Will teachers teach it?

[Anonymous]

I came across this article in the Trib today: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4654869-155/new-scholarship-coming-to-mormon-lessons” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4654869-155/new-scholarship-coming-to-mormon-lessons

I was disappointed a couple months back when I heard the long awaited changes to the adult SS curriculum were not coming nets year – again. I had hoped that in light of the essays, some of which are two years old now, we would next year of all years be able to have a refreshed look at the same thing we have been done for over 25 years now (the early 2000s update was not much of an update, it just contains some newer quotes from GAs). Next year, the history year, seemed the perfect time. That said, I did not know until this article that there was new stuff added at the end of the digital versions of the lessons.

Quote:

Rather than redo the Sunday school manual — a curriculum guide for lay teachers to explore the text and themes in the compilation of revelations, mostly to Smith, called the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C) — Mormon leaders chose simply to add the new material to the end of existing lesson plans as they appear online.

Each lesson will begin with an introduction directing teachers to the resource writings at the conclusion, says Matthew McBride, editor in chief of history.lds.org who oversees the publication of the essays on that site.

I do applaud the effort – it’s better than the nothing I was expecting.

But the article points out the problem. I’ll use my own ward as an example. Our GD teacher is very orthodox and technologically limited. He doesn’t have a smart phone or a tablet (at least at church) and teaches from the hard copy manual (almost word for word, actually). How is he going to see this new material? And even if he does (I think his wife is more tech savvy and less orthodox than he is and she teaches youth SS), will he use it because it doesn’t fit with his orthodox “this is what I’ve always been taught” attitude?

From the article (attributed to Ardis Parshall and LDS researcher and writer I can;t say I’ve heard of):

Quote:

Today, there is “one relatively small group of Latter-day Saints who have read and are digesting the new Gospel Topics essays,” Parshall says, “and a much larger majority who have never heard of them or who question their validity. What is that division doing to our ability to discuss our faith?”

I think any of us here, belonging to the smaller group, know the answer to that question. For most of us it’s why we’re here.

Edited to add: I did a quick survey of a few lessons in the online manual at LDS.org. I saw a couple sections with the mentioned historical context links, but only a few. There was no link to or mentions of other accounts of the First Vision in the lesson about the FV. Likewise, there is no mention of seer stones or anything else new in the section on the translation of the BoM. Perhaps it’s a work in progress, or perhaps the ideal is not being realized.

[Anonymous]

I read this also. I think I saw that the new stuff tacked on at the end of the lessons will be online next week.

I just got called into primary. In one way I am bummed as I could actually get a bit excited about preparing for GD by really studying the “extra” stuff (and maybe even a bit more). I will miss out on it.

[Anonymous]

If they tack it onto the end we probably won’t get to any new material. Our teachers typically start lessons by reading from the beginning of the manual.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

If they tack it onto the end we probably won’t get to any new material. Our teachers typically start lessons by reading from the beginning of the manual.

Ah – Every class has us. Every good student will study the material and come prepared. We are the answer to this dilemma. Sure it’s a challenge but we are up for it. Count me excited. I’ve missed enjoying SS.

[Anonymous]

I think the last paragraph of this article may turn out to be prophetic – something like “the key to Mormonism’s future may be how it teaches its past.”

I’m almost done caring, but I skimmed the article and someone says they “hope teachers find” the material. What the heck?!?

(Thanks for y’all’s positivity. I’m all out today.)

Edited to add another Ardis Parshall quote:

Quote:

“The young people I associate with today are struggling to understand our past and present, and to find their place in the church now,” Parshall says. “Some of them who might have [stayed in] the church won’t be here in two or three years if our curricula and teaching materials aren’t updated until then.”

I’m not sure if that’s a current quote for this article, but I think my nineteen year-old would be inclined to agree, not because of information itself, but the stifling atmosphere created by the lack of discussion and openness. It’s not just church history class; she’s in a temple prep class that is telling her virtually nothing (in thirty different ways) about the temple.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Ah – Every class has us. Every good student will study the material and come prepared. We are the answer to this dilemma. Sure it’s a challenge but we are up for it. Count me excited. I’ve missed enjoying SS.

I can’t think on my feet so I’ll leave that to other people.

Usually when someone makes a comment at church we don’t break into discussion, the comment is acknowledged and we move on to the next paragraph or to the next point the teacher wants to make. I’m sure different people will respond more or less favorably to different teaching styles but I’m one that prefers when the instructor is facilitating a discussion. For instance, we once had an interesting PH lesson where we spent the whole time talking about what it meant to ” cleave” unto our spouse.

I actually prefer the lecture format when the subject matter is relatively unknown to me, I want to “shut up and learn something,” but when the material is well worn I prefer the discussion format, getting at what one word means, how to square one teaching with another that appears to contradict it, or how to live a principle in a specific, personal, difficult life circumstance. When the material is well worn and the lecture approach is used I usually don’t say anything because the lesson isn’t engaging.

When the material is the only thing that is presented I have no other perspective to draw on but my own, it’s finite. I’d rather draw from everyone’s experiences, learn something from other people’s perspectives. So much of church is one perspective… but not really, I get the impression that everyone has their own thoughts but we’re too gun-shy to share them at church. It’s a culture. Maybe there’s someone in the class that will bully people to conform to a specific opinion, maybe we’re too afraid to make authentic comments because they make us vulnerable.

Again, this all boils down to personal preference. Just because I like a particular style doesn’t mean others do. I can supplement church with discussions here, at home, or other places. I’ll also toss in the disclaimer that I know teaching is hard and just like the student, the teacher has their style. “Survive” is usually my goal when I get up in front of people.

I know how lessons typically go. I’ve sat in enough of them. I just don’t think I have it in me to interrupt the teacher, go off on a tangent (like this whole post 🙂 ), or take things over and insist that we get a discussion going. I’m mousy IRL, I can’t see myself saying “Can we talk about the seer stones?” right in the middle of someone’s lecture about how JS obtained the BoM and questioning the class about how many times he had to go back before he could get the plates.

[Anonymous]

My first theory is the church is appending the resources to the end of the lessons as a way of claiming to be transparent about the history and the essays, without shining a spotlight on it. It’s the same strategy they used when they posted the essays on LDS.org. Bury them in a hidden place so you can say they are there, but don’t make them front and center.

I actually made one essay front and center in HP Group when I taught it a while ago. Our former Bishop, a procedural, ex military, 3 times Bishop looked shocked that I would even bring the essays up. I realized that a traditional Mormon would view the essays as a fall back so they can address concerns that come up about our history, but not as the focus of a lesson. Something to have in your back pocket, if you will, in case objections come out, but not as something on which traditional believers will focus.

A second theory is they are implementing change/full transparency gradually. The old “frog in the pot” analogy. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it jumps out. If you put him in a pot of cool water, and slowly heat it up, he sits there until he’s boiled.

So, they are slowly turning up the heat….first on LDS.org, next at the end of online lesson manuals — so as not to turn people off. I don’t particularly like this theory as much as the first theory — they are trying to claim transparency without making the essays a focus.

To test my two theories, I predict that you will never see a lesson dedicated entirely to one of the essays or the controversies alone. They will be supplements to more benign lessons, to be used if necessary, but not the focus. This will lend support to my first theory….but not my second theory.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

It’s not just church history class; she’s in a temple prep class that is telling her virtually nothing (in thirty different ways) about the temple.

I think this is the biggest issue in my mind…what is the church moving towards for teaching things in general. Perhaps history is a part of it, but besides that, with all topics… will lessons be of value to people or not?

What is the objective with teaching? Reveal “new” things? Or reaffirm old ideas and keep the flock safe from “dangerous” ideas?

I think the excitement around Joseph Smith’s restorationist movement was that it was new twists on the familiar past teachings. But then they moved to more conservative, correlated, hold-the-line teachings. Can they keep it interesting and of value? Not just interesting to free thinkers who like to push the envelope…but relevant to people’s lives that they want to invest their time to hear the teachings more than just come to church out of obligation and surf stuff on electronics to pass the time?

[Anonymous]

Good point about the restorationist movement, Heber. I agree, part of the appeal of this church and other restorationist churches was/is that it’s not the same old same old. As a convert that was certainly part of the appeal to me when I joined the church – it was new and different with some new and different teachings/doctrine. Granted there has not been much new/different doctrine the past few decades (something perhaps the likes of McConkie and Skousen tried to remedy with their speculations), but Sunday School and PH/RS have become stale. That said, the article does allude to the idea that Sunday School isn’t really about teaching new things anyway:

Quote:

“Sunday school is a misnomer,” says [Matthew] Bowman, author of “The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith.” “It hasn’t been about conveying information or promoting transparency for about 50 years.” Instead, that weekly meeting “is about the cultivation of moral behavior and ethics,” he says. “The actual body of scripture under discussion is secondary to the practical application and living the life of a Latter-day Saint.”

I suppose that’s all well and good if that’s what one wants. I’m not sure it is what everyone expects out of Sunday School though.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like it’s Foyer Sunday School again for 2017.

I am mixed on the frustration. I like discussion. I liked it in college as much as in church. I have been the instigator (more in RS than SS – because of BoM leaves little room for discussion – I have tried), most of my instigation have received words of gratitude at the end of a class. I don’t bring things up to be some shock value member. I care about the people in our congregations. My intent to be a voice is to heal the gulf that does exist.

I agree with SD’s assessment that this method is very much a back pocket/semi-transparent effort – with a miles of safety net of tradition covering it. However, I have not spent a decade learning about the myriad pain in individual lives, homes, wards, and families – to be compelled not to try to inform or improve knowledge. I want church to be hopeful, safe, inspiring, a city on a hill. I am limited in my efforts to achieve that. But if I know there is a crack in a door, a quote in a talk, some dangling pieces of importance at the end of a lesson I will use them.

I am doing it for my TBM family who I live miles away from, but who I care about. I am doing it for everyone of your families. For you. Most of all for sincere hearted people in our church. For every missionary who heads out or comes home. And for the people who have already left because an opportunity was missed. All of it comes from a place of hope and love in my heart.

Now by week 2 – I may be whining. Save me a seat in the foyer.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

My first theory is the church is appending the resources to the end of the lessons as a way of claiming to be transparent about the history and the essays, without shining a spotlight on it. It’s the same strategy they used when they posted the essays on LDS.org. Bury them in a hidden place so you can say they are there, but don’t make them front and center.

That is the way I am seeing it also.

I like what Bill Reel posted yesterday on facebook (I can’t seem to figure out how to get a URL to a specific post, but just open FB, search for Bill Reel and you will see it). What is said was,

Quote:

My Church’s Narrative is having a truth crisis. It feels as though they are in transition between two stories and are not confident on which one to tell.

They know the simple whitewashed story they told for decades no longer holds up to truth and historical criticism and more importantly it is disruptive to the faith of the younger generation who with information at their fingertips knows it is not true.

On the other hand the new narrative that is developing is certainly historically accurate but the older generation having implemented the old false narrative as part of their foundation will run the risk of a disrupted faith when the paradoxes and contradictions are talked about…. What is a Church to do? …… It is certainly an interesting time to be a Mormon.

[Anonymous]

For a church that professes to believe that there are many important things that we don’t know (9th article of faith), we sure like to claim that we have all the answers. And that’s where most of the problems all start. When LGBTQ youth discover that the dominant church teachings about sexuality are false and harmful, the majority leave. When people discover that the dominant church narrative is covering up a lot of troubling history, many hit a crisis. The same thing happens with the church’s teachings on gender roles and feminists.

It seems like SilentDawning’s first theory to me as well. The church realizes they can’t completely ignore the issue, so they make the smallest “change” possible so that they don’t have to actually change anything and rock the boat, but still have somewhere to point to if someone complains. It’s like the so-called changes to BYU policy regarding ex-mormons. The university can claim that exmos can apply for an honor code exemption, while rarely actually granting that exception.

[Anonymous]

I think this month’s Ensign has the talk Elder Ballard gave a couple years ago at a broadcast for CES teachers. Most members wouldn’t have seen that, but now it’s out there for everyone. Might prod teachers to look and include essays.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/12/by-study-and-by-faith?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

I do particularly like that talk, Ann, especially this part:

Quote:

Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.

I’m glad it’s in the Ensign and I do hope our teachers read it. I know I can be pessimistic on this subject, but publishing this talk is something the church is doing right.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for passing on. I am going to teach this as a lesson in priesthood

[Author]

Posts