Byu Decides To Remove Scripture Courses As Required

[rockpond]

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.

 

Since the cornerstone courses will be required, it reduces the amount of time/credits as student has available to take courses dedicated to the particular standard works.

[rockpond]

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.

 

Thanks for looking that up for us.  I'm glad to know that my memory wasn't that bad.

[rockpond]

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.

 

Well, this change would certainly be a good way to do that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

Each religious course is 2 credit hours. 6 credit hours of electives = 3 courses.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since the cornerstone courses will be required, it reduces the amount of time/credits as student has available to take courses dedicated to the particular standard works.

Well, it is in the nature of a university to set out what it believes a student needs to achieve in order to leave the institution well-educated. That is implied in the term course, which is short for course of study, as in a specific and defined path that must be followed.

 

Those who desire a more-focused study on an individual volume in the standard works are still free to pursue that through elective courses, once the cornerstone courses have been taken.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Each religious course is 2 credit hours. 6 credit hours of electives = 3 courses.

OK. Got it.

[BlueDreams]

My guess is that it won't change much about it as it is.

 

There's already a variation in how it is taught based on the professor. Some are very academic and would bring in more context, research, etc. Others are kinda fluffy and shoot for the easy feel-good message. So I assume it'll be similar. Some will go in depth and contextualize things while others won't. I think you have to high of opinion of what the actual dynamics of the religion classes are currently. Plus, they'll probably still have optional classes in specific books and such.....and if it's similar in the number of credits, it'll be mandatory to take a few of these as well.

 

With luv,

BD

[Rob Osborn]

I see the entire church moving in this direction and I applaud the church for making the move- concentrate our teachings on the Savior and his teachings as found in the BoM and other scriptures. Focus attention on the family and that doctrine. We need a better different approach to combatting immorality and other issues that effect family happiness and eternal security. Its about countering Satan and his ideals.

[Scott Lloyd]

. Plus, they'll probably still have optional classes in specific books and such.....and if it's similar in the number of credits, it'll be mandatory to take a few of these as well.

 

According to the letter linked in the OP, that's exactly what will happen.

[Buzzard]

Well, if they completed Seminary, they just got rockpond is advocating: Four years, taking each of the Standard Works and studying them chronologically. And now, in order to graduate, you have to have read that Standard Work during the course of study (The ENTIRE Old Testament? REALLY?) each year.

So instead of repeating the experience, it looks like BYU, and I imagine, the Institutes of Religion at other schools, are going to flesh out the basic scaffolding that hopefully was erected in Seminary.  Plus, now a substantial portion of the students, both brothers and sisters, will be returned missionaries.  Hopefully they will be ready for a little deeper study.

[cdowis]

Here's my view, if anyone really cares.

 

The "old style" of teaching the scriptures is to start from the beginning of a book, and discuss individual chapters in the context of doctrines.  We often find doctrines of the church scattered around the scriptures.  I love to read, reading the scriptures have become a hobby.... a passion.

 

Now, the approach here In this case is similar to studying the scriptures by using the Topical Guide.

 

Which is better?  Well, for example, I have read the Book of Mormon many times, and it took a great deal of study to put together all the scriptures on a particular subject.  This was a marvelous learning experience but others aren't interested in this effort, so this new method will, hopefully, encourage the students to understand the doctrines and get them excited about reading deeply in the scriptures.

 

The church will no longer trying to turn out scriptorians, but those who have a solid understanding of the doctrines.

Edited October 28, 2014 by cdowis

[Mystery Meat]

Here's my view, if anyone really cares.

 

The "old style" of teaching the scriptures is to start from the beginning of a book, and discuss individual chapters in the context of doctrines.  We often find doctrines of the church scattered around the scriptures.  I love to read, reading the scriptures have become a hobby.... a passion.

 

Now, the approach here In this case is similar to studying the scriptures by using the Topical Guide.

 

Which is better?  Well, for example, I have read the Book of Mormon many times, and it took a great deal of study to put together all the scriptures on a particular subject.  This was a marvelous learning experience but others aren't interested in this effort, so this new method will, hopefully, encourage the students to understand the doctrines and get them excited about reading deeply in the scriptures.

 

The church will no longer trying to turn out scriptorians, but those who have a solid understanding of the doctrines.

 

I think you nailed it. I think the Church needs to be more concerned about people understanding its positions (and thus the Lord's position) on the doctrine and not just the history of it all. I think this is particularly true with the rising generation because more than ever they, having itching ears, have started to find teachers that condone behavior and philosophies that suit them. The Church has a responsibility to teach sound doctrine...the teachers of the day have no such duty nor care to.

[USU78]

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

 

yBu's an awfully funny place.

 

Cannot imagine a place for which I were more ill-suited.

[Scott Lloyd]

yBu's an awfully funny place.

 

Cannot imagine a place for which I were more ill-suited.

When I saw on the list that USU78 had contributed to a thread about BYU, I though, "Brace yourselves, folks."

[cinepro]

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.

 

While I can understand the argument over the definition of "marriage", it seems  a little opaque to argue that there is some clear definition of "family" that is in danger of being blurred or "redefined".  There are so many different kinds of "families" that are tolerated by the Church that I can't imagine any sort of "definition" that would encompass them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

While I can understand the argument over the definition of "marriage", it seems  a little opaque to argue that there is some clear definition of "family" that is in danger of being blurred or "redefined".  There are so many different kinds of "families" that are tolerated by the Church that I can't imagine any sort of "definition" that would encompass them. 

