2022 'come, follow me' manual for the old testament is now available

[Dan McClellan]

The 2022 Come, Follow Me manual for the Old Testament was released yesterday. A PDF of the volume for individuals and families is available here. I had the privilege of consulting with the curriculum writers on this volume, and I think it is a significant improvement on past manuals. The review and approval process here is long and complex, and not everything I advocated for made it through that process, but I think this manual will facilitate much better and more productive engagement with the Old Testament. I especially like the "Thoughts to Keep in Mind" segments that appear between every few lessons. 

I'd be happy to pass along any feedback to the writers. 

[JustAnAustralian]

Do you know if there's going to be a historical resources companion like there has been for the Doctrine and Covenants study?

Or is there something similar? Not necessarily a large scale commentary, but even just something like Kevin Barney's NT footnotes or the Maxwell Institute study version of BoM?

[Dan McClellan]

10 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Do you know if there's going to be a historical resources companion like there has been for the Doctrine and Covenants study?

Or is there something similar? Not necessarily a large scale commentary, but even just something like Kevin Barney's NT footnotes or the Maxwell Institute study version of BoM?

This was something for which I advocated early on, but so far no such plans have been made. I'm hoping at the very least we can coordinate some Liahona articles with the lessons that can provide additional background and context for at least the more complex portions of the OT.

[MrShorty]

Whenever a new OT manual is released, my first place to look is the creation/fall/flood lessons. My first faith "crisis" (that's probably too strong, but it should communicate the idea) was back in my BYU evolution class when I had to finally give up on the creationism that I learned in seminary and Sunday school during the '80s, so I want to see how new manuals address the issue (if at all). I was pleased to see this manual open the creation lesson with a statement from Elder Christopherson trying to state that the Church has no position on the "mechanics" of creation.

Unfortunately, I notice that the old Institute manual for the Old Testament course is still among the officially sanctioned supplementary materials. I and others have long noted that this manual's lesson on creation is very biased towards creationism. Even though the Church officially says that it takes no position (reference again Elder Christopherson's quote above), it seems that the Church has also long had an unofficial preference for creationism as seen in this old but still sanctioned manual.

I'm not sure I can make any solid recommendations. I know the Church does not like to come right out and contradict what has been published in past manuals or taught by past leaders, but sometimes I wish it would. Perhaps I would be less concerned if somewhere in those officially sanctioned supplementary materials was something like the BYU evolution packet that presented a pro-evolution viewpoint to counter-balance the pro-creation viewpoint in the institute manual. I am reasonably confident that the Church is officially neutral towards evolution, but I think there are still many in the Church who believe there is an underlying "unofficial" position that is pro-creationism/anti-evolution, and I find it rather difficult to find officially sanctioned sources that clearly articulate that there isn't some unofficial position waiting to be ratified when the evolutionists finally get chased out of the Church. (Okay, that last was a bit of an extreme caricature).

[Stormin' Mormon]

The Seminary teacher's manuals have some GREAT book-by-book overviews for the Bible.  Each book of the Bible (except for 1 and 2 Chronicles, which get combined into a single entry) gets the following treatment:

• Why study this book?
• Who wrote this book?
• When and where was it written?
• What are some distinctive features of this book?
• Outline

I've cut-and-paste each of those individual entries into a single Word document, and plan to use that document as a resource for my Come Follow Me study in 2022 (Old Testament) and 2023 (New Testament).  I've attached a pdf of that document, in case any one is interested.  (I don't know what the copyright implications here are.  But to be perfectly clear: all of this content comes from various parts of the OT and NT seminary teacher manuals).

Bible Study Guide.pdf

[Jamie]

5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The 2022 Come, Follow Me manual for the Old Testament was released yesterday. A PDF of the volume for individuals and families is available here. I had the privilege of consulting with the curriculum writers on this volume, and I think it is a significant improvement on past manuals. The review and approval process here is long and complex, and not everything I advocated for made it through that process, but I think this manual will facilitate much better and more productive engagement with the Old Testament. I especially like the "Thoughts to Keep in Mind" segments that appear between every few lessons. 

