- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Over the last couple years I have been studying for an advanced degree which requires a lot of research within scholarly journals. And I now routinely turn to scholarly journals for the things that I need to know to be effective in my life — beyond my schooling. This has been a huge boon to me in a variety of contexts — in my role as a teacher, mentor to new faculty, business development chairperson in a non-profit, parent, and a leader in the community. I adapt or apply what I learn theoretically from some of the brightest minds on the planet who have deposited their ideas in books or in research-oriented databases like ProQuest and Ebscohost. Lately (and I hope you don’t think I am self-aggrandizing), I have heard about 6 different people all describe me to other people as ‘brilliant’. This has never happened in my life before.
And I don’t think I deserve the credit either — I am simply drinking deeply from the well-spring of original thought, research, and philosophy of truly brilliant people who have thought through issues on which I need guidance. And these are non-scriptural sources that have helped me learn to apply the right principles to situations I face. And I find THESE sources have more convincing power for the average person outside the church than any scriptural reference would.
But the church tends to reject the thought of scholarly research on human relations issues, or if it conflicts with time-honored beliefs. For example, if I asked the church to let me administer a personality assessment to a quorum I led, they would say “no” (even if the brethren in the quorum agreed to it). The goal would be to identify their personal strengths so the work of the quorum could be aligned with their natural talents. And this personality instrument is reliable, valid, and has a tremendous amount of utility to a leader.
Years ago, someone tried to apply the Learning Organization principles of Peter Senge to the stake we lived in. Huge backlash as people felt we were injecting the ideas of “the world” into the church. It is as if our culture is perceived by traditional members as insular, above any academic thought or findings from applied research. In fact, there is often disdain for academics because, as the BOM says “When they are learned, they think they are wise”. In priesthood meeting, I shared a four-point set of factors I had learned about recently for group effectiveness that I KNOW work from my community work (without referencing my community work). Almost everyone put their head down and retreated into their manuals, and then changed the subject.
A year or two ago, the church came out with this “revelatory” approach to teaching youth — to get away from rote lessons, and make it more interactive, with open-ended questions, online resources etcetera. The whole thing was presented as a new, revelatory approach to teaching. Major adulations from the general membership about how inspired and wonderful the church leaders were in recognizing this “new and exciting” way of teaching youth.
As a teacher of over 20 years, I know this is a bedrock principle of “learner centered teaching” and that the church has been in the dark ages with its teaching for decades. In fact, in teacher development meetings, I would also get challenged when I would advocate deviating from the lesson material under certain circumstances. Or when I would advocate methods that go beyond the lecture/discussion method we are addicted to in our church.
I find this rather frustrating — this lack of respect for research, academic thought, and the sense that intellectualism is somehow in conflict with church practices — and that ‘revelation’ (which in my view is often simply the consensus of leaders in power at a given time) trumps knowledge that academics and researchers and great minds have developed.
Have you noticed this? Do you share in this observation? How do you cope with it?
I have noticed it, and I agree it can be frustrating. It will only be accepted if one of the Q15 says it in GC – and even then, I’m not sure (e.g. Holland on mental illness). In some ways it reminds me of the Amish philosophy – it’s modern and worldly so it must be bad. (I mean no disrespect for the Amish here, I actually think there are some things we, as a church, can learn from them.) As far as coping goes, I guess I deal with it the same as I do my faith transition – I know I have a greater and deeper understanding and hope that eventually they do also. I don’t expect much from the church experience. I rub shoulders with good people that I care about. I believe that much is derived from the top down nature of the church. Research, programs, focus groups, can be very successful if initiated from the top. We are naturally suspicious of anything grass roots or not coming from the approved channel.
When you say “the church” would stop you from administering a personality test in a quorum or group, who exactly do you mean? I’ve seen it done – and I’ve seen surveys sent out to determine who has what skills – and I’ve seen interest surveys distributed that were consulted when considering callings – etc. These things differ so much from local unit to local unit – but I’ve never heard anything “from the top” that even hinted at discouraging such things.
