The Church Education System (CES) - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Sleeping in EQ · 08-17-2006, 08:17 PM

I'm convinced it's a cult of personality (Assistant to the President wannabe + John Bytheway wannabe + overly dramatized performance of humility + Steven Covey obsessed + hyper-conservative mixing of politics and doctrine + an absence of actual knowledge is more or less the formula).

Sometimes I think it's priestcraft.

I'm positive that it's the institutionalization of backward, quazi-fundamentalist pseudo-intellectualism. Most of what my seminary teachers told me has been of little enduring value and some of it was contrary to both fact and sense.

I've met a few sane and insightful CES people (and I'm exempting real professors of religion from my criticism) but they're swimming against the tide and know it.

But what can be done?

MikeWaters · 08-17-2006, 08:26 PM

You just described a lot of the Religion teachers at BYU.

I once wrote some essays on how to improve religious instruction that I posted on the old Student Review forum.

I won't bother to formulate my thoughts again, because I don't think there is a purpose. I could get as much done by kicking a rock.

I appreciate my seminary teachers, because they were all volunteers. However, I can say without any doubt, not all the teachers appreciated me.

Not that long ago I went to a funeral in an unnamed city, and a CES Institute guy gave a talk, and he struck me as exactly your description. The talk was so off in tone, as related to the circumstances, that it frankly reached the level of "terrible." Luckily the next speaker who gave the eulogy (was in the stake presidency for a longtime) did a masterful, touching job.

And no Zulu, I am not speaking of any of your relations.

Sleeping in EQ · 08-17-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I appreciate my seminary teachers, because they were all volunteers. However, I can say without any doubt, not all the teachers appreciated me.

Same here.

Archaea · 08-17-2006, 08:42 PM

I never attended seminary and was okay with the basic classes.

All-American · 08-17-2006, 08:53 PM

I have had some seminary/BYU religion teachers that fit your description to a T and I have had some that were fantastic. My two favorites were Thomas Wayment and Stephen Robinson. I especially appreciated Robinson for his complete disdain for the way CES operates sometimes. He had formerly been the chair of the religion department, but had little but scorn for the way most Mormons act. He referred to the type of teacher you speak of as "General Authorities in Embryo."

Beautiful stuff. Some people just take themselves too seriously.

I've noticed that the best teachers care little for their own status. They are not afraid to let people think less of them, if it means they'll think more of what they're trying to teach.

What can be done:

1. Emphasize intellect over sentiment. Said Nibley:

"We think it more commendable to get up at 5:00 A. M. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o'clock to write a good one — that is pure zeal that tends to breed a race of insufferable, self-righteous prigs and barren minds. One has only to consider the present outpouring of "inspirational" books in the Church which bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms, and platitudes, kitsch, and cliche have become our everyday diet. The Prophet would never settle for that. "I advise you to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness.... It has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries, new things, for my hearers." It actually happens at the BYU, and that not rarely, that students come to a teacher, usually at the beginning of a term, with the sincere request that he refrain from teaching them anything new. They have no desire, they explain, to hear what they do not know already! I cannot imagine that happening at any other school, but maybe it does. Unless we go on to other new things, we are stifling our powers."

2. Leave your ego at the door. You are not in a teaching position to show other people how marvelous you are. Make teaching focused on the student, not the teacher. Truman Madsen said this about Nibley:

"Hugh Nibley could have had disciples lined up four abreast from here to the library. He has, instead, sent them on to the only One who deserves disciples."

BigFatMeanie · 08-17-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

I have had some seminary/BYU religion teachers that fit your description to a T and I have had some that were fantastic. My two favorites were Thomas Wayment and Stephen Robinson. I especially appreciated Robinson for his complete disdain for the way CES operates sometimes. He had formerly been the chair of the religion department, but had little but scorn for the way most Mormons act. He referred to the type of teacher you speak of as "General Authorities in Embryo."

My favorite religion professor at BYU was Vern Sommerfeld - BOM. The only thing I didn't like about him was he had a "testimony voice". Why do all CES/BYU Religion types cultivate that special testimony voice?

My worst were Bowen (D&C) and Joseph Fielding McConkie. Whenever you would challenge anything Bowen said he would respond "It's the hit bird that flutters". The implication of this self-serving weasel phrase is that anyone that didn't agree with him was in obvious need of repentence because if you were doing everything "the Lords way" then you would of course be in complete agreement. McConkie got up in class the first day and said "This class will be taught from the standpoint that I know more than you do and that you are here to learn from me". That was the first and only day that I sat through a McConkie class. Life is just too short to spend time with "insufferable, self-righteous prigs".