I'd be happy to pass along any feedback to the writers. 

Nice to see that Adam and Eve and Enoch and Noah and Melchizedek, etc, are still considered to have been real, individual people (shown in some charts in the beginning of the manual).  I also like all the suggestions about how to use the manual, too.

I expect the source material is still the same as it has been for, what is it now, about 2000 years, including what Joseph Smith and other prophets of this dispensation added years ago?  Anything brand spanking new for this year?  I'll probably be reading it slowly over the course of this next year, 1 lesson per week, but if anything in there is brand spanking new, never before released to the church or the general public, please tell me right now and I'll read all of that information first as soon as I can get to it. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by Jamie

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Whenever a new OT manual is released, my first place to look is the creation/fall/flood lessons. My first faith "crisis" (that's probably too strong, but it should communicate the idea) was back in my BYU evolution class when I had to finally give up on the creationism that I learned in seminary and Sunday school during the '80s, so I want to see how new manuals address the issue (if at all).

This is very astute. I think what the Church does (and does not do) in the manuals is a good way to view the current correlation setting, no matter what other messages are percolating. For example (and to the chagrin of some), the Book of Mormon manual infamously contained a brief statement about dark skin as a curse in its 2 Nephi 5 section. After the blogosphere went nuts, the Church changed the online version, but did not issue a recall and reprint of the print version. This was not nearly good enough for those whom it bothered, but there it stood --- probably the best needle-threading that could be done between two polarized camps. 

As you point out, the needle-threading with evolution and the flood takes place in the coming OT manual. There has to be some balancing that doesn't 100% satisfy polarized camps. 

38 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Unfortunately, I notice that the old Institute manual for the Old Testament course is still among the officially sanctioned supplementary materials. I and others have long noted that this manual's lesson on creation is very biased towards creationism. Even though the Church officially says that it takes no position (reference again Elder Christopherson's quote above), it seems that the Church has also long had an unofficial preference for creationism as seen in this old but still sanctioned manual.

There are other signs of this, too --- other data points. For all of the "no position" and needle-threading statements, the (heavily pro-global flood) Parry article in the Ensign remains the only Church magazine treatment. As you point out, the CES manuals tend to be more conservative than gospel doctrine ones in the same way that BYU-I is more traditional and conservative than BYU-P.

President Nelson has also written and said things that anger evolutionists. 

41 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure I can make any solid recommendations. I know the Church does not like to come right out and contradict what has been published in past manuals or taught by past leaders, but sometimes I wish it would. Perhaps I would be less concerned if somewhere in those officially sanctioned supplementary materials was something like the BYU evolution packet that presented a pro-evolution viewpoint to counter-balance the pro-creation viewpoint in the institute manual. I am reasonably confident that the Church is officially neutral towards evolution, but I think there are still many in the Church who believe there is an underlying "unofficial" position that is pro-creationism/anti-evolution

I'm not sure how the needle could be better threaded, either. 

You raise an interesting question about opportunity cost calculus. Would it be better to:

a) go whole hog for the "enlightened" modern view --- embrace evolution, higher criticism, etc.

or

b) continue to cater more to the traditional/conservative view?

What would be the opportunity cost of both a) and b)? How low are the drawbacks for each, and how high are the potential gains? With either one, the "losing" side has to come to terms with and deal with the "loss" --- mostly continuing in their view while acknowledging that the "other view" has the unwritten or quasi-official upper hand. 

It's probably best the way it is and has been done. 

[MrShorty]

My second faith "crisis" (getting a little closer to accurate) was triggered by my own issues around sexuality (mostly good-boy/good-girl type issues as Laura Brotherson called it), so my second look for new manual is the lesson(s) the would address sexuality and chastity. The big OT stories seem to be the Joseph and Potiphar's wife story (Gen 39 in March) and the David and Bathsheeba store (2 Sam in June). In the past I have seen pushback against the way we tend to handle these stories from some of the sexology circles I frequent. Some of this pushback has been front and center in the last few weeks as people begin to anticipate the June 2020 youth lesson on pornography. I notice that many of the same video resources (such as the "Watch Your Step" video included in the June 2021 lesson) were criticized when used for the June 2020 lesson. These criticisms are often around questions of whether or not the lesson has a positive, affirming approach to sexuality or is it fear/shame based. Whether it normalizes sexual feelings and behaviors or pathologizes them. There are other criticisms as well. I am not qualified to comment on them, but I expect that many of these same criticisms would likely come up for these future lessons just as they have for this year's youth pornography lesson.

I have no suggestions to offer (I'm probably a bit of a poisoned well on this topic). As many active, believing therapists as I see push back against what is often included in these lessons, if the curriculum writers have not yet sought out constructive criticism of some of these therapists and sexologists, that might be my only recommendation. The hardest part of this criticism is whether or not the curriculum writers would be willing to consider the opinions of those who are already known to be critical of the way the Church handles sexuality and chastity lessons, or if they just want someone with an MD/LMFT/similar to rubber stamp the lessons as is. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I think there is a lot of improvement that could be made in how the Church handles sexuality/chastity without violating the moral principles the Church holds to, if the Church is willing to explore what those improvements might look like.

[Jamie]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This is very astute. I think what the Church does (and does not do) in the manuals is a good way to view the current correlation setting, no matter what other messages are percolating. For example (and to the chagrin of some), the Book of Mormon manual infamously contained a brief statement about dark skin as a curse in its 2 Nephi 5 section. After the blogosphere went nuts, the Church changed the online version, but did not issue a recall and reprint of the print version. This was not nearly good enough for those whom it bothered, but there it stood --- probably the best needle-threading that could be done between two polarized camps. 

As you point out, the needle-threading with evolution and the flood takes place in the coming OT manual. There has to be some balancing that doesn't 100% satisfy polarized camps. 

There are other signs of this, too --- other data points. For all of the "no position" and needle-threading statements, the (heavily pro-global flood) Parry article in the Ensign remains the only Church magazine treatment. As you point out, the CES manuals tend to be more conservative than gospel doctrine ones in the same way that BYU-I is more traditional and conservative than BYU-P.

President Nelson has also written and said things that anger evolutionists. 

I'm not sure how the needle could be better threaded, either. 

You raise an interesting question about opportunity cost calculus. Would it be better to:

a) go whole hog for the "enlightened" modern view --- embrace evolution, higher criticism, etc.

or

b) continue to cater more to the traditional/conservative view?

What would be the opportunity cost of both a) and b)? How low are the drawbacks for each, and how high are the potential gains? With either one, the "losing" side has to come to terms with and deal with the "loss" --- mostly continuing in their view while acknowledging that the "other view" has the unwritten or quasi-official upper hand. 

It's probably best the way it is and has been done. 

I understand you to be saying that when Church representatives say the Church has no position on an issue, like when Elder Christopherson said something to the effect that the Church has no position on the "mechanics" of creation, they are stating the Church has no position meaning various members of the Church have various positions and there is no unified position.  Which thus creates an atmosphere wherein Church members can feel free and comfortable having positions that other members don't have.

I believe that and once saw that as a problem, thinking all Church leaders should be trying to get all Church members to hold only one position on all issues, given the level of light we have already received, collectively, but now I think I can see why some members hold various positions on many issues.  Which is because various members have received various levels of light regarding those issues.  And since light can't be forced upon someone to make them see what they do not see, we can only state that there are some positions which all members do not agree.  And the more I see the more I see there are a lot of disagreements with people holding various positions.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Jamie

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

 

I have no suggestions to offer (I'm probably a bit of a poisoned well on this topic). As many active, believing therapists as I see push back against what is often included in these lessons, if the curriculum writers have not yet sought out constructive criticism of some of these therapists and sexologists, that might be my only recommendation. The hardest part of this criticism is whether or not the curriculum writers would be willing to consider the opinions of those who are already known to be critical of the way the Church handles sexuality and chastity lessons, or if they just want someone with an MD/LMFT/similar to rubber stamp the lessons as is. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I think there is a lot of improvement that could be made in how the Church handles sexuality/chastity without violating the moral principles the Church holds to, if the Church is willing to explore what those improvements might look like.

That seems another exercise in needle-threading.  The Church isn’t likely to take advice about how to teach chastity from people who pooh-pooh the entire notion of chastity and/or have a history of misrepresenting the Church’s actual stance on the issue; and the recent letter signed by a bunch of Mormon mental health professionals pleading for clemency for Natasha Helfer hasn’t exactly burnished the profession’s credentials for orthopraxy here.  

Edited May 20, 2021 by mgy401

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Whenever a new OT manual is released, my first place to look is the creation/fall/flood lessons. My first faith "crisis" (that's probably too strong, but it should communicate the idea) was back in my BYU evolution class when I had to finally give up on the creationism that I learned in seminary and Sunday school during the '80s, so I want to see how new manuals address the issue (if at all). I was pleased to see this manual open the creation lesson with a statement from Elder Christopherson trying to state that the Church has no position on the "mechanics" of creation.

It would be well if the Brethren could just be quoted on their repeated insistence that the mechanics of creation are symbolic and figurative (adam is not made of clay by a divine potter, eve is not made from adam's rib, etc.), and that a Protestant scholar sees the Creation and Garden stories as temple texts -- liturgy -- as they indeed are in Assyrian & Babylonian usage.  Why are the Brethren ignored and the biblical text dummed down?

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Unfortunately, I notice that the old Institute manual for the Old Testament course is still among the officially sanctioned supplementary materials. I and others have long noted that this manual's lesson on creation is very biased towards creationism. Even though the Church officially says that it takes no position (reference again Elder Christopherson's quote above), it seems that the Church has also long had an unofficial preference for creationism as seen in this old but still sanctioned manual.

I'm not sure I can make any solid recommendations. I know the Church does not like to come right out and contradict what has been published in past manuals or taught by past leaders, but sometimes I wish it would. Perhaps I would be less concerned if somewhere in those officially sanctioned supplementary materials was something like the BYU evolution packet that presented a pro-evolution viewpoint to counter-balance the pro-creation viewpoint in the institute manual. I am reasonably confident that the Church is officially neutral towards evolution, but I think there are still many in the Church who believe there is an underlying "unofficial" position that is pro-creationism/anti-evolution, and I find it rather difficult to find officially sanctioned sources that clearly articulate that there isn't some unofficial position waiting to be ratified when the evolutionists finally get chased out of the Church. (Okay, that last was a bit of an extreme caricature).

As I have pointed out many times on this board, virtually all BYU biologists are evolutionary biologists and have been for several generations.  If this were heresy, why have they not been fired?  In fact, an LDS anthropologist I know believes that evolution is merely God's method.  Biblical scholars do not credit creationsim, especially recent creationism.  It is a misreading of the Hebrew text.

[Jamie]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have pointed out many times on this board, virtually all BYU biologists are evolutionary biologists and have been for several generations.  If this were heresy, why have they not been fired?  In fact, an LDS anthropologist I know believes that evolution is merely God's method. 