SilentDawning wrote:A year or two ago, the church came out with this “revelatory” approach to teaching youth — to get away from rote lessons, and make it more interactive, with open-ended questions, online resources etcetera. The whole thing was presented as a new, revelatory approach to teaching. Major adulations from the general membership about how inspired and wonderful the church leaders were in recognizing this “new and exciting” way of teaching youth.
As a teacher of over 20 years, I know this is a bedrock principle of “learner centered teaching” and that the church has been in the dark ages with its teaching for decades. In fact, in teacher development meetings, I would also get challenged when I would advocate deviating from the lesson material under certain circumstances. Or when I would advocate methods that go beyond the lecture/discussion method we are addicted to in our church.
I find this rather frustrating — this lack of respect for research, academic thought, and the sense that intellectualism is somehow in conflict with church practices — and that ‘revelation’ (which in my view is often simply the consensus of leaders in power at a given time) trumps knowledge that academics and researchers and great minds have developed.
Have you noticed this? Do you share in this observation? How do you cope with it?
I think, in some ways incorporating the “new” teaching methods WERE revelatory and actually DO demonstrate respect for research and academic thought. Student centered learning has been talked about for a long time, but extensive research is still fairly recent and it’s still just catching on, as far as common practice, in public schools. It is certainly new in a religious setting, not only in our church, but other churches that I’m familiar with have also depended on the “sage on the stage” to lead worship/meetings.
I would say that this example of the “new” approach to teaching is about as revelatory as the endowment. It’s unlikely that either came as step by step instructions direct from heaven, but were proven pedagogical methods that the leaders felt inspired to put into practice in order to teach gospel principles to the membership. Some might call this plagiarism, but perhaps it is a demonstration of how science and religion are meant to work together.
Curtis wrote:When you say “the church” would stop you from administering a personality test in a quorum or group, who exactly do you mean?
I’ve seen it done – and I’ve seen surveys sent out to determine who has what skills – and I’ve seen interest surveys distributed that were consulted when considering callings – etc. These things differ so much from local unit to local unit – but I’ve never heard anything “from the top” that even hinted at discouraging such things.
I also think that this would work in many wards as I have seen similar things done in order to fill callings. If I were the EQP and planned to use a personality test, it would be a tool that gave me data to think about and even pray about. One teaching about revelation that I do appreciate is to “study it out in your mind.” Well, in order to study something you first need some kind of data. Usually this data is limited to what you know about the person from your personal interactions with them. I’m with you and think if we have more data and research we can make more informed decisions. I think the top leadership embraces this idea as well which is one reason we keep records of nearly everything that can be recorded.
I have read and read peter senge too among others. His basic outline for learning based orgs is spot on. Those are the type of orgs I spend my time volunteering or doing “charity” work in. They are also the most comfortable and free flowing and coordinated while nurturing creativity.
In particularly dance of change, where leaders are people who “walk ahead”
As well as to tie into your previous thread of Pollyanna-ism.
On “MUTUAL reflection” “OPEN and CANDID conversation”.
“QUESTIONING of OLD beliefs and assumptions and learning to let go”.
And awareness of how our own actions create systematic structures that bar us from change or produce our own problems.
As well as new and expansive patterns of thinking are catered and nurtured too and learning how to learn together.
As well as learning with the ability to re-create or re-engineer ourselfs. To extend our capacity to create things and be part if a generative process to fill the deep hunger within to learn and create and change.
Anyways, this is where I see any future for any learning based org. With rising generations will come to know and learn these things more and more for themselves and be drawn to such orgs.
Orgs that keep older systems will slowly die that don’t promote this type if learning.
Based on what gen y, o and others have responded too , they crave these types if learning and express frustration in the older systems.
I just think it’s a matter if time.
Curtis wrote:When you say “the church” would stop you from administering a personality test in a quorum or group, who exactly do you mean?
I’ve seen it done – and I’ve seen surveys sent out to determine who has what skills – and I’ve seen interest surveys distributed that were consulted when considering callings – etc. These things differ so much from local unit to local unit – but I’ve never heard anything “from the top” that even hinted at discouraging such things.
