Church Announces Changes to Seminary

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting, I hadn't heard this.  If they actually go into depth and really study the scriptures instead of just proof texting like in Sunday School, then perhaps this will be helpful.  

 

26 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

"Proof-texting" is what the other guy does, the guy you think is a dolt.

St. Paul was the biggest proof texter of all.  Jesus second.

What is “proof-texting” to one might be viewed by another as intellectual synthesis and practical application to life and behavior. 

[Avatar4321]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As has already been stated, many will find extreme repetition to be dull, especially at 6:00 am

 But they’ll  be asleep anyway 

[Danzo]

I mentioned this in the newsroom post but we study as a family 6 days a week from the Come Follow me.  Each of us takes a day and shares what they think is significant about the material we are reading in the scriptures.

The lessons don't seem to repeat themselves and everyone seems to come up with something unique and inspiring.  

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, but isn't the Come Follow Me essentially a topically based course of study? Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with topical study, but it's not the only valuable type of study.

From a Church News article...

"Doctrine based" sounds good, right? Who would be opposed to a curriculum that is based in teaching doctrine? But to some, like me, I hear "doctrine based" as code for proof texting. Right or wrong, I equate doctrine based to be thematic or topical based, meaning that they will study a topic and then proof text scriptures to back up the doctrine, instead of digging deep into the actual scripture and seeing what is taught. I know this can be a fine line, and most wouldn't have much issue with it, but I think young people in generally are becoming scripturally illiterate. They don't understand the New Testament, the authors, the timelines etc. They only know how the NT ties in with doctrines taught by current church leaders. Again, there's not necessarily anything wrong with this approach as long as it's clear that we want students to be educated in church teachings, not necessarily in scripture.

I'm wondering if we're witnessing Correlation 2.5

I don’t see that there is necessarily great value in severing scripture study from Church teachings. Scripture study is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is also some benefit to that... Do I want my child to do all of his/her studying of the New Testament during their freshman year and then go out on their mission at the end of high school, not having covered the life of Christ for three years?

I'm not discounting your point (which is valid), just suggesting that there a case can be made for both sides.

 

Sure! 

I also think a confident grasp in one area at a time may be a good thing.  

Right now I feel my child isn’t particularly strong anywhere.  

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see that there is necessarily great value in severing scripture study from Church teachings. Scripture study is means to an end, not an end unto itself. 

True, but with that mode of thinking, we could get rid of scripture study altogether and focus solely on teachings of the living prophets/apostles. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we "sever" scripture study from Church teachings, but I do think it's useful for kids and adults alike to understand the context from which the Church teachings have developed over time.

The problem with "proof texting" is the omission of context in an effort to teach a principle. It may be well intended, but missing context can certainly (mis)shape ones understanding.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True, but with that mode of thinking, we could get rid of scripture study altogether and focus solely on teachings of the living prophets/apostles. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we "sever" scripture study from Church teachings, but I do think it's useful for kids and adults alike to understand the context from which the Church teachings have developed over time.

The problem with "proof texting" is the omission of context in an effort to teach a principle. It may be well intended, but missing context can certainly (mis)shape ones understanding.

If you think that, you are not grasping the “mode of thinking,” which sees gospel understanding flowing from, not supplanting, scripture study. 

And a purely context-based study can have its drawbacks as well in a myopic view that cuts  the learner off from added dimensions. I believe scriptures are meant to teach ideas that transcend what they may have communicated in a particular time and circumstance. And they can have multiple meanings. That, in fact, is where their beauty lies. They are like poetry in that respect. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you think that, you are not grasping the “mode of thinking,” which sees gospel understanding flowing from, not supplanting, scripture study. 

You may be right. I definitely don't get it. I know that if I were still in seminary and was told that I would be covering the same material in Sunday School, YM, at home, and in seminary, I would not be thrilled at the prospect. In fact I think I'd feel weary at just hearing the plan.

I'm curious how the youth will respond to this news. Will they greet it with enthusiasm or dread, or something less extreme like resignation?

Quote

And a purely context-based study can have its drawbacks as well in a myopic view that cuts  the learner off from added dimensions. I believe scriptures are meant to teach ideas that transcend what they may have meant in a particular time and circumstance. And they can have multiple meanings. That, in fact, is where their beauty lies. They are like poetry in that respect. 

I agree, that context-based study can also have drawbacks. That's why it would seem to make sense to me to have a combination of the two. It used to be that lessons at church (SS & YM/YW) were topically based while seminary was more scripturally based, perhaps providing deeper context to what was learned in the topically based lessons. Now it seems everything is topical. So instead of having a mixture/balance between different modes of focus, the church is putting all of its eggs into the topical/doctrinal based teaching/learning. Maybe they're right...for some people. But students learn differently and are interested by different approaches & subjects. One may really thrive in an all topical/doctrine based learning plan while others may benefit more from a different approach. I don't really know. I'm just speculating. I just know that the new model of teaching/learning in the church doesn't appeal to me so I suspect there are others who feel the same way. Again, the problem with that is that the church seems to be banking on the one model to work for everyone.

Edited March 22, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The First Presidency letter says seminary will follow the academic calendar. No summer seminary unless the kids have summer school.

So it sounds like my son who starts seminary next year will have 3 1/2 months of NT his freshman year, and then 5 months of the NT his senior year.  

I think that's where this schedule is going to be a little confusing.  Having freshman start a book of scripture near the end of that year's curriculum and then having seniors graduate while they are in the middle of the curriculum their last year.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You may be right. I definitely don't get it. I know that if I were still in seminary and was told that I would be covering the same material in Sunday School, YM, at home, and in seminary, I would not be thrilled at the prospect. In fact I think I'd feel weary at just hearing the plan.

I'm curious how the youth will respond to this news. Will they greet it with enthusiasm or dread, or something less extreme like resignation?

I added to my post. Just want to make sure you saw my addition. 

As I said, attitude and approach (on the part of teacher and learner) are bound to make a difference as to whether the new content will be viewed as boring and redundant. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So it sounds like my son who starts seminary next year will have 3 1/2 months of NT his freshman year, and then 5 months of the NT his senior year.  

I think that's where this schedule is going to be a little confusing.  Having freshman start a book of scripture near the end of that year's curriculum and then having seniors graduate while they are in the middle of the curriculum their last year.

But theoretically, seminary will not be the sum total of their gospel instruction.  It will merely be one element in a unified whole that also includes learning in the home and at Church on somewhat the same schedule. Seminary course work will no longer be an entity unto itself. 

That’s how I understand it, anyway, and I readily acknowledge I am just now hearing the news of this change. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But theoretically, seminary will not be the sum total of their gospel instruction.  It will merely be one element in a unified whole that also includes learning in the home and at Church on somewhat the same schedule. Seminary course work will no longer be an entity unto itself. 

That’s how I understand it, anyway, and I readily acknowledge I am just now hearing the news of this change. 

I think you are right, I just think it's going to be a bit odd for freshmen and seniors because they only get part of the seminary instruction for that year.  I am glad to know that the seminary manual will include things that are not in the home and sunday school manuals.  That should help keep repetition more at bay.

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you are right, I just think it's going to be a bit odd for freshmen and seniors because they only get part of the seminary instruction for that year.  I am glad to know that the seminary manual will include things that are not in the home and sunday school manuals.  That should help keep repetition more at bay.

I think it will be a little weird for seniors and freshman but they will adjust. I do think this is a good move but I hope the seminary manuals have a different, more in depth curriculum. I think there is plenty to discuss. I hope the manuals are more scripture based than topic based for seminary. I would hope they would spend more time on providing context.

[bluebell]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I think it will be a little weird for seniors and freshman but they will adjust. I do think this is a good move but I hope the seminary manuals have a different, more in depth curriculum. I think there is plenty to discuss. I hope the manuals are more scripture based than topic based for seminary. I would hope they would spend more time on providing context.

Yes, I think the important thing will be for the manuals to focus on different things, and to provide better scriptural content in seminary would be great.  I think that it's essential to be able to liken the scriptures to ourselves, but understanding them as the writer understood what they were writing is also very important.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

But, the kids shut down when they are being pressured to read 3 different books of scripture at the same time. It is a set up for failure. I like that it will focus on one book per year. It only has to be repetitive if they make it repetitive. I hope seminary covers more depth. Our home study Come Follow Me feels more breadth than depth. But we read all the assigned scriptures together the same night and have a discussion. We chose to do it that way do my seminary kid would get it done but not have Come Follow Me interfere with their required seminary reading.

We may reevaluate this now.

Well, we don't have to require them to read the Book of Mormon everyday when it is not a Book of Mormon year - but I know that's heresy to suggest among some.

My fear is that with seminary being "doctrine-based" they really won't go into much depth.  When I was teaching the young men, before they read a particular passage, I would require them to explain who is speaking, to whom, and what the context is.  Most of them were unfamiliar with those aspects even on passages that they knew well.