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine [ . . .]. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." - Joseph Smith

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Biblical scholars do not credit creationsim, especially recent creationism.  It is a misreading of the Hebrew text.

i believe many people have some false ideas regarding how God created the heavens and the earth, including the heavens and earth on this planet.  God told Moses and Abraham that he did, and yet many people still do not believe it or understand how he did it.  The term creationism involves a set of some of those false ideas, and the term evolution does too,  Both terms include some false ideas as well as some true ideas, but taken altogether along with all of the thoughts that are associated with each term both terms do not correctly convey a true understanding of what God actually did.  Even the term God includes a lot of false ideas.  And yet people can still be good people when they don't understand the truth in every detail and are still trying to figure everything out.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The 2022 Come, Follow Me manual for the Old Testament was released yesterday. A PDF of the volume for individuals and families is available here. I had the privilege of consulting with the curriculum writers on this volume, and I think it is a significant improvement on past manuals. The review and approval process here is long and complex, and not everything I advocated for made it through that process, but I think this manual will facilitate much better and more productive engagement with the Old Testament. I especially like the "Thoughts to Keep in Mind" segments that appear between every few lessons. 

I'd be happy to pass along any feedback to the writers. 

I like the “Conversion Is Our Goal” preface. The idea is repeated in statements such as this one on p. 117 and what follows on pp 118-119:

“One perspective common to all the Old Testament

historical books is the perspective of the children

of Israel, God’s covenant people. Their faith in

the Lord helped them see His hand in their lives

and His intervention in the affairs of their nation.

While secular history books don’t tend to see

things this way, this spiritual perspective is part

of what makes the Old Testament historical books

so valuable to those who are seeking to build their

own faith in God.”

“Family history” is emphasized over and over again, more than any other reference to history.

I found it interesting that there are only two direct appeals to “scholars” (pp 141 and 193).

I like the picture of Heavenly Mother on p 246. 😊

At any rate, I like that the Church, with a format like this, gives room for the scholars to research and publish freely without being an arbiter of what members should be reading, other than sound guidance to seek reliable sources.

[Jamie]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I like the picture of Heavenly Mother on p 246. 😊

Thank you for that head's up!  So that is what she looks like.  A bit different than I have visualized or can remember.

[mgy401]

35 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Thank you for that head's up!  So that is what she looks like.  A bit different than I have visualized or can remember.

Page 252 is left deliberately blank to accommodate the forthcoming revelation that contra our earlier limited understanding, there is no Heavenly Mother—because God is gay.

[Jamie]

26 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Page 252 is left deliberately blank to accommodate the forthcoming revelation that contra our earlier limited understanding, there is no Heavenly Mother—because God is gay.

I think some women show you how wrong you are after they have been exalted and reproduce some more of us while living in heaven.   There is not only a Mother in heaven.  There are many and there are always going to be many more.

[mgy401]

17 minutes ago, Jamie said:

I think some women show you how wrong you are after they have been exalted and reproduce some more of us while living in heaven.   There is not only a Mother in heaven.  There are many and there are always going to be many more.

I was being facetious, though perhaps I shouldn’t have done so since I’m still a newcomer here.  Apologies.  

Edited May 21, 2021 by mgy401

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/20/2021 at 3:44 PM, Jamie said:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine [ . . .]. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." - Joseph Smith

i believe many people have some false ideas regarding how God created the heavens and the earth, including the heavens and earth on this planet.  God told Moses and Abraham that he did, and yet many people still do not believe it or understand how he did it.  The term creationism involves a set of some of those false ideas, and the term evolution does too,  Both terms include some false ideas as well as some true ideas, but taken altogether along with all of the thoughts that are associated with each term both terms do not correctly convey a true understanding of what God actually did.  Even the term God includes a lot of false ideas.  And yet people can still be good people when they don't understand the truth in every detail and are still trying to figure everything out.

Yes, and we cannot expect Sunday School to include sophisticated, professional lessons in biblical exegesis or advanced biology.  That would be silly and extreme, not to mention that Sunday School attendance would become rapidly unpopular.  People attend to learn familiar Gospel lessons.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

On 5/20/2021 at 10:53 AM, rongo said:

You raise an interesting question about opportunity cost calculus. Would it be better to:

a) go whole hog for the "enlightened" modern view --- embrace evolution, higher criticism, etc.

or

b) continue to cater more to the traditional/conservative view?