When I was a freshman I had BofM from some weenie BYU Religion teacher. There was a kid in the back of the class that liked to dress kind of "gothic" - black hair, black clothes, pale face, etc. I always felt the teacher kind of picked on this kid because of the way he dressed. One of the class assignments was to provide cross-references for various scriptures that the teacher gave us. When it was Goth's turn to give his cross-references, he used a scripture in Omni that the teacher didn't like. The teacher was being a complete prick. Of course, it's completely subjective about what makes a "good" cross reference. The teacher asked if anyone in the class thought it was a good cross reference. I actually thought it was; however, I was too chicken to raise my hand when nobody else would. To this day, I regret not standing up for that kid...

Mormon Red Death · 08-18-2006, 01:08 AM

Brother Peterson at the U of U institute is the finest teacher in any subject that I have ever had. taking his class is why I am still active today. the way he viewed the church really helped me as I struggled with our history and lack of information about it. Sleeping in eq reminds me of the way he views things

DrumNFeather · 08-18-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm convinced it's a cult of personality (Assistant to the President wannabe + John Bytheway wannabe + overly dramatized performance of humility + Steven Covey obsessed + hyper-conservative mixing of politics and doctrine + an absence of actual knowledge is more or less the formula).

Sometimes I think it's priestcraft.

I'm positive that it's the institutionalization of backward, quazi-fundamentalist pseudo-intellectualism. Most of what my seminary teachers told me has been of little enduring value and some of it was contrary to both fact and sense.

I've met a few sane and insightful CES people (and I'm exempting real professors of religion from my criticism) but they're swimming against the tide and know it.

But what can be done?

Dare I ask how you came to such a rash conclusion regarding CES people?

Zulu451 · 08-18-2006, 01:08 PM

To make collective statements like some of those made here are way out of line. You had the misfortune to get a religion teacher at BYU that rubbed you the wrong way and you generalize that to a wide population of people who frankly dedicate their lives to teaching the gospel to people who need to learn more than what they learned in sunday school.

A few things you should know about CES:

1) They pay Utah teacher salaries to people who live all over the country.
- Utah (despite the LDS emphasis on education) has the worst pay rates for teachers in the country (bottom 5). Many CES families grow up in poverty (or at least going to horrible schools) because the Dad feels a call to teach the gospel. A majority of the guys in CES could be making a lot of money doing other things, or they did make good money and they wanted to do something where they felt like they were making a difference.

2) CES is a difficult enviroment to work in. Won't say any more about that other than I have seen great teachers, humble teachers, get out for one reason or another.

3) It is NOT a calling.... It is a job. You must maintain ecclesiastic eligibility, ie. Stake President interview annually, but there is no laying on of hands calling to be in CES. There are many positions in the church that are JOBS not callings, and as members we have to maintain those lines.

4) There are thousands of people out there who have been positively influenced by seminary teachers, institute teachers, EFY teachers and directors. There are thousands of people who would not be where they are today because of a good, humble CES teacher.

Yes, there are they guys who appear to be just trying to develop their followings and engaging students until they can publish their next Desseret Books best seller.

In my opinion in CES there are two camps: The Utah camp, and those other guys not lucky enough to be teaching in Zion camp (those outside of Utah). The Utah camp guys see assignments outside of Utah as paying their dues until they can get back to Zion and teach at the "Y" or at UVSC or UofU. They see they other guys as maybe not being worthy of teaching at the "Y". The outside of Utah camp guys seem to be able to relate to the kids they are teaching better, they know what it is like to be one of 10 LDS kids in a high school of 2000 because that is what their kids are doing. I know many CES guys that have made their carreers outside of utah, and have found very enriching and fullfilling careers buildilng up the church all over the country and world.

Look at the environment that you are describing at BYU. First of all you have people giving a grade for a religion class, that in my book is fundamentally wrong is one reason why I just couldn't stomach the pioty of BYU and transfered out (that and their premed programs sucked, Mike was one of the lucky ones smart enough to blow Bloxham off). You have teachers whose success is based on the reviews given back to their departments by their students, they have to give the kids in their classes what they want. Believe it or not, there are a lot of kids at BYU that don't think they are feeling the spirit unless they are bawling their eyes out. When i was there Reed Benson's class was the one to get! Until the final when they had to recite scriptures, written down on blank paper. But every semester his classes filled up and they kept him on. I had a great BOM teacher but his classes were only about 1/2 full, next semester, he was at his desk.

I am frankly suprised to see such generalizations and blatently idiotic statements about CES teachers as I have read here, especially on a board of people who consider themselves to be "free" thinkers, and trying to see things on deeper levels of understanding. Instead of just trying to throw rocks through someone's windshield, figure out why they are driving like an jerk. Then, if they really are just a jerk, throw away.

MikeWaters · 08-18-2006, 02:11 PM

I've only known 1) BYU religion teachers and 2) a couple of institute directors.

Like I said, I was not impressed, generally speaking with my BYU religion teachers. I did like my first BOM teacher, Dan Hone (?). Seemed to be a very sincere guy. But otherwise the classes were formulaic and had the feel of a bad gospel doctrine class. It was so far from academic that further comment is not necessary. It was also far from truly spiritual. It's in a no-man's land of neither academic nor spiritual. In other words, truly a waste. Surely they can come up with something better.

The first institute director I knew, I happened to be assigned as a hometeaching companion with when I was a deacon. He was a good man and well-respected. He was called as a mission president, and had to sell his home to finance it (which goes against the theory that you have to be rich and from the intermountain west to be a MP). He was by no stretch of the imagination wealthy.

Last I heard he was teaching at UVSC. Wolferts is the name.

I know the current director at Texas A&M, again from having grown up in College Station. While I have never taken a class from him, I have heard nothing but good things. I know his family well, and I wouldn't put him in the category of wannabes as previously described.

Now whether his classes, if transplanted into the academic setting, would be similar to the ones I have criticized, I have no idea.

I guess I don't think you should grade gospel doctrine classes. Either get grades out of it, or make it truly academic.

08-17-2006, 08:17 PM	#1
Sleeping in EQ Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto Posts: 3,085	The Church Education System (CES) I'm convinced it's a cult of personality (Assistant to the President wannabe + John Bytheway wannabe + overly dramatized performance of humility + Steven Covey obsessed + hyper-conservative mixing of politics and doctrine + an absence of actual knowledge is more or less the formula). Sometimes I think it's priestcraft. I'm positive that it's the institutionalization of backward, quazi-fundamentalist pseudo-intellectualism. Most of what my seminary teachers told me has been of little enduring value and some of it was contrary to both fact and sense. I've met a few sane and insightful CES people (and I'm exempting real professors of religion from my criticism) but they're swimming against the tide and know it. But what can be done? __________________ "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 08-17-2006 at 11:09 PM.

08-17-2006, 08:42 PM	#4
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I never attended seminary and was okay with the basic classes. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

08-17-2006, 08:53 PM	#5
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	I have had some seminary/BYU religion teachers that fit your description to a T and I have had some that were fantastic. My two favorites were Thomas Wayment and Stephen Robinson. I especially appreciated Robinson for his complete disdain for the way CES operates sometimes. He had formerly been the chair of the religion department, but had little but scorn for the way most Mormons act. He referred to the type of teacher you speak of as "General Authorities in Embryo." Beautiful stuff. Some people just take themselves too seriously. I've noticed that the best teachers care little for their own status. They are not afraid to let people think less of them, if it means they'll think more of what they're trying to teach. What can be done: 1. Emphasize intellect over sentiment. Said Nibley: "We think it more commendable to get up at 5:00 A. M. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o'clock to write a good one — that is pure zeal that tends to breed a race of insufferable, self-righteous prigs and barren minds. One has only to consider the present outpouring of "inspirational" books in the Church which bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms, and platitudes, kitsch, and cliche have become our everyday diet. The Prophet would never settle for that. "I advise you to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness.... It has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries, new things, for my hearers." It actually happens at the BYU, and that not rarely, that students come to a teacher, usually at the beginning of a term, with the sincere request that he refrain from teaching them anything new. They have no desire, they explain, to hear what they do not know already! I cannot imagine that happening at any other school, but maybe it does. Unless we go on to other new things, we are stifling our powers." 2. Leave your ego at the door. You are not in a teaching position to show other people how marvelous you are. Make teaching focused on the student, not the teacher. Truman Madsen said this about Nibley: "Hugh Nibley could have had disciples lined up four abreast from here to the library. He has, instead, sent them on to the only One who deserves disciples." __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος Last edited by All-American; 08-17-2006 at 08:59 PM.

08-18-2006, 01:08 AM	#7
Mormon Red Death Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Clinton Township, MI Posts: 3,126	Brother Peterson at the U of U institute is the finest teacher in any subject that I have ever had. taking his class is why I am still active today. the way he viewed the church really helped me as I struggled with our history and lack of information about it. Sleeping in eq reminds me of the way he views things __________________ Its all about the suit

08-17-2006, 08:26 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	You just described a lot of the Religion teachers at BYU. I once wrote some essays on how to improve religious instruction that I posted on the old Student Review forum. I won't bother to formulate my thoughts again, because I don't think there is a purpose. I could get as much done by kicking a rock. I appreciate my seminary teachers, because they were all volunteers. However, I can say without any doubt, not all the teachers appreciated me. Not that long ago I went to a funeral in an unnamed city, and a CES Institute guy gave a talk, and he struck me as exactly your description. The talk was so off in tone, as related to the circumstances, that it frankly reached the level of "terrible." Luckily the next speaker who gave the eulogy (was in the stake presidency for a longtime) did a masterful, touching job. And no Zulu, I am not speaking of any of your relations.

