preferences on others to require them to take courses focused individually on each of the Standard Works.

[Scott Lloyd]

4. The Eternal Family: A study of the central role of the family in the plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures and the words of modem prophets

 

I think this element of the cornerstone courses is especially timely and needed right now, as the redefinition of marriage by the courts is blurring the definition of family. Young people now, more than ever, need to be well-versed in the central role of the family in the plan of salvation and thereby understand why the Church has opposed and still does oppose the redefinition of marriage.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Its how it was when I was there in 2008.

 

It sounds like, if anything, the curriculum has become more focused with the "cornerstone approach" on the required religion courses, though students will still be free to take courses based on the individual Standard Works as electives, if they so desire.

 

Again, I don't see a problem here, unless one desires to force his own preferences on others to require them to take courses focused individually on each of the Standard Works.

 

While obviously I can't speak for the 70's and 80's, just to set the record straight, when I was at BYU in the late 90's, the requirement was 7 courses. Required were 2 BOM classes, 1 New Testament Class, and one Doctrine and Covenants class. This left 3 electives. This appears to still be the current requirement and can be found here: http://religion.byu.edu/religion-requirements.

[Scott Lloyd]

While obviously I can't speak for the 70's and 80's, just to set the record straight, when I was at BYU in the late 90's, the requirement was 7 courses. Required were 2 BOM classes, 1 New Testament Class, and one Doctrine and Covenants class. This left 3 electives. This appears to still be the current requirement and can be found here: http://religion.byu.edu/religion-requirements.

From your link, it appears there are six electives, not three.

[cinepro]

I think this element of the cornerstone courses is especially timely and needed right now, as the redefinition of marriage by the courts is blurring the definition of family. Young people now, more than ever, need to be well-versed in the central role of the family in the plan of salvation and thereby understand why the Church has opposed and still does oppose the redefinition of marriage.

 

Just so I'm clear, what is your (or the Church's) definition of "family" that is in such danger of being redefined?

Edited October 28, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Just so I'm clear, what is your (or the Church's) definition of "family" that is in such danger of being redefined?

For reference, I went to the Church-published reference work True to the Faith and  looked up the entry "Family."

 

It simply quotes in its entirety the Church's definitive statement "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

 

I don't think I can improve on that.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd