Why Don't Teachers Teach This?

[Paddy]

In the “President Monson Issued A Court Summons? Is This For Real?” thread the discussion turned to why teachers do not teach certain aspects of the LDS history.

 

These quotes tell the basic criticism which I see a lot on online content.

 

Thanks why me for posting this.  I wonder why teachers don't include this?  I doubt it's a matter of no time to discuss it as I think members would find it fascinating.   I know I would have.  I do know that I have not ever heard this discussed in a Gospel Doctrine class on church history (or in any other lesson).  So the bigger question might be why? 

 

My guess would be the lack of teaching skills, which stems from the fact we don't have professional church teachers at the ward level (not a criticism, I think being called to teach w/o prior skills can be a huge benefit to the teacher).

 

 

I agree with them to a point. But the concept it is also misleading. Most people know two things about the teaching manuals; (1) is that the teacher is instructed to teach primarily from the manual and (2) that the manual itself instructs the teacher to select from the lesson those parts which are most appropriate for the students.

 

So the simple answer is that when a teacher teaches what they do it is because they are being faithful to their calling in teaching the curriculum they have been instructed to teach.

 

The other part of the quote/s states that if they were the teacher then they would have taught a particular point. That may or may not be true. However they question is: why would you teach a particular point? In the quote mentioned by ALarson it suggests to me that he/she would have taught it because it was something they did not know that perhaps disturbed them in some way. My natural response is: are you teaching this because you feel impressed to share it with the class or are you using it as a platform for projecting your own faith issues?

 

The other point brought up in the quote/s is about the need for professional teachers or at the very least professional training for teachers. My understanding for the basis of this statement (and ones I have seen like it) stem from the idea that if we had professional teachers then the content would be delivered in a way that would somehow make the students remember or apply the teaching and lead people away from faith crisis’. I am not sure that this would significantly help. I am all for more training but it is not how a person teaches that is the important thing IMO. The important key aspects are content, nuance, perception and time to deliver it. On top of that is people’s desire to actually learn it.

 

 

For what it is worth I am the adult GD teacher in my ward and have been for the last 4 years. There are people from all walks of life, socioeconomic backgrounds, education levels, and at different levels of religious and spiritual experience. The constant battle I have when I teach is to ensure that each person can find some edification from my lesson, a chance to discuss ideas, and some way of applying the gospel teachings in their lives.

 

 

All of the “intellectual” and apologetic knowledge that I have acquired over the last 20-30 years has not, even in the slightest amount, been a result of learning from Sunday School or other lessons at Church. People have to stop being Sunday learners and seek faith by study.

 

Questions

1. Is Sunday teaching meant to be the primary learning forum for the gospel?
2. Should the curriculum be expanded to ensure the inclusion of a least some controversial topics in the lesson?  
3. Do you think professional teachers or training would assist the members and for what purpose?   

[thesometimesaint]

 

In the “President Monson Issued A Court Summons? Is This For Real?” thread the discussion turned to why teachers do not teach certain aspects of the LDS history.

 

These quotes tell the basic criticism which I see a lot on online content.

 

 

 

 

I agree with them to a point. But the concept it is also misleading. Most people know two things about the teaching manuals; (1) is that the teacher is instructed to teach primarily from the manual and (2) that the manual itself instructs the teacher to select from the lesson those parts which are most appropriate for the students.

 

So the simple answer is that when a teacher teaches what they do it is because they are being faithful to their calling in teaching the curriculum they have been instructed to teach.

 

The other part of the quote/s states that if they were the teacher then they would have taught a particular point. That may or may not be true. However they question is: why would you teach a particular point? In the quote mentioned by ALarson it suggests to me that he/she would have taught it because it was something they did not know that perhaps disturbed them in some way. My natural response is: are you teaching this because you feel impressed to share it with the class or are you using it as a platform for projecting your own faith issues?

 

The other point brought up in the quote/s is about the need for professional teachers or at the very least professional training for teachers. My understanding for the basis of this statement (and ones I have seen like it) stem from the idea that if we had professional teachers then the content would be delivered in a way that would somehow make the students remember or apply the teaching and lead people away from faith crisis’. I am not sure that this would significantly help. I am all for more training but it is not how a person teaches that is the important thing IMO. The important key aspects are content, nuance, perception and time to deliver it. On top of that is people’s desire to actually learn it.

 

 

For what it is worth I am the adult GD teacher in my ward and have been for the last 4 years. There are people from all walks of life, socioeconomic backgrounds, education levels, and at different levels of religious and spiritual experience. The constant battle I have when I teach is to ensure that each person can find some edification from my lesson, a chance to discuss ideas, and some way of applying the gospel teachings in their lives.

 

 

All of the “intellectual” and apologetic knowledge that I have acquired over the last 20-30 years has not, even in the slightest amount, been a result of learning from Sunday School or other lessons at Church. People have to stop being Sunday learners and seek faith by study.

 

Questions

1. Is Sunday teaching meant to be the primary learning forum for the gospel?
2. Should the curriculum be expanded to ensure the inclusion of a least some controversial topics in the lesson?  
3. Do you think professional teachers or training would assist the members and for what purpose?   

 

 

1. No. Our individual primary forum should be our own study of the gospel. Augmented by Sunday School classes.

2. No. Our Sunday School curriculum is to teach the doctrines of the Church. Not to discuss controversial subjects such as does drinking Coca Cola violate the WoW.

3. Optional, but not required. We have classes in teacher development. I highly recommend them.

[Freedom]

Why don't piano teachers teach woodworking? Pianos are built out of wood after all. And why don't dance teachers teach their students about the abuse and sometimes torture that russian dancers experienced during the 1970's by soviet government agents? Don't get me started on high school biology teachers who don't focus their efforts on teaching the biographies of 19th century scientists. Wasting all this time on anatomy is such a waste of time. 

[ALarson]

The other part of the quote/s states that if they were the teacher then they would have taught a particular point. That may or may not be true. However they question is: why would you teach a particular point? In the quote mentioned by ALarson it suggests to me that he/she would have taught it because it was something they did not know that perhaps disturbed them in some way. My natural response is: are you teaching this because you feel impressed to share it with the class or are you using it as a platform for projecting your own faith issues?

You are not giving all of the facts here from the thread you took the quotes from (leading up to my quote above).   I don't like being misrepresented or falsely accused.

 

The poster "why me" had just given a link to the actual lesson material (on lds.org) and this information WAS included in the written material from the church.  I was simply asking why he thought more teachers don't include it when giving this lesson and I was only going on my past experiences in Sunday School classes.

 

I was NOT asking that something disturbing be taught that wasn't included in the lesson material.  

[rockpond]

 

Questions

1. Is Sunday teaching meant to be the primary learning forum for the gospel?
2. Should the curriculum be expanded to ensure the inclusion of a least some controversial topics in the lesson?  
3. Do you think professional teachers or training would assist the members and for what purpose?   

 

1.  No.  Home should be the primary learning forum.

 

2.  I believe that there are a lot of topics that we currently consider "controversial" that, if discussed in our Sunday classes in a faith promoting way would cease to be controversial.

 

3.  I think any teacher could benefit from some coaching by a professional.  But I'm not sure if it's feasible in our church.

[CV75]

Questions

1. Is Sunday teaching meant to be the primary learning forum for the gospel?
2. Should the curriculum be expanded to ensure the inclusion of a least some controversial topics in the lesson?  
3. Do you think professional teachers or training would assist the members and for what purpose? 

1. I don't think so: See http://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-1-no-greater-call?lang=eng

2. I don't think so, but people should not be discouraged from asking questions in good faith.

3. I think they would be helpful if the unit's presiding authority has a specific purpose in mind: I would think thsi would generally entail the training of other teachers, firesides on scholarly subjects, etc.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Gray]

Controversial topics should be not only mentioned but emphasized. We can learn more from our mistakes than our successes. 

