Ham Clam Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 I've only know Church materials from the 2000's to now, so I wouldn't know.I remember someone saying the Church started targeting materials to the "new member" at some point?
Alan Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) It is certainly the case that the Ensign has dumbed down considerably compared to, say, the 1970's.So much so, in fact, that I no longer subscribe. Edited October 17, 2015 by Alan 2
ksfisher Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Correlation began in the early 1960's. I doubt that very many of the posters here have detailed memories of church material from before this. We could compare a church manual from the fifties to one now, but that would be a subjective rather than objective comparison.
Duncan Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 I don't mind the Ensign! I wish they would update the Gospel Principles manual though 1
Ham Clam Posted October 17, 2015 Author Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Correlation began in the early 1960's. I doubt that very many of the posters here have detailed memories of church material from before this. We could compare a church manual from the fifties to one now, but that would be a subjective rather than objective comparison.Oh, I just meant before I was born. So, materials in the 70's/80's, ect to now. Edited October 17, 2015 by Ham Clam
Calm Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 I don't mind the Ensign! I wish they would update the Gospel Principles manual thoughThey updated it not too long ago (5 years), removed a lot of quotes from people and went more dependent on scriptures over all, which I liked alot as there was some imo nondoctrinal stuff being included. It is very basic so perhaps what you are wanting is something that goes into more depth? 1
Calm Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Manuals in my opinion have gone up and down. I preferred the Church History manuals that were used for Institute prior to the one that is current, but it is much more attractive and easier to read with added pictures for additional information (though less info in the actual text), so I can see why some people would like it. The BoM one I had for seminary in the 70s was so not informative. And I had a little old lady who was just available for the teacher so that year was wasted imo. Had great teachers for OT in college, not so good for BoM so that makes a difference on how much I liked those texts. The other classes just felt like daily Sunday School. Primary manuals....I don't remember there being much significant difference, but I generally taught Junior Primary so that might make a difference. They got away from using as many flannel board stories so that I didn't like. I liked the change to the current RS/PH manuals, but so much is dependent on the teacher. The seminary and institute manuals are being updated, so far I am preferring the new ones. Never taught YW so can't tell you about that and just taught a Gospel Doctrine for youth for a year and a half and pretty much just took the topic and taught out of the scriptures for that. Edited October 17, 2015 by Calm
Gilbert Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 The quality of the material used becomes irrelevant when the Spirit is present. Some of my best learning experiences have taken place in Gospel Principles class when not a truth was spoken by the teacher that I did not already know but I learned much from the Spirit. If you have not the Spirit you shall not teach, regardless of the material used.
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 It is certainly the case that the Ensign has dumbed down considerably compared to, say, the 1970's. So much so, in fact, that I no longer subscribe.The good news is that now New Era and Ensign are equally interesting! When you are stuck at the recommend desk after the last session is in progress it doesn't matter which magazine got left behind! 1
Avatar4321 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Some manuals are better than others. I tend to think the more recent stuff has been exceptional. Mostly because we are using it as taught by the Spirit.
sunstoned Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 I've only know Church materials from the 2000's to now, so I wouldn't know.I remember someone saying the Church started targeting materials to the "new member" at some point?The result of correlation it that all of the teaching materials have been dumbed down to the point that after a couple of cycles through the curriculum it becomes extremely boring. The days of discussing Nibley are gone. The last church scriptorian was BRM. He was conversational, but at least his stuff sparked discussion No so much anymore.
janderich Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 It seems to me the correlation has at best been a mixed bag. In the early 1960's Harold B. Lee was asked by David O. McKay to review the curriculum of the various organizations. Harold B. Lee took this mandate and expanded it. He created a coordinating council, defined 72 topics which should be discussed, created Home Teaching, and re-emphasized Family Home Evening. Since this time it appears a number of important topics have been considered out of bounds. This includes "calling and election made sure", the "second comforter", and "Patriarchal Order" (Although I was happy to see the that patriarchal order was one of the lessons in the Ezra Taft Benson manual. However, it seems that many people did not know what it was and were at a loss how to teach it.) For some reason the Primary and Sunday School manuals have not been significantly revised in many years. I have heard the topics, quotes, stories again and again. Many teachers feel they cannot stray from these lessons. However, the new "Come Follow Me" curriculum for youth is more open dialogue and less structure so hopefully things are changing.
Senator Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Some of my best learning experiences have taken place in Gospel Principles class when not a truth was spoken by the teacher that I did not already know but I learned much from the Spirit.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 It is a depth vs. breadth thing... Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding are complementary but distinct things. 1
Rain2 Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) The quality of the material used becomes irrelevant when the Spirit is present. Some of my best learning experiences have taken place in Gospel Principles class when not a truth was spoken by the teacher that I did not already know but I learned much from the Spirit. If you have not the Spirit you shall not teach, regardless of the material used.In theory I agree with you. However, if the manual has something untrue in it (which goes with quality) then it will be hard to teach it with the Spirit. If someone does not have the skill of teaching they may have a harder time teaching with the Spirit, especially from a poor manual. Since I started learning how to teach better I find I have the Spirit more, and more importantly the students take an active part (whether you see it or it is just in their minds) which allows them to feel the Spirit as well. Sure, I, as a student, can go in always prepared and learn through the Spirit. A great teacher will be able to help those who have not prepared to learn as well. If you look at the things Elder Bednar talks and writes about you can find just how important increasing teaching skills is to him.One thing a better quality manual will do is ask better questions for those who do not have the natural skills to teach. Yes, the Spirit can and often does give the questions to ask, but like President Kimball said, "God does notice us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs. Therefore, it is vital that we serve each other in the kingdom." If we really follow this idea then we will have people who are skilled at asking questions place them in the manual to help those who are not. I've found many of the questions are better than they used to be in the manuals. For example I looked at the second chapter of the Gospel Principles book. Questions I have seen in the past in manuals are something like, "What is our relationship to Heavenly Father?" For many people they would say, "We are children of God" and then the discussion might not get much farther. The current manual asks, "How does your knowledge that you are a child of God influence your thoughts, words, and actions?" This takes more thinking. It's still not a high level question, but it helps a person think of himself personally and apply it to himself. As he does this he will start to feel the Spirit work on him. Edited October 21, 2015 by Rain2
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) I doubt quality has gone up much. But, I'm coming from the Teryl Givens perspective in suggesting that the manuals and materials are deplorable. Some might say the old ones were better but every time I've gotten my hands on something older I find them even more problematic. So maybe they have gotten better. Edited October 21, 2015 by stemelbow
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 In theory I agree with you. However, if the manual has something untrue in it (which goes with quality) then it will be hard to teach it with the Spirit. If someone does not have the skill of teaching they may have a harder time teaching with the Spirit, especially from a poor manual. Adding to the tricky-ness of this perspective, the scriptures have tons of wrong stuff in them. But yet we use them to get people to understand the Spirit. not sure untrue stuff will drive the Spirit away. Indeed I hear so many untrue things while the Spirit is beaming in Gospel Doctrine, I can't imagine a world where the Spirit only works in the realm of truth-only.
Recommended Posts