Byu Decides To Remove Scripture Courses As Required

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

 

I've now read both of Bill Hamblin's blog posts on this subject. My comment is this: I don't see that he is giving due consideration to the fact that students will still have the option of taking elective courses that focus on individual volumes in the Standard Works.

 

Often in a university setting, one will take survey courses that give a broad view of a subject and then delve more deeply into it by taking courses covering individual aspects. I see a similarity in arrangement here, with the cornerstone courses being the survey, as it were, and the optional electives giving a closer look at the individual aspects. Or, if you will, a macro-level view followed by a micro-level view.

 

And on the matter of decontextualization, I think it good to bear in mind that scripture is, by nature, timeless in its application and that Elder Oaks taught that a given passage of scripture is not necessarily limited to what it meant when it was first uttered. Academics might be uncomfortable with that concept, but it is the thinking of a latter-day apostle on the matter.

[Bob Crockett]

And on the matter of decontextualization, I think it good to bear in mind that scripture is, by nature, timeless in its application and that Elder Oaks taught that a given passage of scripture is not necessarily limited to what it meant when it was first uttered. Academics might be uncomfortable with that concept, but it is the thinking of a latter-day apostle on the matter.

Here's Oaks: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/01/scripture-reading-and-revelation?lang=eng. I've long asserted that the sister in my ward who spends her days reading scripture and driving the missionaries around need not study Greek, Hebrew, Biblical history or understand MesoAmerian geography. I'm mystified that Church-employed exegetes say on public boards that Church manuals don't matter as to where the truth lies in the contextualization of the scriptures.

I don't know what to make of BYU's changes or of Bill Hamblin's rants. I suppose it won't make much difference, as scriptural study and instruction in the scriptures never received much emphasis in the Church for most of its existence, it seems.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Rain]

This all goes along well with Elder Packer's thoughts on teaching doctrine to change behavior instead of teaching behavior to change behavior.

I find the criticism of the things missing funny since we don't actually know those things are missing yet do we? Have I missed that people have actually looked at the curriculum and found history etc missing? Because that goes against the teaching classes I gave been taking from the church - teachers that have said we should be helping the students to see that and then guiding them to see it in theirs lives today.

[Scott Lloyd]

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."

A few problems I see here, rongo.

 

For one, if scriptural literacy was already on the decline before electronic devices entered the scene, who's to say said decline would not have continued with or without the electronic devices?

 

Further, in what way do the electronic devices preclude cover-to-cover study of the scriptures? I'm engaged in such study right now of the Old Testament with my device, and when I'm finished, I'll continue with the New Testament, Book of Mormon, and so forth. In fact, I'm more, not less, apt to do so, because I constantly have the scriptures with me, together with the massive and rich library of Church curricular materials, periodicals, general conference talks and so forth, plus whatever else I might want to load on in terms of commentaries, Interpreter articles, etc. Not to mention my own personal annotations. I will always be a cover-to-cover studier of the scriptures, and I'll do it on my device.

 

Finally, if you are going to cite Elder Holland in the context of decrying Preach My Gospel as symptomatic of "catering to cultural realities within the Church," you ought to be made aware that Elder Holland participated in the development of that missionary guide, and in fact, in a talk I heard at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, has heralded "missionary work in the age of Preach My Gospel." See my report here.

 

"Preach My Gospel was born out of the realization," Elder Holland said, "that the missionaries needed to be more well-founded in gospel knowledge, needed more flexibility in what order they taught gospel principles, and needed to combine listening skills with powerful teaching ability. Above all Preach My Gospel was predicated upon greater sensitivity toward and response to the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

 

[toon]

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. 

 

But don't we get that each week in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society?

 

What we don't get is a contextualized study of the scriptures.  In order to get the ecclesiastical endorsement, BYU requires Sunday church attendance.  So students are continuing to get that.  Seems like a contextualized approach would be considered beneficial if not essential.

[Nevo]

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.

 

I appreciate your willingness to reserve judgment, but I don't see any chance of BYU's new religion curriculum (and S&I institute curriculum) becoming more aligned to "the way religion is approached in major secular universities."

