80 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Wednesday, May 22, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
Back when her husband was our stake president it was made pretty clear to me that Heidi Swinton is putting together the PH & RS manuals. I’ve thought that they are crap for a long time, despite the recent claims in the bloggernacle that they are ok. In a way this relates to my post on the LDS Tech Talks. The Church only recently got designers involved in their web apps. This has resulted in a drastic improvement. Maybe we need instructional designers working on the manuals. |
My theory is that the manuals are written to drive you back into the scriptures. ;) |
No discussion of manual writing and correlation is complete without this gem from Dan Peterson: “Having, some time back, served on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee of the Church for nearly ten years, I would never, ever, take a Gospel Doctrine manual to be an official and binding declaration of Church doctrine. We tried to get things right, we prayed about our work, and what we did was reviewed in Salt Lake before publication, but it scarcely constituted scripture. A story: Once, the scriptural selection about which I was assigned to write a lesson included, among other things, Acts 20:7-12, in which the apostle Paul drones on for so long in the course of a sermon that a young man (ironically named Eutychus or “Fortunate”) dozes off and falls from the rafters. Paul has to restore him to life. As a joke, I inserted a passage in my lesson manuscript that read somewhat along the following lines: QUOTE Members of the committee laughed, and the committee chairman sent my lesson on up, incorporating their suggested revisions but also still including my little joke, to Salt Lake City. Where it passed Correlation. (I can only assume that each member of the committee chuckled and then passed it on, expecting that somebody else would remove it.) When I received the galleys of the lesson back for final approval just before it went to press, the joke was still there. I faced one of the greatest moral crises of my life, but finally called Church headquarters and suggested that they probably didn’t really want the lesson to go out to Church members entirely as it stood. So the joke was removed. The point being that Gospel Doctrine manuals are not to be confused with authoritative divine revelations. |
ARJ – you are correct that they should bring in professionals just as they have for IT HP – well the manuals certainly have that effect… MarkIV – that is the funniest thing I have heard all day. The scary part is that I hope the curriculum people actually saw it and did not brush by it so fast they missed it. I agree that the manuals are not to be confused with revelation or doctrine, but most members don’t see it that way. In addition, most of the manuals assume that the readers/teachers/students are college educated which is silly given the international flavor of the Church. A manual for the Provo 300th ward does not work for the Mexico City 4th ward… |
I honestly don’t think it is broken. Given the constraints any author would be under (i.e. use major figures to only teach mainstream current LDS doctrines) then I think they do a good job. In general with any manual there are a few quotes I’d consider better left out and a few things put in. But overall, given the constraints I think they are pretty good. The problem is that I’m not sure this sort of edited “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” styled manual is ideal. I’d much rather have a slightly different structure. But compared to the priesthood manuals of yesteryear these are pretty great. I do wish, however, that PH, RS, and SS would get away from the style of manuals of the last decade or so and move more towards a topic driven approach. Something more like what one has in Gospel Essentials. I think SS was designed more to try and get people to read their scriptures. I’m not convinced it has. Likewise PH/RS was designed to get people more familiar with the teachings of the prophets. But I think it’s done it in a fairly superficial way. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t fault the manuals that much. I think the deeper problem is a membership that, overall, doesn’t care to study. But if we’re trying to get people information (rather than trying to act as a catalyst to personal study) then these manuals aren’t necessarily doing the job. |
In addition, most of the manuals assume that the readers/teachers/students are college educated which is silly given the international flavor of the Church. A manual for the Provo 300th ward does not work for the Mexico City 4th ward… I think that ultimately this is what gets most folks disgruntled. There is that “one thing for all” mentality. Most folks probably griping at blogs do a lot of personal study, are fairly well educated, and thus find the manuals bad. Yet they simply aren’t the typical members. Heavens, they aren’t typical even in Utah wards. Go outside of the Mormon population areas where most members are recent converts and you simply have different needs. I agree that it would be nice for the Church to have more than two classes: (Gospel Doctrine and Gospel Essentials) and then have differing manuals that the Bishop can select from. Ideally there should be something like most singles wards have: multiple classes one can choose form. The problem is that most married wards I’ve been in are short open class space and often a lot of the adults (who arguably the classes are for) are in nursery, primary, YM, YW’s etc. |
Clark, Your assumption that the constraints must stay in place is flawed. Also the idea that they’re great for the average member. The average member might not be the first to articulate fully what they don’t like about the manuals, and in fact might be unwilling to even express a negative opinion of the manuals, but that doesn’t mean that the manuals are great for the average member. |
Let’s be honest here: the manuals should really be titled “Teachings of the Correlation Committee, as Illustrated by Selective Quotes From Dead Prophets.” Frankly, the lessons in which the instructor is simply given a recent Conference talk as the “lesson” create more insight and discussion than the ones taught from the lesson manual. So the net contribution of the correlation process is negative! The materials that come out of the process are less useful than the original materials that go in! The whole curriculum process, at least as far as the lesson writing goes, is just a waste of paper and of tithing dollars. My suggestion is that they make Rough Stone Rolling the PH/RS manual for 2008. With the money they save chucking the present system and manuals they could probably buy copies of the book for every active member in the Church. |
I have my issues with the MP/RS manuals, but overall, I tend to agree with Clark that they aren’t all that bad, considering the broad audience they address. The primary and YM/YW manuals, on the other hand, are absolutely dreadful. |
I taught CTR 6, and I’ve subbed for youth Sunday School. I tried to be positive and balanced before commenting here, but I’m afraid I can’t. The lessons are pure tripe. Pretty-much worthless. If you want a decent lesson, you make it up yourself. The problem is that the Church operates largely on the “good old boy” principle. Which actually has its advantages. But it breaks down here. I imagine garment design and quality control is handled by a similar committee to this one. |
What is really unfortunate is that often the manual is the only resource some inexperienced teachers have to fall back on – especially when the bishop calls a new member to teach in Primary. They don’t have the Gospel background to deviate from the manual and yet the manual gives them very little support. The result can, unfortunately, be a crying sister in the hallway. |
I teach CTR 5, and I also have to say that the lessons are worthless. The stories they include are downright hilarious. But I also have to say, that the idea is not to go straight from the book. The book is a guide – the lesson comes from you. There are tons of resources out there for primary. I make up my own games, we sing songs. I change the stories so they aren’t rediculous. I take the lesson topic, and generally go from there. My husband teaches Young Mens (teachers) and also spews much hatred towards the manual every week as he prepares his lesson, but he uses the same approach as me. |
Seth I didn’t see your #11 before I posted, but that is a good point. |
I had a Young Womens teacher who freely admitted to us that the lessons were horrible from the manual (this was in the late 1980s) and she always made up her own lessons, which sometimes had nothing to do with church stuff. Occasionally, she’d have us skip the lesson all together and drove us down to Mervyns, if a good sale was going on. I kid you not. I have no idea how she was never found out, but we all LOVED having her as a teacher. |
7 – ARJ – I agree completely, the average member will not say anything is wrong with the manual for that would be speaking ill of the brethren. 8 – Dave – I love that suggestion. Make it similar to Sunday School where you delve into a particular book for a year. Rough Stone Rolling would be so much better than the current Prophet manuals or Arrington’s Biography of Brigham Young. Then we could learn some “real”, not watered down, Church history. Seth R and Veritas – you hit it on the head – the manuals are horrible and some people can toss them and make their own lesson up, but this is the minority of people. I have sat through so many lessons in my HP group (made up of older guys, not necessarily HP or Elders) taught by a newer member or less confident person who basically read from the manual and ask the questions at the end. It is terrible for them and the class. Primary is obviously much much worse. I cannot imagine how challenging it is for teachers in other countries and cultures who have to relate to the stories in the manuals… |
I taught the Sunday School class for 13-year-olds for a little over two years ending last month. In 2004 and 2006 I used the Preparing for Exaltation teacher’s manual and in 2005, it was The Presidents of the Church. I found both of them satisfyingly useful for preparing lessons. I liked the sequence of lessons in Preparing for Exaltation and the opening into the personalities and issues of our Church’s presidents with the other course. The suggested lesson development and activities were usually worthwhile. I think reading those manuals a few days in advance provided me 80 per cent of a decent lesson. Last month reading the first lesson in the Spencer Kimball PH/RS manual, I was astonished. That chapter at least really conveyed his teaching style; I felt like it was 1979. |
WendyP – Great story, I had a YM leader who would have us arm wrestle to see who would bless the sacrament and he never taught from the manual. John Mansfield – Glad that the manuals worked for you. Were you teaching a pretty smart bunch of kids who were raised in the Church? I think that is the target audience for the youth/primary manuals. |
“Rough Stone Rolling would be so much better than the current Prophet manuals or Arrington’s Biography of Brigham Young.” Whoa! You’re joking, right? I love both books. But come on. |
Clark – Not at all – why not, at least we would get a non-watered down version of the man and the history. The current manuals crack me up how it is never once mentioned that they are a polygamist for example, but in the HJG manual it mentions 2 or 3 different wives names. |
Someone should start a blog or a page to archive their re-done lessons. Make that resource available to the rest of us who have no idea where to start! Sometimes my lessons with the Valiants (8-11) go great but I think a lot of the time it’s just me up there talking. On the other hand, it’s not easy to figure out any other way. I try some of my husband’s tricks from teacher’s college but really, I don’t think there’s any way for these kids to deduce things like why Christ needed a mortal mother all on their own. This being Sunday School and being an important foundation for them, I feel uneasy at the thought of just letting it go with however close they get. |
Here’s an indication that some things are going right with curriculum. I have two children in senior primary and two in junior primary, each in a different class. Usually the younger two will have the same lesson, and the older two will have the same lesson, but different from the one the younger two have. After church when we talk about their primary lessons, each pair is often able for a few minutes to discuss their lesson with the family jointly, filling in one for another in describing the matter. |
Having taught both youth SS and GD for several years, I can tell you that, at the other end of the scale, the problem is just as bad. We’ve got lessons that routinely ask questions like the following to full-grown members: “Abraham was faithful and was blessed. What types of things can we do to be faithful and be blessed? (Answers may include study the scriptures, pray, pay our tithing.)” I honestly think much of the material in the manuals is useless. |
I occasionally get called upon to substitute for the Gospel Doctrine teacher in my ward as need arises, and recently our bishopric felt the necessity of forcefully pointing out to those called to teach Gospel Doctrine that Sunday School class lesson discussion topics are to come entirely from the Gospel Doctrine manual and the Gospel Doctrine manual alone. It was made clear that this was an attempt to counter various potential false doctrines being brought up during the lessons by enthusiastic class members anxious to demonstrate how much they “know” to be true (as opposed to any fears they might have had of the teachers introducing false doctrine). Given my normal tendencies to laziness, I don’t think I tend to stray beyond the confines of the lesson manual discussion topics or questions very often, but I can certainly understand how a teacher who prides (is there a better word here?) him- or herself on making the lesson material more interesting by bringing in other “not contained in the standard churchwide lesson manual” material might be discouraged by the constraints that a command of “stick to the manual” could be seen to impose. We’re commanded to teach by the Spirit on the one hand, and not to depart from the correlated lesson material on the other. Hmmm. |
BTD Greg (#22) I don’t think you’re being fair. Yes there are some problems with the manuals and some questions can seem so basic as to be silly. It’s important to remember two things, though. 1) Not everyone in class is a long-time member who has heard the answer a zillion and a half times. 2) Even long-time members need reminders sometimes. |
PDoE, Yes. That’s supposedly what Gospel Essentials is for. Gospel Doctrine, by contrast, really needs to move on with life. |
PDoE, maybe not. But the bulk of what’s in the lesson manuals is really, really hard to take seriously for an adult Sunday School class. |
I don’t know about most of the manuals that people are mentioning, but I used the Aaronic Priesthood manuals for years to teach the Deacons, and I think that they’re terrific. Although one glaring error is that they do not contain a lesson on the First Vision. |
I’ve taught both Priesthood (in two languages) and Gospel Doctrine using the current manuals. I find the “attention activity” in the GD (does that stand for “Gall-Dern” as well?) manuals infantilizing and an insult to the basic intelligence of the class members. When preparing my lessons I usually study the entirety of the text referred to in the lesson, not just the selected verses, and if they skip a chapter I read it too, and ask myself why it was left out. When possible, and to the extent of my ability, I provide background information and historical context for the text (rarely included in the manual), and try to flesh out the personalities and lives of the people mentioned. I also bring up interpretations of the text from other religious traditions, because I think it’s a bit dangerous for us to think that we own the text (OT and NT in particular) exclusively. About all my lessons have in common with the manual is the text. When I used to teach priesthood, I actually found the current manual a little more conducive to my teaching style. I simply assumed no one had read the lesson, picked out a few passages that actually sparked my interest, and then prodded the quorum with them until they started talking. Since we had a lot of new members in both of the wards I taught in, this was a great way to get them to ask their questions, and have them answered by the quorum as a whole. I was generally complimented on my lessons, but I can’t say that the same manuals fare well in the hands of other teachers, especially in my current branch where many of the teachers are new members and simply read from the manual the entire time. I’ve been known to sneak out and read Barthes in the hallway. My favorite priesthood lessons ever were taught by a PhD in physics (who thought I was an idiot for studying art, and told me so in no uncertain terms). He would take the topic for the fourth week and make up his own lesson, which usually included a vocabulary lesson. We had a pool of guys who would place bets on what big words he would use that week. I think it’s unfortunate that the old men won, but I have trouble with a particular subset of CES people in general. We have a close friend, temple worthy, who’s daughter will not speak to her because the daughter’s CES husband decided that our friend was “evil.” If those are the kinds of people writing our manuals, well, is it any wonder the system seems broken? Seth R. #10 Any idea how much trouble you’d get in for making your own garments? We’re constantly tempted to buy a bolt of 100% linen and wave good-bye to the distribution center. |
nofolete’s experiences teaching GD are pretty similar to mine. I had a lot of people tell me that my lessons were the first time they had actually enjoyed coming to Gospel Doctrine. And, althogh some people like to present it as an either/or, mutually exclusive thing, I felt that my lessons were spiritual as well. The thing is, the Church has the resources to do better. Many of the seminary and institute manuals are quite good. I’m also not fond of the argument that the manuals have to be there to pander to the least common denominator in terms of gospel knowledge (isn’t that what Gospel Essentials is for?). |
Great discussion everyone. DKL – you have not seen the primary manuals – they are horrid. I think BTD Greg has a great summary of the problem – the Church has the resources to do much better. I find myself glad I am in Primary now as I don’t have to sit through the SS and Priesthood lessons anymore – that is a sad state of affairs (yes, probably part my problem too) |
Someone should start a blog or a page to archive their re-done lessons. Make that resource available to the rest of us who have no idea where to start! Maybe there is some rule against promoting other blogs here, but as I have no connection to any of them, I feel unconstrained. For Gospel Doctrine lessons, an extensive archive of lesson outlines can be found here: |
Last Lemming, Maybe there is some secret rule because our spam trap tried to gobble up your comment. Through much effort and loss of blood I have freed it. Please know that on-topic linking to other blogs is just fine and dandy. We try to give the spam trap a good cleaning on occasion in order to not lose comments like yours. |
Last Lemming, there are several very good Gospel Doctrine teachers who do just that. Jim F. at Times and Seasons is one. Another good resource is Bill Beardall. http://beardall2000.com/ LDSGospelDoctrine.net has links to several sources of varying quality. |
Oops, just realized that LL was replying to PDoE’s comment. Sorry. |
Good to know about the GD helps. Anyone know of helpful sites for Primay/YM/YW lessons? |
According to the scriptures, the Spirit should tell us what to say. The problem that I’ve always had with relying on the promptings of the spirit is that, typically, the Spirit tells me exactly what to say some time after it was desirable or even useful to say it (like on the drive home). Is the Spirit broke? Can it be fixed? |
Times and Seasons also has helps for the Primary 7 manual. Unfortunately, I haven’t run across anything for the younger kids yet. |
DKL, I think your problem is the time zone you live in. Move west and you’ll do better. In fact, if you live in Hawaii the spirit will tell you what to say several hours in advance. |
Through much effort and loss of blood I have freed it. Thanks. I was beginning to seriously wonder. |
Nolofete wrote: “Seth R. #10 Any idea how much trouble you’d get in for making your own garments? We’re constantly tempted to buy a bolt of 100% linen and wave good-bye to the distribution center.” Probably none. It’s not like the bishop checks during recommend interviews right? Supposedly, we’ve been counseled not to, but I don’t have an official reference for that. Now if you’re asking how much trouble you’d get in with God…. I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Him? I’ve been kind of tempted to simply sew markings into a set of commercially-made capilene thermals for use during winter activities. Light years better than the stuff at the distribution center. The only reason I haven’t considered it too seriously is because we haven’t gone skiing in quite some time. |
I agree with ARJ, although I’ve never heard of Heidi Swinton. You guys, have any of you been able to take those visiting messages and make them truly relevant for your sisters in a way that encourages their faith in the Savior and their personal growth? Without adding? I find myself so frustrated when I attend a class and end up getting preached AT. |
Thanks Jab |
For all of you teachers, go to the worldwide training Saturday and come back and tell us what they say…might be relevant to this discussion. 3. Dan Peterson is a crackup, but that story is not a fair reflection of what goes on in correlation. (I realize he’s trying to be funny, but I think it’s a faulty assumption that just because he deliberately put something through that shouldn’t have been doesn’t mean that he has proven the system doesn’t work. Besides, in the end, the Spirit still prevailed — just on Brother Peterson! :) ) Some of you know that I’m acquainted with someone on correlation. Let me just say that I think that if we knew how much the Spirit is involved in what they do, maybe we’d gripe less and be more grateful for what they are doing and seek the Spirit in using the materials as they are. I’ve heard enough to be convinced that the Lord is involved in these programs, even if they may not be 100% perfect or in everyone’s favorite format. I’ve also used the manuals as GD teacher and I have attended enough Spirit-filled classes in both SS and RS/PH to say that I don’t think the gripes are warranted. We’re commanded to teach by the Spirit on the one hand, and not to depart from the correlated lesson material on the other. Hmmm. What does teach by the Spirit mean, though? Does it mean that the teacher is supposed to have the Spirit so he/she can teach a bunch of new things? I don’t think so. What’s the purpose of sticking to the manual? I think it means we let the Spirit guide as to what scriptures/quotes to focus on so that the Spirit can teach the individuals in the room. The purer the doctrine, the more freely the Spirit can flow. I think if there is a problem with church teaching, it’s more with teachers thinking it’s their job to come up with something “new” instead of seeing themselves as simply a guide to help the class focus on things that will most freely invite the Spirit. In that sense, the style of manual is far less critical as is the style and focus and spirit of teaching. |
m&m, I disagree. I think if Daniel Peterson had listened to the Spirit it would have told him to leave it in! In any case saying that the people in correlation are influenced by the Spirit is not the same as saying that the materials can’t be improved. I’ll go back to my example from the Church’s IT department. For years people that could slap together an application were doing so, and I don’t doubt that the Spirit was influencing them. But now they’ve got people that are experts in user interaction design participating in the process and the results are a lot better. Yes the old applications worked, but now they are much more enjoyable to use as well as having better functionality. The same sort of transformation could happen with the lesson materials if instructional designers were included in the process. This wouldn’t be a denial of the inspiration that goes into the current process. Maybe you could pass some points from this discussion on to your friend that is involved in the process, and hopefully they won’t have the same defensiveness. |
A random John, I was going to do a follow up and say I was sorry if I came across too strong. It appears that I may have; sorry for coming across as defensive. I’m one who is into continuous improvement. If my friend says passing along feedback is OK, I’m happy to do it. It would be nice, though, if I could take something back like, “This part people like but this could be improved” rather than “people think it all stinks!” ? :) [Since I don't believe it all stinks, for my sake, maybe you could include a token positive in your feedback??? :) ] I think it might also be helpful to realize that there is a difference between correlation and curriculum (content creation). I was commenting about correlation and how I sense the Spirit works there. You are addressing, I think, curriculum writing issues — a different animal. So I think we are talking past each other a bit. (I should have separated that out more in my mind before commenting…sorry.) Correlation’s job is to keep doctrine sound, to keep content “Church-approved.” I think the feedback you have would be for the curriculum department. I’m not sure that there aren’t instructional designers or other professionals helping with that part of the process, but it might be worth an email if you feel that strongly about it. :) (They even ask for feedback, I believe, which says to me that they realize that there is potential room for improvement.) But, like I said, I’ll keep this tucked in my brain if I get a chance to talk to my friend. FWIW. |
M&M – I think we are talking almost exclusively about correlation. According to my friend there are no professionals involved in the process besides the writers. So we get correlation that is nicely correlated for Utah, but ignores the needs of the other 80% of the Church. As bad as my lessons are in my ward I can’t imagine how hard it is to teach from the manuals with a different language and cultural background. This is where the problem is – one size does not fit all for the Church. I think that a direct reflection of this is the high rates of inactivity in other parts of the world. |
M&M – one other thing, before you think I am too negative, I appreciate the hard work the people who put the manuals together put into it, but I just wish they would be a little bit more sensitive and less bias to the Utah perspective. |
I just came from watching the “teacher training” broadcast. |
I totally agree with all of what m & m said in comment #44. Of course no manual is perfect. But I sincerely believe that the ones we have can definitely provide the spiritual nourishment we need in our Sunday classes–if we are trying to be in tune with the Spirit. Regarding what Devyn S. said in #47 (and re-emphasized in #48),”So we get correlation that is nicely correlated for Utah, but ignores the needs of the other 80% of the Church,” I do think this was true to a greater or lesser degree(especially for Primary & youth lessons)in past decades. I remember having to consciously avoid many of the stories when teaching children in foreign countries in the 70′s and 80′s, because they involved children walking to the chapel, observing U.S. holidays, or assuming families had cars, etc. But things have changed since then. I don’t really see a “Utah bias” that inhibits the adaptation of YW or Primary lessons to any culture nowadays. In the last ten years I have attended YW, Primary and SS classes in several developing countries, as well as in various parts of the the U.S.A., Canada and Australia. And, like m & m, “I’ve also used the manuals as GD teacher and I have attended enough Spirit-filled classes in both SS and RS/PH to say that I don’t think the gripes are warranted.” Despite all the criticism I see on the Bloggernacle of the new Priesthood/R.S. manuals, I think they are great. They allow even a poorly trained teacher to focus on words and ideas that are essentially modern-day scripture. Those words apply to us today, in every culture; and even new members with little education sense that. All of us can gain a witness of the Spirit to at least some of particular truths God wants us to learn from these lessons–even if the teacher is inexperienced and inept, and only has class members haltingly read from the manual. I have seen that happen time and time again with the manuals we have now. Will there be better manuals in the future? Probably. But I definitely believe that those involved in producing and correlating the manuals are inspired, and that if we teachers stick closely to the material in them, we can trust that we will be inspired, as m & m put it “to help the class focus on things that will most freely invite the Spirit.” |
I think we are talking almost exclusively about correlation. Again, I think you might be confusing correlation with curriculum. Correlation doesn’t write or put together the manuals. If instructional design issues are a concern, that is more for curriculum development, not review. I think that a direct reflection of this is the high rates of inactivity in other parts of the world. I’m a bit skeptical of an assumption like this, unless you have some firm research results that demonstrate a connection between the manuals and inactivity. A LOT feeds into the problem of inactivity, right? I wonder, too, if those in remote areas are as sensitive about these things as people in the US are on their behalf. Not that we shouldn’t be sensitive, but I just wonder about that. I have noticed more a more international feel to the magazines…so I sense that there is the effort to improve on the cultural sensitivities. This kind of improvement will probably be ongoing, is my suspicion. I’m back…just got off the phone with my friend. FWIW, there are experts of the highest talent in instructional fields working on the manuals. It’s not just a limited group of people who have no training. And the process is anything but haphazard, even if it is not perfect. I passed on the feedback about international sensitivity, too, which is on their radar screen. Hope that helps. |
Elder Holland made himself very clear in today’s worldwide leadership training broadcast: We have good curriculum. We have good manuals. Non-curriculum material is spice. We should use a little spice, but no one wants a meal of spice. It doesn’t replace the approved course material. |
m&m: I wonder, too, if those in remote areas are as sensitive about these things as people in the US are on their behalf… Amen. The latest research on cultural differences indicates that members of a culture adopt the organizational values of the groups to which they belong (be they churches, employers, clubs, or cultures of countries they move to). In my opinion, this notion that Americans cling to about the “different cultural needs” of non-US members of the church is just a sophisticated way of preserving damaging cultural stereotypes. |
Julie Smith did a series on Primary Lesson supplements at Timesandseasons.org. http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?author=7&poststart=1 |
Lizzilu, I’ve been told: 1. The 4 standard works are Scripture with a capital S. 2. The 1st presidency message in the Ensign, and the prophet’s conference talks are scripture, but with a small s. They are not canonized, but they are small-s scripture. 3. I think the 12′s articles in the Ensign, and their conference talks, though they may not be scripture, they better be closely heeded and prayed over. They may also be small-s scripture, but perhaps one level lower than the prophet’s small-s scripture. As Elder Nelson said: Source for above: Elder Oaks wrote in the June 2006 Ensign: “The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.” |
Lizzilu, I will confirm what Pres. Packer said, however, the context was that when you are actively engaging the class in a discussion, even the most backwards person can be involved. Elder Holland was responding to a person in the audience who mentioned that there was other scripture to consult beyond the Standard Works, and I was impressed the Elder Holland made a point to explain that all other is measured against the Standard Works. It was subtle, but it was there. I find it amazing that many of us continue to feel as if the church should publish all sorts of different curriculum, one for Utah Wards, one for the hooty-tooty University Wards, one for S. America, one for my ward cuz we’re so different. The point is that the church only needs to have 1 curriculum developed because we have thousands of teachers to adapt the principles trying to be taught to their individual classrooms. The curriculum gives us a couple of things: 1. The lessons give us an outline with several principles of the gospel to teach/learn. Elder Holland made it clear today, we’re not teaching a subject we’re teaching people. The end goal of teaching (as the current philosophy being followed) is that we teach and testify of small gospel chunks that are personally applicable and practically useful in our discipleship. [this philosophy may change, during DOM it was not the same as it is now] 2. It is a consistent lesson through-out the year with age-appropriate discussion. Wards should make sure that all teacher teach the same lesson the same weeks, so that parents can come home and teach/clarify/reinforce the principles taught at SS. These 2 things contribute to the discipleship and personal development of children and families. What I’d rather see in our discussion is a move away from desiring a different curriculum and a move to see: |
How does the content of “Teaching: No Greater Call” alter the equation here? I seem to recall that the manual discouraged teachers from simply “reading from the manual.” But I’m not sure. Anyone else know? |
R Gary, I’m not sure what else he was supposed to say. I’m still of the opinion that some material is better than others. The PH & RS manuals are very hard to teach out of unless you are a good teacher to begin with. Great teachers can teach a great lesson out of the classified ads so the fact that they do well with these manuals is not indicative of the quality of the manuals. Many teachers that I’ve witnessed in the Church have difficulty putting together a compelling lesson using the manuals and the questions they suggest. In a similar vein to what I said about great teachers, this isn’t necessarily indicative that the manuals are terrible. Perhaps what I want is a manual that would be more compelling even if the teacher simply had members of the class read the paragraphs one after another. |
I should also note that the class they had assembled for the broadcast was waaaaayyy above average in terms of how engaged they were and in their scriptural knowledge. Also, Elder Holland is a wonderful teacher, as would be expected. |
Bookslinger and John Shaw, |
57 Seth, |
I believe the Teaching, No Greater Call manual can help even the average teacher successfully teach a meaningful class. If teachers would learn the important fact that through variety they will engage the largest part of the class we’ll see more successful classes. Check here for a link to the variety of teaching methods. I feel this is the greatest chapter in a very good book. Learning to employ just a few of these methods can greatly ease the burden of someone who feels they aren’t a good teacher or that they lack the natural skill of being able to develop a less from the classified ads. Many times the breach between a good teacher and a good lesson is fixed by how we engage the class members. I remember the first time I broke up a Gospel Doctrine class into groups and assigned each to take on a couple of paragraphs of the Proclamation on the Family. I asked them to list both Spiritual and Worldly influences the Proclamation was responding to. I think they thought I was off my rocker. We struggled through it, the class wasn’t as good as I wanted it to be, but probably better than the typical classroom setting. However, over time they began to respond to actively being involved in the class. I find many times that like mentioned earlier, that as class members ourselves we are the worst part of the experience, we’ve been lulled into non-participation, come listen to the teacher, list my 5 pre-canned answers and go home. Many times a very dull lesson has turned energetic when a class member has posed a very thought-provoking question or rather than handing out the typical answer, read your scriptures, talk about how reading the scriptures is the answer to that question. I have a former Stake President that I loved, when he got a canned answer back, his response was, “yes, the scriptures, teach us a little about that principle brother.” A canned answer became a great gospel discussion. |
RoAnn #50 – While I agree that there is inspiration involved in putting the manuals together, one can only be inspired as much as one is capable. At some point you bring in the pros (which I am not). I think that by doing market research with the manuals with different groups one could at least make them something that is wanted as opposed to shoving something down that might be inspired, but may not be useful in particular contexts. M&M – sorry – I meant curriculum, but correlation has a role here too. See my comment above to Roann – just being inspired is probably not enough these days in the Church – it should be teamed with professionalism that can create both an inspired and usable manual. You are correct, that I make a supposition on inactivity rates, but I can’t help but think that is one piece of the puzzle. |
DKL – I am not familiar with the “latest research on cultural differences indicates that members of a culture adopt the organizational values of the groups to which they belong (be they churches, employers, clubs, or cultures of countries they move to).” I can only speak to my first hand experience with various cultures in my unit. We have 600 members in our ward of which 150 may come on a good Sunday. Of the 150 probably 95% are white, western transplants. The 450 who don’t come to Church as a mix of various ethnic groups, although we probably have 300 cambodians on the records. In the ten years I have been in the ward (since it was a branch), I have seen hundreds baptized and talked to so many and one of the things I often hear is that “I don’t fit in – it is a white Church.” They say that about the lessons, General Conference, and the leadership. While I think it is somewhat of an excuse, I really can’t refute it as everything in it is “White”, even the manuals are white. Nowhere in the manuals I have used do we ever talk about some kid who grows up poor in South America or Russia or even Harlem for that matter, it is usually some kid who lives in a nice suburban area. So how is someone supposed to adopt the white suburban culture of the church when they are miles away from that in their personal lives? That is the problem – at least in my somewhat naive and relatively small sample sized opinion |
At some point you bring in the pros (which I am not). That’s a reasonable point of view, but they DO have professionals involved in the process. So how is someone supposed to adopt the white suburban culture of the church when they are miles away from that in their personal lives? …I really can’t refute it as everything in it is “White But everything isn’t “white” and suburban. I have noticed a lot more international focus in many of our materials: The Church News, all of the Church magazines, newer audiovisuals (what I remember from the recent RS General broadcast video was very multicultural)…maybe you could point out these things and share them with those who may feel they don’t fit in. I worry that there are those of us who would silently (or not so silently) validate their concerns rather than focusing on what IS being done to acknowledge the multicultural, international nature of our religion. This is a process, and I think we can expect that things will continue to get better. Our prophet has personally travelled more than most (if not all) of us ever will, to places all over the world. The leaders are getting out among the people, and are bringing their awareness of international needs and love for those people back with them. More and more local people are becoming involved in leadership (e.g., Area Authority Seventies). I think we ought to be positive and hopeful about all that IS happening and trust that we will continue to see more and more to help people see and understand and know that there IS a place for everyone in this Church all over the world. But I think it behooves us all to do our part in recognizing what IS being done and helping others see that. |
“Elder Holland made himself very clear in today’s worldwide leadership training broadcast: We have good curriculum. We have good manuals. Non-curriculum material is spice.” That’s disappointing. I know that good lessons can be taught from those manuals, but I think there’s still quite a bit of room for improvement. |
I said earlier that I found the Aaronic priesthood manuals to be terrific. It occurred to me today that I didn’t start out thinking that. It took me about 2 or 3 months of preparing my own lessons to convince me that they actually are very, very good. I think that you’re likely making your judgment too soon, Devyn. Give it a few months. Get to know the kids. Get more comfortable with the manuals. Once a few months have passed, and you’ve settled in, I’m interested in hearing an update. |
DKL (#27), I’m confused by your claim that “the Aaronic Priesthood manuals… do not contain a lesson on the First Vision.” How’s this: “Read and discuss the vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded in Joseph Smith—History 1:11–20.” That’s from Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Chapter 1. But the lesson title is “The Godhead” (not “The First Vision”) so maybe it doesn’t count. |
R. Gary, I didn’t mean to imply that it’s never mentioned. It’s a matter of emphasis, and I think that there should be a lesson devoted to it. In fact, I find it to be a surprising omission, but maybe there’s a reason for it. That’s just my opinion. |
#52: “Elder Holland made himself very clear in today’s worldwide leadership training broadcast: We have good curriculum. We have good manuals. Non-curriculum material is spice. We should use a little spice, but no one wants a meal of spice. It doesn’t replace the approved course material.” You have mischaracterized Elder H’s spice metaphor. The spice was the use of AV materials, and he was addressing the use of those materials replacing a lesson, like ‘This week we’ll watch a video for our lesson.’ The idea that the lesson manuals have explain inactivity outside of the US is silly. The issue is much more complex and varied depending on where one lives. I am myself a professional teacher (HS English). I used the GD manual for the quotes from other church officials mostly, and to identify some key gospel principles, but I structured my own lesson and had my own questions, based largely on my own spiritual development and searching and my knowledge of the people in my class. I really like the RH/PH presidents manuals because I teach them the way I would teach literature in school, and it goes really well. When I taught YM, I don’t remember having any special feelings about the manual one way or another, but I do know that we had amazing spiritual discussions based on the prescribed topics. (And it was not Utah, nor were any of them from standard LDS homes.) But that was largely because the bishop and I used our own lives as open books for the boys. They really liked it because they knew it was important enough for us to sell straight. |
M&M – that is a fair response and I have tried to be positive about the Church, particularly with our two adopted Haitian teenagers, but sometimes it is a challenge when the odds are often stacked against them. Norbert – precisely my point – the lessons give you a topic and you need to run with it. Now someone with tremendous experience like yourself can easily do this, I am just not so sure others can. DKL – I tried for months with the Youth SS manuals and finally tossed it and made up my own lessons. I will see where Primary goes, but I am not hopeful. |
Now someone with tremendous experience like yourself can easily do this, I am just not so sure others can. This is where praying for the gift of teaching might come in, as Pres. Packer talked about in the broadcast. I’d rather give people the benefit of the doubt. :) But I think I understand a little better where you personally are coming from and where your concerns come from. Hang in there, Devyn. Don’t give up on it all…I really think what you want to see is happening and will continue to improve as time goes on. :) |
Thanks m&m – time will tell, you are right there has been progress, it just feels a bit glacial. |
it just feels a bit glacial Maybe some of that is because we only get new manuals every so often?… I sort of look at what is happening in the more fluid things we have (magazines, Church News, the internet, etc.) and think that these bode well for the future and the efforts being made in the present, ya know? p.s. Have you sent your thoughts/concerns into the curriculum folks? |
m&m – Thanks for the support. I did not know that one could send thoughts/concerns to the curriculum committee and that they would care. I also have no idea who I would send comments to. |
I think part of the issue here is the fact that the ark steadying story gets repeated so often that it becomes ingrained in our minds that helpful input is not only unwelcome, but a mortal sin. I should mention that I’ve given what I thought was helpful feedback before and felt like the recipient did not take it well and thought less of me because of it. Defensive does not even begin to describe the reaction. |
From the inside of the RS/PH manual, which I think is similar in other manuals: Your comments and suggestions about this book would be appreciated. Please submit them to Curriculum Planning, 50 East North Temple Street, Room 2420, Salt Lake City, UT 84150-3220 USA. E-mail: cur-development@ldschurch.org Maybe, John, giving feedback in writing would be easier? I would imagine there are some for whom these things become a little like their children…if they think they are being unjustly attacked, they get defensive. ;) (Hey, we’re all human, right?) Perhaps one step removed via writing, directed to a committee rather than given to one person directly might be more possibly listened to? I don’t know what things look like on the other side of the fence of feedback, but I think it’s noteworthy that manuals contain an open invitation for it. Seems to me that such an open invitation should help dispel some of the idea that giving feedback equates to steadying the ark….??? |
p.s. Missed this part, if you give feedback: Please list your name, address, ward, and stake. Be sure to give the title of the book. Then offer your comments and suggestions about the book?s strengths and areas of potential improvement. |
Thanks m&m I am going to give it a shot. I will start with what I like and then make some suggestions. |
Thanks for the comments Dan B – glad you support it entirely, but what is the basis for your testimony and support? What types of experiences have led you to this belief? Daeo – I really am not sure what you are talking about when referring to TV monitors and contacts – can you explain a little more clearly for someone a little dense like myself. |
