- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was recently called as an EQ instructor for 2nd Sundays. Do any of you teach in some capacity at Church? How do you do it, what with being uncorrelated or unconventional and all? Where do you draw the lines on what you should or shouldn’t say or teach? I mean, I want to teach the doctrine, but I hate … HATE manuals. I also want to be who I am when I teach, but I don’t want to ruffle any feathers.
Any advice?
Thanks!
When I was on the HC, I had to struggle a bit with being honest and toeing the line, but I think it is possible to do. Those who aren’t paying attention too closely will think you’re just saynig the regular stuff. Those who are will appreciate the different perspective. Yes! I have done that. I was called as a Gospel Essentials teacher when I went through my trial of commitment two years ago. Here are a few tips:
1. For lessons you have trouble with, get a substitute teacher and take the Sunday off. Check with the Sunday School President and tell him or her who will take your place. Pick someone who is obviously active and committed so you don’t ruffle the Bishop’s feathers by asking a person who might not be “worthy”. If you can’t take the Sunday off, just get a guest speaker/teacher to handle it. Be present and introduce them as having a strong testimony of the subject and that you wanted everyone to hear it.
2. For specific lessons that have objectionable parts, go deeper into areas you find interesting that focus on general life or spiritual principles that are independent of doctrine. For example, if you have problems with baptism by authority, and are teaching Baptism, focus on the heart-changing, dropping of old habits, etcetera part, or talk about its symbolism. Don’t beat the authority horse. If you feel you can’t leave it out, then get someone to read the passage that describes authority, and then move on to the next concept without exploring it or discussing it much.
3. Consider having specific people do a presentation on parts of the lesson you have trouble with, and teach the parts you are OK with yourself. This will add variety to the class anyway.
4. Don’t be afraid to weave in your favorite contrarion quotations from GA’s that have been forgotten or de-emphasized. Concern for the One is a good one. I wouldn’t hesitate to throw in some Hugh Nibley quotes too although I think he’s viewed more as an LDS Scholar. Don’t be afraid to bring some balance to the extreme views of some members, relying on quotes from GA’s, the scriptures and other authoritative sources.
I did this once saying that each person has to pass the GA’s advice through their own inspiration and life circumstances, and decide for themself what is right for them.
5. Occasionally, I use a an internally entertaining approach with doctrine I don’t like or that offends me. Play Devil’s Advocate, and then, after getting the class to argue their point, bring it to a quick, traditional believer’s close. For example. I might say “Now, maybe as a class you can help me with something. We preach self-reliance, however, that principle seems to be thrown out when we are faced with either paying our tithing or paying our bills. Many who pay their tithing have to go to the Church for assistance in these circumstances, thus sacrificing self-reliance for tithing. Shouldn’t self-reliance take precedence over tithing given it’s constant emphasis in our Church?”. I may even comment that if someone pays their bills, they are then self-reliant. But if they pay their tithing, they must go to the Church for help, and often, there is an expectation they should do work for the Church, and such, which places even more onus on their time and resources. How do you resolve this conundrum? What about the old adage that you need to have your own stuff together before you can then help others (in this case, through tithing?).
As members come out with reasons, I offer rebuttals, but I do it with an expression on my face that makes the class think I’m playing Devil’s Advocate, when in fact, I’m actually expressing my true objections! It’s therapeutic. At the end, after people have been made to think enough, have discussed traditional or newly invented reasons, and my own seeds have been planted, I will then bring the discussion to a close. I will use an animated summary of the TBM interpretation of the problem. I will say “So, you would say to the person with this question that…….[insert summary of class comments here]”.
In my heart, I am not validating what they said; I am simply summarizing what they would say to such a person, without necessarily accepting it in my heart. I usually come away silently believing that I gave everyone a chance to change my mind and no one came out with any defensible reasons (yet).
It’s therapeutic and gets the class involved, plus I’m being contrarion without being contrarion — and it makes class interesting.
As long as you don’t have actual books and magazines other than the manual with you, you shouldn’t raise many eyebrows. The lesson,hopefully, will have an outline of the points to be made so you should have enough leeway in what you want to say. The safest way (and often the most rewarding) is to teach some aspect of the lesson in great detail (there ALWAYS is something on which you can focus) and get lots of input from the members of the class. Remember, you don’t have to go over everything in the lesson. I’ve taught just about everything imaginable (from Nursery to HPG to Gospel Doctrine to Seminary and now Institute), and I’ve never had a problem. I don’t get into my truly heterodox beliefs, but I do introduce “multiple perspectives I’ve heard expressed by members over the years”. (For example, in Gospel Doctrine one week I mentioned Elder Holland’s recent General Conference talk in which he mentioned an alternate view of Judas and then explained an alternate view of Peter’s denial of Jesus that I REALLY like.) Everyone knows I am a dedicated, believing member – and I never “push” things that are a bit out there, so they’ve been cool with it.
