Cast your vote...

[_sock puppet]

What do y'all think?

Accept the position, then ask yourself each week how Consiglieri would structure his lesson plan. Give the class less pablum and more grits.

It will give your stake presidency more gas too.

[_Mortal Man]

MM,

Not that I claim to be qualified to teach GD but if the offer were extended to me, and I were attending Church anyways, I would say yes because I enjoy teaching opportunities. When my oldest son went on his mission I was asked to talk in sacrament meeting by the bishop as part of his farewell program. The bishop was well aware of how I felt about the Church and he was comfortable knowing I could give a talk that was appropriate to the occasion without causing myself or the members any discomfort. I would approach the GD class in the same manner.

I would make sure the bishop was aware that while I would use the manual for a loose guide that I would not be following it. It would be my intent to explore what I thought was interesting about the lesson.
I would ask that a member of the bishopric attend each class and if at any time he was uncomfortable with what I was saying to let me know by a silent prearranged signal. If that were to occur too often then we would discuss releasing me.
I would assure the bishopric of my intent to provide faith promoting dialogue and to try and avoid any controversial issues.

As we can see from how the Church itself acts, it is easy to present faith promoting versions on any subject.

Really there is soooooo much faith promoting material that can be used that is interesting, it isn't necessary to worry about critical stuff.

by the way my idea of the GD class that would reactive me would be team teaching by Consig and MM with CK as the monthly substitute.

We would be meeting in the cultural hall due to attendance.

Thanks for your kind words FC; however, I think my wife and the bulk of posters here are right. There's just no way I could do this in good conscience. How to decline is the real question.

[_sock puppet]

There's just no way I could do this in good conscience. How to decline is the real question.

With much humility. You'll do fine in explaining simply that it's not the right time in your life for such an opportunity.

[_RockSlider]

why is any explanation required.

When approached again for your answer, just say "no"

[_Brackite]

why is any explanation required.

When approached again for your answer, just say "no"

Yes, just say "no" MM.

[_Ceeboo]

With much humility. You'll do fine in explaining simply that it's not the right time in your life for such an opportunity.

Note to self:

If you ever author a thread asking for advice, take pause and pay very close attention to the advice that sock puppet offers.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Drifting]

So, you're critical of someone who doesn't fully believe in the Church for not leaving/stopping attending. Yet you, who believes in the Church, doesn't attend.

That's two-faced.

Is that what I said? Do you need a lesson in reading comprehension? Did I say that "someone who doesn't fully believe in the Church", and leaves it for that reason, should be condemned?

No, that's not what I said, so pay attention!

I said that those who conclusively believe that Mormonism is a fraud, a lie, a deception, a con, "foisted upon humankind", are obligated to speak out, and not be afraid of even offending family.

That leaves some leeway for the "halfways", those who might still be considering that it might be true. People like Dr.W seem quite assured that it's a sham, fraud, disgusting fake only to bring misery to humanity.

He needs to start a website warning everyone of this "clear and present danger", or he's just fatuous, empty, hypocritical GAS.

Define 'conclusively'...

[_Dr. Shades]

If you passionately believe that Mormonism is a false religion, and that those embracing it are seriously deluded, then it should be your duty to declare it from the rooftops.

You're a disbeliever. Do you do your duty by declaring Mormonism's falsehood from the rooftops?