Stop popping off, woman

[Rosebud]

So when you use the word backwards, you don't mean to imply that the church is backward.

Not at all.

By backwards you're suggesting that rather than study/instruct the scriptures without preconception, the church is reverse engineering their doctrines to come up with lessons?

Or that when the correlation department writes the lessons, they begin with a list of doctrines they wish to explicate instead of beginning with the scriptures and the words of the prophets. So the doctrines aren't reverse engineered, so to speak, but the lessons are. The doctrines themselves are definite and mostly unchanging (at least since the beginning of correlation in the late 50s IIRC). The lessons use the scriptures and the words of the prophets to substantiate the doctrines.

Forwards and backwards are probably the wrong words to use because "backwards" can have a negative connotation. None is intended, however.

[Rosebud]

This is the single most frustrating aspect of correlation. Why can't correlation simply mean that as a church we all study the same passages from whatever text we're covering that year?

AFAIK that is how it was done in the pre-correlation era. Interestingly, the ward RS presidencies also reported to the stake RS presidencies instead of the bishop. There was a female chain of authority up to the general RS presidency. We also had the right to write our own manuals and were able to write and sell our own magazines and manage the money ourselves. Priesthood correlation changed all of that. I hope I'm getting all of my facts right. I'm not exactly looking up and quoting sources here.

[Solon]

Not at all.



Or that when the correlation department writes the lessons, they begin with a list of doctrines they wish to explicate instead of beginning with the scriptures and the words of the prophets. So the doctrines aren't reverse engineered, so to speak, but the lessons are. The doctrines themselves are definite and mostly unchanging (at least since the beginning of correlation in the late 50s IIRC). The lessons use the scriptures and the words of the prophets to substantiate the doctrines.

Forwards and backwards are probably the wrong words to use because "backwards" can have a negative connotation. None is intended, however.

I agree with this generally. The lessons are organized around a predetermined theme with various supporting scriptures and anecdotes cherry-picked from the assigned section of scripture for the week. It's the theme, not the scripture section that is most important. Often, it's a theme that wasn't necessarily relevant to those who composed or act in the text, but it is relevant to a contemporary LDS.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this organizing principle but it makes it confusing sometimes because the scriptures are often divorced from their context. On the other hand, each lesson can stand alone without depending on the previous weeks' material to make sense of the developing narrative.

[woot]

...Am I making any sense? There has to be an easier way to explain this. Sigh...

I think you've explained your position clearly, and it is one that rings true according to my experience with church manuals.

On a related note, the church history institute manual is an abomination. It led to a lot of questioning when I took that class at BYU. Hopefully they've gotten rid of that since then (circa 2002).

[Katy Lied]

The way i taught the lesson today, Miriam was the instigator. 1. The scriptures mention her first (From memory): "Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses..." 2. The verb "spake" in hebrew in the texts is the feminine verb, harkening to Miriam more than Aaron.

[pellegrino]

Not at all.



Or that when the correlation department writes the lessons, they begin with a list of doctrines they wish to explicate instead of beginning with the scriptures and the words of the prophets. So the doctrines aren't reverse engineered, so to speak, but the lessons are. The doctrines themselves are definite and mostly unchanging (at least since the beginning of correlation in the late 50s IIRC). The lessons use the scriptures and the words of the prophets to substantiate the doctrines.

Forwards and backwards are probably the wrong words to use because "backwards" can have a negative connotation. None is intended, however.

Perhaps deductive vs inductive is a more correct way of referring to it.

AFAIK that is how it was done in the pre-correlation era. Interestingly, the ward RS presidencies also reported to the stake RS presidencies instead of the bishop. There was a female chain of authority up to the general RS presidency. We also had the right to write our own manuals and were able to write and sell our own magazines and manage the money ourselves. Priesthood correlation changed all of that. I hope I'm getting all of my facts right. I'm not exactly looking up and quoting sources here.

As far as I know all of this is correct. Correlation basically killed all the autonomy the RS had. IIRC the general RS president was a lifetime calling, much like the prophet. The Sunday School was also run on a stake level and SS presidents were responsible to the Stake organization, which was responsible for curriculum. Really Correlation has made those stake level callings (RS, SS, YM/YW) perfunctory and obsolete. Outside of ward conference they do very very little, and all they really do there is show up and make sure everyone is following the manuals.

[Rosebud]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this organizing principle but it makes it confusing sometimes because the scriptures are often divorced from their context.