Thanks for the advice so far! See, I am teaching from the Gospel Principles manual, which has been so dumbed down and has had many plain and precious things removed or at least de-emphasized.
The next lesson I am to teach is the Law of Chastity. I am going to struggle with this. Not because of the subject matter so much as because there is such an emphasis on sexual sin being next to murder. I remember a recent thread about this with a lot of great perspectives. Especially how it appears that the “next to murder” line has been taken out of context. I just don’t agree that it is next to murder, and I think training young minds to believe that it is can cause some serious psychological issues if such choices are made.
It also discusses homosexual sin. I tend not to agree with most member’s views on the subject.
I will definitely put your advice to use and thank you for it!
The #1 thing to develop is a tolerance for traditional viewpoints and belief. You have to be at peace with those ideas. I don’t mean you have to agree or believe them. You just have to get to a point where it doesn’t bother you. You have to get to a point where it isn’t threatening to your peace. It’s just someone else’s viewpoint *shrug* I don’t have to go around correcting everyone else in the world and making sure they only say things that I agree with in my presence. The world is full of people I disagree with. Better to get used to it than depending on fixing everyone else for your sanity. I LOVE teaching Elders Quorum and have sometimes substituted for Gospel Doctrine. I get a bit of a thrill walking on the cliff’s edge of the lesson material, and really enjoy throwing out a (mildly) controversial question or problem for the class to discuss and resolve.
I don’t really care how they work the problem. I can help guide the discussion, knowing more of the history and background information. I just like seeing the light come on in people’s eyes as they are actually feeling something for once in a Church class while expressing their religious thoughts. It tends to draw out people with different opinions too.
I also tend to “sabotage” lessons of other teachers when I see they are going to just read from the manual or haven’t prepared anything thoughtful. You get those long, awkward pauses after they repeatedly ask inanely stupid leading questions with obviously expected “standard sunday school” answers. When I see people starting to nod off or check their blackberries, that’s when I answer with a non-standard answer or throw out a mildly controversial question.
Look, if I’m going to sit through 2 or 3 freakin’ hours of Church, i’m gonna make it interesting.
To all the experiences of being told to “stick to the manual,” I say DISOBEY!!!!
If anyone in leadership wants to push this on me locally, all I have to say is this: I can’t possibly read through the lesson manual and fill 45 minutes of time. Their very design REQUIRES deviating or adding to the material.
THANK YOU Salt Lake City command and control headquarters for making the most vanilla, empty, vapid manuals full of pablum ever! LOL
THE LORD has called us to be teachers (when we volunteer and are asked to teach a class for the Church). We have the chance to make things different, and to put our unique talents and personalities into the lesson to serve others in a way only WE can do. That’s what the Big Boss Jesus wants, so obey THAT!
I LOVE teaching the Law of Chastity in adult classes in the Church – but I’m weird that way. I teach it very, very differently than most people, and I like to see people’s reactions. We had that lesson in HPG two Sundays ago, and the teacher (whom I love) started the lesson with a joke he heard personally at a conference in Utah for LDS marriage counselors. Vaughn J. Featherstone was the one who told it, so I’m just passing on a GA’s words:
:thumbup: Quote:A man walked up to his wife with his hands cupped in front of him and said, “If you can guess what’s in my hands, we’ll have sex.” She smiled and responded, “an elephant.” He opened his hands, revealing nothing there, and said, “Close enough!!”
😆 :clap: 
😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: The teacher then talked about “the elephant in the room” with regard to the Law of Chastity – that’s almost everyone wants sex, and that it’s a WONDERFUL thing. When we focus only on the “bad” use, we end up re-enforcing the idea that sex itself is vulgar or “dirty” or shameful in some way – which feeds right into many pornographic presentations and other harmful depictions.
When homosexuality was discussed, one of the men in the group immediately said, “We have to be VERY careful we don’t end up judging people when we talk about this.” I mentioned how glad I am that the Church has moved away from the mistaken idea that homosexual attraction is unnatural – that we are beginning to realize how complicated human sexuality is and writing policy accordingly.
It was a great lesson.
We talked about the Law of Chastity in our High Council training that week, largely because one of the Stake Presidency members attended the class and was impressed by the lesson. Near the end, when we talked about how to teach the LofC to our children, youth and young adults, I mentioned that we simply MUST start by making sure they know sex is great (generally) and that we like it. I mentioned that all of my children know my wife and I have sex and that we enjoy it greatly – and it id from that foundation that we teach about it and why we believe in limiting it to marriage. Some of the people there were a bit shocked, I think, that I was so open about it, but not one of them objected in any way – and I was the youngest person there.