[thesometimesaint]

Controversial topics should be not only mentioned but emphasized. We can learn more from our mistakes than our successes. 

 

To what point?

[The Nehor]

Controversial topics should be not only mentioned but emphasized. We can learn more from our mistakes than our successes. 

 

Controversial implies they are argued about. So you are advocating disagreement and discord? Yeah.....thinking that would be bad.

[Gray]

To what point?

 

For example, the Saints in Missouri attacked, burned and looted several towns. That was a failure on their part. Lessons can be learned from that mistake. 

[Gray]

Controversial implies they are argued about. So you are advocating disagreement and discord? Yeah.....thinking that would be bad.

 

I guess what I really mean is taboo topics 

[thesometimesaint]

For example, the Saints in Missouri attacked, burned and looted several towns. That was a failure on their part. Lessons can be learned from that mistake. 

 

Are you referring to the Danites?

[BCSpace]

My natural response is: are you teaching this because you feel impressed to share it with the class or are you using it as a platform for projecting your own faith issues?

 

Tough question.  If I bring up some of the issues in question, for sure it's because I feel confident in discussing them.  However, many members don't have the background I do and one could eat up all the time just explaining a few things.

 

I personally have advocated for a GD class in which one may choose to attend and no subject or disagreement is taboo.  Everyone else may attend the regular GD class.  It's never been seriously considered even though I have bailed out many other leaders from time to time on these issues.

Edited February 11, 2014 by BCSpace

[Gray]

Are you referring to the Danites?

 

I believe it was their idea, but IIRC it wasn't just the Danites

[Palerider]

The church prepares it's curriculum to illicit a certain response from the average member. That intent is to strengthen the member's committment to the church and especially to the brethren and also to Christ as viewed through the brethren.

 

Any time a topic is introduced that doesn't have a high rate of expectation of that strengthening process, or that might cause a member to "question" rather than re-commit to the church, it is avoided. 

 

By doing so the church opens itself to charges of non full disclosure. Plus when the member does their own homework as has been recommended by so many here, they open themselves to the discovery of the "avoided topics" in an environment that isn't controled by the church.  This also creates the opportunity for a less than desireable experience regarding one's committment to the church. So in a real sense, the church is dam**d if they do and dam**d if they don't.

 

So the real question should be:

 

Would the church rather discuss the "avoided topics" on their own turf, where they have an opportunity to control the situation plus avoid the charge of non full disclosure?

 

Or would they rather have the member stumble across the "hard issues" by themselves and wonder why the church never told them or talks about them, which immediately raises the question........"What are you (the church) afraid of and what else is being hidden?"

Edited February 12, 2014 by Palerider

[rockpond]

The church prepares it's curriculum to illicit a certain response from the average member. That intent is to strengthen the member's committment to the church and especially to the brethren and also to Christ as viewed through the brethren.

 

Any time a topic is introduced that doesn't have a high rate of expectation of that strengthening process, or that might cause a member to "question" rather than re-commit to the church, it is avoided. 

 

By doing so the church opens itself to charges of non full diclosure. Plus when the member does their own homework as has been recommended by so many here, they open themselves to the discovery of the "avoided topics" in an environment that isn't controled by the church.  This also creates the opportunity for a less than desireable experience regarding one's committment to the church. So in a real sense, the church is dam**d if they do and dam**d if they don't.

 

So the real question should be:

 

Would the church rather discuss the "avoided topics" on their own turf, where they have an opportunity to control the situation plus avoid the charge of non full disclosure?

 

Or would they rather have the member stumble across the "hard issues" by themselves and wonder why the church never told them or talks about them, which immediately raises the question........"What are you (the church) afraid of and what else is being hidden?"

 

I agree with this and I think that the Brethren are likely feeling the same way:  That we need to discuss these "avoided topics" on our own turf.  For some years now they've been discussed at length in the blogosphere and Mormon-themed podcasts with both positive and negative spin.  I believe it would be better to have first exposure be at church (though I have nothing against the blogging & podcasts as I am a fan of many and even a financial supporter of some).

