Comments on: My Philosophy of Teaching Gospel Doctrine

By: EmiG

EmiG — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:59:00 +0000

I wish Lehi had his own lesson, too, Ardis! But we are reading Nephi’s record, after all. I imagine Lehi featured more heavily in his own plates. Can we blame Martin Harris?

Julie – That’s something I’m hoping/planning to bring up over the next couple of weeks when we’re discussing Lehi’s vision of the tree of life and Nephi’s subsequent vision. There are some great insights to be gleaned by comparing all those apocalyptic visions!

By: Maurine Ward

Maurine Ward — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:59:14 +0000

I appreciate these lessons on how to teach, and look forward to reading them all again when I get the opportunity to teach in GD (my favorite calling)or in RS.

By: Ben S

Ben S — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:32:02 +0000

Good post and comments.
I do what Julie does. Unless it’s Institute, and then it’s down the rabbit hole! Selectively, of course.

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:53:29 +0000

This is a great post.

“A lesson on how Lehi’s vision ties into the “heavenly council” visions of other prophets”

Funny you mention this. I used this in my lesson last week–I spent about 50 seconds saying that Lehi’s vision was very similar and suggested comparing it to Isaiah, John, etc., for further study. I find that a way to bring in the tangential-type stuff for those who want to do more, and let everyone know that there is a *lot* more that could be said, but not derail the entire lesson on it.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:15:19 +0000

That sounds like a great introduction, EmiG — reliance on the scriptures, relevant as context for the events of the discussion of the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon — nothing weird or esoteric or irrelevant — and yet novel enough to engage the interest of class members. (Incidentally, I wish they would provide for a lesson directly on Lehi, rather than lumping him in as a supporting character to the action starring Nephi.)

By: EmiG

EmiG — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:02:58 +0000

Great thoughts here, Ardis – thank you. I’ve often struggled with “the manual” for the reasons you mentioned; I find the questions it suggests less than engaging and inspiring most of the time. And I think I’m also going to adopt Paul’s phrasing that “the scriptures are the manual and the manual is a supplement” – it puts my current method into words beautifully.

Most of those who come to my Gospel Doctrine class are fairly familiar with the scriptures, so I try to put a slightly different “spin” on the same lessons they’ve heard multiple times. For last week’s lesson, for example, we actually started out in 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings talking about King Josiah’s reforms that Lehi would have lived through as background for Lehi’s experiences at the beginning of 1 Nephi. It was very well-received and seemed to shake folks out of the “autopilot” they seem to go on when reading well-known scriptures.

Using the most recent General Conference addresses to expand on the topic at hand has been helpful in getting class members to draw connections and consider modern applications.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:10:49 +0000

I taught Primary for something like 15 years (beginning when I was too young to have graduated from Primary myself), and understand the concept there. In that case, you have a definite enrollment in your class (in addition to generally small numbers), and whether or not a child was active, I was responsible for them as their teacher. Maybe that’s still the case in a ward with a single Gospel Doctrine class and one teacher.

But in my current circumstances, there is no definite enrollment, any responsibility for “those not there” would by definition by shared by all six teachers … and even the bishop doesn’t pretend to be responsible for 600 adult ward members without the aid of counselors and Relief Society presidency and visiting and home teachers! Ay yi yi …

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:02:45 +0000

Ardis, you outline clearly why JrL’s question about non-attenders is troublesome for your class. But I can remember tons of teacher training that taught us that we should be teachers for those who attend and who do not attend our classes. Easier to do in a Primary class, for instance, or a YW class, than in an adult Sunday School class, esp in your circumstance with so many similar classes from which to choose. (I can remember stewing over this issue as a young Sunday School president 30 years ago, living in a family Provo ward in which we shared boundaries with four or five student wards, and came to the same conclusion you did.)

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:47:01 +0000

Thanks, Paul — I think our philosophies are similar. And I may try to short circuit the common “you’re not sticking to the manual!” complaints (usually by people who aren’t there to know exactly how the class does go) by adopting your ‘scriptures-are-the-manual/the-manual-is-a-supplement approach.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, JrL. On the one hand, you’re right that a teacher addresses the needs of a class, not a ward; as a teacher I have a stewardship for my class, not the ward, and often the needs of classes within a single ward will vary. In my particular case, however, and my very peculiar ward (super-humongous in size, all adults — no children whatsoever — and extremely high functioning as far as church experience goes, with six Gospel Doctrine teachers and with class members self-selecting which classroom to go to), there isn’t much difference in needs among the various classes. The key then becomes “how is my ward different from a ward in Maryland or Finland or Taiwain, and how can I address the needs of people in these circumstances rather than in those other circumstances.”

On the other hand, as you point out, my responsibility is to my class — which, given the numerous classes in our ward, makes it rather contradictory for you to make me responsible for the entire ward, including “those who don’t usually attend.” I’m not sure why you think I have *any* responsibility as a Gospel Doctrine teacher for that segment of the ward. As a ward member, as a visiting teacher, perhaps I have some responsibility for those who do not attend, but I don’t see that I have any responsibility as a teacher for people who don’t come to be taught.

By: JrL

JrL — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:48:47 +0000

“Needs of a ward vary.” Shouldn’t the more pertinent statement be, “needs of class members vary”? A Gospel Doctrine Class is not “the ward”; it is a particular group of people. Usually a large group, to be sure: all adult members not assigned elsewhere, either teaching or in another class (Gospel Principles, etc.). Occasionally a ward recognizes that class is simply too large to be taught effeectively and divides it. But the GD teacher is always responsible for the class, not the ward.

Which leads to … Missing from your discussion is how you teach those who don’t usually attend.