Any Rod & Staff Dissenters? What do you NOT LOVE about R&S?

[Colleen in NS]

I felt that she needed some moral support.

 

I hear you. That's why I also asked if she'd be willing to help us in another way (see my last post).

 

As for the books being sanitized, if this is the case, then I am glad NineChoirs posted when she did. If these are the sentiments of the publishers of Rod and Staff and they have just toned them down to sell their curriculum then this is definitely a curriculum I could do without.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "sanitized." I really meant "revised." "Sanitized" gives a negative connotation, I think. I'm not trying to talk anyone into buying R&S - I just want to know some details so I can properly evaluate. If something has been revised, then I could go on to ask "why." Change of heart? Coverup? I hear you, that it's good to know these things, esp. if one feels strongly about not supporting a company because of their beliefs, even if those beliefs don't come out in a book that is possibly sanitized. But we *don't* know the facts yet, at least not here.

[Guest]

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "sanitized." I really meant "revised." "Sanitized" gives a negative connotation, I think. I'm not trying to talk anyone into buying R&S - I just want to know some details so I can properly evaluate. If something has been revised, then I could go on to ask "why." Change of heart? Coverup? I hear you, that it's good to know these things, esp. if one feels strongly about not supporting a company because of their beliefs, even if those beliefs don't come out in a book that is possibly sanitized. But we *don't* know the facts yet, at least not here.

 

Colleen, after our discussion I PMed NineChoirs and asked if she could possibly look at her books for publication dates and that I would respond on her behalf if she did not wish to post. She had already dug one out, which was not an easy task, and gave me the info. She could only find book 7 and she gave me permission to share that she purchased it 4 or 5 years ago and it has a copyrights date of 1989. I hope this helps a little :).

Edited June 8, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

This sounds to me like you aren't being exactly truthful. people have simply asked you to be more specific and you claim that this bias against Catholics is EVERYWHERE and cannot be missed but you aren't willing to give direct quotes (because you blacked them out) nor are you willing to even give one page number from your unused books. It's actually quite NORMAL for someone to want to see these and decide for themselves. If you are going to make a claim that the Mennonites HATE the Catholics, then you should have NO problem proving what you say, if indeed it is true. Because you refuse it seems to ME, IMO, that you are not being truthful and are biased yourself against R&S for whatever reason.

Sorry, if this sounds harsh, I just don't understand why you would make these claims, then refuse to show others so they can see it for themselves and not waste their money on supporting a company they don't agree with.

 

I don't find that your previous comments (I put in bold above) were very encouraging for her to come back and support any kind of claims. She was pressured by some and then openly attacked by your comments.

 

But you are basing your opinion on someone else's heresay, and you are assuming it's factual.

If you don't want a spelling curric with any religious content at all, then obviously you should stay away from a Mennonite company but for them to be accused of HATING Catholics, that's very strong wording without anything to back it up. She bowed out when she was asked simple questions.

 

This is your assumption. I think I made it clear that if such things are discussed in a spelling program, even if NineChoirs had taken the comments out of context, then I am not interested in such a curriculum. Are you more concerned about clearing this up or about why I have chosen not to go with Rod and Staff :lol:? As for backing, I believe others have backed her already.

[Guest]

:iagree: However, I see no reason for this kind of accusation. I (sadly) had a very different view of Catholics just two short years ago. I have seen where I was wrong and am now exploring RC/EO in a whole new way thanks to these boards. I think it is best not assume the worst of our fellow Christians.

 

My dear Tracy :), I am not assuming anything about the Mennonite people. I am the live and let live type and am not the type of person that would attack anyone for their beliefs. We all have our reasons for what we believe.

 

What I shared was that I felt that such comments were anti-christian. As someone who has converted from one Christian faith to another and then finally have just stayed away from organized religion (for the time being until I figure out where God wants me to be) I KNOW there are good and bad people everywhere. I have also lived in the Middle East and Europe and have been exposed to other religions, besides Christian although I am and have remained Christian (clarifying that to avoid assumptions from some). I believe the same about all religions. There's good and bad everywhere.

 

NineChoirs made her comments based on observations she made in her books that offended her. In her shoes I would be offended also. She wanted to warn her fellow Catholics about this. I don't see anything wrong with that. I feel that any other faith would have done the same, warning their own. She still used the books by blacking out those parts. At the time she had spent the money and could not afford not to.

[TheAutumnOak]

I can see why NineChoirs would be upset about this discussion...

[Colleen in NS]

She could only find book 7 and she gave me permission to share that she purchased it 4 or 5 years ago and it has a copyrights date of 1989. I hope this helps a little :).

 

Yes, it does. Thank you, and thank you to NineChoirs for finding that out for us. You certainly got me thinking about the background of R&S publishers! :)

 

I'm now guessing that it's maybe something they used to do, but maybe don't do anymore....for what reason, I do not know, I can only guess at that, too. But it certainly would be interesting to find out facts about that, too (not a request directed at anyone here, BTW, just a musing on my part). :)

 

NineChoirs, please stay with threads when people ask these things? It's so helpful when people can provide facts/quotes/other specifics for evaluation. It's part of what I find REALLY helpful about these forums.

[Guest]

I'm now guessing that it's maybe something they used to do, but maybe don't do anymore....for what reason, I do not know, I can only guess at that, too. But it certainly would be interesting to find out facts about that, too (not a request directed at anyone here, BTW, just a musing on my part). :)

 

Now that would be a fun task to take on :lol:! Not sure how you would do that though. I can think of two possible theories, the one I posted prior or possibly that they parted ways with certain people within the company and have decided to clean up the curriculum. It would be great (for those that it matters to) if it were the latter.

 

In my case, since I was just looking at it as a supplement (Shurley English is on its way as we speak) it is not important enough for me to want to look into it. I have decided to just go with something else instead, for peace of mind. That is not definite either since I could just buy Harvey's that goes with CW and just get it over with :tongue_smilie: but I am still thinking that I would prefer some additional grammar program for us (not just a grammar book). Anyway, I'm rambling now and it is time I got off this thread also. I am suppose to be lurking for a while until I read all the TG's I have and those on the way. I just felt compelled to post in this case :), especially since I had only started considering R&S a few days prior to this thread.

