Mothers Have the Primary Role of Teaching in the Home

[zil]

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This appears to separate different aspects of teaching.  We can look at it in two dichotomies.

• Doctrine vs. Application.
• Precept vs. Example.

I think that it is a mistake to link these to the dichotomy of Father vs. Mother.  It really is a better situation when the mother primarily does both and the father confirms, supports, and reinforces.  I don't know if that was what you were going for.  But that is something people tend to do. 

I'm definitely not trying to justify separation of understanding the doctrine from applying the doctrine, nor divvying up responsibility for teaching these.  I suppose what I'm hoping for is to break the perceptions some people have of these things so that those sisters who think they cannot do what they're called to do, view the task from a different angle which makes the task appear possible.

I find that attitude is the single greatest barrier to accomplishment.  Therefore, doing an end-run around whatever formed the attitude can change it.  In this case, the end-run is to demonstrate a view of "teaching" that isn't "bookish", and that isn't even a separate space and time dedicated solely to the purpose of "teaching the gospel" - rather, it is weaving the gospel into the space and time we are already going through.

I'm only suggesting that the home presents ample opportunity to teach children the doctrine through living parables, as it were.  Maybe I'm wrong - I don't have children, so what do I know?  It just seems like those women who feel like they don't know the doctrine well enough to teach it to their children may be underestimating their own knowledge and defining "teach" too narrowly.

Edited December 17, 2018 by zil

[Barrett Maximus]

Maybe my situation isn't common within the church, my wife isn't a member, I am and I am the one teaching and taking my kids to church. Being a stay at home father also affords me more time with my sons to teach them gospel principles. I'm blessed that my "agnostic" wife is supportive of this. (I say agnostic in quotes because I don't think she really is)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm definitely not trying to justify separation of understanding the doctrine from applying the doctrine, nor divvying up responsibility for teaching these.  I suppose what I'm hoping for is to break the perceptions some people have of these things so that those sisters who think they cannot do what they're called to do, view the task from a different angle which makes the task appear possible.

OK.

1 hour ago, zil said:

I find that attitude is the single greatest barrier to accomplishment.  Therefore, doing an end-run around whatever formed the attitude can change it.  In this case, the end-run is to demonstrate a view of "teaching" that isn't "bookish", and that isn't even a separate space and time dedicated solely to the purpose of "teaching the gospel" - rather, it is weaving the gospel into the space and time we are already going through.

I don't believe it is all "bookish".  But you have to bring in the books at some point. President Monson's stories are perfect examples of "gospel in action" without all that may scriptures or prophetic quotes.  Yet, even he would quote at least one scripture to frame the point he was making with his story.

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm only suggesting that the home presents ample opportunity to teach children the doctrine through living parables, as it were.  Maybe I'm wrong - I don't have children, so what do I know?  It just seems like those women who feel like they don't know the doctrine well enough to teach it to their children may be underestimating their own knowledge and defining "teach" too narrowly.

They probably are (as you describe it).  But at the same time, I think we're doing children a disservice when we omit books entirely.  I believe we're both saying that balance is necessary.  But if your target audience is as you describe, then they will have a tendency to completely omit scriptures.

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't believe it is all "bookish".  But you have to bring in the books at some point. President Monson's stories are perfect examples of "gospel in action" without all that may scriptures or prophetic quotes.  Yet, even he would quote at least one scripture to frame the point he was making with his story.

I agree, it's just there's no shortage of telling folks to do this - the new curriculum has lots of this, with a manual, and scriptures to read as a family, and lesson material to study together, complete with a schedule.  Those who know me in person already know I'm big on the "bookish" side - lots of reading, pondering, writing down the things you learn, etc.  I'm seeking a way to help some overcome the fear or reluctance, I suppose, by building on something that points out application of what they learn through studying the new curriculum - that builds on what they're already trying to do (teach their children to "be good").  If they can connect the application with the curriculum, then maybe they're not so worried about not being good enough gospel scholars to teach their children the gospel...

This is, IMO, part of the genius of having all age groups study from the same material (or nearly the same?): parents don't have to study their own material plus varying material for their children's age groups - just one set - make the job seem less difficult (regardless of whether it is or isn't).

I could be all wrong, who knows.  My teachers are great, and I'm sure between them and the Spirit, the lesson that needs to be taught will be taught.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, zil said:

I agree, it's just there's no shortage of telling folks to do this - the new curriculum has lots of this, with a manual, and scriptures to read as a family, and lesson material to study together, complete with a schedule.  Those who know me in person already know I'm big on the "bookish" side - lots of reading, pondering, writing down the things you learn, etc.  I'm seeking a way to help some overcome the fear or reluctance, I suppose, by building on something that points out application of what they learn through studying the new curriculum - that builds on what they're already trying to do (teach their children to "be good").  If they can connect the application with the curriculum, then maybe they're not so worried about not being good enough gospel scholars to teach their children the gospel...

This is, IMO, part of the genius of having all age groups study from the same material (or nearly the same?): parents don't have to study their own material plus varying material for their children's age groups - just one set - make the job seem less difficult (regardless of whether it is or isn't).

I could be all wrong, who knows.  My teachers are great, and I'm sure between them and the Spirit, the lesson that needs to be taught will be taught.

This is well and good.  But this is the difference between what we learn at Church and what we learn at home (the way I run our household which is not the same way others run their household) - the Church teaches general principles and general application at the ward level.  I teach at home through our personal home application.  Therefore, the way I've always done gospel learning in our home is not through "This year, we'll study the New Testament".  Rather, we study gospel principles through what is happening with our family right at that moment and what gospel principles needs to be taught to cover it and exhaust that lesson.

So, I'm not gonna be teaching by following the Come Follow Me curriculum.  My kids are old enough to learn that on their own supplemented by Sunday School.  We're going to continue how I've always taught my children.

 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, zil said:

I agree, it's just there's no shortage of telling folks to do this - the new curriculum has lots of this, with a manual, and scriptures to read as a family, and lesson material to study together, complete with a schedule.  Those who know me in person already know I'm big on the "bookish" side - lots of reading, pondering, writing down the things you learn, etc.  I'm seeking a way to help some overcome the fear or reluctance, I suppose, by building on something that points out application of what they learn through studying the new curriculum - that builds on what they're already trying to do (teach their children to "be good").  If they can connect the application with the curriculum, then maybe they're not so worried about not being good enough gospel scholars to teach their children the gospel...

This is, IMO, part of the genius of having all age groups study from the same material (or nearly the same?): parents don't have to study their own material plus varying material for their children's age groups - just one set - make the job seem less difficult (regardless of whether it is or isn't).

I could be all wrong, who knows.  My teachers are great, and I'm sure between them and the Spirit, the lesson that needs to be taught will be taught.

I'm just having flashbacks to the one lady in Relief Society that every woman in the ward fawned all over, yet she never used scriptures or quotes from modern prophets.

[zil]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm just having flashbacks to the one lady in Relief Society that every woman in the ward fawned all over, yet she never used scriptures or quotes from modern prophets.

Well, that's not my ward.  And if it were the teachers in RS, they would get training and instruction.  Actually, my ward is really fortunate.  We don't have the problem of people teaching the philosophies of men, as it were.