Come Follow Me Changes

[kllindley]

So, I just saw this announcement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/adults-youth-children-to-study-book-of-mormon-in-2024-using-single-manual

I immediately felt very discouraged and frustrated. After that initial reaction, I have tried to withhold judgment. I can see some ways that it *might* be possible to do this well. It's just that I've already been disappointed with the how lessons have been going in the church recently, though I fully accept that it may just be an issue with our ward. 

What thoughts do you all have?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, I just saw this announcement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/adults-youth-children-to-study-book-of-mormon-in-2024-using-single-manual

I immediately felt very discouraged and frustrated. After that initial reaction, I have tried to withhold judgment. I can see some ways that it *might* be possible to do this well. It's just that I've already been disappointed with the how lessons have been going in the church recently, though I fully accept that it may just be an issue with our ward. 

What thoughts do you all have?

That it’s been awhile since you have been here and glad to see you.

I did not like it when they started having 8 and older girls come to the women’s session, even though I am all for having events that help girls anticipate and feel a part of sisterhood as early as possible, but asking 8 years to sit through a meeting where one talk might get them interested (and then they distract their sisters and mothers from listening to the rest because they are restless) and asking older women to be satisfied with less talks from senior leaders focused on them was concerning to me.  Don’t want leaders slipping into Primary Voice either, lol.

I use to wish they had Junior and Senior RS or three divisions like the guys did to allow for more timely to me discussions.

It is hard when materials are written for younger or less educated and experienced minds and the same manuals are to be the mainstay for older, more informed and experienced individuals. There are different needs in different seasons of life.  There were FHE manual lessons that did pretty well though, so it is possible, though they were also pretty basic. Repeating something like them every four years would be excruciating. 

Having little material to work with it atnleast pushes people to go exploring on their own and as long as that is not discouraged or insights found that way dismissed in discussions but also not too far afield comments taking up most of class, it could work.

The only thing that makes sense about all this to me is leadership is really trying to get self motivated, self directed individual and family gospel study going all out and they are going to keep chipping away at the church focused plank until most everyone has decided it’s time to go for it and just jump in to the ocean because there is nowhere else to go.  Church will be a support rather than the primary spiritual experience of the week, which is not a bad thing if people actually commit.

But I can’t last longer than SM and so I haven’t attended SS since Come Follow Me started, so I am a very poor judge of whether or not it works, could work in a typical ward, or what is needed to make it work though I am pretty good on what is needed for individual study and that is purpose. 
 

I hope the new manual is dang thick with lots of options in it or directions to start off exploration or at the very least heavily encourages use of modern translations of the Bible. Our kids from what I can see aren’t often taught even the limited background that my age got 50 years ago  both at church and in public school due to  literature being full of biblical references and at best from what I have seen they are taught mostly interpretations of scripture rather than how to interpret scripture themselves  (understanding of the context of the culture it was written in and of the translation they use so they understand the actual words) so they don’t really interact with the text, but what they have remembered being told about the text. My 20ish niece just told me she hates scripture reading, she is so familiar with the verses because she has read them so much, but she has no understanding of their meaning. They are empty for her. I gave her my NT translation by Thomas Wayment, I hope that helps her. Told her if she needed simpler to look at other modern translation until she found one that worked for her. I need to collect some videos to help her too. As far as I can tell, she and her husband are devout, so I was surprised to hear her say it.  If she feels like SS is going back to Primary level, she will be even more detached from learning I fear. 
 

I wish they had provided more info before they dropped this announcement.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

I don't really see a whole lot of difference from what there is now.  Much of the same things were taught in the lessons from what I could see any time I checked, but admit that wasn't often.  I found it frustrating as an SS teacher sometimes when the same things were covered in the individual as was the SS lesson because there wasn't anything new to cover, though I admit I rarely used what the manual covered, but instead covered passages within the reading that week that interested me.

So I don't really see much of a change. They can still have suggestions for youth, younger and older children in the lessons.  This just means in places where they have to rely on printed materials there is less printing.

[Calm]

nvm

Edited July 15, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't really see a whole lot of difference from what there is now.  Much of the same things were taught in the lessons from what I could see any time I checked, but admit that wasn't often.  I found it frustrating as an SS teacher sometimes when the same things were covered in the individual as was the SS lesson because there wasn't anything new to cover, though I admit I rarely used what the manual covered, but instead covered passages within the reading that week that interested me.

So I don't really see much of a change. They can still have suggestions for youth, younger and older children in the lessons.  This just means in places where they have to rely on printed materials there is less printing.

Okay, now I really got myself confused. Unless you have the 2024 BoM manual you are not seeing the new version yet if I understand them correctly.  So what are you referring to?  Just what was reported?

