Revamping Sunday School

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Staffing the "heterodox" class wouldn't be a problem with a first class manual. More than a few students would learn how to teach the class by being in the class.

I don't think lifetime, or even longterm callings would be necessary. People would come out of the woodwork eager to teach such a class.

I am not sure this is true. I think staffing would be more difficult than you imagine, and I think creating a first class manual would be very difficult. IN fact, one of the keys would be creating lesson plans that are interesting to your described class while avoiding the negativity that might ensue. In an intellectual environment this is no big deal but in a church environment where leaders have a stewardhsip for their members, this is somethign that must be avoided.

BTW, there is nothign that prevents any ward from having more than one GD class right now. I know our ward has discussed doing this from time to time and it might still happen someday. It would not be an aofficial split, but it would be clear by the instructors that the classes have different emphases.

[pelagius]

I've actually been in a ward that did this. At the University of Chicago there was always a Sunday School class that fit this description. A few things that I observed (I actually rarely went because of other callings):

1) It was always smaller than the regular gospel doctrine class

2) It was a problem when unsuspecting visitors stumbled into the class and were caught off guard (tears were shed on occasion).

3) Most of the time I don't think the class caused problems in the ward but I know it was a source of worry and stress for the Bishop.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

and concede that any calling to the SS Presidency is for the most part a complete joke.

Just brainstorming here. Please join me.

I'm hurt that you would call my current calling (1st counselor in the SS) a complete joke. It may be but I'm hurt you would call it that. In our ward we have BYU-I professors teach the GD class and very qualified teachers for the young adults. It really is a pretty easy job.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am not sure this is true. I think staffing would be more difficult than you imagine, and I think creating a first class manual would be very difficult. IN fact, one of the keys would be creating lesson plans that are interesting to your described class while avoiding the negativity that might ensue. In an intellectual environment this is no big deal but in a church environment where leaders have a stewardhsip for their members, this is somethign that must be avoided.

BTW, there is nothign that prevents any ward from having more than one GD class right now. I know our ward has discussed doing this from time to time and it might still happen someday. It would not be an aofficial split, but it would be clear by the instructors that the classes have different emphases.

The biggest difficulty would be that Church correlation would have to trust some scholars to write the manual. The Church has scholars who are experts in each of the standard works, and in Church history. Pay them what it takes to write the manuals.

Your fear of negativity sounds like mistrust of heterodoxy. Diversity of perspectives does not have to equal bashing of leadership or unbridled contention. There would be specific topics for each lesson based on the scripture reading and off-topic comments would be reined in by the teacher just like they should be in other classes.

I'm aware that something like this has been done (and with great success) in a few wards. A more general implementation is needed if SS is going to actually meet people's needs.

And I am not only interested in the heterodox class, although I would attend it. The other classes I mentioned would meet needs as well.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

I'm hurt that you would call my current calling (1st counselor in the SS) a complete joke. It may be but I'm hurt you would call it that. In our ward we have BYU-I professors teach the GD class and very qualified teachers for the young adults. It really is a pretty easy job.

Perhaps you need to take Elder Bednar's advice to heart. Stop looking to take offense.

Obviously I was not speaking of every SS Presidency member everywhere.

The fact remains that SS is not doing a very good job, in aggregate.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Perhaps you need to take Elder Bednar's advice to heart and stop looking to take offense.

I guess I need to start putting TIC in my post.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

I guess I need to start putting TIC in my post.

Glad to hear it. Some people really are that touchy.

[PaloAltoCougar]

During the ‘80’s (and I don’t know if it has continued), the Oakland 1st Ward had two Gospel Doctrine classes. One was known at the Iron Rod Class, the other: “The Philosophies of Men, Mingled with Scripture.” You may infer each class’s approach to the subject matter.

One week, the POMMWS class had a lesson on temples; Elder Bernard P. Brockbank happened to attend, as one of his kids lived in the ward. The instructor spoke about the design of temples built during the pioneer era, noting their beauty, superb architecture, and inspiring appearance despite their humble origins. She then held up photos of the Provo and Ogden temples, and asked, “What, then, shall we say of these?” She noted that the Church (despite, or perhaps because of, its wealth) seemed to be headed toward a McTemple approach to design, sacrificing soul for efficiency.

Elder Brockbank cut her off, noting that “the designs of those temples sat on the desk of the Prophet for nearly a year, and would not have been approved unless they were inspired of the Lord," putting the instructor in her place. But this was the POMMWS class after all, and a couple of attendees lit into Elder Brockbank. One said, “Elder Brockbank, I am offended,” going on to offer support for the instructor and a defense of her position. Most SS classes rarely challenge the teacher, much less a General Authority.

I miss classes like that.

[NorCal Cat]

I say drop SS altogether, and go to a 2 hour block. SS is obviously not very important, since you are not asked if you attend it regularly during TR interviews.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

During the ‘80’s (and I don’t know if it has continued), the Oakland 1st Ward had two Gospel Doctrine classes. One was known at the Iron Rod Class, the other: “The Philosophies of Men, Mingled with Scripture.” You may infer each class’s approach to the subject matter.

One week, the POMMWS class had a lesson on temples; Elder Bernard P. Brockbank happened to attend, as one of his kids lived in the ward. The instructor spoke about the design of temples built during the pioneer era, noting their beauty, superb architecture, and inspiring appearance despite their humble origins. She then held up photos of the Provo and Ogden temples, and asked, “What, then, shall we say of these?” She noted that the Church (despite, or perhaps because of, its wealth) seemed to be headed toward a McTemple approach to design, sacrificing soul for efficiency.

Elder Brockbank cut her off, noting that “the designs of those temples sat on the desk of the Prophet for nearly a year, and would not have been approved unless they were inspired of the Lord," putting the instructor in her place. But this was the POMMWS class after all, and a couple of attendees lit into Elder Brockbank. One said, “Elder Brockbank, I am offended,” going on to offer support for the instructor and a defense of her position. Most SS classes rarely challenge the teacher, much less a General Authority.

I miss classes like that.

Considering that:

1. Your example is not representative.

2. Your understanding of the "philosophies" reference appears to be the product of insufficient reflection.

3. No one is suggesting classes on criticism of temple architecture, much less trying to require you to attend them.


I can only suspect that:

1. Your post was intended to display your contempt for a SS teacher and a member of his/her class.

2. Your post was intended to cast aspersions regardless of understanding or accuracy.

3. Your post was intended to demonstrate how orthodox and righteous you are, and how you nobly come to the defense of a GA years and years after the fact and without the views of others in attendance.