08-18-2006, 01:08 PM	#9
Zulu451 house-elf 3rd class Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 386	To make collective statements like some of those made here are way out of line. You had the misfortune to get a religion teacher at BYU that rubbed you the wrong way and you generalize that to a wide population of people who frankly dedicate their lives to teaching the gospel to people who need to learn more than what they learned in sunday school. A few things you should know about CES: 1) They pay Utah teacher salaries to people who live all over the country. - Utah (despite the LDS emphasis on education) has the worst pay rates for teachers in the country (bottom 5). Many CES families grow up in poverty (or at least going to horrible schools) because the Dad feels a call to teach the gospel. A majority of the guys in CES could be making a lot of money doing other things, or they did make good money and they wanted to do something where they felt like they were making a difference. 2) CES is a difficult enviroment to work in. Won't say any more about that other than I have seen great teachers, humble teachers, get out for one reason or another. 3) It is NOT a calling.... It is a job. You must maintain ecclesiastic eligibility, ie. Stake President interview annually, but there is no laying on of hands calling to be in CES. There are many positions in the church that are JOBS not callings, and as members we have to maintain those lines. 4) There are thousands of people out there who have been positively influenced by seminary teachers, institute teachers, EFY teachers and directors. There are thousands of people who would not be where they are today because of a good, humble CES teacher. Yes, there are they guys who appear to be just trying to develop their followings and engaging students until they can publish their next Desseret Books best seller. In my opinion in CES there are two camps: The Utah camp, and those other guys not lucky enough to be teaching in Zion camp (those outside of Utah). The Utah camp guys see assignments outside of Utah as paying their dues until they can get back to Zion and teach at the "Y" or at UVSC or UofU. They see they other guys as maybe not being worthy of teaching at the "Y". The outside of Utah camp guys seem to be able to relate to the kids they are teaching better, they know what it is like to be one of 10 LDS kids in a high school of 2000 because that is what their kids are doing. I know many CES guys that have made their carreers outside of utah, and have found very enriching and fullfilling careers buildilng up the church all over the country and world. Look at the environment that you are describing at BYU. First of all you have people giving a grade for a religion class, that in my book is fundamentally wrong is one reason why I just couldn't stomach the pioty of BYU and transfered out (that and their premed programs sucked, Mike was one of the lucky ones smart enough to blow Bloxham off). You have teachers whose success is based on the reviews given back to their departments by their students, they have to give the kids in their classes what they want. Believe it or not, there are a lot of kids at BYU that don't think they are feeling the spirit unless they are bawling their eyes out. When i was there Reed Benson's class was the one to get! Until the final when they had to recite scriptures, written down on blank paper. But every semester his classes filled up and they kept him on. I had a great BOM teacher but his classes were only about 1/2 full, next semester, he was at his desk. I am frankly suprised to see such generalizations and blatently idiotic statements about CES teachers as I have read here, especially on a board of people who consider themselves to be "free" thinkers, and trying to see things on deeper levels of understanding. Instead of just trying to throw rocks through someone's windshield, figure out why they are driving like an jerk. Then, if they really are just a jerk, throw away.

08-18-2006, 02:11 PM	#10
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I've only known 1) BYU religion teachers and 2) a couple of institute directors. Like I said, I was not impressed, generally speaking with my BYU religion teachers. I did like my first BOM teacher, Dan Hone (?). Seemed to be a very sincere guy. But otherwise the classes were formulaic and had the feel of a bad gospel doctrine class. It was so far from academic that further comment is not necessary. It was also far from truly spiritual. It's in a no-man's land of neither academic nor spiritual. In other words, truly a waste. Surely they can come up with something better. The first institute director I knew, I happened to be assigned as a hometeaching companion with when I was a deacon. He was a good man and well-respected. He was called as a mission president, and had to sell his home to finance it (which goes against the theory that you have to be rich and from the intermountain west to be a MP). He was by no stretch of the imagination wealthy. Last I heard he was teaching at UVSC. Wolferts is the name. I know the current director at Texas A&M, again from having grown up in College Station. While I have never taken a class from him, I have heard nothing but good things. I know his family well, and I wouldn't put him in the category of wannabes as previously described. Now whether his classes, if transplanted into the academic setting, would be similar to the ones I have criticized, I have no idea. I guess I don't think you should grade gospel doctrine classes. Either get grades out of it, or make it truly academic.