[Storm Rider]

I feel torn on this topic.  The introduction of new courses seems a good thing.  If the change affects only what will be required required classes in religion, then this seems much a ado about nothing.  If the classes on the NT, OT, etc. will no longer be taught then that is problematic.  

 

Education in religious studies should contain these focused, cover-to-cover classes.  Without them there is so much that is lost and the opportunity for BYU students is diminished. 

[Nevo]

In a sense, BYU students will still be required to read all of the standard works—just not at BYU.

 

It is now compulsory for seminary graduates to read the assigned readings for the course in each of their four years of seminary—which effectively amounts to reading the scriptures cover-to-cover. Since some 96% of students admitted to BYU are seminary graduates (and this isn't likely to change anytime soon), within a few years it will be the case that nearly all of the student body will have already read the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and PGP before even arriving at BYU.

[cinepro]

In a sense, BYU students will still be required to read all of the standard works—just not at BYU.

 

It is now compulsory for seminary graduates to read the assigned readings for the course in each of their four years of seminary—which effectively amounts to reading the scriptures cover-to-cover. Since some 96% of students admitted to BYU are seminary graduates (and this isn't likely to change anytime soon), within a few years it will be the case that nearly all of the student body will have already read the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and PGP before even arriving at BYU.

 

Based on my one day of substitute teaching a fourth-year seminary class last week, I can report back that even if the students are doing their assigned reading, their comprehension and retention is abysmal. 

 

No, not "abysmal".  That's too kind.  How about "non-existent".  At times, I thought the class was the control group in a study of LDS teenagers who were never taught anything about the scriptures for their entire lives.

Edited October 29, 2014 by cinepro

[Calm]

Percentage of high school students who will actually read from cover to cover (add in actually pay attention to what they are reading and comprehend it enough to retain) for a class that is not part of their GPA compared to percentage of college age kids who will actually read cover to cover with attention and retention for a class that is part of their GPA....hmmmm.....

[Scott Lloyd]

But don't we get that each week in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society?

 

What we don't get is a contextualized study of the scriptures.  In order to get the ecclesiastical endorsement, BYU requires Sunday church attendance.  So students are continuing to get that.  Seems like a contextualized approach would be considered beneficial if not essential.

Seems to me, with the new program, students will be able to get both.

 

And as for being content with what is served up each week in Sunday meetings, how many times have we heard from disaffected Church members complaining that they didn't learn this or that at Sunday School? It would seem most unwise to turn down the opportunity to take a university-level course on gospel topics, be it "contextualized" scripture study or something more thematic.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Based on my one day of substitute teaching a fourth-year seminary class last week, I can report back that even if the students are doing their assigned reading, their comprehension and retention is abysmal. 

 

No, not "abysmal".  That's too kind.  How about "non-existent".  At times, I thought the class was the control group in a study of LDS teenagers who were never taught anything about the scriptures for their entire lives.

 

That's probably more true than it should be.  My wife substitute taught a young women's class a couple of years ago.  Her first question to the class was "What is the atonement" (not the deep "how does it work" but the basic "what is it").

This particular class had no idea.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's probably more true than it should be.  My wife substitute taught a young women's class a couple of years ago.  Her first question to the class was "What is the atonement" (not the deep "how does it work" but the basic "what is it").

This particular class had no idea.

I think with that age group, it might be not so much that they don't know as it is that they don't know how to articulate the definition -- or that they don't want to put the effort into it.

[cinepro]

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."

Here's a real world situation. The LDS parents of two children divorce. They then remarry, so the children have their "natural" mom and dad, and a step-mom and step-dad. All four parents love the children, treat them well, and spend lots of time with them.

Are these kids in a "family"? If so, what is their "family", and how does it fit with the definition of "family" that you are concerned about being redefined?

[rpn]

I was there in the 70's and two semesters of book of mormon was all the mandatory courses.   The other 12 credits could be chosen as you wished.   

 

So long as in seminary the old and new testaments are taught story by story (hopefully with an updated curriculum that includes analysis of current secular bible scholarship (including the different version that are now considered to be more accurate translations)  in the LDS context , and all of the classes teach how to find and study that text, then I think it will be fine to have different classes required and provided at the college level.

[KevinG]

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

You are a rare soul indeed, and have the mind of a scholar.  Most kids pay tuition so they can get a piece of paper that qualifies them to get a job.

[Freedom]

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.

 

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.

Apparently you never read their book reviews. Bushman anyone?

[rockpond]

I was there in the 70's and two semesters of book of mormon was all the mandatory courses.   The other 12 credits could be chosen as you wished.   

 

So long as in seminary the old and new testaments are taught story by story (hopefully with an updated curriculum that includes analysis of current secular bible scholarship (including the different version that are now considered to be more accurate translations)  in the LDS context , and all of the classes teach how to find and study that text, then I think it will be fine to have different classes required and provided at the college level.

 

Unfortunately, I think that seminary and institute will follow BYU's lead.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a real world situation. The LDS parents of two children divorce. They then remarry, so the children have their "natural" mom and dad, and a step-mom and step-dad. All four parents love the children, treat them well, and spend lots of time with them.

Are these kids in a "family"? If so, what is their "family", and how does it fit with the definition of "family" that you are concerned about being redefined?

Your "real-world situation" is a product of errors made in mortality and will not prevail in the eternities. In the hereafter, there will be no adulterous relationships, no disrupted marriages, no broken homes, no single-parent homes, no "joint-custody" arrangements to deal with, no obliging of children to divide their loyalties between households, no same-gender parenting couples.

 

You asked me what my and the Church's definition of family was. I gave it to you by citing "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," which recognizes the temporary and less-than-ideal situations occasioned by the vicissitudes, errors and imperfections of this mortal sphere and allows for them by saying extended families should help out where needed. But these will all pass away with the end of the earth's temporal existence, and the family, as conceived, defined and decreed by the Almighty, will prevail thereafter.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently you never read their book reviews. Bushman anyone?

I've read their book reviews and agree that your characterization is unfair.

 

And I don't know what Bushman has to do with it.

[Grundelwalken]

Unfortunately, I think that seminary and institute will follow BYU's lead.

Nope!

S&I has a different charge from The Brethren. It requires the sequential study of each book of scripture. Other organizations will follow their charge as directed. MW

[Ham Clam]

Nope!

S&I has a different charge from The Brethren. It requires the sequential study of each book of scripture. Other organizations will follow their charge as directed. MW

I was thinking about being a CES Seminary teacher. Please let this be the case!

[carbon dioxide]

I think it would be good if BYU offered a course on "Anti-Mormonism".  Have a course that goes through the common arguments made against the Church and how to address them in an accurate factual way.  Medical schools do not just teach how the body works.   They also teach prospective doctors about disease and how to counter those diseases.  Anti-Mormonism is a disease to the faith and teaching LDS how to counter and fight off the disease would only benefit members more.

[rockpond]

Nope!

S&I has a different charge from The Brethren. It requires the sequential study of each book of scripture. Other organizations will follow their charge as directed. MW

I really hope that you are correct but I don't see any reason to believe that the charge won't be changed to encourage S&I to follow BYU's lead. Plus, this change seems consistent with the general direction that church has been heading with doctrine and theology.

[rockpond]

I think it would be good if BYU offered a course on "Anti-Mormonism". Have a course that goes through the common arguments made against the Church and how to address them in an accurate factual way. Medical schools do not just teach how the body works. They also teach prospective doctors about disease and how to counter those diseases. Anti-Mormonism is a disease to the faith and teaching LDS how to counter and fight off the disease would only benefit members more.

I agree with your general logic here but I'm not sure how you'd go about identifying what anti-Mormonism is. My experience with those in my family and stake is that the church's own history (and its implications) has become the greatest stumbling block to faith. So maybe the best class would be something like a "faithful approach to church history". But then we'd get into all the complications that we are currently seeing with the gospel topics essays.

It's a tough situation.

Edited November 1, 2014 by rockpond