Correlation, inspired?
 

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/article...r-sources.html

omg.

I wonder why such a release was thought necessary. Church correlation, not one of the better aspects of church bureaucracy.

actually, I have to admit, that I'm a big fan.

My preparation, as a teacher, is to read through the lesson once. Takes a couple minutes. Then I am done and ready to go.

There's enough material there that I can never finish in the alloted time, and then it's time to go home and watch football.

Thumbs up to correlation. Fast food for Mormons.

That story was so manufactured that I had to click on the link to see some context. Turns out it was manufactured. Anyhow--I think the take-away is this: don't hunt the internet for info. Stick with the script. That's the church I know.

I'm curious to hear the anti-correllation-ites' solution to this dichotomy. It's pretty easy to sit in the back and whine about it.

From an institutional perspective, how do you grant your teachers a more free form approach and still guard against false doctrine, particularly as it concerns gospel fundamentals and in light of the perpetual youth of the church membership? (meaning new converts, not kids ages 12-18)

I agree all largish corporations "correlate" or control information, and to maintain some uniformity, some of this action must go on. My main beef is how it's packaged.

If one wanted to say, we find it important to stick to the simple doctrines and here they are, because we're not going to set up a seminary for advanced theological studies. I can see why they might do that.

If you say, the "Lord" wants us to teach only this and be condescending for those who like to examine matters differntly than might be standard, then I wish they'd be more circumspect. The story is so hokey used in the "Church News".

Frankly, many of the lessons are bad and dumb. And the overall focus is poor.

That is, they don't focus on the things that are most likely to lead to boys going on missions and staying active in the church--i.e. developing testimony.

But they don't ask me for my opinion. And since it causes consternation if you stray from the script, I literally just go straight from the manual because it is easy.

Well given the new guidelines to let discussion flow only from the text of the new streamlined lessons, I suppose they have no use of me any more.

that is what a smartphone with internet access is for.

time does seem to pass faster when you are the teacher. that's the good thing about being a teacher.

I set my book of mormon on fire when I guest-taught seminary as a teenager. It was an object lesson about the dudes who went into the fire but were not hurt in the OT.

who's whining? I"m with Mike in that when I teach, I'm using material that's given. I'm not out culling quotes (not a fan of the teach-by-quote approach that's so common). Nevertheless, discussion needs to be interesting, informative, fresh . . . something. To me, the correlation premise above is interesting because it would tend to chastize those who are (probably) genuinely trying to do their best to magnify their callings. It's the formula for most conference talks: here's a quote, there's a quote. People feel like they need more quotes. Did I mention I"m not a fan of reading off quotes?

I'm a fan of teachers who keep me awake and not staring at my watch or surfing my phone.