[Alyeska]

I have a brand new Spelling by Sound and Structure grade 7. The copywrite date is 2008.

 

I don't have time right now, but I will scour the book to see what I can find and then post my results.

[mama27]

IF such this are discussed. Without any specifics such as "in Spelling gr. 4, lesson 12 XYZ states that blah,blah,blah..." it's impossible to look for yourself and see if it could be something taken out of context or missunderstood.

One of the main reasons people ask about curric is to get opinions about it and usually, especially if there is something like this, people are MORE than willing to be very specific about it because most people do not want to support a company that does this.

If you asked about a book telling about the early years of America and I said i read a book published by Whatever Publishing Company and she used a very derogatory word to describe African Americans but then refused to tell you the name of the book, wouldn't you really want to know the name of this book?

FTR, I use, just recently started using, R&S fpor spelling and math, and since my husband was raised Catholic and one of his sisters is a real, habit-wearing, lives-in-a-convent nun, I would really like to see where exactly this hatred is written. Obviously I wouldn't want my kids reading something that is telling them to hate their aunt!

 

 

This is your assumption. I think I made it clear that if such things are discussed in a spelling program, even if NineChoirs had taken the comments out of context, then I am not interested in such a curriculum. Are you more concerned about clearing this up or about why I have chosen not to go with Rod and Staff :lol:? As for backing, I believe others have backed her already.

[Avila]

IF such this are discussed. Without any specifics such as "in Spelling gr. 4, lesson 12 XYZ states that blah,blah,blah..." it's impossible to look for yourself and see if it could be something taken out of context or missunderstood.

 

:chillpill:

 

Do you really think accusing her of being untruthful or of having an axe to grind with R&S is the way to make your point? Why assume she is being dishonest here? What would she have to gain?

 

She said what she remembered. She gave the publisher name, the book names and levels. She doesn't have ready access to get the quotes or pages, but this is plenty of information to give anybody who is interested a starting point to look at and judge for themselves.

 

We have had a few people with access to more current editions say they will take a look, so could you please stop badgering NineChoirs for sharing her opinion? I am sure she will think twice before doing that again.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Asenik

[simka2]

IF such this are discussed. Without any specifics such as "in Spelling gr. 4, lesson 12 XYZ states that blah,blah,blah..." it's impossible to look for yourself and see if it could be something taken out of context or missunderstood.

One of the main reasons people ask about curric is to get opinions about it and usually, especially if there is something like this, people are MORE than willing to be very specific about it because most people do not want to support a company that does this.

If you asked about a book telling about the early years of America and I said i read a book published by Whatever Publishing Company and she used a very derogatory word to describe African Americans but then refused to tell you the name of the book, wouldn't you really want to know the name of this book?

FTR, I use, just recently started using, R&S fpor spelling and math, and since my husband was raised Catholic and one of his sisters is a real, habit-wearing, lives-in-a-convent nun, I would really like to see where exactly this hatred is written. Obviously I wouldn't want my kids reading something that is telling them to hate their aunt!

 

 

QUOTE]

 

The bolded are your opinions and observations, but they are also sweeping statements. No one who gives a negative opinion is "required" to jump thru any hoops others want to set for them. Simply refusing to jump thru others hoops is not a litmus test for the accuracy of the statement or the motive or the speaker. You may want more details, but ninechoirs has no obligation to give you any. In fact, her point blank refusal to bow to what may be coming across as hostile demands, speaks for her character.

 

Thank you to everyone who as been willing to share "why" they do not use the curriculum. Although I still love it for some things I am now more aware of things to look out for! ;)

[Alyeska]

I made it to page 54 in the Teacher's Manual of Spelling grade 7. The copywrite date for the TM is 2009 whereas the student book is 2008. I figured I would read the TM because it contains the student pages as well as extras to the teacher.

 

I am not Catholic, so I hope I didn't miss anything...I don't think so as I am pretty sensitive to that kind of thing. And I hope this info is useful to someone.

 

On page 20 of the TM, problem 9b on page 12 of the student text says, "Choose from these words: beatific, beatify." "After a person dies, the Catholic Church may ________ him by delcaring him a blessed one worthy of public religious honor." The answer given is beatify and the root 'beat' means bless.

 

On page 40 of the TM, problem 2 on page 40 of the student text says, "Christians are baptized upon the confession of their faith." I thought this might be a problem because aren't children in the Catholic church baptized as infants?

 

Those are the only things I found so far. I will keep reading and post back anything else I find...but it will probably be very late tomorrow. I've a busy day. :)

[mommaduck]

I made it to page 54 in the Teacher's Manual of Spelling grade 7. The copywrite date for the TM is 2009 whereas the student book is 2008. I figured I would read the TM because it contains the student pages as well as extras to the teacher.

 

I am not Catholic, so I hope I didn't miss anything...I don't think so as I am pretty sensitive to that kind of thing. And I hope this info is useful to someone.

 

On page 20 of the TM, problem 9b on page 12 of the student text says, "Choose from these words: beatific, beatify." "After a person dies, the Catholic Church may ________ him by delcaring him a blessed one worthy of public religious honor." The answer given is beatify and the root 'beat' means bless.

 

On page 40 of the TM, problem 2 on page 40 of the student text says, "Christians are baptized upon the confession of their faith." I thought this might be a problem because aren't children in the Catholic church baptized as infants?

 

Those are the only things I found so far. I will keep reading and post back anything else I find...but it will probably be very late tomorrow. I've a busy day. :)

Yep, sounds like the publishers sanitized things (and yes, I believe that word to be accurate).

[TheAutumnOak]

:chillpill:

 

Do you really think accusing her of being untruthful or of having an axe to grind with R&S is the way to make your point? Why assume she is being dishonest here? What would she have to gain?

 

She said what she remembered. She gave the publisher name, the book names and levels. She doesn't have ready access to get the quotes or pages, but this is plenty of information to give anybody who is interested a starting point to look at and judge for themselves.

 

We have had a few people with access to more current editions say they will take a look, so could you please stop badgering NineChoirs for sharing her opinion? I am sure she will think twice before doing that again.