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Okay, now I really got myself confused. Unless you have the 2024 BoM manual you are not seeing the new version yet if I understand them correctly.  So what are you referring to?  Just what was reported?

Correct. In teaching primary some years and teaching SS this last year I would study from what I was teaching instead of studying the individual one.  But occasionally I would go to the individual out of curiosity to see the difference or to see if there was something I was more interested in.  On those times I really didn't find a big difference in what was taught between the two. The biggest difference was primary had it broken down into younger and older children with age appropriate ideas and activities.  That could easily all be put into one manual.

[MustardSeed]

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher is so dry. He’s probably teaching exactly the way the church wants him to, but I hate it. He asks exact questions that are in the manual.
With creativity and depth, a skilled adult leader for an adult class can lead a rousing discussion from a primary manual.  Without it, you’ve got an hour of life you’ll rue never getting back. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher is so dry. He’s probably teaching exactly the way the church wants him to, but I hate it. He asks exact questions that are in the manual.
With creativity and depth, a skilled adult leader for an adult class can lead a rousing discussion from a primary manual.  Without it, you’ve got an hour of life you’ll rue never getting back. 

Yes, with gospel doctrine I very rarely took from the lesson itself.  Sometimes topics, but often in reading the scriptures I found there were better topics or I found I wanted to handle the topics in a different way. One good thing about that is when the SS lesson was repeating the individual it wasn't just repetition. 

And just in case anyone thinks that by choosing different topics I wasn't following the rules, the beginnings of the lessons said things like this, "Remember to begin your preparation to teach by prayerfully reading Joseph Smith—Matthew 1; Matthew 24–25; Mark 12–13; and Luke 21. Seek inspiration on your own, and then review this outline for additional ideas."

Edited July 15, 2023 by Rain

[bluebell]

I’m wary of this change. I hope the new manual is good. 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m wary of this change. I hope the new manual is good. 

I have to admit I don't like Come Follow Me.  I just don't see this much different. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Our Gospel Doctrine teacher is so dry. He’s probably teaching exactly the way the church wants him to, but I hate it. He asks exact questions that are in the manual.
With creativity and depth, a skilled adult leader for an adult class can lead a rousing discussion from a primary manual.  Without it, you’ve got an hour of life you’ll rue never getting back. 

This is interesting because our teacher asks the exact questions in the Teacher Manual, but this typically leads to very insightful discussion, often prompted by his response to what the class members share and how he conveys it to the chalkboard. I see in this a form of shared revelation that more often than not results in new appreciation and insights. Follow-up discussion after class. And even personal improvements in how the class members participate, for example, shy people begin to share, the know-it-alls begin to back off and listen, the jesters become a bit more reverent.

[Rain]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

This is interesting because our teacher asks the exact questions in the Teacher Manual, but this typically leads to very insightful discussion, often prompted by his response to what the class members share and how he conveys it to the chalkboard. I see in this a form of shared revelation that more often than not results in new appreciation and insights. Follow-up discussion after class. And even personal improvements in how the class members participate, for example, shy people begin to share, the know-it-alls begin to back off and listen, the jesters become a bit more reverent.

I wonder if it matters about the ward makeup. Many of those questions have left my ward staring at me and bored. 

Questions can be very difficult to form sometimes. You want questions that people can trust you in answering them.  That not only cause them to answer, but also cause them to think. You also have to have an idea of how many students are actually reading the lesson.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, I just saw this announcement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/adults-youth-children-to-study-book-of-mormon-in-2024-using-single-manual

I immediately felt very discouraged and frustrated. After that initial reaction, I have tried to withhold judgment. I can see some ways that it *might* be possible to do this well. It's just that I've already been disappointed with the how lessons have been going in the church recently, though I fully accept that it may just be an issue with our ward. 

What thoughts do you all have?

Because we are to study individually, as a couple/family and then in a Church class, how the lessons go in each setting depends on the various dynamics (self, couple/parents/home, teacher/Church) involving the Holy Spirit. I've noticed a reminder in the linked article of the many other resources available, and that the CFM articles in the Liahona of late have become a bit meatier (seems to me).

One of our SS teachers reads the individual CFM and then prepares a lesson from the Teacher Manual (leads/teaches by example). Soemtimes scans the Teacher Manual to give assignments the week ahead. There have been a number of talks in the last couple of years, notable by President Nelson, on how to learn by the Spirit.

I can only speak to my own experience with CFM and the 2nd hour meetings, but if i were disappointed over and over, I would talk with someone about it. I recall there was one very negative individual that ruined a couple of classes, and concerned people spoke to leadership about it. Not sure what happened about that since they left the ward pretty quick! Problem solved, I guess  !!!

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

I wonder if it matters about the ward makeup. Many of those questions have left my ward staring at me and bored. 