I don’t want to get into a debate about what “the church” is…I have found that when there is credit to be given, people use the term “the church freely”. But as soon as one comments on negative aspects of the church expeience, referring to “the church” all of a sudden, the conversation diverts into a philosophical discussion on what “the church” is, often with the underlying purpose of discrediting the argument.
However, there were times when I have asked to do things at church that stem from academic ideas, industry practice, and usually I meet with resistance. I used the personality thing as an example given how everyone ignored everything I said when I alluded to it in a meeting a while ago. I’ve never been denied its use, because I have never asked, but I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it would meet with resistance for the same reason the Peter Senge principles met with resistance in one of my old stakes.
We started talking about learner centered environments over 20 years ago when I started my teaching career, so I don’t really see it as catching on to the latest trends. Anyone who has experience teaching also knows that unless you are extremely eloquent and entertaining one-way teaching doesn’t work. For repetitive teaching work, there is a strong need for people to experience what they are learning, be involved, talk, do things etcetera. So, if we want to say the church had a revelation — it was decades late, in my view.
Nonetheless, I like Roy’s approach of not expecting much from the church any longer. As the old proverb goes “Blessed are they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed”.
SD, I had no intention of starting a debate about what the church is. I just wondered if you meant “The LDS Church” would stop that stuff or if you meant “the local church leaders” would do so. As is often the case, our experiences at the local level are different. I’ve had leaders who wouldn’t approve of a personality test, for example, but I’ve had others who would be totally fine with it. I would love it if all leaders were fine with it, but we certainly aren’t there yet.
It is much easier for men to just think God is telling them what to do than do research to find what actually works. It is a problem that humanity has carried for a long time. Deriving authority and knowledge by claiming God told them so. Mormons are just more likely to do it than most. Curtis wrote:SD, I had no intention of starting a debate about what the church is. I just wondered if you meant “The LDS Church” would stop that stuff or if you meant “the local church leaders” would do so.
Sorry, my tone sounded more forceful than I intended. I wasn’t distinguishing between the definition of the church which I hold as its policies, its top leadership, its systems — and the other general definition I use, which is its people and local leaders.
I believe some local leaders would allow you to do the personality test, but I think the church at the top would likely discourage it.
Cadence wrote:It is much easier for men to just think God is telling them what to do than do research to find what actually works. It is a problem that humanity has carried for a long time. Deriving authority and knowledge by claiming God told them so. Mormons are just more likely to do it than most.
I would think Mormons have a greater onus to do the research first, after all it’s right there in our scriptures:
Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-8 wrote:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
The problem might be that we don’t go back to the drawing board like we should because once that initial process has taken place the matter has been settled.
Too many people think that once they have settled the big picture all of the details don’t need be settled. I think life is all about understanding the details, but that would drive people who are less analytical by nature nuts. To each her own.
I think the biggest problem here is what the majority of members would consider appropriate avenues of research. As long as you research anything approved by the FP, then that’s acceptable. Most members seem to have an almost pathological fear of anything else. I think this is why the new “essays” are so important. In most member’s minds, it adds legitimacy to studying about the thorny issues that they never would have considered looking at otherwise. As a side note: they may have opened Pandora’s box by doing that, which I personally think is awesome 
I am finishing my graduate studies this week and am getting ready for my first teaching job. Since I’ve been spending a little time exploring the Mormon Channel for the last month or so, I thought I would check out the “Teaching, No Greater Call” series. It was produced to help teach the gospel at church and to your family. There is an episode that made me think of this post and thought I’d share it here. Like you said, SD, they talk about making the lessons more interactive. The example they give is having the youth spend class time preparing a mini lesson with a partner or group, then spending the last 10 minutes teaching that lesson to a child in the primary.
Something like that might be good in Elders Quorum, doing mock home teaching lessons.
I was wondering how to apply some of what I have been learning in my school studies at church, and was happy to hear a specific example like that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.