Involvement of RS and women in creating curriculum and manuals

[Calm]

I can't remember which thread this was being discussed in.  My apologies if it is still a current one.

In looking for info on whether the Teaching series will be recycled after completion (whenever that will be), I came across a reference to the involvement of two (and I would assume all the ones since then with the new manuals) RS presidencies as well as other women the RS presidencies assigned to help (or so the quote reads to me):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/12/major-curriculum-changes-in-priesthood-and-relief-society?lang=eng

Since I can't copy on much of lds.org, you will need to read from the link until someone who has the capability is helpful enough to post it (hint, hint).

It is the last two paragraphs in the section titled "Directed in Its Development"

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I can't remember which thread this was being discussed in.  My apologies if it is still a current one.

In looking for info on whether the Teaching series will be recycled after completion (whenever that will be), I came across a reference to the involvement of two (and I would assume all the ones since then with the new manuals) RS presidencies as well as other women the RS presidencies assigned to help (or so the quote reads to me):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/12/major-curriculum-changes-in-priesthood-and-relief-society?lang=eng

Since I can't copy on much of lds.org, you will need to read from the link until someone who has the capability is helpful enough to post it (hint, hint).

It is the last two paragraphs in the section titled "Directed in Its Development"

"Both Elder Oaks and Elder Holland express gratitude for the support of the two Relief Society general presidencies who have been deeply involved in planning and supporting this change in curriculum. “The former Relief Society general presidency (Sisters Elaine L. Jack, Chieko N. Okazaki, and Aileen H. Clyde) were deeply committed to this, wanting to leave that gift as they left office. Their hearts and souls were in it,” Elder Holland says.

“They sent some superb women to help in the preparation of the materials,” Elder Oaks comments, adding that the new Relief Society general presidency (Sisters Mary Ellen Wood Smoot, Virginia Urry Jensen, and Sheri L. Dew) have been equally committed and diligent in preparing for the introduction of this new curriculum."

That was written in 1997...

[strappinglad]

We should never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[bluebell]

That's awesome Cal, thanks for finding it. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

We should never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I think the stories generally start because of not having info.  I just happened to stumble across this when looking for something else.  It might be difficult to find through a search as all the key words I can think of would be very common.

[bsjkki]

I thought this paragraph was also important and I was very happy to read this.  

" Then the General Authorities “turned to a remarkable committee of men and women who worked to get the Brigham Young material ready,” Elder Oaks says. “They did a superb work.” This Church-service committee not only produced the Brigham Young book for use on the second and third Sundays of the month but also helped with materials for the first Sunday’s Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society curriculum.  "   Thank you, Calm, for finding this information.

[bsjkki]

my computer really messed up

Edited August 15, 2016 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

Double post

Edited August 15, 2016 by bsjkki

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I can't remember which thread this was being discussed in.  My apologies if it is still a current one.

In looking for info on whether the Teaching series will be recycled after completion (whenever that will be), I came across a reference to the involvement of two (and I would assume all the ones since then with the new manuals) RS presidencies as well as other women the RS presidencies assigned to help (or so the quote reads to me):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/12/major-curriculum-changes-in-priesthood-and-relief-society?lang=eng

Since I can't copy on much of lds.org, you will need to read from the link until someone who has the capability is helpful enough to post it (hint, hint).

It is the last two paragraphs in the section titled "Directed in Its Development"

The other thread had to do with visiting teaching messages, but I'm sure the evidence still applies.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I thought this paragraph was also important and I was very happy to read this.  

" Then the General Authorities “turned to a remarkable committee of men and women who worked to get the Brigham Young material ready,” Elder Oaks says. “They did a superb work.” This Church-service committee not only produced the Brigham Young book for use on the second and third Sundays of the month but also helped with materials for the first Sunday’s Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society curriculum.  "   Thank you, Calm, for finding this information.

But the dastardly committee perpetrated the (in some people's eyes) unpardonable offense of leaving out mention of President Young's plural marriages. Never mind that it was never intended as a biography or a history book. And never mind that the projected audience/readership for the book could be expected to be more than aware already that Brigham Young practiced plural marriage.

[cinepro]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the dastardly committee perpetrated the (in some people's eyes) unpardonable offense of leaving out mention of President Young's plural marriages. Never mind that it was never intended as a biography or a history book. And never mind that the projected audience/readership for the book could be expected to be more than aware already that Brigham Young practiced plural marriage.

