Teaching instruction: simplicity vs "depth"

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Tex

Class is intended more to give members an opportunity to share insights gained during their own studies, and to suggest applications of doctrine. The teacher is to provide direction and guidance in this process.

I certainly did not intend to give an impression otherwise. I agree that a gospel doctrine class should primarily discussion based. I don't think Arch or Jay were suggesting otherwise.

Where I will part company is if you are implying that a discussion based approach is less demanding on a teacher and takes less skill to teach well. The opposite is true; good teaching is much more difficult in a discussion based setting and to do it well takes more prep not less. I prepare far more when I teach an Harvard case than when I do something close to a traditional lecture in my professional life.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I certainly did not intend to give an impression otherwise. I agree that a gospel doctrine class should primarily discussion based. I don't think Arch or Jay were suggesting otherwise.

Where I will part company is if you are implying that a discussion based approach is less demanding on a teacher and takes less skill to teach well. The opposite is true; good teaching is much more difficult in a discussion based setting and to do it well takes more prep not less. I prepare far more when I teach an Harvard case than when I do something close to a traditional lecture in my professional life.

No, I am not implying that. Just suggesting an alternative view of what the class's influence and content should be about.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Some of you (Arch, SIEQ, others?) ache for more depth in church lessons with the simplicity nearly killing you of boredom.

Boredom nearly kills me sometimes, too, so I can't judge anyone for that.

Yesterday one of the lame high priests that thinks he's the ward gospel font of knowledge subbed in for gospel doctrine teacher. He had Christ's Gethsemane experience as the text. I'm thinking if there's a week out of four years of Gospel Doctrine lessons that you should be able to form an interesting lesson out of the material while keeping with the text, it should be that lesson.

When that sort of thing is going on in a class, I'm liable to just get into my own scripture reading and tune out the class. I might make an effort to get things back on track, but that's usually the short road to becoming the bad guy as challenging the status quo in Mormonism on almost any level can make you the bad guy in some people's eyes. All is well in zion is often the assumed mantra.

No, instead we got into the following topics:

How long has God been God? This got bantered around for a while with no pure doctrine taught and 100% speculation BS taught. The instructor's final word was none other than 2.5B years, as hysterically taught by BRM in an obscure letter first seen by me on CG a few weeks ago. The instructor said this was taught by Joseph Smith and confirmed by BRM in conference talk.

How many worlds did Christ create? This also got bantered around for a while with no good coming out of the discussion only confusion.

As I sat next to the tattooed jeans wearing new member in the ward, I was steaming inside wishing for "simplicity" not depth.

My beef with depth in gospel teaching is that most people want to take depth in directions of speculation which to me is never positive but nearly always destructive--in a church setting where many people take what is taught as gospel truth.

Depth or meat, to me, is to take simple doctrines or teachings and explore them in a deeper way or explore the applications in modern world. It's not to dig up esoteric early church history quotes or speculate on doctrines not taught in the church today.

That fellow wasn't going deep in my book. Now actually getting into the scriptures with an eye for understanding them, that would be fairly novel. Mormons tend to treat the scriptures like so many fortune cookie messages, throwing them around with little context or reflection, and choosing the ones they think fit their biases.

What that fellow did is something I would not do with a class (or at all, really). Pelagius' Gospel Doctrine notes are right up my alley. When the sort of thing you described happens I usually just go into my own scripture reading. I might try to speak up and attempt to help things onto a more productive track, but that's the short road to being viewed as the problem in "all is well in zion" Mormondom.