- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://www.lds.org/church/news/seminaries-to-implement-new-doctrinal-mastery-initiative?lang=eng I love this idea!
Love it.
Especially for the New Testament.
:clap: Not sure how I’ll feel when we get back to D&C.
I feel like maybe the church leadership is making small changes to help “keep up” with the times.
I’m all for them improving the teaching and changing the styles to fit the needs of newer generations. It should be all about making it relevant in individual’s lives. My worry is if they will do it right. Mastering doctrine will not be easy.
Will they even be able to clearly define doctrine?
Will they allow honest questioning? Or will they allow students to question only with questions that they think are good questions, and tell them not to doubt their doubts on questions they don’t have answers for?
Time will tell.
But overall…I agree with you…I think they are trying to listen to focus groups and feedback and even internet blogs and message boards to stay relevant with younger generations. And that is smart. It is the right intent. I have hope they will do well. It just may take longer than we hope.
It does feel like a direct response to contemporary challenges. I’ll take the position of time will tell. :thumbup: I like this:
Quote:…help the youth of the Church make connections between the doctrine of the gospel and how to apply it in their everyday lives.
But I think we could say the same thing about any program that we’ve implemented. A lot of what the article discussed felt like couching what we’re already doing in slightly different language with an addendum of inoculating the youth with the material in the essays. I do like that one of the stated goals is to create a safe place for the youth to ask questions.
Quote:What this isn’t is a hundred answers to a hundred questions,” said Brother Webb. “This is more about how do you think about information and how do you turn to trustworthy sources, and how do you frame questions in a gospel premise instead of the world’s premise.
This could be useful if handled properly. There’s the potential to follow the well worn path of dismissing something as “anti-doctrinal lies” out of hand but there could be value if the goal is to teach people how to determine what is trustworthy about sources and how to account for bias. I’m not even sure what framing questions with a gospel premise vs. the world’s premise even means (like whether a question leads a student to conclude what the church wants them to conclude?) but I’ll give it a shot:
Was Joseph Smith a prophet? How was the church and the priesthood restored? What are priesthood keys? Who are the modern day prophets? To me those are world premise questions that we spend way too much time discussing at church.
How can I better practice charity? To me that’s a gospel premise question.
Knowledge about the world premise questions really doesn’t help me become a better person, it just helps me know bits of trivia for one church. I’d find more use if the discussion followed “What does the restoration teach me about charity?” or something like that.
That’s just me though and I’m sure the church would fall apart overnight if they tried to tailor to my needs.
Any change also has to go up against teachers that follow well worn roads. It will be interesting to see what comes from all of this.
I am not sold on it. What is Doctrine? What is LDS Doctrine? Was banning blacks doctrine? Is every word a prophet speaks Doctrine? Who is a Prophet? All of the GA’s? Are all their words Doctrine? Is the WoW doctrine? Has it always been? Too me it’s messy. As a former seminary teacher I wished they would let the students look for and master scriptures that touched them. The number could still be 20 or 25, but they would mean something devout to that person. They still needed to memorize, recite and summarize them but think how much growth would take place.
mom3 wrote:I am not sold on it. What is Doctrine? What is LDS Doctrine? Was banning blacks doctrine? Is every word a prophet speaks Doctrine? Who is a Prophet? All of the GA’s? Are all their words Doctrine? Is the WoW doctrine? Has it always been? Too me it’s messy.
I’m right there with you mom3. And yet…these are the discussions that need to be discussed and youth think through.
My fear is that someone in CES or the brethren think in their minds there are good answers to these…so therefore those answers should satisfy anyone who has real faith because it is simple and should just be seen one way, like the violin in the orchestra sounds…it really is a good sound and works for them.
But…the proof is in the pudding. Can they really find answers to these questions? Are they really able to setup a place in seminary to allow for different views and all sounds of the orchestra and make it work? Are they going to prescribe answers or allow for exploring faith positions and differing views to allow for enrichment and growth?
Or is there one way…and if you can’t accept “their view”…then…well…you’re an outsider and lack faith.
nibbler wrote:Knowledge about the world premise questions really doesn’t help me become a better person, it just helps me know bits of trivia for one church. I’d find more use if the discussion followed “What does the restoration teach me about charity?” or something like that.
I agree nibbler. But…can gospel questions on being a better person be discussed without details from world premises to have context to discussions? Does history facts and details help in our church teachings, or are they irrelevant to what church should deliver?