[bjw]

I've been lurking and haven't posted on the boards in quite some time but I would like to chime in.,..

 

I think this thread brings up some pretty good questions.  I don't think any kind of professional training is necessary, but I think that teachers should be brought up to date on the more controversial issues so they can address them when they come up.  I think the internet has changed the way the world works, and there are no more secrets anymore.  Everything about church history, from all perspectives, is available at everyone's fingertips.

 

When people learn the truth from an outside source, they feel betrayed and wonder what else the church may be hiding from them.  Let me give an example...

In Gospel Doctrine we had the discussion turn to a debate on whether or not it is okay to fight back or if we should lay down and take it, which is what one man said Jesus would do.  This man later argued that Joseph Smith did not fight back at the mob when martyred at Carthage, and he used the Joseph Smith film shown at the VC as an example.  The teacher countered the argument and said that JS did fire six shots into the mob, so technically he did fight back.  This effected this man, because it gave him a lot of doubts, though he didn't lose his testimony.  I think had he been someone sitting on the fence it would have been worse though.

 

I think in this internet age they need to edit the manuals to have better coverage of the more controversial aspects of church history.  People should be immunized from anti-mormon arguments.

 

I think it can still be done as Palerider said with the faith promoting materials, but add the other elements as well.  Here's an example of how Joseph Smith's death could be taught:  Joseph Smith still died as a martyr, but he didn't deserve to die for ordering a newspaper destroyed, and did submit to the requirements of the law.  Even though he fired shots he couldn't possibly defeat 200 people, and just fired shots to try to save his friends.  He kept his testimony to the very end and died because of his cause.

[ERMD]

I think we can look to the Seminary manual for next year to get an idea of where the Church is going with this.

[ERayR]

For example, the Saints in Missouri attacked, burned and looted several towns. That was a failure on their part. Lessons can be learned from that mistake. 

 

CFR

[halconero]

CFR

 

Daviess County expedition:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War#Daviess_County_expedition

[wenglund]

I submit that people who complain about what isn't being taught, either in the manual or by the instructor, tend not to be trained educators or instructional designers. and are relatively clueless about why the course material is structured in certain ways and why everyone's pet topic may not be covered to their satisfaction.

 

But, evidently, people need not be professionals in order to gripe and complain about things for which they have little or no clue. After all, they must think they are smarter than the Savior to be so unhesitating and demanding in their ark-steadying on this matter. :-/

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 13, 2014 by wenglund

[Paddy]

You are not giving all of the facts here from the thread you took the quotes from (leading up to my quote above).   I don't like being misrepresented or falsely accused.

 

The poster "why me" had just given a link to the actual lesson material (on lds.org) and this information WAS included in the written material from the church.  I was simply asking why he thought more teachers don't include it when giving this lesson and I was only going on my past experiences in Sunday School classes.

 

I was NOT asking that something disturbing be taught that wasn't included in the lesson material.  

 

I understand the context and I know it was in the lesson material. I actually don’t have a problem with people using supplemental materials that are not included in the lesson material. I know other here do. I was asking the question  “are you teaching this because you feel impressed to share it with the class or are you using it as a platform for projecting your own faith issues?”

 

I was using that as a general question using your statement as an example. I am interested in peoples opinion on this question.

[Paddy]

 

I don't know that this should necessarily be done, but the new D&C seminary manual provides a model for how it can be done. For example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is used to teach students the importance of "agree[ing] with thine adversary quickly" and the principle that "choosing to hide our sins can lead us to commit further sins." At the end of the lesson, students are invited to reflect on how "our faith in Jesus Christ strengthen us when we learn of instances when Church members have failed to live according to the Savior’s teachings." I think this is valuable.

 

Nevo

 

Thanks for the link...very useful....

[Paddy]

I guess what I really mean is taboo topics 

 

Gray

 

I think Nevo hit on a good point about using controversial issues as a teaching tool to learn from the past rather than teach them for the sake of informing members. Do you think that Sunday School or other lessons is the place for this or do you think that there are other forums that should be provided?