Questions can be very difficult to form sometimes. You want questions that people can trust you in answering them.  That not only cause them to answer, but also cause them to think. You also have to have an idea of how many students are actually reading the lesson.

Yes, I agree a group dynamic is key.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

I have to admit I don't like Come Follow Me.  I just don't see this much different. 

It's not my favorite either.  And I'm worried that this new "lowest common denominator" way of teaching scripture is doing to make it worse.

As it is now, it seems to be very focused on "how does this make you feel" or "how can we apply this scripture in our lives" stuff, which I think is important and useful.  But I also think that it can perpetuate the taking of scriptures out of context and keep us from really understanding what the original writers of scripture were trying to say or teach and how ancient day saints understood things.  I think context and scriptural scholarship can help give scripture common authority in our lives, and provide something to latch on to that is independent from our personal experiences (which again, are also very important, but not the be-all-end-all of scripture learning in my opinion).

In individual study, having personal experience inform us on how to interpret scripture in our lives makes sense to me.  In Sunday School, though where we are trying to learn in a unified environment that is applicable to the church as a whole, it makes sense to me to focus less on what Bro. Soandso gets out of a verse and more on what the writer was trying to say, and what the context implies, etc. 

Plus, I would really appreciate a lesson manual that doesn't pretend like the problematic or difficult scriptural verses don't exist.  That frustrates me to no end.  It's like having a huge elephant in the room that we are all being asked to ignore.  It can feel patronizing to me--like they are hoping that we don't notice the elephant because we couldn't possibly deal with it.  I can't imagine that a new lesson manual that is going to be used for 3 year olds is going to handle that better than our old one has.

We've already had some iffy stuff taught in our SS lessons (a book on the spurious books list the church put out a few years ago has even been quoted) so sometimes I would appreciate some authoritative pushback from a lesson manual, rather than the free-for-all that it can turn into, with everyone presenting personal ideas as if they were all equally valid (or worse, with the teacher presenting personal ideas that are no more authoritative than anyone else's, but which gain an authoritative glow simply by virtue of being presented by the person in charge of the learning for the group).

I've noticed that when I do get to attend a really good SS lesson, the teacher has not used the lesson manual very much.  No going rogue or anything, and still a focus on regular church doctrine, but less following the outline of the manual has produced a better product most of the time.  I'm not sure why exactly.

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, I just saw this announcement:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/adults-youth-children-to-study-book-of-mormon-in-2024-using-single-manual

I immediately felt very discouraged and frustrated. After that initial reaction, I have tried to withhold judgment. I can see some ways that it *might* be possible to do this well. It's just that I've already been disappointed with the how lessons have been going in the church recently, though I fully accept that it may just be an issue with our ward. 

What thoughts do you all have?

I have been teaching Gospel Doctrine for a few months now and have mostly just been teaching from the scriptures that are to be covered and have not used much from the manual.
I have used some of the additional materials and videos that are suggested in it. I think I can pretty much keep doing the same thing with the new manual. 
It's not like the Teaching from the Presidents of the Church manuals we had years ago when you had to use what was in the manuals. Now the manual is the scriptures. 

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not my favorite either.  And I'm worried that this new "lowest common denominator" way of teaching scripture is doing to make it worse.

As it is now, it seems to be very focused on "how does this make you feel" or "how can we apply this scripture in our lives" stuff, which I think is important and useful.  But I also think that it can perpetuate the taking of scriptures out of context and keep us from really understanding what the original writers of scripture were trying to say or teach and how ancient day saints understood things.  I think context and scriptural scholarship can help give scripture common authority in our lives, and provide something to latch on to that is independent from our personal experiences (which again, are also very important, but not the be-all-end-all of scripture learning in my opinion).

In individual study, having personal experience inform us on how to interpret scripture in our lives makes sense to me.  In Sunday School, though where we are trying to learn in a unified environment that is applicable to the church as a whole, it makes sense to me to focus less on what Bro. Soandso gets out of a verse and more on what the writer was trying to say, and what the context implies, etc. 

Plus, I would really appreciate a lesson manual that doesn't pretend like the problematic or difficult scriptural verses don't exist.  That frustrates me to no end.  It's like having a huge elephant in the room that we are all being asked to ignore.  It can feel patronizing to me--like they are hoping that we don't notice the elephant because we couldn't possibly deal with it.  I can't imagine that a new lesson manual that is going to be used for 3 year olds is going to handle that better than our old one has.

My lack of worry stems from thinking the adult manuals were already pretty much on the 3 year old level.

It was completely frustrating to just have those hard passages in the assigned scriptures skipped on the lessons. In one lesson I taught CFM had you read specific scriptures to share a story in class, completely skipping a part in the middle that may have been hard for some members to deal with.  Because the assigned scriptures included that I didn't leave that out. Afterwards someone came up to me and said it was so cool that the church was teaching this. I didn't have the heart to tell him it was skipped in CFM. 

 

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We've already had some iffy stuff taught in our SS lessons (a book on the spurious books list the church put out a few years ago has even been quoted) so sometimes I would appreciate some authoritative pushback from a lesson manual, rather than the free-for-all that it can turn into, with everyone presenting personal ideas as if they were all equally valid (or worse, with the teacher presenting personal ideas that are no more authoritative than anyone else's, but which gain an authoritative glow simply by virtue of being presented by the person in charge of the learning for the group).

I've noticed that when I do get to attend a really good SS lesson, the teacher has not used the lesson manual very much.  No going rogue or anything, and still a focus on regular church doctrine, but less following the outline of the manual has produced a better product most of the time.  I'm not sure why exactly.

Part is because the lesson just contained so little of the reading.  The assigned reading sometimes had a lot to cover, especially in the OT. As a teacher you usually spend more time studying than as a student so you pick up on a lot of things the outline misses.

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I have been teaching Gospel Doctrine for a few months now and have mostly just been teaching from the scriptures that are to be covered and have not used much from the manual.
I have used some of the additional materials and videos that are suggested in it. I think I can pretty much keep doing the same thing with the new manual. 
It's not like the Teaching from the Presidents of the Church manuals we had years ago when you had to use what was in the manuals. Now the manual is the scriptures. 

Exactly. I think some teachers are either not comfortable with teaching concepts not covered in CFM, but are in the scriptures or they just don't take the time to study more than the CFM specific scriptures. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

In one lesson I taught CFM had you read specific scriptures to share a story in class, completely skipping a part in the middle that may have been hard for some members to deal with.  Because the assigned scriptures included that I didn't leave that out. Afterwards someone came up to me and said it was so cool that the church was teaching this. I didn't have the heart to tell him it was skipped in CFM. 

 

Ah, that makes me a little sad.  I wouldn't have wanted to burst their bubble either.

We've heard the phrase "good information leads to good inspiration" a lot when it comes to callings and stuff like that, but I think it equally applies to scripture study.  I know our leaders want us to study and use the spirit to learn, but we need good information to help the spirit teach us!

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I recall there was one very negative individual that ruined a couple of classes, and concerned people spoke to leadership about it. Not sure what happened about that since they left the ward pretty quick! Problem solved, I guess  !!!

I've seen good teachers handle these kinds of situations well by knowing when to break in on a negative comment and turn it into a good discussion.  I personally would like to have a classroom setting where the harder questions can be discussed in a positive way without making the person asking the question feel bad about having the question to begin with.  But it really depends on the person's motive.  If their intent is to disrupt the class and mess it up for everyone else, then that's a different matter.

[Rain]

37 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I've seen good teachers handle these kinds of situations well by knowing when to break in on a negative comment and turn it into a good discussion.  I personally would like to have a classroom setting where the harder questions can be discussed in a positive way without making the person asking the question feel bad about having the question to begin with.  But it really depends on the person's motive.  If their intent is to disrupt the class and mess it up for everyone else, then that's a different matter.

And sometimes it is so hard to guage intent.  Often we assume the intent was disruption, but it may be something the person is really bothered by and is asking for help, but not communicating that well.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Don’t want leaders slipping into Primary Voice either, lol.

Now you hit it right on the head, right? It's like every professor,right, uses the term " right" in at least every sentence, right, in any class being taught. 

This also reminds of Brits and the use of " isn't it".

Like, saying something repetitively like " like" gets boring, right? And it's quite annoying, after awhile, isn't it!

😉

[Chum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Plus, I would really appreciate a lesson manual that doesn't pretend like the problematic or difficult scriptural verses don't exist.  That frustrates me to no end.  It's like having a huge elephant in the room that we are all being asked to ignore.  It can feel patronizing to me--like they are hoping that we don't notice the elephant because we couldn't possibly deal with it. 

I could never upvote this enough. Stuff that isn't easily explained is interesting. It begs in-depth conversation and has all the potential to lift a lesson.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Chum

[Chum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

the teacher presenting personal ideas that are no more authoritative than anyone else's, but which gain an authoritative glow simply by virtue of being presented by the person in charge of the learning for the group

Ugh. I don't know what natural process is supposed to discourage this but I suspect it needs a kick.

[JLHPROF]

Of course the adult curriculum can be the same as the children's.  We wouldn't want the adult membership studying anything deeper than primary children or first principles.

It's not like the average adult membership actually know much about doctrine or history.  I wish most members bothered to study and discuss like many of our board.  We might have less being led astray - the massive number of "where will you go" videos on TikTok is insane.