 

:iagree:

 

ETA: I use R&S and will continue to use it, so that is not my issue...I just agree that NineChoirs should be able to voice her opinion, give the information she has, and it not be assumed that she is being dishonest...I know I wouldn't like that...

Edited June 9, 2011 by TheAutumnOak
Something to add

[Janie]

But there's nothing anti-Catholic at all in the grammar books for grades 6, 7, and 8.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Janie

[Chez J]

I think Catholics would have a hard time with the upper spelling, just from a theology perspective.

 

In lesson 3, one spelling sentence reads: The Communion emblems (bread and grape juice) do not have sacramental value. They have a sacred use, but they do not have the power in themselves to sanct anyone.

 

lesson 8, part A, question 6 says:

 

Following is part of a conversation between an inquisitor and one who shortly became a martyr.

A. "How are infants purified if it is not done through baptism?"

B."They are purified through the blood of Christ."

A. "How are they purified from original sin?"

B. "My lord, I have told you; namely , through the blood of Christ."

Who was teh inquisitor, A or B? It is easy to tell this because he is the one who made the .

 

(View that agrees with Catholicism)

Lesson 15, Part A, question 7 c.

The ______ of unrepentant sinners from teh church is necessary to keep the church pure.

 

More to come. Found one place in the TM that needs its own post because it's long.

[mommaduck]

But there's nothing anti-Catholic at all in the grammar books for grades 6, 7, and 8.

 

Apparently there isn't NOW. However, there used to be. So the lesson should be, "Check the year you are getting and look through the book, being aware that the older the book, the more likely it will have anti-Catholic (and anti-other people) statements in it." ;)

[Testimony]

Ok, ok, I'm almost convinced to throw out all the grammar plans I had, and give Rod & Staff a try. I started the thread about what you LOVE about Rod & Staff and I got some pretty convincing reasons! So, before I jump, I realized....the people who respond to that post will be the ones who it is working for. I thought, maybe there are dissenters out there who are brave enough to talk to me! So here's your chance for dissension!!! What do you dislike about the program! Warn me now! I'm about to make the leap!!!! ;):lol:;)

 

I hope I don't come across too harsh. There are people on this board that are prejudice against it just because it uses scripture. I want to tell you something that is interesting about this. The books don't preach at you. They do use the Bible as some of their examples. Rod and Staff (which by the way comes from Psalm 23: thy rod and thy staff) is published by Mennonites. The Bible is embedded in their culture. If a person was an atheist or agnostic, instead of seeing the Biblical stuff as cultural, I have seen people attacking because the Bible is mentioned. I feel it is sad because no one complains about Singapore math and the cultural things that it uses even though it is confusing (I still am a little confused as to what a satay is:lol:). I feel that Rod and Staff is the best grammar program that I have seen. It is extremely thorough in teaching every aspect of the part of speech. It progresses little by little where every year it is a little bit harder. It goes in depth. It does it in a very palatable way for the teacher and student. It may be dry and boring, but that is in order to keep the price down for them and for us. So, to get an outstanding grammar lesson at an inexpensive price and it is user friendly, I say that you are missing out.

 

I just feel that if a curriculum offers the best academic teaching that your child needs why would I knock it because it used "religious" material. If it used quotes from the Koran and was good literature, I'm a Christian, but I would use it if it taught the academics well.

 

By the way, I do know what a satay is. I was only joking.:smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!:001_smile:

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Chez J]

Page 110 in the TM is for page 54 in student text.

 

Lesson 16 Part D, which is the part on etymology and history.

 

First the student text: (actually a positive view)

 

D. Language Lineage

 

Roman Catholic Influences

 

The Alglo-Saxons were known as barbarians to the latin-speaking people of what had been the Roman Empire. Pope Gregpory the Great thought these people should be evangelized, and th he sent a man by the name of Augustine ot work as a missionary among them. Thus, it was that Augustine and about forty monks arrived in britain in AD 597 to begin the work of "Christianizing" the Anglo-Saxons.

 

These missionaries established churches, schools, adnd monasteries in England. They taught the Latin alphabet to the people, even though some of them could write with the runic alphabet, because teh runes were associated with heathen worship. The missionaries also introduced classical learning - teh greek and latin literature that had been produced by the civilizations of greece and rome.

 

All these things had a great influence on teh language of the anglo-saxons. Dozens of religious terms were added to old english - words such as altar, angel , deacon, disciple, hymn, priest, and psalm. Other words had to do with education - school, master (for teacher), verse, an notary (for scribe). There were also many new words that had to do with everyday life - names of foods such as beet, pear, radish, and oyster; names of clothing and household articles such as cap, chest, sock, mat and silk; and other terms such as anchor, fever, elephant, circle, giant, and talent. teh work of the Roman Catholic missionaries brought about the greatests of the three latin influences that affected old english.

 

The anglo saxons were considered to be "Christianized by AD 700 - only about a hundred years after augustine had first arrived in England. Scores of new words were added to old english during that century, and now the horizons of the english language were much broader than they had ever been before.

 

Teacher's Manual text to come in next post.

[Chez J]

Teacher's Manual Lesson 16 Part D page 111

 

Notes on Part D

 

The term barbarians was used in referring to uneducated people outside the roman empire. Teh barbarians were "uncivilized" by roman standards, and they sppoke foreign langugages. Thus the anglo-saxons would have been included in teh group calledc barbarians in Romans 1:14 and Colossians 3:11.

 

According to legend, pople gregory's desire to evangelize britain stemmed from an encounter in he earlier life. He had seen some anglo=saxon boys for sale as slaves, adn he had been greatly impressed by their light hair and blue eyees. "Alas! what a pity," he said, "that the author of darkenss is possessed of men of such gair counenances; and that being remarkable for such a graceful exterior, their minds should be void of inward grace~"

 

The augustine who went to britain today is know as saint augustine of cantebury. AT the time of his arrival on the island, about the only "gods" that the anglo-saxons respected were phusical courage, a pompous kind of independence, loyalty to one's family, and justice of the sort that left no injury unavenged. The missionaries were not setting out merely to replace one religious system with another; they faced the awesome task of changing the natives' very mentality. Augustine himself died in 604, only seven years after he had come to england.

 

It is admirable that the missionaries labored so diligently that britain was "Christianized" in only one hundred years. But the fact that they introduced the roman catholic form of christianity makes on wonder how much the anglo-saxons' spritual condition was actually improved. Of course they became "better civilized"' but whether they were better off spiritually as catholics than they had been as heathen is open to question.

 

All the new words that the anflo-saxons learned from teh catholic missionaries during the 600s were in the latin vocabulary at that time. but this does not mean that they were all of latin origin. Angel, hymn, and psalm are examples of words that had been borrowed from greek.

 

The word rune is derived from a gothic word that means "secret"; runic characters are thought to have been used by heathen priests in their charms and magic spells. This explains why the missionaries taught the latin alphabet rather then using runic characters. You may wish to reviwe the runic alphabet in lesson 5.

[8filltheheart]

Teacher's Manual Lesson 16 Part D page 111

 

Notes on Part D

 

The term barbarians was used in referring to uneducated people outside the roman empire. Teh barbarians were "uncivilized" by roman standards, and they sppoke foreign langugages. Thus the anglo-saxons would have been included in teh group calledc barbarians in Romans 1:14 and Colossians 3:11.

 

According to legend, pople gregory's desire to evangelize britain stemmed from an encounter in he earlier life. He had seen some anglo=saxon boys for sale as slaves, adn he had been greatly impressed by their light hair and blue eyees. "Alas! what a pity," he said, "that the author of darkenss is possessed of men of such gair counenances; and that being remarkable for such a graceful exterior, their minds should be void of inward grace~"

 

The augustine who went to britain today is know as saint augustine of cantebury. AT the time of his arrival on the island, about the only "gods" that the anglo-saxons respected were phusical courage, a pompous kind of independence, loyalty to one's family, and justice of the sort that left no injury unavenged. The missionaries were not setting out merely to replace one religious system with another; they faced the awesome task of changing the natives' very mentality. Augustine himself died in 604, only seven years after he had come to england.

 

It is admirable that the missionaries labored so diligently that britain was "Christianized" in only one hundred years. But the fact that they introduced the roman catholic form of christianity makes on wonder how much the anglo-saxons' spritual condition was actually improved. Of course they became "better civilized"' but whether they were better off spiritually as catholics than they had been as heathen is open to question.

 

All the new words that the anflo-saxons learned from teh catholic missionaries during the 600s were in the latin vocabulary at that time. but this does not mean that they were all of latin origin. Angel, hymn, and psalm are examples of words that had been borrowed from greek.

 

The word rune is derived from a gothic word that means "secret"; runic characters are thought to have been used by heathen priests in their charms and magic spells. This explains why the missionaries taught the latin alphabet rather then using runic characters. You may wish to reviwe the runic alphabet in lesson 5.

 

Wow. I haven't read this thread and only clicked on the arrow for this last post. Jeepers. It makes me very glad that the reason I hadn't been reading the thread is the fact that I have never used R&S (and now obviously never will.)

 

Thank you very much for typing that out. Since my head is currently exploding, I won't say any more. :tongue_smilie:

[Guest]

I hope I don't come across too harsh. There are people on this board that are prejudice against it just because it uses scripture. I want to tell you something that is interesting about this. The books don't preach at you. They do use the Bible as some of their examples. Rod and Staff (which by the way comes from Psalm 23: thy rod and thy staff) is published by Mennonites. The Bible is embedded in their culture. If a person was an atheist or agnostic, instead of seeing the Biblical stuff as cultural, I have seen people attacking because the Bible is mentioned. I feel it is sad because no one complains about Singapore math and the cultural things that it uses even though it is confusing (I still am a little confused as to what a satay is:lol:). I feel that Rod and Staff is the best grammar program that I have seen. It is extremely thorough in teaching every aspect of the part of speech. It progresses little by little where every year it is a little bit harder. It goes in depth. It does it in a very palatable way for the teacher and student. It may be dry and boring, but that is in order to keep the price down for them and for us. So, to get an outstanding grammar lesson at an inexpensive price and it is user friendly, I say that you are missing out.

 

I just feel that if a curriculum offers the best academic teaching that your child needs why would I knock it because it used "religious" material. If it used quotes from the Koran and was good literature, I'm a Christian, but I would use it if it taught the academics well.

 

By the way, I do know what a satay is. I was only joking.:smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!:001_smile:

 

Sincerely,

Karen

www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

 

If you have read the entire thread and especially the quotes by Chez J you will notice that it is not about the use of scripture ;). I don't think that anyone that has posted in this thread would have had a problem if it were just that.

[Guest]

Chez J, thank you so much for taking the time to go over the books and type out the quotes. Very much appreciated :)!

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

How odd that this is all concentrated in the spelling books! I haven't found anything yet in the grammar books but I've not gone through grade 7 yet.

 

That bit about Augustine and the Saxons is incredibly, infuriatingly, offensive.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Chez J, thank you so much for taking the time to go over the books and type out the quotes. Very much appreciated :)!

 

:iagree:

 

Thanks, Chez. I assumed we'd only find rather mild bias that some people would be able to overlook or ignore if their conscience allowed. I had no idea it was as bad as this.

[Guest]

That bit about Augustine and the Saxons is incredibly, infuriatingly, offensive.

 

Yah, I did a double take with that one! Makes me wonder now how bad it was before they were sanitized :confused:!

Edited June 9, 2011 by Guest

[mom4him]

Didn't work well for us. My two need to be able to put the pencil to the paper to get it and to do that with R&S there was a LOT of writing. We have tried several since. We found BJU and love it. More expensive by far but covering both grammar and writing.

[Chez J]

How odd that this is all concentrated in the spelling books! I haven't found anything yet in the grammar books but I've not gone through grade 7 yet.

 

That bit about Augustine and the Saxons is incredibly, infuriatingly, offensive.

 

The reason I see that it is in spelling is that the section I quoted is in the "history of language" section, which is part D. There was only one other lesson in which the teacher's manual editorialized in this way. All the other lessons are totally about the history of peoples and language - and are quite fascinating.

 

And, it is not part of the student text. So unless the teacher brings that to the discussion, the student will not learn it.

