Speaking Up In Church

[_consiglieri]

I think that the proper procedure would be to contact the SS president and he would find a replacement. That is how it is done. There is a procedure in place.

Actually, the proper procedure is generally understood to be finding your own replacement for any class you will miss teaching and not to bother the SS president.

If you involve the SS president, he might actually have something to do.

My SS president has been proactive and has assembled a list of acceptable substitute teachers from which the regular teachers may draw.

Guess who is most decidedly not on the list?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Don't you feel a little disappointed that you didn't make your comment in a polite way?

Not really, no.

Contrary to public perception, it isn't always about me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_why me]

Actually Moroni stated that the book was a record of the 'literal' ancestors of the native Americans when he appeared to Joseph Smith.
All the Church has done is try to make that statement fit with what we are increasingly coming to know.

And they may be. But the dna issue is a complex one. Just a comment in class may not do it. However, since the teacher knew the reason, consig did miss an opportunity to create a interesting discussion.

[_why me]

Not really, no.

Contrary to public perception, it isn't always about me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, anyway it would have been an interesting comment to make in class. I would have loved to read the discussion that followed on this board. But...to live another day.

[_Jersey Girl]

The OP is directed toward LDS, but I just need to say this one thing. I cannot tell you how many times I sat in Worship Service (at my former church) and wanted to raise my hand to ask a question!

If the preacher is teaching, why can't the students ask questions? No one ever does it!

[_why me]

My SS president has been proactive and has assembled a list of acceptable substitute teachers from which the regular teachers may draw.

Guess who is most decidedly not on the list?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The SS president is still doing the choosing in your ward. And that was my point with ldstoronto. There is a system in place. Best to know the system first before finding one's owon replacement.

[_Drifting]

My SS president has been proactive and has assembled a list of acceptable substitute teachers from which the regular teachers may draw.

Guess who is most decidedly not on the list?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The SS president is still doing the choosing in your ward. And that was my point with ldstoronto. There is a system in place. Best to know the system first before finding one's owon replacement.

Nobody is disputing that.
The point is that to make this list you have to be a drone who is prepared to stick rigidly to the manual content and nothing but the manual content.

[_consiglieri]

Yet a recent Church News article about the dedication of a second temple in Guatemala has in its title something like The Children of Lehi rejoice and President Uchdorf made similar reference in his comments.

The part of the Book of Mormon introduction that was changed now says, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

I think the LDS Church still has leeway to make such references; it's just that they can't say all Native Americans are "children of Lehi" like they used to.

(I know you know that.)

On reading this sentence again, I am struck that the committee that cobbled this together didn't think it appropriate to say "Native Americans," but rather "American Indians."

Maybe it's time for another new introduction?

When was this written, anyway? 1492?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_why me]

Guess who is most decidedly not on the list?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Did you ask why? This is a big chip on your shoulder. I would find out why if it were me. I would also tell them just how hurt I am about it. Much could be solved with a pleasant discussion.

[_why me]

On reading this sentence again, I am struck that the committee that cobbled this together didn't think it appropriate to say "Native Americans," but rather "American Indians."

Maybe it's time for another new introduction?

When was this written, anyway? 1492?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You are taking a very USA centrist position. When I said that I was an American to my friend from chile, he took issue with it because he claims to be from america too. Likewise for canadians. Many claim to be american since they live on the American continent. American indians would satisfy all concerned.