Byu Decides To Remove Scripture Courses As Required

[Bob Crockett]

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

I paid tuition to listen to academics, not local attorneys.

[Scott Lloyd]

I paid tuition to listen to academics, not local attorneys.

Does that mean you would have been annoyed if someone from the law school had been assigned to teach a religion course you took?

 

What if it had been Jack Welch, founder of FARMS and current editor of BYU Studies,he who discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? He's on the law school, not the religion, faculty.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[EllenMaksoud]

 

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

 

I think such action will weaken the church. One of the strengths of the church that drew me was the amazing facility with the BoM that the Missionaries and other members have. Another member here said that members used to have the same expertise with the Bible until one of the Ezra Taft Benson, changed direction on studying the Bible so intensely. The intensive study has been one of the corner stones of the church for me.

 

In my estimation the Mormon church is so much better than all the other churches, well, no hip waders are needed.

 

I just can't figure out why they would think that less study is better?

[strappinglad]

All required religion courses at BYU should be graded PASS/FAIL . Also, no student should be aware of their grade until after the final exam. Isn't that the way He does it?

[katherine the great]

I paid tuition to listen to academics, not local attorneys.

My experience is that the PhD.'s usually make the worst teachers. (although not always.)  I usually enjoy the adjuncts the most, but around here you have to have at least a master's degree or working on one to be an adjunct.

[cinepro]

All required religion courses at BYU should be graded PASS/FAIL . Also, no student should be aware of their grade until after the final exam. Isn't that the way He does it?

 

They would also be open book. 

 

And if you dropped out of the class in the first few weeks, you would automatically pass.

[Nofear]

Bill Hamblin wrote about this and noted that the relevant faculty voted against the change 33 to 1. But as some pointed out (see comments), the older courses are still being taught.

[katherine the great]

Bill Hamblin wrote about this and noted that the relevant faculty voted against the change 33 to 1. But as some pointed out (see comments), the older courses are still being taught.

Of course the faculty voted against it.  No one likes to learn a whole new curriculum when you've been teaching the same thing for years.  That is a ton of extra work.  

[Freedom]

I never took any BYU religion classes and my understanding of the scriptures grew anyway. Bill is upset about the changes, but then he was also upset about the changes at Maxwell Institute and I see the changes there as being fantastic. No more bitter apologists, now we have genuine scholarship. If a person read the scriptures 20 minutes/day and made an effort to read all the standard works every three years their would be no need for any of these classes. They are fluff in terms of academic value. Their purpose is to build testimonies. 

 

Going through the scriptures chapter by chapter is tedious and leads to oft repeated doctrines and brutal attempts to clean principles from stories where no principles are to be found. D&C is 4 months of missionary work. New Testament is 6 months of repeating the same stories over and over again. We need to learn how to pull the books together as a unified whole rather than studying them in isolation. 

[Mystery Meat]

I never took any BYU religion classes and my understanding of the scriptures grew anyway. Bill is upset about the changes, but then he was also upset about the changes at Maxwell Institute and I see the changes there as being fantastic. No more bitter apologists, now we have genuine scholarship. If a person read the scriptures 20 minutes/day and made an effort to read all the standard works every three years their would be no need for any of these classes. They are fluff in terms of academic value. Their purpose is to build testimonies. 

 

Going through the scriptures chapter by chapter is tedious and leads to oft repeated doctrines and brutal attempts to clean principles from stories where no principles are to be found. D&C is 4 months of missionary work. New Testament is 6 months of repeating the same stories over and over again. We need to learn how to pull the books together as a unified whole rather than studying them in isolation. 

 

This.

[rongo]

Another factor in all of this is the fact that today's teenagers up to the 40s-50s (or so) almost exclusively access their scriptures on electronic devices. Overall scripture literacy was already on the decline before the electronic device explosion, but this has led to a further sharp decline in steady scripture reading. It has certainly led to a certain increasing decline of members who can say they have read the Standard Works, cover to cover (even once, if not multiple times). Many today would pooh-pooh the need of this, but people who have and who do read the scriptures straight through will increasingly become a relic, like the Book People in Fahrenheit 451.

 

I can see this change, as with "Come Follow Me" and "Preach My Gospel," as catering to cultural realities within the Church. A Lesser Law, but God, the Church, and BYU all have to work with the hand that is dealt. Sad, though, and wistful ---- people constantly comment on their disbelief and bewilderment at how well my family (kids included) know the scriptures. Some things can only be attained through actual reading --- including sometimes cover to cover ---- and in no other way.

