Cast your vote...

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

You don't have to use the manual all the time for that class, there's plenty of flexibility in GD. Use it sparingly when you agree, and as long as they're happy and learn new things, get good life lessons, they probably won't complain; and as long as it doesn't contradict your ward or general leaders directly, you probably won't get the axe for it either. They'll probably won't tell you the 'stick to the manual' line unless you're doing a bad job or creating some confusion or contradiction in the minds of class members.

It might be a refreshing addition to the ward to have a class that breaks out of the correlation mold and just focuses on being a pleasant class that teaches life lessons and helping them reflect on how to be better people. God knows how tired everyone is of the manuals.

NOM's have taught GD before, I'd at least try it out and try to create a good break from the formalities, correlation, manuals, etc, where the class can just discuss whatever lessons you feel could be derived from the text. Don't go to crazy though or they'll ask you to stick to the manual. And they tell you repeatedly to stick to the manual and you don't, worse comes to worst you're released and not teaching GD. At least there was a good non-boring class for once lol.

Since you have a partner, you can also switch off- she teaches tithing, you promote discussion about general life lessons and character strengths from the scriptures for that week. Etc.

Ward leaders know some people are more letter of the law oriented and teach that way, and some are more comfortable talking generally about the spirit of the law. Maybe they thought it'd be a good balance if the other teacher tends to be more hardline. As long as everyone is happy and learning good things the church agrees with, the class is a success by their standards. The real question is if you'd enjoy teaching it?

[_Brackite]

I haven't been to the LDS Church in a long time.

As to who should I cast my vote for in this Presidential election, who should I cast my vote for this Presidential election?

[_Sethbag]

I think you should tell him you're an apostate who no longer believes in Mormonism, and that's why you can't "stick to the manual".

I'm trying to figure out a more graceful way of putting it, and failing. I pretty much agree with Ray on this one.

[_sock puppet]

My last LDS gig ("Church calling") was as an Elder's Quorum teacher. The topic that year: New Testament. The manual: pure pablum, nothing different that if you were teaching a Primary class to 9 year olds.

I had lost faith (and been inactive for two years), but was trying this 'calling' in a test effort to see if I had strayed incorrectly and by re-immersing myself I might rekindle my faith.

We'd zip through the Correlated manual lesson in 5-8 minutes. I did not 'bear my testimony' at the spots that the manual indicated that I should. I did not present the ideas with my endorsement. I virtually began every statement with, "The manual says... ."

What did we do with the other 25 or so minutes each week? I had Elders in that quorum go back and read, phrase by phrase, each of the New Testament scriptural passages noted in the manual for that lesson. I'd stop them after each phrase, and ask them what they thought that particular phrase meant. Then I'd take a devil's advocate role, again with a question, Socratically, ask if they didn't think it meant another interpretation. Nothing was suggested by the leading questions that was inconsistent with the Correlated gloss over or what else I'd learned about LDS teachings over my life.

The 3rd week I so taught the Elders' Quorum, the SP's 1st Counselor showed up as a guest, and returned each and every week for the next three months, when I stopped teaching these classes, having determined my apostasy was correct. A few years later, I ran onto that SP counselor at a state fair. He knew of my 'break' with the faith, asked how I was doing, said he had enjoyed the classes as I taught them, and fessed up that he had attended them because of complaints of my heretical teaching methods.

ETA: I have no doubt that bcspace's mileage varies, the contrarian that he is.

[_Tchild]

What do y'all think?

I guess it all depends on whether you believe that what you are teaching represents reality.

Otherwise, it might be comparable to teaching about the literal truth of "Alice in Wonderland", with a straight face.

[_Kishkumen]

He knew of my 'break' with the faith, asked how I was doing, said he had enjoyed the classes as I taught them, and fessed up that he had attended them because of complaints of my heretical teaching methods.

I hate that kind of spying. In a voluntary organization no less.

[_Yoda]

I would turn down the calling, MM, unless, of course, it is something you would really like to do, and you feel that you could follow the manual the way it is expected of the Gospel Doctrine teacher to do.

If you are not ready to "reveal all" to your bishop regarding your beliefs, you could simply say that you do not feel you could devote the kind of time involved to do the calling justice. That wouldn't necessarily be a lie, particularly if it would stump you to try to stick to the manual.

[_Nightlion]

You're not willing to put your whole soul into your disbelief?

Like the believers who are willing to lay down life and limb for their beliefs.

Oh, I forget. You call that "fanaticism".

I hurriedly clicked the link, Ray, thinking how in all the world did he find an example of a Mormon who risked life and limb for their whole soul beliefs???????????

Alas; IRONGATE blocked the burning of Joan of Arc from USA YouTube viewing. lol

No Zion at the heart of today's Mormonism.

[_moksha]

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.