New BYU/CES Religious Curriculum

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Cowards. Why wasn't section 1 called, "Polygamy, teen brides and other things we don't want you to know about"?

#TeamMoli #TeamSantos #TeamER

[Walter Sobchak]

It doesn't matter what they title the sections (or that the curriculum changes at all), because other than the fact that the courses continue to offer an easy A... no one really cares about the content.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Cowards. Why wasn't section 1 called, "Polygamy, teen brides and other things we don't want you to know about"?

#TeamMoli #TeamSantos #TeamER

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Here you want me on your side, in the other forum you mock me. You are a fickle son of a gun.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here you want me on your side, in the other forum you mock me. You are a fickle son of a gun.

HFN, you know I will always love you.

[Topper]

Simply put, students will no longer be offered an Old Testament class, D&C class, New testament class, etc?

If we eliminate those classes, nobody will have to learn about polygamy. It seems like a logical choice for exclusion.

[Topper]

Interesting response:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpr...cal-tradition/

Very insightful.

[Uncle Ted]

Peggy gives the reader's digest version of all the blog postings on the new curriculum...

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...ses-curriculum

[Clark Addison]

I think this is a bad thing, but I don't think it will really change much. It is just formalizing the shift in how most Mormons have studied scriptures over the last few decades.

I was thinking of this thread in relation to the innoculation thread. A couple of people there posted something like "Haven't these people ever read D&C 132?" And the answer is that no, of course they haven't. Or rather they haven't read the entire thing, understanding what was going on, and with the full context. Instead, they've read bits and pieces of it in various Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society lessons. They know verse 15:

Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

because they have read it in lessons on eternal marriage.

And they know verse 39:

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

because they read it in sunday school during the old testament year, so we know the extent of David's sins.

But when we study the D&C in gospel doctrine, the lesson that contains section 132 isn't called "Joseph Smith Introduces Polygamy" or something. It is called “Sealed … for Time and for All Eternity” and includes only verses 4-33 of section 132. All of the good stuff is excluded. The entire focus of the lesson is on eternal marriage.

This is really how we have done it for years and years, so in my mind, all this does is recognize the way things already are. The only book of scripture that the vast majority of LDS members read straight through (if any) is the Book of Mormon. There are a few progressives and intellectuals out there who read the New Testament, but that's about it. It is a little sad, because for a lot of people, a BYU or institute class is really the only place they have to really dive into the old testament or D&C. But in reality, they aren't doing it much there either. When I took an old testament class at BYU, we really didn't get that much more into Job than your typical sunday school lesson of "Job was good because when his friends told him to turn his back on God he didn't". I actually learned a lot more about Job when I took a "Bible as Literature", which was in the English department, rather than than religious education.

I also realize I am different than the average member, though. I would enjoy delving into the OT more, but most people have no interest. They want to look at the scriptures as ways to make their life better (or, if you are cynical, to justify their life choices). This change is probably in line with what most members would prefer. It just doesn't, in my opinion, belong in a college course.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Excellent post, Clark.

[Walter Sobchak]

In today's episode of "As The Monkey Turns":

creekster doesn't go to SS for years, then discovers when called to be GD teacher that the lessons aren't all that good. lol.

(Edit: looks like creek removed his post. It was so insightful too. )

[creekster]

In today's episode of "As The Monkey Turns":

creekster doesn't go to SS for years, then discovers when called to be GD teacher that the lessons aren't all that good. lol.

(Edit: looks like creek removed his post. It was so insightful too. )

Your reading comprehension isn't very good. I said I hadn't attended Gospel Doctrine class. That is not to say I wasn't in sunday school or otherwise engaged in a church activity. Thanks for offering the compliment on my removed post. I know that you are sort of an expert in the act of removing posts, right?

My main point was, as you might have noticed (or maybe you didn't), that Clark made an excellent point and that it is very difficult to do justice to a study of the scriptures using current lesson plans and in the time allotted.

[Walter Sobchak]

Sort of an expert? Say my name. I'm a goddam expert.

[Uncle Ted]

Good post, Clark.

This is really how we have done it for years and years, so in my mind, all this does is recognize the way things already are. The only book of scripture that the vast majority of LDS members read straight through (if any) is the Book of Mormon. There are a few progressives and intellectuals out there who read the New Testament, but that's about it. It is a little sad, because for a lot of people, a BYU or institute class is really the only place they have to really dive into the old testament or D&C. But in reality, they aren't doing it much there either. When I took an old testament class at BYU, we really didn't get that much more into Job than your typical sunday school lesson of "Job was good because when his friends told him to turn his back on God he didn't". I actually learned a lot more about Job when I took a "Bible as Literature", which was in the English department, rather than than religious education.

Maybe the ancient scripture faculty can get jobs with the English department and more LDS students will study at U of Utah...

Utah Class To Examine Book Of Mormon As Literature

If a University of Utah student wanted to discuss the Book of Mormon, it's safe to say they'd find no shortage of opportunities in the college's hometown of Salt Lake City.


But for the first time this fall, they'll have a chance to look at the text for a whole semester from an academic standpoint – where the goal is understanding, not conversion.


They'll gain "an appreciation for the complexity and beauty of this text that's had an impact on millions of people," said David Bokovoy, professor of the course, which will be offered to graduate, undergraduate and continuing studies students. "It doesn't matter whether the person considers the claims for ancient authenticity are legitimate."
[...]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3764356.html


Maybe this explains why a lot of apostles are Utah grads?

[SCcoug]

Good post, Clark.



Maybe the ancient scripture faculty can get jobs with the English department and more LDS students will study at U of Utah...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3764356.html


Maybe this explains why a lot of apostles are Utah grads?

Because they knew Utah would offer this class 65 years after they graduated?