On the contrary, the Church is quite clear and distinct on what constitutes the definition of family in the divine scheme, even as it makes allowances for less-than-ideal circumstances in mortality and provides, via the proclamation, that, under such circumstances "extended families should lend support when needed."

 

That you assert, presumably with a straight face, and presumably as one who is well-versed in the doctrines of the Church, that the Church is nebulous on its definition of family only bears out the need for BYU to focus one of its cornerstone religion courses on "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."

Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

When I saw on the list that USU78 had contributed to a thread about BYU, I though, "Brace yourselves, folks."

 

Going that far, especially this year, would be poor sport and nasty spirited.

 

I'm, frankly, bewildered by what is deemed of great importance amongst its adherents.  Just an interesting issue, in any case.

[Calm]

My experience...it all depended on the teacher whether religion classes just seemed an extended Sunday Scool class where I learned nothing new and it honestly felt like a waste of time since I was going to Church and I saw university classes as meant to increase knowledge or whether I not only was taught good principles, but better ways to study them in the scriptures. Took OT and Isaiah from Victor Ludlow and thought that worth my time and effort. Rest was a waste.

I wish they did more to publicise the different approaches to teaching so students who didn't know the teachers and felt uncomfortable asking for info on them (like me) would know what they were getting.

[Bob Crockett]

Religion courses are a real challenge for BYU.  They have a host of instructors not really qualified for university level teaching -- local people who have risen through the ranks ecclesiastically and not academically.  Local businessmen, recently released mission presidents, and the like.   Usually terrible.  The instructors with training in academia are usually wonderful.  I suggest that spread teaching duties into other disciplines.  Have a chemistry teacher teach one course every two years.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Religion courses are a real challenge for BYU.  They have a host of instructors not really qualified for university level teaching -- local people who have risen through the ranks ecclesiastically and not academically.  Local businessmen, recently released mission presidents, and the like.   Usually terrible.  The instructors with training in academia are usually wonderful.  I suggest that spread teaching duties into other disciplines.  Have a chemistry teacher teach one course every two years.  

When I enrolled there, they did just that. There were instructors from other disciplines teaching religion, particularly Book of Mormon courses.

 

I don't think I ever had any ad hoc instructors. I had some fairly well-known names from the religion faculty: Robert Patch, Richard Cowan, Leon Hartshorn, Rodney Turner.  Others came from other departments.

 

And I never went professor shopping for my religion courses.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

I wish I could take the courses. They sound interesting

[Rob Osborn]

Religion courses are a real challenge for BYU.  They have a host of instructors not really qualified for university level teaching -- local people who have risen through the ranks ecclesiastically and not academically.  Local businessmen, recently released mission presidents, and the like.   Usually terrible.  The instructors with training in academia are usually wonderful.  I suggest that spread teaching duties into other disciplines.  Have a chemistry teacher teach one course every two years.

I didnt realize it takes an academically accomplished person to teach the gospel.

[cinepro]

Here's Bill Hamblin's take on the change...

 

The CES impulse, on the other hand, is to decontextualize both the Bible and LDS scripture in the search for prooftexts regarding the three-Ds–doctrine, daily application, and devotion.  This, they believe, can be done perfectly well without consideration of the historical context of scripture.  After all, a true doctrine is a true doctrine no matter where, when, or by whom it was said.  For, as Jesus said, “search ye the scriptures, for in them ye find thematic doctrines.”  Thus, the move towards the new thematic-based curriculum is the logical result of a belief that historical context of scripture doesn’t matter for understanding the eternal truth and doctrines of scripture.

The result is that CES/SI/BYU RE have dehistoricized our scripture just as much as have the new administrators of the Sunstone Sou … er, I mean the Maxwell Institute.  The consequence–intended or otherwise–is that the serious, faithful, historically contextualized study and teaching of LDS scripture is not supported anywhere in the Church.  Where can you find it?  The Ensign?  Conference Talks?  Gospel Doctrine?  Seminary?  Institute?  CES?  BYU?  The Maxwell Institute?

 

Edited October 28, 2014 by cinepro

[sethpayne]

I didnt realize it takes an academically accomplished person to teach the gospel.

 

Hey Rob,

 

Are you a BYU grad?  Religion classes at BYU are nothing at all like what we would normally think of as "teaching the gospel."  You get graded and, depending on the teacher, those classes can be really really tough.

 

So I would agree that it doesn't take an academic to teach the Gospel.  But that's not exactly what is going on at BYU.  It's much different than SS or seminary or even institute.  And, as these grades can impact your GPA and chances at grad school I think it is probably a good idea to have the material taught by someone with academic training.

 

Seth

[cinepro]

I didnt realize it takes an academically accomplished person to teach the gospel.

It depends on how you define "academically accomplished".

 

Certainly you should have someone who really knows the subject and can teach it well. Whether their knowledge and teaching skills are the result of academic learnin' or other knowledge and experience gained in a less formal setting, it's not unreasonable for someone who pays to take a university-level course on any subject to expect some standard of quality in the teaching, even if it's a religious subject.

 

It also depends on how you define "the gospel".  Is that really all these university courses are about?  Or is there some other component of knowledge in addition to knowing that Jesus died for our sins and Thomas S. Monson is a true Prophet?  

 

Also, remember these students are hopefully going to Church every week, which is expected to be three hours of talk and instruction about "the gospel".  Are these courses expected to be any different, and do you hold their curriculum and teaching quality to any higher standard than what these students are getting at Church on Sundays?