seashmore

Sounds like you've gotten what you can out of Gospel Principles and that you're ready to move on. That's *great* so don't worry about what's 'normal' or what others choose to do - your progress is yours to make. 😊

Also, you don't need to teach the lessons in order.  If someone is really worried about logistics, perhaps have that lesson earlier to put them at ease.  If someone really wants to focus on a certain topic, don't be afraid to spend 2 weeks on it.  If the class has another lesson down pat, don't feel obligated to dwell unnecessarily on it. 

@Jane_Doe has it right. Find out why your class members are going to the temple (marriage, mission, maturity) and cater your lessons to that.
I would stick close to the manual. The plan of salvation in the manual includes the Fall. I think it's obvious why we would want to include that in preparation to receiving temple ordinances. And @Sunday21's point is captured in a lesson on symbols.
When teaching the worthiness lesson, be sensitive that those getting married might have family members who won't be joining them. Still teach the doctrine, but just be aware that it could be a pain point.
Be familiar with all 7 lessons before starting. It's quite probably that some classmembers may be nervous about the logistics of attending for the first time: when should they schedule an appointment with the bishop, or they have a deadline for when they can attend (due to family coming out of town for the wedding, or an MTC report date). This isn't covered until lesson 6, but may need to be covered on week 1 or 2 depending on the class.

Most important: know your students and teach to their level.
An example of this done poorly: I'm an lifelong active LDS lady who decided to go take out my endowments at the age of 30, after five years of intensive prayerful study on the subject.  My temple prep class was me as the only student... I remember being asked "Jane, did know you lived before you were born?"....  it was less than helpful.  After a while into this I spoke bluntly to the teachers about this and we were able to change things around to be a better class for me, and they became great mentors.
Now, that being said, if I were a new convert with language boundary issues, who'd never heard of garments, and such like that, these teachers initial approach would have been great.  (That's actually who they were used to teaching).
Another example of things done well: my sister's BYU temple prep class was awesome.  I totally recommend checking out their materials. 

To be candid, so long as you maintain this kind of attitude, you're going to struggle with finding compatibility. Secular and non-Mormon are not synonymous with wrong. 
I think you will find the vast majority of potential partners are wary of committing to someone with that extreme a mindset. And those that aren't likely have extreme attitudes of their own that negatively impact compatibility.

Is it too early to bring back my signature?
 

You need to be equally yoked in the gospel. I would not marry somewhere that does not want to live the gospel as you do.

What he^ said.  Though I would add spending / lifestyle philosophy to the list.

Wait?  There are people that still have issues with women breastfeeding?  Really?  My wife breastfeed all of our kids in the U.S., in the chapel during sacrament meeting.  I don't recall any stares, no one made any comments to us.  Honestly I don't even know if anyone knew.  My wife was pretty good at it.
And if someone happens to see boob during sacrament meeting, is it going to be the end of their salvation?  
But I can certainly understand the predicament of the bishop.  You have a member that is unhappy with something taking place at church mostly because we are so wrapped up in being modest.  So now the bishop can run the risk of incensing the person that has the concern or the mother that was breastfeeding.  Either way feeling are most likely going to get hurt.  What do you do?  If the mother was doing no wrong, then you have to side with her and explain to the member that she was not doing anything wrong. 
In some countries it is not uncommon to see a 4 or 5 year old getting some boob action from mom.  Pop it right out for all to see and give their kid a quick snack.
Avoiding porn and being prudish are two very different things.  a woman feeding her baby is not porn.  Nothing like feeling guilty over doing nothing wrong...

My baby is the exception. She is 8 months old and to this day she refuses a bottle of any kind. She also has extreme health issues that if given formula would be magnified ten fold. That being said I have nursed her in many places (sacrament being one as I just returned to church after years of inactivity) and no one has ever noticed. I am extremely discrete no boob (let alone nipple) is ever exposed. I also have never used a cover, I wear appropriate clothing that allows for everything to be covered without a specific cover. I am far more discrete without a cover. Have you ever been to a sacrament meeting in another country? It is a none issue in other countries and cultures. I believe the church will not make any kind of official stand on this (do or do not breastfed in sacrament) for that reason (socially acceptance in every country but ours- ok maybe not EVERY country but you get the idea). 

Source?? I believe you, just want to know where the inside scoop is at, and I’m not talking about the ice cream store (though it would be nice to know where that is too)

When we do something, we try not to give offense
When someone else does something, we try not to be offended.
We have a world to convert, let’s try neither to give offence nor to be offended. 

More than anything, this is perhaps a commentary on our failure as a people to teach our young men correct principles.
When a breast is used as an alluring sexual device to seduce young men (or even old men who aren't married to the breast-bearer), that is by definition a perversion. When a breast is used for feeding an infant, that is rather the opposite of a perversion.
True, there are and have been societies that expect a mother to keep her children hidden away. Children should be seen and not heard, and preferably not even seen until they are old enough to be out in public around age 15. I hope that Latter-day Saint culture is not like that.
Many here have compared nursing a baby to toilet functions. I certainly agree that, for example, changing a baby's diaper on a church pew is absolutely out of line. But that is because toilet functions are not done publicly in our society; we have created special areas just for that. Nursing simply does not compare.
Many women, such as my wife, do not want to expose themselves in any public setting, and will at least use a blanket if not remove themselves entirely for nursing their baby. Many mothers have babies who are voracious and very loud nursers, who sound like little pigs at the trough, and who are embarrassed by the attention drawn to them. In such cases, it's appropriate and even polite for the mothers to excuse themselves from general company. But for women who don't feel quite so exposed or vulnerable, and whose babies nurse quietly at the breast, I just don't see why nursing in public should constitute some sort of scandal.
...All that said, we should be sensitive to the feelings of others. If a mother turns into a crusader, baring her nursing breast just to poke a thumb into the eye of old Brother Jones who doesn't approve, then shame on her. What an unChristlike attitude on her part. I suspect that she will stand guilty before God for the actions of her heart more than old Brother Jones and his "Puritanical" background. (Since when did we accept "Puritanical" as a pejorative, anyway? In many areas, we could stand to emulate the Puritans more than we do.)

I agree with Manners Matter that, well, manners matter. But breastfeeding should not be about "manners".
My wife nursed all our children, and when she did so in public, she covered her shoulder and the baby with a blanket. BUT...that was for HER comfort. She disliked the idea of exposing herself at all. The blanket was for HER, not for other people.
I am among the more conservative/traditional posters on this board, and I'm very much in favor of modesty (and of good manners). But I staunchly maintain that nursing -- breastfeeding -- is not about manners. It's about feeding the baby. And if some people, myself included, may get uncomfortable when a mother exposes her breast to feed her baby, that is THEIR (OUR) problem, not the mother's. I do not believe that "society" has a problem with open breastfeeding, but if it does, that is SOCIETY's problem, not the mother's.
If a mother were actually to make a huge production out of breastfeeding, deliberately exposing herself as much as possible in order to garner attention or something, then I would agree that she's being immodest and acting shamefully. But in that case, it would have nothing directly to do with breastfeeding per se, but instead with her exhibitionism. I personally have never witnessed such a thing, and I suspect such cases are exceedingly rare. So count me as a firm member of the let-mothers-breastfeed-as-they-need-to-even-without-a-blanket camp.

Jogging topless? Two black eyes.

Fed is best. There is already a lot of mom-shaming done to mothers who choose not to breastfeed (or whose babies don't latch properly, etc.) and there is a lot of shaming for feeding in public. I take the same approach to nursing as I do towards tattoos: I'm not comfortable with it on my body, don't care if someone else is, and suggest not staring or judging those who feel differently.
Those suggesting there is only one proper and correct way, place, and/or time to feed a child are not taking into consideration the variety of circumstances. Some babies become vocally uncomfortable under wraps, some mothers cannot leave all of their other children unattended or cram them in the mother's room, and many places do not have adequate breastfeeding facilities.

Fed is best. There is already a lot of mom-shaming done to mothers who choose not to breastfeed (or whose babies don't latch properly, etc.) and there is a lot of shaming for feeding in public. I take the same approach to nursing as I do towards tattoos: I'm not comfortable with it on my body, don't care if someone else is, and suggest not staring or judging those who feel differently.
Those suggesting there is only one proper and correct way, place, and/or time to feed a child are not taking into consideration the variety of circumstances. Some babies become vocally uncomfortable under wraps, some mothers cannot leave all of their other children unattended or cram them in the mother's room, and many places do not have adequate breastfeeding facilities.

