Priesthood Lessons (47 in the JS manual)

Share discussions around the Classic Local Unit Website (LUWS).
TerrySackett
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:58 pm

Postby TerrySackett » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:21 pm

My stake doesn't post the list either, and I haven't been ward clerk long enough to tackle that one and find out why. I'm still learning the basics of my job.

One of the wonderful Relief Society sisters in my ward created a bookmark-sized list with every Sunday in 2007 and what was being studied that week, whether it was SWK (Spencer W. Kimball), The Ensign, or a conference. It's a great substitute, and even more handy than the Web site I think, but it's a lot of trouble to ask someone to go to.

User avatar
opee
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Simple solution to "47" lessons

Postby opee » Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:24 pm

One simple solution to planning the "47" lessons is to use the Introduction on the "Life and Ministry of Joseph Smith" as your first lesson. That lesson + 47 = 48, which equals the # of lessons that you would need for 2 years, at 2 lessons a month.

In the past, our ward would do this, but would have to squeeze two lessons together because there were 24 + Introduction, which was 1 more than you would have expected.

Apparently someone at HQ thought about it and realized that we only needed 47 lessons plus the intro to get the lessons for Priesthood/RS.

rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

Postby rmrichesjr » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:44 am

RussellHltn wrote:If that's the case, then why is it up to the stake to input the schedule? And why isn't there a suggested schedule? And wasn't that at the same time they were going to go with just 4 manuals and re-use them? I think that died off when they went to the "Teachings" series.

...


The program I was referring to, lessons from the "Teachings..." series on weeks 2 and 3, and with everyone studying the same lesson on those weeks so families could discuss them, began when the "Teachings..." series came out. As far as I am aware, no special program for weeks 2 and 3 existed under the rotating 4-manual series.

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Lack of clarity

Postby dobrichelovek » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:55 am

I didn't mean for this to be a can of worms, but I do feel that this is one of the purposes of the forums, to identify things that are not clear and try to get answers for them. I am getting to the point that I think it might be useful getting either a policy quote snippet from a manual or talk somewhere, or in the absence of such published direction, is there a method by which the technology (IT) group can pass along a request for explanation/clarification from the lessons department? If we can't hope for a response, at least they will be made aware (if they haven't been already) that this is an issue.

Please don't misinterpret my comments as being critical of individuals, but it seems like there is a lot of confusion as to the intent of the lesson schedules coupled with the DESIGN of the website. Because of the design, the Stake being in charge of the PH/RS lesson schedule, there is an implication that there is an intent or a directive from Church Headquarters that the lessons should be set up this way. I have to think that when the software was being designed (and hopefully currently being redesigned for an international audience) there was a DOCUMENTED reason why it was designed like it was. I can only assume that in a design meeting or a design review, there was an instruction somewhere that led to this design, and it would also likely lend itself to an understanding of the underlying policy so that it could be understood.

The only reason I am going to this point or degree is that, as I tried to be clear above, there is a lack of communication or instruction or training regarding this particular feature. This lack is causing confusion. Even though it seems clear to me (generally) how to implement it, it is not clear to the person who has the calling to implement it and therefore it is not being used. Because it is not being used, the website seems less credible. People don't use it because it is not complete. See the trend?

I can only guess that this is also an issue in some other Stakes, and similar approaches of non-use are being taken. So generally, I am looking for clarification on policy, and then advice on implementation.

But really, I'm very happy that we have this tool! :D Now I just am looking forward to seeing it (or the better it) become available to my friends in Russia. Can I help with that? :rolleyes:

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Our stake conferences.

Postby dobrichelovek » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:16 pm

RussellHltn wrote:Before getting too wound up, what Sunday(s) does Stake Conference(s) fall on?

If nothing else comes up, schedule a "5th Sunday" in January.

But above all, this is needs to be run by the SP.



So, in our stake, historically, our Stake conference has been on the last Sunday of April and the third Sunday in November. Obviously the April Conference wouldn't conflict, but the November conference would. In that case, I would assume that we would reschedule the lesson for the fourth Sunday of that month OR forgo that lesson that month. Since all wards in the Stake would have the same conflict, I would probably advocate moving the lesson that month. Ward conferences also conflict, but since they are not consistent across the stake, I would advocate either skipping the lesson or fitting it into the first Sunday lesson of the next month (so as to not skip the Teaching for our Times from Conference lesson) leaving that decision up to the wards. The principle would then be to have a Stake rule, and the individual ward conflicts would work around this rule as best as possible. Maybe better said, Let there be a rule that is followed unless there is a reason for exception instead of letting the exceptions rule or paralyze you.