Heber13 wrote:…can gospel questions on being a better person be discussed without details from world premises to have context to discussions? Does history facts and details help in our church teachings, or are they irrelevant to what church should deliver?
I think we can’t do it without stories (and Mormonism has got some cool ones) but it’s my opinion that the stories themselves became the destination when they really are only the vehicles. Maybe that’s the point of this initiative?
Currently I feel like the unstated goal of sharing historical things in our lessons is to prove that the church is true or to make sure someone can regurgitate a historical event that proves the same. Okay, so the LDS church is True and Jesus was born on April 6th. How does that help me deal with the bully in deacon’s quorum?
That’s why I find so much value in sharing the messy details of the story. It shows that people occasionally rose above their circumstances to achieve great things. It helps me to be able to relate to and identify with people in the stories and it helps when I find the stories relevant to my life. Of course not every story is going to be relevant.
When I taught lessons I liked finding historical facts and details to share that were well outside of Mormonism. That helped me focus on the takeaway of the story, showing that the church is true didn’t serve as a distraction.
mom3 wrote:I am not sold on it. What is Doctrine? What is LDS Doctrine? Was banning blacks doctrine? Is every word a prophet speaks Doctrine? Who is a Prophet? All of the GA’s? Are all their words Doctrine? Is the WoW doctrine? Has it always been? Too me it’s messy.
Good point.
nibbler wrote:mom3 wrote:I am not sold on it. What is Doctrine? What is LDS Doctrine? Was banning blacks doctrine? Is every word a prophet speaks Doctrine? Who is a Prophet? All of the GA’s? Are all their words Doctrine? Is the WoW doctrine? Has it always been? Too me it’s messy.
Good point.
Just to point out, the doctrine they are referring to (with the addition of referring to the scriptures to find answers) :
Quote:The Godhead
The plan of salvation
The Atonement of Jesus Christ
The Restoration
Prophets
Priesthood and priesthood keys
Ordinances and covenants
Marriage and family
Commandments
I agree that these can be broad, and I agree that appealing to the scriptures is not going to give you answers to many of the questions (like the priesthood ban) – even JS recognized that such was not possible. And I’m not even sure I agree that each of these areas are doctrine.
So, I do like that there is a shift away from memorizing certain scriptures (they’re way behind modern education on that one – WAY behind), my concern is how the details of the doctrine will be taught and what will be included as subheadings (whether curricular or by dogmatic teachers) in those categories. Will the “follow the prophet” mantra be included under prophets? How about polygamy, at least “heavenly” polygamy, under marriage and family? I have no trouble with helping children/youth discover pure doctrine, and I hope that’s what it is – but I am very doubtful that’s going to be the way it pans out. Alas, as of Sunday my children are all through Seminary. And alas, of the three (out of four) who have expressed any thoughts on the process they all agree it was a colossal waste of time, energy, and sleep and that despite it’s purpose of delving deeper into scripture they learned nothing they didn’t learn on Sunday in church. (Caveat: they also admit they did not put in optimal effort.)
#8 on the “doctrine” list makes me want to spit nails. I’m so sick of culture wars crap masquerading as religion. hawkgrrrl wrote:#8 on the “doctrine” list makes me want to spit nails. I’m so sick of culture wars crap masquerading as religion.
Hence my expression that I’m not sure each of those areas is doctrine. With the exception of commandments, I’m not sure anything after the atonement is doctrine and I’m not always in agreement as to what constitutes a commandment.
Well, it’s “doctrine” in that we are indoctrinating people with it. Doctrine just means “teaching,” so it qualifies. For some reason in the church we think “doctrine” means God personally handed it down, that it’s divine in origin and immutable. I don’t think that definition truly holds up which is why out of favor doctrines are so easily downgraded to “policies.” That’s part of the problem, Hawk. I think it’s hard to nail down a universally accepted definition of doctrine among members. I think it includes defining the word itself, as well as what exactly is doctrine. Hawkgrrl – Quote:For some reason in the church we think “doctrine” means God personally handed it down, that it’s divine in origin and immutable
Not us. Never. We are always Oxford dictionary approved.
I actually bought a 600 page hardback book called “this is my doctrine : the development of Mormon theology”. At the end I thought “hmm. I still can’t figure this out”. At least the book is thick enough to gather a bit of dust instead of it landing on the bookshelf. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.