Fed is best. There is already a lot of mom-shaming done to mothers who choose not to breastfeed (or whose babies don't latch properly, etc.) and there is a lot of shaming for feeding in public. I take the same approach to nursing as I do towards tattoos: I'm not comfortable with it on my body, don't care if someone else is, and suggest not staring or judging those who feel differently.
Those suggesting there is only one proper and correct way, place, and/or time to feed a child are not taking into consideration the variety of circumstances. Some babies become vocally uncomfortable under wraps, some mothers cannot leave all of their other children unattended or cram them in the mother's room, and many places do not have adequate breastfeeding facilities.

I suspect that most breast feeding mothers, but possibly not all, are simply concerned with feeding their baby and are not really thinking about trying to make a point. 

I've been watching this story for near two weeks now, before it got picked up by news organizations.  This individual situation is an example of mega-fails all around resulting in a mega-fail result.  News organization and social media have majorly exaggerated/aggravated the original situation as well.  I think me/other peanut getting involved with this individual's situation only adding to the hurt/distortion.
So, backing up to the larger issue: if you got to feed your baby then feed your baby.  Yes, some Americans are going to have preferences on how you do it because that's American culture (which is you need/want to ignore it, that's well within your right).  Other cultures have zero problem with it.  

Breastfeeding feeds and soothes a baby. You think that eating and comforting should be done in private?
M.

The problem is defining "modesty". Many people throughout history, including today, see nothing immodest about a woman exposing her breast to feed her child. I agree with this idea, at least in principle. (The reality is that I was born and raised a 20th-century American, so my principles don't always coincide exactly with my feelings.) I would never complain, publicly or privately, about a mother exposing her breast and nipple to feed her baby, no matter how uncomfortable I might be. The only exceptions would be when it's manifestly inappropriate for a woman to feed her baby, and I'm struggling to come up with a situation where a mother might be holding her baby but it would be inappropriate to feed the baby.

I was born in the Church, but not necessarily raised in it.  The missionaries found my parents in the seven years between their marriage and my birth.  My mom has since told my sister she never really had a testimony.  My dad was excommunicated for cheating on my mom, they divorced, and I have a sister from another mother.  (Her parents never married.)  He was rebaptized my senior year of high school.  Growing up, church was something we did if we had nothing else better to do.
I ping ponged between being active and inactive until the spring my junior year of college.  One of the reasons I liked my college campus was that, even though it was a Catholic school on a hill, there was an LDS stake center at the bottom of it.  Growing up, it had been a thirty minute drive to church; now it was a fifteen minute walk.  Even so, I struggled acclimating.  There were no single's wards, and I was young.  I moved into the dorms on my 18th birthday, so my first Sunday in RS was in a ward where I didn't know anyone. The winter of my junior year, my depression got the best of me and I was struggling with a lot.  Probably in March, one of the girls on my floor came down the hall and said someone had called her room phone looking for me.  She lived in the room I had lived in my freshman year, which was the phone number I used on Church records, so I knew that it had to be someone calling from there.
Turns out it was the ward mission leader.  I guess they were doing a directory clean up (my name would have been towards the top) and he asked if he and the missionaries could come over and visit me.  My dad had been a branch mission leader for a time (and is one now) so I had a hard time saying no to missionaries.  They invited me to General Conference (the next weekend) and to read the Book of Mormon.  I went to the afternoon session on Sunday and kept going, and was called as a secretary in the Relief Society before school let out for the summer, which played a large role in my deciding to stay on campus that summer instead of going back home (where I would have lived with my mom and not gone to church).
About a year into being back at Church, we had this lesson, which starts with President Spencer W. Kimball feeling motivated to read the whole Bible.  While reading that lesson on my break at work, I realized "I've never read the whole Book of Mormon, either."  I decided to start.  I made incredibly slow progress in my reading, but prioritizing the Church, I decided to move to Omaha instead of back home after college.  I started attending Institute, and it was following President Monson's admonition to make Institute a priority that really helped me learn to make the scriptures my own. 
I'm a tough sell, though.  The Swede and the Irish in me fight over who's more stubborn, and I don't always read and do the simple things I'm supposed to.  Even though I know with both sides of my brain that doing so brings blessings in my life.  Not only because the prophets say so, but because I've noticed and felt it when I was doing those little things.

If you go to the back of the hymnal where they list author/composer names, you'll see that some of them have an asterisk by them.  The asterisk marks members of the Church.
That and "Once in Royal David's City" are my two favorite Christmas hymns, partly because they're both fabulous, and partly because the rest of them have been done to death!

Far, Far Away on Judea's Plains