 

I am going to use the books as I think the history of language lessons are quite fascinating. I will refrain from reading the TM editorial uncensored.

 

Yah, I did a double take with that one. Makes me wonder now how bad it was before they were sanitized :confused:!

 

Mine is the 1989 version. So, perhaps this has been removed in more recent editions.

[Burger]

Thank you for posting the quotes. I wish I would have known this just a little earlier; my rod and staff order came yesterday :(.

[Chez J]

Thank you for posting the quotes. I wish I would have known this just a little earlier; my rod and staff order came yesterday :(.

 

Check yours. As I said, mine is the "unsanitized" 1989 version. Yours may be fine. It would be great for comparison. If you find it to be vastly improved, I'm sure many here would appreciate your posting the new version as a comparison!

[justamouse]

I think it's a fine grammar program. If it floats your boat, go for it. I would rather cut the grass with scissors than use it again. Frankly I found it to be one of the most boring, uninspiring programs out there. But that's me - I love variety, and beautiful surroundings are important to my state of mind. This program had neither. The text is (or was when we used it) straight black and white with no variation in the typeset. It didn't scream "read me!". The content is excellent, though. So my only beef with the product is the packaging so to speak. And I will admit that I haven't even looked at a Rod and Staff book for several years so maybe they have changed the "packaging".

 

 

Yes!

 

Now, I get why it is plain, but I'm just figuring this out about myself, too. I need pretty. It SEEMS like a frivolous thing, but *shrug*, I need something other than lines upon lines of text. It's one of the reasons I love Serl's older books-the prints in it are quite beautiful, it engages the children with the art, and writing is then an organic process.

 

And R7S is very rote. Which, if that's your thing-then absolutely, it's the program for you.

[justamouse]

Teacher's Manual Lesson 16 Part D page 111

 

Notes on Part D

 

The term barbarians was used in referring to uneducated people outside the roman empire. Teh barbarians were "uncivilized" by roman standards, and they sppoke foreign langugages. Thus the anglo-saxons would have been included in teh group calledc barbarians in Romans 1:14 and Colossians 3:11.

 

According to legend, pople gregory's desire to evangelize britain stemmed from an encounter in he earlier life. He had seen some anglo=saxon boys for sale as slaves, adn he had been greatly impressed by their light hair and blue eyees. "Alas! what a pity," he said, "that the author of darkenss is possessed of men of such gair counenances; and that being remarkable for such a graceful exterior, their minds should be void of inward grace~"

 

The augustine who went to britain today is know as saint augustine of cantebury. AT the time of his arrival on the island, about the only "gods" that the anglo-saxons respected were phusical courage, a pompous kind of independence, loyalty to one's family, and justice of the sort that left no injury unavenged. The missionaries were not setting out merely to replace one religious system with another; they faced the awesome task of changing the natives' very mentality. Augustine himself died in 604, only seven years after he had come to england.

 

It is admirable that the missionaries labored so diligently that britain was "Christianized" in only one hundred years. But the fact that they introduced the roman catholic form of christianity makes on wonder how much the anglo-saxons' spritual condition was actually improved. Of course they became "better civilized"' but whether they were better off spiritually as catholics than they had been as heathen is open to question.

 

All the new words that the anflo-saxons learned from teh catholic missionaries during the 600s were in the latin vocabulary at that time. but this does not mean that they were all of latin origin. Angel, hymn, and psalm are examples of words that had been borrowed from greek.

 

The word rune is derived from a gothic word that means "secret"; runic characters are thought to have been used by heathen priests in their charms and magic spells. This explains why the missionaries taught the latin alphabet rather then using runic characters. You may wish to reviwe the runic alphabet in lesson 5.

 

 

Wow, I had NO idea. :001_huh:

 

Thank you very much for posting that.

[justamouse]

Thank you for posting the quotes. I wish I would have known this just a little earlier; my rod and staff order came yesterday :(.

 

Send them back. Most companies will refund the order if you haven't already written in it.

[Guest]

Mine is the 1989 version. So, perhaps this has been removed in more recent editions.

 

Ooops sorry, I should have looked back. It's Alyeska that has the newer editions.

 

ETA: Alyeska, thank you for the quotes also :) and for taking the time to look through your books.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Guest

[mommaduck]

Check yours. As I said, mine is the "unsanitized" 1989 version. Yours may be fine. It would be great for comparison. If you find it to be vastly improved, I'm sure many here would appreciate your posting the new version as a comparison!

 

The quotes I posted were from a 1980's 7th or 8th grade STUDENT grammar book :( So, seriously, people need to consider the publishing dates and LOOK through the curricula (student and teacher's books).

[lovelaughs_times_three]

By the way, I do know what a satay is. I was only joking.:smilielol5::smilielol5:

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!:001_smile:

 

Sincerely,

Karen

www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

 

I have no idea what a satay is!! I guess I need to go and look that up! :D

Thanks to everyone for all their thoughts. It always helps to hear from people who know more than you! As always, I'm all :bigear: for your wisdom!

[Burger]

Check yours. As I said, mine is the "unsanitized" 1989 version. Yours may be fine. It would be great for comparison. If you find it to be vastly improved, I'm sure many here would appreciate your posting the new version as a comparison!

 

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I didn't buy the spelling program, I purchased the English 3 and English 5. I just didn't realize they publish things like that and wouldn't have bought it had I known.

 

Reading through them I haven't found anything offensive, but they are a bit preachy and very farm-life orientated. Plus the answer to question 1 on the first test is: Your textbook is your _______. Correct answer is "friend". Blech.

[Testimony]

If you have read the entire thread and especially the quotes by Chez J you will notice that it is not about the use of scripture ;). I don't think that anyone that has posted in this thread would have had a problem if it were just that.

 

I have not read what others have written on this thread. I specifically meant from reading past posters on the Well Trained Mind boards. There are people on the Well Trained Mind Boards that have said, "do you know of other grammar programs that are like Rod and Staff, but don't have all that religious stuff in it?" In this thread, the poster asked, "what people do not love about Rod and Staff." There are people in the hive that are against it because it has too much scripture. That is a dissenter of Rod and Staff.