I think we're creating youth who may know how to support their beliefs using the scriptures but don't actually know the scriptures.

[bsjkki]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, we don't have to require them to read the Book of Mormon everyday when it is not a Book of Mormon year - but I know that's heresy to suggest among some.

My fear is that with seminary being "doctrine-based" they really won't go into much depth.  When I was teaching the young men, before they read a particular passage, I would require them to explain who is speaking, to whom, and what the context is.  Most of them were unfamiliar with those aspects even on passages that they knew well.

I think we're creating youth who may know how to support their beliefs using the scriptures but don't actually know the scriptures.

I fear this too. I get tired of all the Book if Mormon reading challenges. If it’s not the prophet, it’s your Bishop, Stake President or trek committee. We seem to get a challenge from someone yearly and it’s easy to tune it out at this point. Life is overwhelming and our family focus is Come Follow Me and supporting seminary required reading.

Edited March 22, 2019 by bsjkki

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I fear this too. I get tired of all the Book if Mormon reading challenges. If it’s not the prophet, it’s your Bishop, Stake President or trek committee. We seem to get a challenge from someone yearly and it’s easy to tune it out at this point. Life is overwhelming and our family focus is Come Follow Me and supporting seminary required reading.

Yes... way too many of the Book of Mormon speed reading challenges.

The last one I accepted was a couple summers ago... read the entire Book of Mormon between Memorial Day and Labor Day (that's just a bit longer than 3 months for our international participants).  It was the least beneficial reading I've ever done of the Book of Mormon and I've had zero desire to read it cover-to-cover since that time.

[Wiki Wonka]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Does doubling up on Come Follow Me for Seminary just add on to the repetition these kids are getting at church. To me it sounds like that could be a very redundant/boring approach to gospel learning.

Actually, as a early morning seminary teacher myself, I feel that the challenge will most likely be with the Sunday School to not be "boring"

The way I see it, I have twenty weekdays per month to teach, discuss, present videos and do whatever activities I want to on the current topic/scripture. On the other hand, Sunday school has two days per month to come up with something interesting on the same topic/scripture.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So it sounds like my son who starts seminary next year will have 3 1/2 months of NT his freshman year, and then 5 months of the NT his senior year.  

I think that's where this schedule is going to be a little confusing.  Having freshman start a book of scripture near the end of that year's curriculum and then having seniors graduate while they are in the middle of the curriculum their last year.

Yeah, that's the part that seems strange to me as well. Incoming freshmen will begin their study of the NT following the death / resurrection of Jesus and won't get back to the gospels until they are ready to graduate.

Weird.

 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

What is “proof-texting” to one might be viewed by another as intellectual synthesis and practical application to life and behavior. 

Could be both at the same time.   Applying scriptures to your personal life can yield a lot of good results.  I can misread all kinds of historical things and find something positive about my misreading that inspires me to improve my behavior.  

But I also believe we can learn some really important lessons when we attempt to understand the context that the original author intended.  

[churchistrue]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm kind of with HJW and rockpond on this one.  It seems odd and I worry that the repetition will make the kids bored.  I also don't understand the benefit of teaching a book of scripture for a few months, taking a break for three months, and then starting it back up again.  Or are the kids expected to do seminary in the summer too?  And how is it going to work with doing the NT, where they are supposed to start that in June of 2019 but our kids won't be back in school until the end of August?   And what's the point of only teaching the NT for 3 and 1/2 months?

It'll be interesting to see how this is all going to work.

Doesn't seem odd or that repetition would make it boring. They're in seminary five days a week, adding one more day at Church is not that much to add, and having it be from a different teacher and different perspective (ie church vs school) only adds to the experience, I think. Ditto for the hour spent in the home. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

But, the kids shut down when they are being pressured to read 3 different books of scripture at the same time.

This was my thought, focus on getting one scripture read a year.

Might be wise for SS teachers to coordinate with Seminary ones and send to parents emails  or have a website listing what they did for parents to check.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Calm

[tulip]

My kids already complain about Sunday School being the same as family study.   I barely get them to go to seminary so this may be the final straw.

[Traela]

16 hours ago, tulip said:

My kids already complain about Sunday School being the same as family study.   I barely get them to go to seminary so this may be the final straw.

Their Sunday School teachers need to up their game, then.  The SS manual takes discussion of the material in a different direction from the home study manual.

 

[Calm]

Perhaps Saints are too used to studying scriptures shallowly.  I took Isaiah as the sole topic one semester and loved it.  The indepth examination was much more interesting than just picking a few verses here and there to emphasize.