Brian Johnston wrote:The #1 thing to develop is a tolerance for traditional viewpoints and belief. You have to be at peace with those ideas. I don’t mean you have to agree or believe them. You just have to get to a point where it doesn’t bother you. You have to get to a point where it isn’t threatening to your peace. It’s just someone else’s viewpoint *shrug* I don’t have to go around correcting everyone else in the world and making sure they only say things that I agree with in my presence. The world is full of people I disagree with. Better to get used to it than depending on fixing everyone else for your sanity.
I think this is wise advice. And definitely something to aspire to for many of us. However, if you’re in the interim, I wouldn’t let the fact that certain things bother you stop you from teaching. As we suggested above, you can simply avoid the doctrinal landmines as much as possible — or, stay off them as much as possible.
I think you mostly only get in trouble when you’re trying to be edgy or controversial, like if you have a chip on your shoulder. As others stated, for the most part, as I continue to teach, I find enough material to strive for a spiritual lesson in parts of the lesson I feel good about, skip the stuff I don’t care to touch on, and ask more questions to the group than soap-box personal positions to the group…and I get good feedback.
Be confident you were called for a reason. Someone else knows you have something to offer…just be yourself.
Lots of good ideas – that I could use too… especially the idea of “UBU, I’ll be me.” My DH volunteered me to teach with him & later, I explained (again) how it would be difficult because I don’t believe the same.
He argued, “Well, you’ve taught before & did fine.”
Then I explained, “There are some subjects that I couldn’t teach without lying. I could try to dance around those topics, but it would be tough – like playing TABOO (that board game).”
🙂 Some advice I got in a teacher’s meeting really stuck with me. One sister wisely explained how the spirit is most important when we teach – so focus on creating a good spiritual feeling & don’t worry so much about getting through the whole lesson exactly as it is in the manual.
I usually have a teaching calling. I am currently teaching 12-13 YO SS. The manuals haven’t been changed in the 30 years since I was a student in that class. They are pretty awful. I also run into issues because there are so many references to Indians that the kids don’t understand – I have been teaching kids from outside the US, so they think these are people from India, and they don’t understand why there is animosity with people from India. I also had a fun lesson this last week about Spencer W. Kimball. One of the accomplishments during his presidency (listed in the manual) was to encourage ALL boys to go on a mission (I think it means from all nations, not just the US? the manual wasn’t clear what the precedent was). One young woman raised her hand and said “Isn’t that sexist? Why not both girls …and boys?” A boy raised his hand and said “It’s not sexist. It’s because girls can choose to get married instead.” I realize this is the party line, but that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t sexist.
I reminded the class that this was from the 1970s, that it was an expansion of the existing missionary program, that girls can go (as I did), although this statement makes it more of an obligation for boys and a choice for girls, and that while girls at that time often married younger that most girls do finish their schooling before marriage now. The boy who made the comment piped up and said, “Even for boys it is your choice to go, whether they tell you you should or not.”
I also said that Pres. Kimball’s views may well have been sexist, that many of that time period are sexist by our standards, but what’s important is that we all get to make our own choices for our own lives. Not sure I did this well, but just wondering what you would say to 12-13 YO kids with materials like this.
This was the same lesson in which I explained Kimball also repealed the ban on race, which totally floored a couple of these kids. They had no idea we ever had a discriminatory policy! Certainly not as late as 1978. This is straight from the manual. Again, I had to explain that it was a policy, that the Q12 felt they had to have a revelation to repeal it, even though it had no documented revelation to start it, and many of them felt it was long overdue. What a lesson!
Whoo-ee Hawkgrrl. I now have an additional blessing to count tonight. Thanks. Quote:They had no idea we ever had a discriminatory policy! Certainly not as late as 1978
This is exactly what Sunday school should be for…learning new things, not regurgitating feel good stories week after week.
It is also often beneficial for the teacher in preparing how to present things. Chastity is not about “sex is next to murder”, there are great principles that can be studied and revisited to truly understand what it is about.
I taught EQ for a year or two. It was sometimes enjoyable, but always a challenge. I would try to cover the material, but always make it as much of a discussion as possible. This is helpful when you aren’t sure about a topic. So instead of just delivering the church line, you can ask for opinions and open the discussion to the class. People are more willing to give dissenting opinions to statements from their fellow ward members than the manual or the statement of a GA. It also helps the class stay interesting when you aren’t just re-orating the church manual or GC talks nearly word for word. Make the class do most of the work. - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