What would be the opportunity cost of both a) and b)? How low are the drawbacks for each, and how high are the potential gains? With either one, the "losing" side has to come to terms with and deal with the "loss" --- mostly continuing in their view while acknowledging that the "other view" has the unwritten or quasi-official upper hand. 

It's probably best the way it is and has been done.

I think time will erase the problem, as it pretty much has with polygamy and Blacks and the priesthood.

We believe in eternal progression and a path of BECOMING celestialized, and the church as an entity is no different.

We need to learn that the standard works are not a science textbook.

The sooner we realize this, all the problems with perceived conflicts like this one, Joseph's human foibles,  BOM history etc. etc. will vanish as we as a people understand that religion is about faith and finding a way of life that gives humanity meaning, and NOT about creating an encyclopedia of infallible facts- which is in itself a self-contradiction.   Facts change- priciples which give life meaning do not. 

Won't it be great when we just love God and all the side issues disappear and the world can see the fruits of BECOMING more like the ideal image God projects for us, and for our lives?

In whose Image we can become?

Why the earth would be celestialized!

Sound familiar?

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 5/20/2021 at 3:39 PM, CV75 said:

I like the picture of Heavenly Mother on p 246. 😊

 

Holy cow!  THAT is WONDERFUL!

And yet most of the pictures make Christ look odly Scottish to me.   A little more semitic would be nice. 

Oh well it takes time to update the pool of art the church uses.  Just wonder what it will be like in 100 years!!

[mfbukowski]

On 5/20/2021 at 3:39 PM, CV75 said:

I like the “Conversion Is Our Goal” preface. The idea is repeated in statements such as this one on p. 117 and what follows on pp 118-119:

“One perspective common to all the Old Testament

historical books is the perspective of the children

of Israel, God’s covenant people. Their faith in

the Lord helped them see His hand in their lives

and His intervention in the affairs of their nation.

While secular history books don’t tend to see

things this way, this spiritual perspective is part

of what makes the Old Testament historical books

so valuable to those who are seeking to build their

own faith in God.”

“Family history” is emphasized over and over again, more than any other reference to history.

I found it interesting that there are only two direct appeals to “scholars” (pp 141 and 193).

I like the picture of Heavenly Mother on p 246. 😊

At any rate, I like that the Church, with a format like this, gives room for the scholars to research and publish freely without being an arbiter of what members should be reading, other than sound guidance to seek reliable sources.

Bravissimo for you and the quote especially.

Almost "free at last" from fundamentalism !

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Oh well it takes time to update the pool of art the church uses. 

I am pretty impressed by the variety of art work, though I have a personal preference for more of the art/symbolic variety as opposed to the illustrations....but for teaching stories, illustrations are important to help visualize the scenes in some fashion....I really want to know what that black globe is in the illustration of Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream.  Looks like something out of one of Nehor's nightmares.

https://images.app.goo.gl/CAm5U676vfVbi9XW8

Edited May 24, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I really want to know what that black globe is in the illustration of Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream.  Looks like something out of one of Nehor's nightmares.

A stone cut without hands about to smite the feet of the armoured thing (verse 34)

 

or are you talking about the incense looking ball thing?

Edited May 24, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

A stone cut without hands about to smite the feet of the armoured thing (verse 34)

 

or are you talking about the incense looking ball thing?

Yes, the incense ball from hell...complete with tentacles. 🤔

Edited May 24, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Holy cow!  THAT is WONDERFUL!

And yet most of the pictures make Christ look odly Scottish to me.   A little more semitic would be nice. 

Oh well it takes time to update the pool of art the church uses.  Just wonder what it will be like in 100 years!!

I was remarking to an acquaintance awhile ago that by far, most of the world's population throughout history (God's children in the larger scheme) does not look  "oddly Scottish"...

Edited May 24, 2021 by CV75