 

In fact years ago, back before the boards looked like this there was a long discussion about Rod and Staff where a woman said, "Oh, all I need to do is put God or Jesus in the blank and I will get the right answer." I was a new homeschooler back then. I was swayed by that comment. I regret that because the curriculum is excellent as far as teaching grammar.

 

I hope that clarifies what I meant.:D

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

Edited June 9, 2011 by Testimony

[Alyeska]

Ooops sorry, I should have looked back. It's Alyeska that has the newer editions.

 

ETA: Alyeska, thank you for the quotes also :) and for taking the time to look through your books.

 

Sure! I will hopefully get a chance to finish looking through the book tonight. I'm trying to finish a baby quilt for my niece who is due very, very soon. :)

[Colleen in NS]

Thank you to those who are posting samples from the old and new R&S books. It helps me to think something through when I see actual material after someone (NineChoirs in this instance) makes serious statements. That's why I mentioned previously that quotes/page numbers were standard - because they do help in instances like this. And I'd like to reiterate that I'm glad NineChoirs dug out the publication date - that also was very helpful. :)

 

I have a question after this quote:

 

Teacher's Manual Lesson 16 Part D page 111

 

Notes on Part D

 

The term barbarians was used in referring to uneducated people outside the roman empire. Teh barbarians were "uncivilized" by roman standards, and they sppoke foreign langugages. Thus the anglo-saxons would have been included in teh group calledc barbarians in Romans 1:14 and Colossians 3:11.

 

According to legend, pople gregory's desire to evangelize britain stemmed from an encounter in he earlier life. He had seen some anglo=saxon boys for sale as slaves, adn he had been greatly impressed by their light hair and blue eyees. "Alas! what a pity," he said, "that the author of darkenss is possessed of men of such gair counenances; and that being remarkable for such a graceful exterior, their minds should be void of inward grace~"

 

The augustine who went to britain today is know as saint augustine of cantebury. AT the time of his arrival on the island, about the only "gods" that the anglo-saxons respected were phusical courage, a pompous kind of independence, loyalty to one's family, and justice of the sort that left no injury unavenged. The missionaries were not setting out merely to replace one religious system with another; they faced the awesome task of changing the natives' very mentality. Augustine himself died in 604, only seven years after he had come to england.

 

It is admirable that the missionaries labored so diligently that britain was "Christianized" in only one hundred years. But the fact that they introduced the roman catholic form of christianity makes on wonder how much the anglo-saxons' spritual condition was actually improved. Of course they became "better civilized"' but whether they were better off spiritually as catholics than they had been as heathen is open to question.

 

All the new words that the anflo-saxons learned from teh catholic missionaries during the 600s were in the latin vocabulary at that time. but this does not mean that they were all of latin origin. Angel, hymn, and psalm are examples of words that had been borrowed from greek.

 

The word rune is derived from a gothic word that means "secret"; runic characters are thought to have been used by heathen priests in their charms and magic spells. This explains why the missionaries taught the latin alphabet rather then using runic characters. You may wish to reviwe the runic alphabet in lesson 5.

 

What in this post above is considered to be the way NineChoirs characterized these books to be? (I'm guessing that when some of you quote this and say "wow" or whatever, that you are agreeing with what NineChoirs posted, although I could be misreading those)

 

very anti Catholic.

 

I do mean hate, yes. ....They say that people would have been better off as "barbarians" or "heathens" (their words, not mine) than Catholic. There are references to the Catholic Church being oppressive and they accuse it of trying to keep people "ignorant". Seriously, especially in the spelling books, like every other chapter talked about how horrible Catholics were.

 

It was hatred

 

I ask, because I'm reading that TM article as one group's perspective on history; not as an accusation, attack, an anti-Catholic document, a document that says how horrible Catholics were, or something that is hateful towards Catholics.

 

And I am reading the part about being better off as "barbarians" and "heathens" as them saying it is open to question, not that they are actually saying that they are better off that way.

 

I can understand that if the TM article isn't something you'd want your kids to know about, that you would not use this book (or even buy the newer books from the same company or support the company in any way). And I understand if you don't agree with some statements made in it. But I don't understand how this article is characterized the way NineChoirs put it (if that is what she was referring to, which I know I am going out on a limb to assume). Can anyone help me out with the mindset here?

 

(and to put my question in context - I grew up in the Catholic church and have many wonderful Catholic relatives and friends whom I respect)

 

afterthought: I guess I'm seeing it the same way I see what my family just sets aside as we study grammar and math with R&S (and again, I'm NOT trying to talk anyone into buying R&S - I am just really puzzled about what the problem is here). When I get the impression, for example, that the text writer thinks women should be limited in career options to mothers, teachers, or servants in the church; I don't take that as an attack on women who do otherwise. I just see it as part of their belief system that they are indoctrinating their kids with through their texts. I hope that clarifies why I ask my above question. Really not trying to incite anyone here. Please don't yell at me, I'm nervous about even asking. But I am puzzled. :D

[simka2]

Thank you to those who are posting samples from the old and new R&S books. It helps me to think something through when I see actual material after someone (NineChoirs in this instance) makes serious statements. That's why I mentioned previously that quotes/page numbers were standard - because they do help in instances like this. And I'd like to reiterate that I'm glad NineChoirs dug out the publication date - that also was very helpful. :)

 

I have a question after this quote:

 

 

 

What in this post above is considered to be the way NineChoirs characterized these books to be? (I'm guessing that when some of you quote this and say "wow" or whatever, that you are agreeing with what NineChoirs posted, although I could be misreading those)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I ask, because I'm reading that TM article as one group's perspective on history; not as an accusation, attack, an anti-Catholic document, a document that says how horrible Catholics were, or something that is hateful towards Catholics.

 

And I am reading the part about being better off as "barbarians" and "heathens" as them saying it is open to question, not that they are actually saying that they are better off that way.

 

I can understand that if the TM article isn't something you'd want your kids to know about, that you would not use this book (or even buy the newer books from the same company or support the company in any way). And I understand if you don't agree with some statements made in it. But I don't understand how this article is characterized the way NineChoirs put it (if that is what she was referring to, which I know I am going out on a limb to assume). Can anyone help me out with the mindset here?