I think the "unpardonable offense" was the editing of certain comments made by Brigham Young that originally were framed in a polygamous context or referred to practices that are no longer existent in the Church, but changing them to appear as if they were originally applied to a monogamous context or were in line with current practices, but not alerting the reader that the original quote had been altered.

In effect, that the Church isn't presenting what Brigham Young actually taught, but what he would have taught if he were speaking in 1997.  That's fine for some people, but for others it's a little thin.

 

[cinepro]

Another problem with the Brigham Young manual is that in the historical summary of his life, it mentions his marriage to his first wife, and then the death of the first wife and marriage to his second wife, but no subsequent wives.  Is there any reason other than avoidance of polygamy that only these two wives would merit mention (and that plural marriage didn't warrant any mention at all)?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/historical-summary?lang=eng

[Calm]

You guys are way off topic, but perhaps there isn't anything else to say besides the quote and appreciation of it.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the "unpardonable offense" was the editing of certain comments made by Brigham Young that originally were framed in a polygamous context or referred to practices that are no longer existent in the Church, but changing them to appear as if they were originally applied to a monogamous context or were in line with current practices, but not alerting the reader that the original quote had been altered.

In effect, that the Church isn't presenting what Brigham Young actually taught, but what he would have taught if he were speaking in 1997.  That's fine for some people, but for others it's a little thin.

Since “truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come,” the Church may well be presenting what Brigham Young would have taught if he were speaking in 1997, and I think he would be perfectly fine with that. But I think more accurately, doctrine supersedes principle and practice, so I don’t think the context was anything but eternal marriage, which may be practiced according to the Lord’s command in different times and places.

[stemelbow]

Probably good to contrast this with Chieko Okazaki's take:

Quote

“I asked what [the new manual was about], and he said, “Well, it’s the manual on Harold B. Lee.” It was the first one in that series of teachings of the Church presidents. I asked, “Why are they writing a manual for us on Harold B. Lee?” He didn’t know. I told the presidency, so we went and asked the Curriculum Committee, “What is this all about?” They said, “Well, we’re already almost finished with the first book.” We said, “You’re almost finished with the first book, and you didn’t tell us that you were doing this? Why is this is the first time we have heard about it?” “So I asked, “Who is writing this manual?” It turned out to be five men, and the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society would have the same lessons. I asked, “Why aren’t the women included in this?”

http://rationalfaiths.com/why-arent-the-women-included/

In other words women wouldn't have been involved if it were not for Sister Okazaki getting after the men for trying to exclude them.  Women were also excluded from The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  But she seemed to take issue with that exclusion too--after the fact which was when she found out about it apparently.  The link above doesn't really tell the story as it happened but Sister Okazaki seems to indicate they weren't involved until after one book had already been completed.  And again, it seems likely, the women wouldn't have been included if Sister Okazaki didn't make an issue of them being left out. 

Sorry if this is off-topic but I'm not sure what we're responding to in this thread. 

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by stemelbow

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Probably good to contrast this with Chieko Okazaki's take:

http://rationalfaiths.com/why-arent-the-women-included/

In other words women wouldn't have been involved if it were not for Sister Okazaki getting after the men for trying to exclude them.  Women were also excluded from The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  But she seemed to take issue with that exclusion too--after the fact which was when she found out about it apparently.  The link above doesn't really tell the story as it happened but Sister Okazaki seems to indicate they weren't involved until after one book had already been completed.  And again, it seems likely, the women wouldn't have been included if Sister Okazaki didn't make an issue of them being left out. 

Sorry if this is off-topic but I'm not sure what we're responding to in this thread. 

 

So according to the article at Rational Faiths, the lds.org post in the OP, basically, put the inclusion of women in the best possible light.  I'm grateful Sister Okazaki made her voice heard and as President Nelson has said,   "We need you to speak up and speak out in ward and stake councils."  I hope, as women, we speak up and encourage changes be made when women's voices or concerns are not being heard.

[stemelbow]

Just now, bsjkki said:

So according to the article at Rational Faiths, the lds.org post in the OP, basically, put the inclusion of women in the best possible light.  I'm grateful Sister Okazaki made her voice heard and as President Nelson has said,   "We need you to speak up and speak out in ward and stake councils."  I hope, as women, we speak up and encourage changes be made when women's voices or concerns are not being heard.

Yes, years ago my wife notified me of the great work of Sister Okazaki.  It seems like she pioneered in a sense.  Or at least contributed to earlier efforts.  I, for one, am really quite grateful to her and others (many of whom are unnamed and not known about). 

My point was to bring her perspective in which seemed at least to bring into question some elements of the article in the OP.  Seems relevant to offer a different perspective of what took place.  Women were included, but not at first and not by the choice of the men. 

But the bigger issue might be...oops.  Maybe no one should be proud of the work done on those manuals.  But that's a different thread that's already going on. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the "unpardonable offense" was the editing of certain comments made by Brigham Young that originally were framed in a polygamous context or referred to practices that are no longer existent in the Church, but changing them to appear as if they were originally applied to a monogamous context or were in line with current practices, but not alerting the reader that the original quote had been altered.

In effect, that the Church isn't presenting what Brigham Young actually taught, but what he would have taught if he were speaking in 1997.  That's fine for some people, but for others it's a little thin.

 

They should be shot!

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They should be shot!

This has happened elsewhere, but my mind is erratic and can't think of the link or evidence. But remember seeing that the church historian or apologetic, will fit things how they want them to appear. It's time this changed, not shot though!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This has happened elsewhere, but my mind is erratic and can't think of the link or evidence. But remember seeing that the church historian or apologetic, will fit things how they want them to appear. It's time this changed, not shot though!

Why not if it's "the unpardonable sin"?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

Women were also excluded from The Family: A Proclamation to the World. 

Did the Young Men and Sunday School general presidencies get to sign off on the proclamation?

Oh, wait, I get it. President Hinckley didn't decide to present it at their meeting.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did the Young Men and Sunday School general presidencies get to sign off on the proclamation?

Oh, wait, I get it. President Hinckley didn't decide to present it at their meeting.

Sorry if that was poorly worded, Scott.  Not sure what your post is meant to convey though.  I should have said, "Women were also excluded from contributing to the document: The Family: A Proclamation to the World". 

I get that to some it is revelation and women should then not participate or not need to.  But excluding women was, I believe, Sister Okazaki's concern. 

She said regarding the proclamation, from the same link

Quote

No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it. Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there.”

 

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why not if it's "the unpardonable sin"?

Great straw man based on your own circular logic. Not only did you introduce the issue as being an "unpardonable sin" but you also claimed that because it's an unpardonable sin they should be shot. Then someone says it's a mistake but they should not be shot and you take issue with it because obviously, if it's an unpardonable sin they should be shot. You are making no sense but as usual you are effectively stirring the pot and creating controversy with hyperbolic language and then getting upset with others when they don't accept it.

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Probably good to contrast this with Chieko Okazaki's take:

http://rationalfaiths.com/why-arent-the-women-included/

In other words women wouldn't have been involved if it were not for Sister Okazaki getting after the men for trying to exclude them.  Women were also excluded from The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  But she seemed to take issue with that exclusion too--after the fact which was when she found out about it apparently.  The link above doesn't really tell the story as it happened but Sister Okazaki seems to indicate they weren't involved until after one book had already been completed.  And again, it seems likely, the women wouldn't have been included if Sister Okazaki didn't make an issue of them being left out. 

Sorry if this is off-topic but I'm not sure what we're responding to in this thread. 

 

No, it is on topic.  This looks to be part of the story of how they came to be consulted.

It says not already completed, but almost completed in her quote if I am reading it correctly.  It is possible (and probable in my view) that her action caused an overhaul of the process and while they may not have started from scratch, they got significant feedback on the manual and other parts of the curriculum and altered it after that point.  Her RS presidency would have only been involved for part of the process as Elder Oaks indicates two were involved.  So she may not have had firsthand knowledge of changes to the level of involvement.

And the fact that Sister Okazaki had that impact and wasn't ignored, but significant changes were made is an important part of the story too.

[Jeanne]

Does the RS get their own budget to manage and/or do they have to get approval first for any monies allocated to the organization? Sorry that this is slightly off topic.  I do think it is great that Sister Okazaki opened some doors.  Time walk through.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Jeanne