 

I think Hamblin's "three Ds" catch phrase is dead on: the Church's scripture focus in this Lesser Law is devotion, doctrine, and daily application only. Elder Holland's "spiritual twinkies."

Edited October 29, 2014 by rongo

[Robert F. Smith]

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 sure that your cynicism is justified, and these new formulations (under a brand new BYU President) may allow a more mature appraisal of Scripture in context, i.e,, the way religion is approached in major secular universities.  I'm reserving judgment until I see it in practice.

 

Naturally, many of the old courses (or something like them) may remain as electives for those majoring in particular areas/subjects.

[Robert F. Smith]

I never took any BYU religion classes and my understanding of the scriptures grew anyway. Bill is upset about the changes, but then he was also upset about the changes at Maxwell Institute and I see the changes there as being fantastic. No more bitter apologists, now we have genuine scholarship.

I wonder if you would CFR those "biitter apologists" which the Maxwell Institute replaced -- with "genuine" scholars.  What you are suggesting is nonsense, and I am certain that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

.....................................................   

 We need to learn how to pull the books together as a unified whole rather than studying them in isolation.

I agree, and think that the new core religion curriculum can be a good thing.  But we will have to wait and see it in action.

[EllenMaksoud]

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?

Yes, there does not seem to be a clear path for converts. I suppose we are expected to just grind it out.

[EllenMaksoud]

I paid tuition to listen to academics, not local attorneys.

The pleasant thing about Mormon youth is that they spend lots of time in study before they get to college, so following the curriculum guide, they are eminently qualified.

[Darren10]

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.

Scott;

William Hamblin has been publically opposing this new approach precisely since this new approach leans towards decontextualizing and emphasizing proof texting the scriptures.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Darren10

[Darren10]

 

From William Hamblin: Mormon Rebel.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2014/10/27/new-byu-religious-education-curriculum/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2014/10/27/the-dehistoricizing-impulse/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2014/10/27/new-byu-religious-education-curriculum/

Edited October 29, 2014 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Some things can only be attained through actual reading --- including sometimes cover to cover ---- and in no other way.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Calm]

My problem with having the same approach in all studying taught through the Church is that given the variety of people's gifts in how they learn, they will be less likely to find with help the best approach for them and less likely to experiment on their own because they just get used to the one way and habits set in. It is similar to those who read scripture so much in one version that when they read other versions, the same verses don't feel scriptural or spiritual to them even when conveying the same thought, just with different words, sometimes even being easier to understand.

[Jeanne]

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.

I just thought that scripture study was a requirement for everybody in BYU.  I agree that people worship the Book rather than the teachings in the Bible.

[Duncan]

So, I am confused about the lived experience of this whole decontextualized business-I know what exegesis and eisegesis is but if a friend asks me why do Mormons believe in the three degrees of glory would I be in the wrong to say that Paul taught it in 1st Corinthians and that it was revealed anew in our day in DC 76? like, would I have to give this friend a history of 1st Corinthians and DC 76?

[tonie]

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?

 

The following, with minor adjustment, seems applicable to mans interaction with things of former association:

 

It seems that history continues to teach us: You can leave [an institution], but you can’t leave it alone.

[tonie]

I am very much in agreement with Scott regarding this change. I think it is a positive move. Hamblin appears to deride the change with the perjorative of "prooftexting"; that is his right and pleasure.  But I can not find anything wrong with a Christ focused study of the scriptures. A study, which in my opinion, would be all encompassing of the Saviors teacings and applying those teaching to our lives.

[tonie]

edited:

 

"Wherefore I spake unto them, saying: Hear ye the words of the prophet, ye who are a remnant of the house of Israel, a branch who have been broken off; hear ye the words of the prophet, which were written unto all the house of Israel, and liken them unto yourselves, that ye may have hope as well as your brethren from whom ye have been broken off; for after this manner has the prophet written."

Edited October 29, 2014 by tonie

[Nofear]

As somebody pointed out, nothing there we couldn't get from reading the scriptures ourselves. But that's not what I would want from a class.

 

Historical contextualization and perspective afford a much deeper understanding of the scriptures than just trying to view everything from contemporary perspectives. As tonie points out, we are to liken them to ourselves. However, not understanding the cultural and historical context of the scriptures can and has led to many abuses of the scriptures and scriptural interpretations.

 

I think we need to trust our membership at BYU enough that they can apply the historical lessons from the scriptures to their own lives without having it spelled out for them. Indeed, having interpretations and applications of doctrines spelled out explicitly can and will blind many to deeper understanding via the Einstellung effect.