So assuming that we only have one conflict due to Stake conference, we can schedule it for two lessons per month by fixing our November problem somehow. Wonder what we will do if we have a regional conference?

And yes, I recognize and agree that this really isn't my stewardship to decide, but in the absence of someone else doing anything about it, I don't think God is going to get too upset with me making a suggestion and encouraging this to happen as long as I don't try to take that stewardship, which I have no intention of doing;).

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 30522
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:37 pm

dobrichelovek wrote:Obviously the April Conference wouldn't conflict, but the November conference would. In that case, I would assume that we would reschedule the lesson for the fourth Sunday of that month OR forgo that lesson that month.


Well, since we seem to be short on lessons, one option might be simply to only have one lesson from the book that month. That's different then skipping over a lesson in the book.

Maybe that's what you were trying to say, but I thought I'd make that clear.

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Postby dobrichelovek » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:49 pm

RussellHltn wrote:Well, since we seem to be short on lessons, one option might be simply to only have one lesson from the book that month. That's different than skipping over a lesson in the book.

Maybe that's what you were trying to say, but I thought I'd make that clear.


Good point, but that would only work for one of the years, either 2008 or 2009. ;) Not both.

nmecantwin73
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 am
Location: Utah

Postby nmecantwin73 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:09 pm

A few years ago, a paper titled, "Information for Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders on Curriculum" was distributed to all units. It can be found at LDS.org -> Gospel Library -> Support Materials -> Teaching (link below). Under "More Support Materials" is a link for "Information for Priesthood and Auxiliary leaders..." Once there, scroll down a bit to "Curriculum for Church Units". This instructs us on how to use the 2nd and 3rd Sunday lessons. (Though it does not mention anything about the Stake directing the lessons.)

http://snipurl.com/support_materials

User avatar
dobrichelovek
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Design vs. policy. Policy not communicated?

Postby dobrichelovek » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:35 pm

njcant1 wrote:A few years ago, a paper titled, "Information for Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders on Curriculum" was distributed to all units. It can be found at LDS.org -> Gospel Library -> Support Materials -> Teaching (link below). Under "More Support Materials" is a link for "Information for Priesthood and Auxiliary leaders..." Once there, scroll down a bit to "Curriculum for Church Units". This instructs us on how to use the 2nd and 3rd Sunday lessons.

http://snipurl.com/support_materials




Thanks for the pointer. From this information, it is easy to see the pattern for what types of lessons should be taught on which Sunday. The term 'local leaders' indicates who is responsible for determining the conflict of a conference. This is intentionally ambiguous, I think, as to include leaders in a Stake structure as well as those in a District structure. Unfortunately, it is not sufficiently clear as to which level of 'local leadership' is intended from this document alone.

The design of the Unit websites has a clear implication that this should be at the Stake/District level, but I know that my Stake presidency doesn't take the website design into consideration as a matter of church policy as they do the GHofI. In fact, they seem to be either blissfully unaware of the design and its implications, or critical of a 'poorly designed website' that doesn't meet the needs of the Stake properly.

The reason why I am pressing so hard on this is because, at least from my observation, I am seeing a case where a tool is being practically ignored because it is not clear that things are supposed to work that way. I say this assuming that the design wouldn't be such unless there was a clear directive for it to be that way. It would be great if the Church somehow communicated the supporting direction that would encourage the use and understanding of the unit websites so that this (and other issues) wouldn't be an issue. Ideally, this communication would come out in time for Stake/District presidencies to get going on this in time for next year's schedules to be planned out at a stake level so that the WHOLE stake/district will have the same policy from the beginning of the two-year cycle of the Joseph Smith Manual and it won't be painful to correct it later within the life of the upcoming manual (the next two years).

If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out to me. :o

Trying to avoid the over part about zealousness.

-Nic

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 pm

One thing to take in consideration is that not everything is done under strict policy or careful design.

Don't get me wrong. I imagine the design, layout, format, and content of the site went under heavy planning, approval, and QA. That probably applies to almost every single part of the site. But sometimes it's the way it is because some developer or manager had the freedom to design it how they wanted and others thought it looked fine.

I guess all I'm saying is that I think it is a bad assumption that every design detail was linked to some present or future policy.

But that doesn't mean you can't ask here if it was? ;)


Return to “Classic Ward & Stake Sites (LUWS)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest