about Kevin and George's argument with Wade on the EA/GAEL

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: about Kevin and George's argument with Wade on the EA/GA

Post by _Runtu »

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:This would be much easier to believe if P weren't ON the curriculum committee.


From my experience writing and editing manuals, I can say that curriculum items have specific doctrinal and behavioral goals, so information that doesn't pertain to those goals isn't presented. For example, you might get a lesson on section 132 of the D&C, and it will uniformly be about temple marriage, not plural marriage. Because the goal is to encourage temple marriage, there won't be much about the revelation's origins or the historical context. There's no reason to go into that if you just want to teach temple marriage.

That, and not so much a desire to "cover up" anything, is why curriculum manuals do not generally provide a lot of historical information, much less controversial or negative information.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: about Kevin and George's argument with Wade on the EA/GA

Post by _harmony »

Runtu wrote:From my experience writing and editing manuals, I can say that curriculum items have specific doctrinal and behavioral goals, so information that doesn't pertain to those goals isn't presented. For example, you might get a lesson on section 132 of the D&C, and it will uniformly be about temple marriage, not plural marriage. Because the goal is to encourage temple marriage, there won't be much about the revelation's origins or the historical context. There's no reason to go into that if you just want to teach temple marriage.

That, and not so much a desire to "cover up" anything, is why curriculum manuals do not generally provide a lot of historical information, much less controversial or negative information.


That and limited time to actually teach anything.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: about Kevin and George's argument with Wade on the EA/GA

Post by _sock puppet »

harmony wrote:
Runtu wrote:From my experience writing and editing manuals, I can say that curriculum items have specific doctrinal and behavioral goals, so information that doesn't pertain to those goals isn't presented. For example, you might get a lesson on section 132 of the D&C, and it will uniformly be about temple marriage, not plural marriage. Because the goal is to encourage temple marriage, there won't be much about the revelation's origins or the historical context. There's no reason to go into that if you just want to teach temple marriage.

That, and not so much a desire to "cover up" anything, is why curriculum manuals do not generally provide a lot of historical information, much less controversial or negative information.


That and limited time to actually teach anything.

Limited time? Is that because they use so much of the 3 hour block each Sunday to go over the same, circumscribed whitewashed shinola so often, there's no time to actually delve into the background? A partner of mine was a Presbyterian Sunday school teacher. The depths of Bible passages that he plumbed in weekly one-hour meetings show how shallow of a religious understanding the COB wants Mormons to have.
Post Reply