
Advice?
I think this is a key thing to remember. Sometimes we fret over these things, over the details, when the minimum requirements are actually much lower. Really, people just want someone who will reliably show up and fill a slot.MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:33 am Last time I was in primary I was a long-term sub for someone who had a baby. I never taught a lesson once, never even opened the book. I brought games and puzzles. We did origami. I brought treats. No one ever talked to me about it and I doubt anyone would simply because no one else wants to be there. I showed up, sat with the kids for two hours and went home. What more do they really want?
Yes, this is the answer. Keep the "actual" lesson short and allow a lot more latitude and choice for your students in the remaining time. In senior primary let them ask questions about any subject, especially on subjects outside of the church and religion. I taught the 11 year old boys for two years and had a blast doing this. I started out classes with brief science discussion and let them run with that for as long as they want. I encouraged them to read the Wikipedia entry on Joseph Smith. They got to read the Wentworth letter in its entirely including a version of the First Vision they had not seen before.
Your ward still uses volunteerism for chapel cleaning? My stake has long resorted to voluntoldism with a healthy dose of public shaming. At least it's organized in a nice excel sheet.
The last few years I was involved in the Church, I took Nancy Reagan's advice and just said, "No". When they called to let me know about my assignment, I told him that I hadn't agreed to that and I wasn't going to be able to participate. I kind of felt sorry for the nice older gentleman doing his job, but just because he had a problem didn't make it my problem. I didn't see any public shaming, but that might have been because I wasn't participating anywhere it might have been going on.
I've told them no, too. I've been taken off the lists. They don't really know how to deal with me.Jeffret wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:37 pmThe last few years I was involved in the Church, I took Nancy Reagan's advice and just said, "No". When they called to let me know about my assignment, I told him that I hadn't agreed to that and I wasn't going to be able to participate. I kind of felt sorry for the nice older gentleman doing his job, but just because he had a problem didn't make it my problem. I didn't see any public shaming, but that might have been because I wasn't participating anywhere it might have been going on.
Yeah, that was my experience. I just stopped complying with demands where I didn't agree to them in first place. And not agreeing to all demands put to me. They didn't know how to deal with that.
That makes sense. I hadn't actually attended priesthood meeting for some years. I was in nursery with my wife for the last couple of years and Primary before that. Attending priesthood meeting and Sunday school is what drove me away for good at that point.shadow wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:54 pmThe public pressure is applied each week when some of the first announcements in priesthood opening exercises is who has building lock-up, or seminary security, or building clean-up that week. It's all based on a schedule they made at the beginning of the year without input from anyone actually being scheduled.
Luckily, yes. I am largely immune to public shame. I just sit there as the EQ Pres and HP Group Leader vainly scans the assemblage of priesthood holders looking for guilt and duty to coax believers into raising their hands and claiming their blessings. Admittedly, many ward members seem sincere in their enjoyment of temple service. Many of them happily serve as ordinance workers in the local Gilbert temple. Getting a chance to clean the temple is almost an added bonus.