 

(and to put my question in context - I grew up in the Catholic church and have many wonderful Catholic relatives and friends whom I respect)

 

afterthought: I guess I'm seeing it the same way I see what my family just sets aside as we study grammar and math with R&S (and again, I'm NOT trying to talk anyone into buying R&S - I am just really puzzled about what the problem is here). When I get the impression, for example, that the text writer thinks women should be limited in career options to mothers, teachers, or servants in the church; I don't take that as an attack on women who do otherwise. I just see it as part of their belief system that they are indoctrinating their kids with through their texts. I hope that clarifies why I ask my above question. Really not trying to incite anyone here. Please don't yell at me, I'm nervous about even asking. But I am puzzled. :D

 

Maybe the term "abominate" (suggests strong detestation and often moral condemnation) would have been a better choice. Truthfully, though I couldn't see that being any less inflamitory. ;)

 

It is my understanding that an opinion may be drawn from what is present, say if RS said, "We hate Catholics." On the other hand inference is a mighty useful tool as well. "The people of Britain were barbarians who followed a plethora of base/violent/ and sensual dieties (something we are reasonably assured the Amish do not look on with warm fuzzies). The Catholics came and were able to come and civilize them, but they probably would have been "better off" if the Catholics had never come."

 

Why would they think this? What is it that they believe is sooooooo horrible about Catholics? Now if this statement was being made by someone of Pagan persuasion it would be completely different. It wouldn't be a condemnation of one Christian group by another. It would be a greiving for a state of being that was lost.

 

That probably made very little sense. ;) I sure hope someone with better logic comes along :D.

[Guest]

I have not read what others have written on this thread. I specifically meant from reading past posters on the Well Trained Mind boards. There are people on the Well Trained Mind Boards that have said, "do you know of other grammar programs that are like Rod and Staff, but don't have all that religious stuff in it?" In this thread, the poster asked, "what people do not love about Rod and Staff." There are people in the hive that are against it because it has too much scripture. That is a dissenter of Rod and Staff.

 

In fact years ago, back before the boards looked like this there was a long discussion about Rod and Staff where a woman said, "Oh, all I need to do is put God or Jesus in the blank and I will get the right answer." I was a new homeschooler back then. I was swayed by that comment. I regret that because the curriculum is excellent as far as teaching grammar.

 

I hope that clarifies what I meant.:D

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!

 

Sincerely,

Karen

www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

 

OK, gotcha ;).

[Guest]

Sure! I will hopefully get a chance to finish looking through the book tonight. I'm trying to finish a baby quilt for my niece who is due very, very soon. :)

 

Sounds like fun :)! Quilting is something I have always wanted to try.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Maybe the term "abominate" (suggests strong detestation and often moral condemnation) would have been a better choice. Truthfully, though I couldn't see that being any less inflamitory. ;)

 

It is my understanding that an opinion may be drawn from what is present, say if RS said, "We hate Catholics." On the other hand inference is a mighty useful tool as well. "The people of Britain were barbarians who followed a plethora of base/violent/ and sensual dieties (something we are reasonably assured the Amish do not look on with warm fuzzies). The Catholics came and were able to come and civilize them, but they probably would have been "better off" if the Catholics had never come."

 

Why would they think this? What is it that they believe is sooooooo horrible about Catholics? Now if this statement was being made by someone of Pagan persuasion it would be completely different. It wouldn't be a condemnation of one Christian group by another. It would be a grieving for a state of being that was lost.

 

That probably made very little sense. ;) I sure hope someone with better logic comes along :D.

 

There is this, and here I'll also share the reasons for my strong reaction:

 

When the author of the book opines that barbarians are better off as barbarians than to be taught about Jesus by Catholics, he is saying that the gospel taught by Catholics is of no avail to the soul of man.

 

Even though Catholics are teaching that salvation is only in Christ Jesus our Lord, and sharing the gospel of his birth, death, burial, and resurrection, according to the author of the spelling book the barbarians could have received no salvation through the hearing of the word.

 

So what does that make Catholics? Not faithful ambassadors of the gospel, obviously. Not preachers of same. So what, then? Imposters? Liars? False teachers? If these negatives were not spelled out, there was certainly nothing truly positive in implying that the main worth of the testimony of St. Augustine was to enlighten the barbarians concerning etiquette and the proper paving of roads.

 

As if he did not give his entire life for the glory of Jesus Christ.

 

As if he did not share with the Anglo-Saxons the gospel by which all men may be saved.

 

As if he was not a disciple of Christ, in other words, a Christian.

 

So, Mennonite schoolchildren are taught that Catholics are not Christians. It couldn't be plainer.

 

Did Christ not say that those who weren't against him were with him? Does the holy scripture not say that the feet of those who carry the gospel are beautiful?

 

A faithful preacher is slandered. The faith of untold numbers of Anglo-Saxons and their descendants is flippantly disregarded. The connection between the telling of the gospel and the salvation of the faithful hearer is denied, when conditions regarding the denominational persuasion of the preacher are attached to the effectiveness of the telling of that gospel.

 

To say that the gospel told by anyone is of no avail and the barbarians would have been happier (except for knowing when to bow and curtsy to kings) if they hadn't heard it is to insult the Author of Salvation who commanded His disciples to preach the word unto all nations.

 

This is why we are offended. And I'm not even Catholic.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Dulcimeramy

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Colleen, I am not angry at you and I'm glad you asked that question. Please don't take my strong feelings as if they were directed toward you, because they absolutely are not. I can't even assume you disagree with my conclusions. I can only properly assume that you didn't see the situation the same way I did. I do feel passionately about this, but I am not angry at anyone who questions that passion.

 

A decade ago, I would have agreed with what you posted. Two decades ago, I would have agreed with the Mennonite editorialist. Today, I have learned more about who the enemy really is on this earth, and it is the Devil. Today, every man who calls Jesus "Lord" is my brother.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

(Oh, look, Dulcimeramy is still talking, will she move on already)

 

The thing that caused the visceral response in me at first was not about the Catholics.

 

It was the blatant and willful ignorance of the Anglo-Saxons' pre-Christian beliefs. They weren't godless. They were polytheistic. They didn't only worship themselves and their own strengths and virtues. They weren't existing in a spiritual vacuum. They had gods.

 

Ignorant people talk this way about Native American cultures, too. I've often heard that my ancestors were godless before Columbus brought Christianity, but of course, his Christianity was rooted in greedy Rome and not better for them anyway.

 

The same kind of useless ignorance. Identical, really. No real education is going on in a classroom built on these prejudices and discussions. It is nothing more than the perpetuating of stereotypes, myths, and bigotry.

 

There are other faiths out there besides Christianity. There are other Christian saints of whom our own denominations tell us nothing lest we be converted. I've seen this ignorance masquerading as protection, and it sets kids up to feel they've been lied to when they inevitably learn the truth.

[KeriJ]

Thank you to those who are posting samples from the old and new R&S books. It helps me to think something through when I see actual material after someone (NineChoirs in this instance) makes serious statements. That's why I mentioned previously that quotes/page numbers were standard - because they do help in instances like this. And I'd like to reiterate that I'm glad NineChoirs dug out the publication date - that also was very helpful. :)

 

I have a question after this quote:

 

 

 

What in this post above is considered to be the way NineChoirs characterized these books to be? (I'm guessing that when some of you quote this and say "wow" or whatever, that you are agreeing with what NineChoirs posted, although I could be misreading those)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I ask, because I'm reading that TM article as one group's perspective on history; not as an accusation, attack, an anti-Catholic document, a document that says how horrible Catholics were, or something that is hateful towards Catholics.

 

And I am reading the part about being better off as "barbarians" and "heathens" as them saying it is open to question, not that they are actually saying that they are better off that way.

 

I can understand that if the TM article isn't something you'd want your kids to know about, that you would not use this book (or even buy the newer books from the same company or support the company in any way). And I understand if you don't agree with some statements made in it. But I don't understand how this article is characterized the way NineChoirs put it (if that is what she was referring to, which I know I am going out on a limb to assume). Can anyone help me out with the mindset here?

 

(and to put my question in context - I grew up in the Catholic church and have many wonderful Catholic relatives and friends whom I respect)

 

afterthought: I guess I'm seeing it the same way I see what my family just sets aside as we study grammar and math with R&S (and again, I'm NOT trying to talk anyone into buying R&S - I am just really puzzled about what the problem is here). When I get the impression, for example, that the text writer thinks women should be limited in career options to mothers, teachers, or servants in the church; I don't take that as an attack on women who do otherwise. I just see it as part of their belief system that they are indoctrinating their kids with through their texts. I hope that clarifies why I ask my above question. Really not trying to incite anyone here. Please don't yell at me, I'm nervous about even asking. But I am puzzled. :D

 

I had these same questions. It's not just you. :)

[Alyeska]

Okay this is from the new Spelling 7 on page 61 of the TM which refers to page 53 of the student text.

 

Roman Catholic Influences

The Anglo-Saxons were known as barbarians to the Latin-speaking people of what had been the Roman Empire. Pope Gregory the Great thought these people should be evangelized, and he sent a man by the name of Augustine to work as a missionary among them. Thus it was that Augustine and about forty monks arrived in Britain in A.D. 597 to begin the work of "Christianizing" the Anglo-Saxons.

These missionaries established churches, schools, and monasteries in England. They taught the Latin alphabet to the people, even though some of them could write with the runic alphabet, because the runes were associated with heathen worship. THe missionaries also introduced classical learning--the Greek and Latin literature that had been produced by the civilizations of Greece and Rome.

All these things had a great influence on the language of the Anglo-Saxons. Dozens of religious terms became part of Old English (then it gives a bunch of examples...) The work of the Roman Catholic missionaries brought about the greatest of the three Latin influences that affected Old English.

The Anglo-Saxons were considered to be "Christianized" by A.D. 700--only about a hundred years after Augustine had first arrived in England. Scores of new words were added to Old English during that century, and now the horizons of the English language were much broader than they had ever been.

[Alyeska]

The last thing I found about Catholic anything is on page 70 of the TM/62 of the Student text.

 

First Bible Accounts in English

The language of the Roman Catholic Church was Latin. The pirests and the monks in England must have used the English language in teaching the doctrines of the church to the people; but the church services were always conducted in Latin, and the Bible was read only in Latin. All the religious knowledge that the common people had was what the church leaders taught them.

This began to change in about the year 680. Around that time a monk named Caedmon began to write some of the accounts in the Latin Bible as Old English poetry. His works included stories from Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, and the other books of the Bible. Caedmon did not do any actual translating of the Scriptures, but his work did allow the common people to obtain some knowledge of the Bible on their own.

Other writers were inspired by Caedmon's example, and soon they too were writing Bible accounts as Old English poetry. While only one of Caedmon's poems has survived in modern times, a number of these other writers' works are in existence today. Below are several lines from such a peom, along with a translation in a more modern form of English.

 

(then gives the example)

 

I hope I didn't miss anything. :)

[simka2]

Okay this is from the new Spelling 7 on page 61 of the TM which refers to page 53 of the student text.

 

Roman Catholic Influences

The Anglo-Saxons were known as barbarians to the Latin-speaking people of what had been the Roman Empire. Pope Gregory the Great thought these people should be evangelized, and he sent a man by the name of Augustine to work as a missionary among them. Thus it was that Augustine and about forty monks arrived in Britain in A.D. 597 to begin the work of "Christianizing" the Anglo-Saxons.

These missionaries established churches, schools, and monasteries in England. They taught the Latin alphabet to the people, even though some of them could write with the runic alphabet, because the runes were associated with heathen worship. THe missionaries also introduced classical learning--the Greek and Latin literature that had been produced by the civilizations of Greece and Rome.

All these things had a great influence on the language of the Anglo-Saxons. Dozens of religious terms became part of Old English (then it gives a bunch of examples...) The work of the Roman Catholic missionaries brought about the greatest of the three Latin influences that affected Old English.

The Anglo-Saxons were considered to be "Christianized" by A.D. 700--only about a hundred years after Augustine had first arrived in England. Scores of new words were added to Old English during that century, and now the horizons of the English language were much broader than they had ever been.

 

Did they totally remove the "one has to wonder if they were better off" phrase? It does sound as if it has been "cleansed." ;)