It's helpful for me to think about the correlation phenomenon within the context of familiar history, too. It was originally implemented during the post-WWII era of idealism. Harold B. Lee, its prime instigator, rather idealistically believed that it was necessary to clarify and standardize church doctrines in order to avoid miscommunications among our own people and to simplify everything so that people of other cultures could more easily adopt the unfamiliar.

On the other hand, each lesson can stand alone without depending on the previous weeks' material to make sense of the developing narrative.

Agreed. There's definitely a practical side to it. Seeing correlation in the most positive light, I think Lee standardized usage of words like "faith" and words "the prophet" with the intent of improving communication and therefore making it easier to carry the "truth" to the world. Did I just say that? Getting repetitive again, sorry....

On a more negative side, the standardization of words and doctrines has falsely given us the idea that the principles we learn on Sundays are unequivocal and timeless. We've had the definitions of "faith" and "prophets" drilled into us so many times, for example, that we get the false idea that god himself clearly defined the concepts before the creation of the world and that all the prophets across time have understood them similarly. Then, when we run into verifiable historical discrepancies, we feel out-of-balance and defensive because our standardized, correlated belief-systems are based on the idea that doctrine has always been constant.

[I.J. Reilly]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm on a bit of a correlation kick...

Made it through the Daymon Smith and Brad Kramer conversations, did you?

Have you read through Daymon's dissertation?

[Rosebud]

Made it through the Daymon Smith and Brad Kramer conversations, did you?

Yep

Have you read through Daymon's dissertation?

Not all of it. I've decided to skip on to the meat next time I have a chance to sit down to it. The beginning is a just bit tedious. SIEQ would probably really appreciate it, though.

I was fascinated by his insight into the way the polygamy underground was dealt with discursively. I'm actually not sure I'm even using that word right, but Daymon is totally into using it so I figured I'd try to, too.

[Moliere]

On a more negative side, the standardization of words and doctrines has falsely given us the idea that the principles we learn on Sundays are unequivocal and timeless. We've had the definitions of "faith" and "prophets" drilled into us so many times, for example, that we get the false idea that god himself clearly defined the concepts before the creation of the world and that all the prophets across time have understood them similarly. Then, when we run into verifiable historical discrepancies, we feel out-of-balance and defensive because our standardized, correlated belief-systems are based on the idea that doctrine has always been constant.

This might be my favorite paragraph on CUF. It sums up my "beef" with church instruction and lessons.

I remember sitting in SS and hearing the story about David and his buddies that refused the kings meat and the teacher used that point to talk about how the word of wisdom is an eternal law and was in force during the OT. I also remember many, many discussions in seminary on what type of wine Jesus used in the NT. Obviously we came to the conclusion that it was "new" wine since he obviously wouldn't have used wine with alcohol.

[Indy Coug]

It's always fun to see the tolerance for the differing opinions expressed in SS.

[Surfah]

It's always fun to see the tolerance for the differing opinions expressed in SS.

Pretty much. Also, I need to pay attention more during SS and EQ to pick up on some of these nuggets I am missing.

[wuapinmon]

It's always fun to see the tolerance for the differing opinions expressed in SS.

Differing opinions ≠ unsubstantiated doctrine. The crap I heard yesterday is someone's interpolation of Divine chauvinism into the Gospel.

[Indy Coug]

Differing opinions ≠ unsubstantiated doctrine. The crap I heard yesterday is someone's interpolation of Divine chauvinism into the Gospel.

So you disagreed with it, and stated your different take on the situation. Hopefully it was also done tactfully and without the spirit of contention. That's what SS is for. All of this "I don't want to be in this class anymore" because someone has the gall to express an opinion counter to your own smacks of emotional, intellectual and spiritual immaturity.

[wuapinmon]

So you disagreed with it, and stated your different take on the situation. Hopefully it was also done tactfully and without the spirit of contention. That's what SS is for. All of this "I don't want to be in this class anymore" because someone has the gall to express an opinion counter to your own smacks of emotional, intellectual and spiritual immaturity.

Interesting, since I never said that I didn't want to be in the class anymore; in fact, I said that I felt like it was important for me to be there to counter this kind of inanity. This might help you.

Furthermore, as an uber-orthodox member yourself, you'd think that you would be opposed to people spouting off opinion as the "teacher" when it is patently clear that it is an interpolation of heterodoxy into the 'truth.'