My New Calling: Sunday School Lesson Recaps

[Anonymous]

I was in Utah helping attend to the passing of my father-in-law, so I didn’t teach my Sunday School class yesterday. There is a good chance I will be at a funeral next weekend, so I don’t know if I will have a lesson summary next week.

[Anonymous]

The subject for this month is “Building the Kingdom of God on Earth“, which has a lot of potential. I am excited about this month, especially since I want to incorporate a Christmas and New Year’s slant the last two weeks of the month (focused on modeling Jesus’ life as an aspect of building the kingdom of God and on New Year’s resolutions as a way to learn repentance – both of which I am going to discuss in the context of establishing Zion).

Anyway, this lesson was very much a discussion lesson. I started by putting the month’s discussion topic on the chalkboard and writing “What?” on one side and “How?” on the other side.

I asked the students to define “the kingdom of God” how they see it. I got the following responses:

Quote:

Those who follow God

All of God’s children

Those who try to keep the commandments

Those who serve others

I was really happy with those answers. I have some wonderful students in my class.

At that point, I asked for any other definitions people might give, and I got the following:

Quote:

Members of the Church

We then talked about who constitutes each group, and everyone agreed that all of them except the last one include members and non-members alike – especially if we define “God” as broadly as possible to mean “whatever people call God”. Given that understanding, I mentioned that we would talk in the next lesson about how we “build up” those who follow God, all of God’s children, those who try to keep the commandments, those who serve others and members of the Church – and I initiated the next conversation by sharing what my oldest daughter said after her first endowment session in the temple:

Quote:

Dad, we work so hard to build up the kingdom of God that we forget to establish Zion.

I repeated that we would focus on building the kingdom through “missionary work” in this lesson and talk more about establishing Zion in the next one.

We talked about how to share the Gospel and the Church effectively – and the difference between the two. I asked how many of them had hunted and/or fished. Most of them had fished, and a few of them had hunted.

I asked how we fish now, as concisely as possible. One of the students said, “Rod, line, hook, worm.” We laughed, and since I can’t be that concise, I rephrased it as, “We pick a spot where we think fish are, pick bait we think they will want to eat, and throw that bait and hook on a line into the water where we think they are.” I asked if there was any other way to fish, and one mentioned fly fishing. I described that style as, essentially, the same thing but using a different method of trying to attract the fish – a more quick-hitting method of putting the bait on the surface instead of deeper into the water to mimic a different kind of bait for different kinds of fish.

We turned to hunting, and the summary was, “Gun.” (Teenagers can be hilarious.) We talked about how the only real difference between hunting and fishing as we had discussed was that when you hunt you can see your target and choose whether or not to shoot a particular animal, whereas with fishing you have to real it in to see what it is and whether to keep it or not. Hunting is much more like choosing a particular person to approach.

I then asked how people fished in Biblical times, and we discussed the difference in using nets cast into the water.

We ended the lesson by applying those methods to missionary work – discussing how we can target an area where we think interested people are, choose a topic (bait), throw it into the area and see who asks questions (takes the bait) – or we can focus on a particular person, wait for them to come into our view or seek them out and launch an attack (rifle hunting) – or we can cast a net (by talking with everyone about our lives and seeing who swims into the net).

We talked about how each person will respond to various methods differently and how it is important to try to understand people as well as possible before picking a method for any individual – to not assume one approach method will work for everyone. We talked about what can happen if we use the wrong method on people – for example, how the students would feel if someone else tried to convert them in a way that simply didn’t resonate at all with them. We also talked about how people react when they feel “targeted” or “attacked” – how much more effective sharing anything is when the other person knows it’s being done out of real love and genuineness.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

We talked about how each person will respond to various methods differently and how it is important to try to understand people as well as possible before picking a method for any individual – to not assume one approach method will work for everyone. We talked about what can happen if we use the wrong method on people – for example, how the students would feel if someone else tried to convert them in a way that simply didn’t resonate at all with them. We also talked about how people react when they feel “targeted” or “attacked” – how much more effective sharing anything is when the other person knows it’s being done out of real love and genuineness.

Like!

Thanks again. Always an interesting read.

[Anonymous]

Today we dealt with the concept of establishing Zion as part of “building the kingdom of God”.

We started by reading the entry under “Zion” in the Bible dictionary. We ignored the definitions that were focused strictly on geography (since the other descriptions of Zion can apply to pretty much anywhere the conditions exist) and discussed two specific verses: D&C 97:21 (“this is Zion: THE PURE IN HEART“) and Moses 7:18 (the description of the city of Enoch).

D&C 97:21 – I asked them first to define “pure”. One of the students who loves science said it is a condition where there are no impurities, e.g. pure water, pure gold, etc. We talked about other words that are used to mean the same kind of thing – clean, uncontaminated, spotless, chaste, innocent, etc. We then talked about what it means to be pure in “heart” – with the heart being the center of feeling and what sends blood to the rest of the body, helping circulation keep body parts from deteriorating. We talked about the concept of studying things out in our hearts and minds – thinking about things but also paying attention to how we feel about them. I pointed out that being “pure in heart” is not modified in any way with a statement about how people think; rather, it is focused solely on their feelings and desires – what they want and how they see and act toward people. That was important, since it laid the foundation to talk about the city of Enoch description.

Moses 7:18 – The Lord called them Zion, because:

Quote:

“they were of one heart and one mind”

We talked about how “one mind” was the second thing listed – that “one heart” comes first. I mentioned that I like associating with people who love me, even if they think differently, more than I like associating with people who think a lot like me but whose hearts are in the wrong place. I also asked them if they would enjoy living in a place where everyone thought exactly alike about everything. They all agreed that such a condition would be extremely boring – and I then pointed out that there was a plan proposed in our pre-mortal life that, in practical terms, would have enforced that sort of uniformity. Given that, we talked about how being “of one mind” can be a good thing – that if our hearts are pure, and our desires are directed by love, then our minds look for ways to help and serve people. Thus, no matter how we think differently about any particular topic, we still can be united in what follows in this verse – meaning this verse is progressive developmentally. The “communal” things follow the “individual” things.

Quote:

“and dwelt in righteousness”

We defined righteousness. It started with “keeping God’s commandments” and ended with “being right with God” – which, in context of this verse, means “doing what God wants to be done”.

I then asked what that means – what God wants to be done with regard to establishing Zion. That stumped them for a minute, so I asked them to read the verse again and see if they could answer that question. Of course, the answer is found in the last statement in the verse:

Quote:

“and there was no poor among them”

I told them that the rest of the lesson was going to be a bit uncomfortable – that this is an area where we tend to rationalize away not dealing with the core of what it means to establish Zion.

I asked them not to answer me (to keep the next question rhetorical), and I then asked them when the last time was that they helped someone, in some way, who was “poor” in some way. I told them I was asking as broadly and generally as possible, and that “in some way” was important to my question. I gave them a couple of minutes to think about that, in complete silence.

We then read Job 13:4 (“ye are all physicians of no value”), Jeremiah 8:22 (“is there no physician there”), D&C 31:10 (“you shall be a physician unto the church”) – and then we talked about Matthew 9:10-12:

Quote:

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.”

I asked them what the central issue was in this story. They understood that it was that some people thought Jesus shouldn’t have been with “publicans and sinners” – so I asked why that would be. That led to a discussion about the concept of being “unclean” and the Hebrew focus on avoiding uncleanliness. I pointed out that their focus was on what they ate – and people who had communicable diseases – and people who were not “the chosen people” – and anything or anyone that might make them unclean in some way.

I asked them why people would choose to avoid other people, and they came up with avoiding physical danger or some kind of abuse, not wanting other people to think less of them or misunderstand them, worry about improper influences, etc. I told them I understand totally not getting near someone holding a knife and talking wildly or separating from someone who is abusive, but . . .

Jesus tipped that on its head by breaking every possible taboo at once. He not only associated with people who were considered unclean, but he actually ATE with them. He touched what they were touching and put into his body what they had touched. Remember, many meals were of the “breaking bread” variety (and “supping” by dipping that bread into a communal soup pot – even double and triple dipping), not handled with gloves, cut by knives and eaten with individual forks and spoons that are sterilized between each usage.

We then turned to the answer Jesus gave to their question about why he was eating with them:

Quote:

“They that be whole need not a physician, but the sick.”

I asked the students if they could remember an instance when Jesus went to a rich person’s house and ate there – or did anything, really, that focused on serving the rich without it being a case where the rich person approached Jesus (like Nicodemus and the rich young man asking what more he could do). They couldn’t think of a single instance. I told them that Jesus’ entire ministry was focused on people “society” labeled and scorned – who were “poor” / “sick” in some way.

We then talked about the concept of being “in the world but not of the world”. I told them that, to phrase it like my daughter’s statement that started our lesson, I think we often try so hard not to be OF the world that we avoid being IN the world – and that the ideal isn’t to be not of the world but to be both not “worldly” in nature but also live fully in the world. The opposites are the hermit who avoids everyone and the priests and nuns who spend their entire lives surrounded only by those who are the most like them.

I asked the students to think about another rhetorical questions:

Quote:

Who are the people in your family, school, community, etc. whom you avoid – and why do you avoid them?

In each case, if you were asked why you avoid them, what would your answer be?

If the reason(s) matched anything that would have been a motivation for the Pharisees’ question, what can they do to overcome the natural avoidance tendency and learn to “eat with the publicans and sinners” – and, more importantly, get to know them, love them and serve them better?

I ended the lesson by saying again that this is an uncomfortable conversation for most of us, including me, to a degree, because it challenges us to step outside our comfort zones and risk harm in the pursuit of Zion. It requires a level of faith that isn’t easy – that we, as insignificant individuals, actually can make a difference and “change the world” (even if it’s just our own “sphere of influence”) in a significant way. I asked them to think about that throughout the week, especially as they walk around school and see the “outcasts” – the publicans and sinners in the school. I asked them to spend more time with them, to “enrich” them in whatever way they can – financially, emotionally, socially, physically, etc. I told them that if they spend all of their time associating only with “those that be whole” and keep a distance from “the sick” (for whatever reason), they will be modern Pharisees and will not be establishing Zion in any real way.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Curt. Best lesson I have had in a while. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

I completely forgot to post my lesson summary last Sunday. Rather than trying to recreate the conversation flow after nearly a week (historical accuracy issues and all that jazz ), I’m simply going to post the talking points we covered – with some examples of what was said by the students. It was a wonderful experience.

Since the topic this month is “Building the Kingdom of God on Earth”, I shared the main suggestions from the book, “To Mormons, with Love” (written by Chrisy Ross, a non-denominational Christian living in Utah County) – and we talked about each suggestion, both in terms of how we share the Gospel (now and when they serve missions) and how we interact with non-Mormons, generally. In each case, after discussing the basic concept, we talked about how they would feel if someone in a different religion acted how we sometimes act when dealing with non-members.

To Mormons:

• Know Other Religions: One of the students mentioned how much she hates it when one girl at school keeps telling her what Mormons believe – and is wrong every time. I mentioned how many comments I’ve heard in church meetings about what others believe that simply are wrong.

• Referring to “the Collective”: Everyone agreed that this is a bit creepy, when they really thought about it.

• Elusive Non-Members: Living in an area where they are the minority, they didn’t understand this one at first. I was glad to see that lack of understanding.

• Don’t Proselyte (Try to Convert Others): One of the students shared an experience when he was invited to dinner at a new friend’s house – and the friend’s parents spent the whole time trying to convince him that the LDS Church was bad and that he needed to become Baptist. They understood the importance of getting to know someone and being a real friend first and really loved the following quote:

Quote:

“Long-lasting friendships can be tainted by an early effort to proselytize. A new family in an LDS neighborhood does not want to feel like the first thing everyone wants to do is change who they are and what they believe.”

• Explain Invitations: One of the students said that he invited a friend to a ward party, not realizing it was a Pioneer Day activity, where everyone was dressed in 19th Century clothing, right down to long dresses and bonnets. His friend freaked out, understandably. We then talked about inviting people over for dinner (or any other setting) and not telling them the missionaries would be there – and referenced the other student’s story about his Baptist friend.

• Take No for an Answer: They all understood how obnoxious it would be if someone else kept asking the same question over and over and over again, even when they said they weren’t interested.

• Follow Your Own Rules: This one is the trickiest, since not all Mormons do everything the same way, and since I have stressed continually that I want them to own their own faith, even if it’s different in some way(s) than others around them. We focused largely on the following concept:

Quote:

Don’t present something as universal to all Mormons if it isn’t required of all Mormons – and understand the difference.

To non-Mormons (and, for the class discussion, Mormons living / serving missions in areas where they are a small minority:

• Don’t believe everything you hear: You’ll hear weird rumors, crackpot conspiracy theories, and disgruntled stories full of bias. Believe your own experiences first and foremost.

• For some Mormons, the bubble is real: Interestingly, every one of them understood this immediately – but they hadn’t thought about it being true of other places dominated by other religions.

• Give people second chances: Or more than that. Be patient in building friendships.

• Accept where you live / serve: The reason most of your neighbors live there is because they like it, so fighting it isn’t going to win friends.

• There is diversity if you look: When you only see people as “LDS” (or Baptist, or Catholic, or Jewish, or Buddhist, etc.) you fail to grasp the complexity of the person beneath that label.

• Read the religious texts that are important to church members: Chrisy felt this was important to understand what people believed, so she read the Book of Mormon for that purpose. I told the students that if any of them are called to serve a mission in an area with lots of Muslims, for example, I hope they read the Koran.

• Ask doctrinal questions of Mormons first, not non-Mormons: This applies just as well to us trying to understand others.

• Lighten up: Don’t be offended when someone does try to proselyte. Don’t waste energy on negative feelings.

• Follow the rules: This also is a bit tricky, because there are some things in other cultures we simply shouldn’t do. The key is not to reject entire cultures just because they are different than ours – and, to the greatest extent possible without violating one’s own conscience, doing as the Romans do when in Rome. Even in cases where you don’t feel good about “following the rules”, don’t flaunt it. (It would be like taking beer to a Mormon ward party – or serving pork at a Muslim gathering.)

I really enjoyed this lesson, since it had a lot of participation from the students.

[Anonymous]

The topic for this month is “The Godhead”, so I am focusing on the members of the Godhead in the order in which they are listed in the first article of faith: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

First, I asked the students what they believe is the single most important aspect of the Gospel – not allowing anyone to repeat what someone else said previously. The list ended up including love, the Atonement, prayer, Priesthood, obeying the commandments, missionary work / sharing the Gospel, etc. I then asked them what they believe the most critical thing is that was “lost” as a result of the Great Apostasy, and they struggled a little more to come up with answers quickly to that question. I explained that the difference between the ease with which they answered those questions is due mostly to their better understanding of what we believe, in isolation, than what we believe that is unique – and especially what we believe now that is taught in the Bible as included in what Jesus taught but not taught, generally, in the rest of Christianity.

I told them that I personally believe the most important difference that Jesus taught but was “lost” over time is the nature of Godhood: both the nature of God, the Father, and the existence of God, the Mother. I told them that understanding that difference is important, so we turned to JSH 1:19 to see what Joseph was told (and what he wasn’t told) about WHY he shouldn’t join any other sect. (and I pointed out that he wasn’t interested in Catholicism at all – that his prayer was about which Protestant denomination he should join – so I think it’s important to read the answer he got with that in mind)

Rather than have to spend a lot of time reconstructing that discussion, I am linking to a post I wrote back in 2008 on Mormon Matters in which I laid out almost exactly what we discussed. Please read that post, then return here for the end of the lesson summary.

Common Scriptures in Review: JSH 1:19 (http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/27/common-scriptures-in-review-jsh-119/)

We then talked about what it means to “have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof”. We talked about how there is no power in having spirits sit on clouds and praise you forever – that real power is taking something that is not godlike and making it godlike – of bridging the “unbridgeable gap”, to put it in Protestant terms. Thus, when I speak of the central truth lost in the Great Apostasy, I focus on the idea that “I am a child of God” in a very real, evolutionary way – that we have heavenly parents and can become like them. Thus, throughout the entire year, we will be talking about everything within that framework – how every topic and every lesson relates to becoming like God.

[Anonymous]

Today, we went through a condensed overview of how God has been seen throughout Judeo-Christian history, with a focus on how our view of God, within that tradition, has evolved over time. We read from and discussed the following passages:

1) Genesis 1 and the other chapters describe God exclusively in terms of being the Creator. Thus, the earliest records have no real detail about God – certainly not the kind of detail we now preach. I also told the students that, although I almost never talk about scientific or political stuff in class, I believe it is important to realize that there is absolutely nothing in our scriptural accounts of the creation that would force us to believe God literally created the earth in six days as we measure days now – that “days” don’t even get mentioned until the third day – that the Pearl of Great Price talks instead about creative periods (that could have lasted for millions of years or more each) – that there is absolutely no reason why we need to fight or reject scientific discoveries about the age of the earth and insist that it was created in six thousand years (or, for example, that God put dinosaur bones on earth as a test to see if we would have faith despite that type of evidence, as I’ve heard some evangelical friends claim) – etc. I told them that putting limits like that on God is silly when our theology explicitly says God has “all eternity” to accomplish His work. They all got it, and we moved on

2) Genesis 28 describes Jacob’s journey during which he had a vision of a ladder reaching to heaven, with angels descending and ascending, and with God talking to him. We read the verse that relates how surprised Jacob was that God would be in that place and that God would promise to be with him wherever he went, and we discussed the traditional view of that time of territorial, warring Gods (somewhat similar in that regard to the gods of Greek mythology, but tied to specific locations and peoples).

3) We read in Alma 18 the account of Ammon teaching King Lamoni – with a focus on how Ammon approached teaching about God and what their view was at the time. We talked about asking first what others believe and about using their terminology, whenever appropriate, to highlight similarities and shared beliefs. We talked about the time frame of the discussion (about 90BC) and how that would be considered the Old Testament period if it was in the Bible (although it was in the time of silence between Malachi and Matthew). Within Mormon theology, that would mean the God they were discussing was Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus), so “the Great Spirit” would be a perfectly accurate description of their God at that time.

4) We read the verses in Luke 24 that describe Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to his apostles and talked about how this was the first time in our religious heritage that God having a physical, tangible body enters the picture. We talked about the story of Jesus’ walk with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and I mentioned the explanation I have heard from other Christian friends that says Jesus merely took a physical body temporarily so his disciples could see him – and how that view doesn’t work for me, given how much care Jesus took in Luke 24 to say he wasn’t a spirit and then to prove it to them. I mentioned that the belief that Heavenly Father has a tangible body is derived from the account in Luke 24, since Jesus said he was and would be the express image of his father – meaning that if Jesus’ resurrected body was tangible and capable of eating with his disciples, Heavenly Father’s body must be tangible, as well. There really isn’t any account in all of our scriptures that demonstrates Heavenly Father having a tangible, physical body without the connection to Jesus and the resurrection.

5) I then asked the students when in our modern Mormon history we can point to an event that showed us Heavenly Father and Jesus have physical bodies, “as tangible as man’s”. I was proud of them for not saying the First Vision (and I mentioned specifically that there was nothing physical about that vision). Instead, they mentioned the Priesthood ordinations by John, the Baptist, and by Peter, James and John – since a “laying on of hands” was recorded as part of that process. Again, the inference is that if Jesus, John (the Baptist), Peter, James and John had physical, tangible bodies, so must Heavenly Father.

[As an aside, the Priesthood lesson included a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith about how the Fist Vision teaches us that God, the Father, and Jesus have physical, tangible bodies. I didn’t challenge that openly, but I did mention it in a whisper to the man sitting next to me(who is a wonderful scriptural scholar), and we both kind of shrugged and smiled at that assertion.]

Next week we will be talking about Jesus and his status as part of the Godhead.

[Anonymous]

After multiple weeks of traveling and being in bed with a strained back, I finally got back in the saddle and taught Sunday School again today. I really missed it.

This month’s topic is “The Plan of Salvation”. I focused today on the trend recently to talk about “The Plan of Happiness” and how that term compares to the traditional “Plan of Salvation”. I wrote “Heavenly Father’s Plan” at the top of the chalkboard – and then “The Plan of Salvation” on the left side and “The Plan of Happiness” on the right side. Under each term, I had the students tell me how they interpreted each term – “salvation” and “happiness”.

“Salvation” means “being saved from something” – with an obvious reference to something bad in some way. The students mentioned anything that is unacceptable, uncleanliness, sadness, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc. They defined “happiness” as joy, contentment, peace, satisfaction, lack of misery, etc.

We talked about how “The Plan of Salvation” is focused mostly on one’s condition prior to being blessed – taking someone “from” one condition to another condition. The emphasis is on the condition “from which” the person is saved. It is on the “savior” who does the saving.

We talked about how “The Plan of Happiness” is focused mostly on one’s promised condition of blessedness – taking someone “to” one condition from another condition. The emphasis is on the condition “to which” the person is taken. It is on the “blessed” who is being rewarded.

I then asked each of them to think about the two phrasings and which one resonates the most for them personally – and why. I told them that I wasn’t looking for any particular, unanimous answer; rather, I really was interested in their personal responses. Five of the eight liked “Plan of Salvation” better, while the other three liked “Plan of Happiness”. I used that to start a fuller discussion about why it’s important to understand how things can be phrased differently to help people understand the same overall concept, since the overall message of both phrasings really is the same.

We talked about missionaries teaching investigators (or even inactive members) about Heavenly Father’s Plan. I asked them how they could know which phrase we had discussed would be the most powerful for each person. One of the students immediately answered “the Spirit”. I agreed with that but added that the missionaries could use both terms and ask the other people directly which was the most meaningful for them and why. With that understanding, other teachings could be tailored to the natural “orientation” of each investigator / member. All possible legitimate phrasings could be used, but understanding multiple phrasings could help increase understanding among differing people – and it’s much more important to teach people than to teach specific wordings. (“Preach My Gospel” emphasizes that, explicitly.)

We then talked about people who sometimes struggle with either wording. The students came up with some really good examples, then I mentioned two broad categories.

First, people who are already happy, even generally, might not feel the type of uncleanliness, sadness, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc. that would help them feel a strong need to “be saved”. For them, continued or enhanced happiness might resonate more deeply.

Second, people who struggle with depression, bi-polar disorder or any other condition that makes them feel like happiness is not possible in this life might really like a promise of future happiness, while others might feel much more strongly about being saved from their current condition.

Finally, we talked about how people who can’t envision happiness in this life might feel like they are being beaten with a hammer if they hear happiness in this life preached regularly as the goal. Thus, even if they might like “The Plan of Happiness” that is focused on the next stage in life, that same phrase might be discouraging or even painful if it is focused on this life. Again, the end result is the same, but the unique focus of each phrasing might mean more to each person in question – and it’s really important to teach people “in their own language, according to their own understanding”.

As an example of what I meant, we read from 2 Nephi 4 and talked about what it says about Nephi. We summarized “the things I have seen and heard” (v. 16 – his visions and what he was told in them) and then looked more closely at vs. 17-19, in which he describes how he feels about his “natural man” tendencies and actions. The wording is quite extreme, and it is worth pasting here (with the words we discussed in more detail bolded):

O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins.

This paints a picture of serious internal turmoil – and, taken literally without the help of the visionary background, it even could be seen as describing a bad man. That is interesting, since we Mormons tend to describe Nephi in such glowing terms that he comes across as almost perfect – an ancient superhero of sorts. I mentioned how we have the “good parts version” of prophets in our scriptures (and I explained the Princess Bride reference to them) and how we might buy into Nephi as superhero without weakness if we didn’t have 2 Nephi 4. (I told them that if Nephi was alive today and talking with a therapist, he might be diagnosed with depression or bi-polar disorder or something like that – and he might be given medication to control his condition.) At that point, our Bishop, who was sitting in on the class, made a really profound comment that led perfectly to the conclusion I wanted to make. He said:

Quote:

I see that man every day when I look in the mirror. I know what he meant in these verses and in the following verses about knowing in whom he trusted.

I then told the students that we tend to treat our modern prophets and apostles in the same way – overlooking or ignoring their weaknesses and mistakes and talking about them as if they were flawless. I reminded them once again that Joseph Smith was the most chastised person in the D&C, and we talked about his reference to himself as a “rough stone rolling” and what that means. I mentioned how much we tend to talk about Joseph the same way we tend to talk about Nephi – and how hard it can be for some people when they finally realize that Joseph wasn’t a nearly perfect superhero.

I told them that if any of them ever was in a situation in their life, at any point, where they felt wretched and were grieving and groaning because of temptation, iniquity, sin or simply feeling like they didn’t measure up to what they felt they should be, I hoped they would remember these verses and this lesson and not let themselves lose hope.

[Anonymous]

If you didn’t read the previous comment in which I summarized today’s lesson, please do so. Don’t miss it just because I typed this comment also. 🙂

Just so everyone knows, I decided to rename this thread from “My New Calling” to “My New Calling: Sunday School Lesson Recaps” – simply so everyone who comes here and reads and/or participates without having the benefit of having been here when the thread started will understand better what it is when they see the title. Someone mentioned that issue to me, so I thought I would fix it. (I’m not going to change every comment between the original post and this comment, so they all will carry the old title. I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend that much time on that particular task.)

[Anonymous]

Great lesson, Curt. Thanks for sharing it. Those are some lucky kids in your class. Sounds like you have a good bishop too.

[Anonymous]

Enjoyed the summary.

I think it was an interesting discussion about “plan of…” salvation/happiness.

I’ve spoken to a few people with mental illness who struggle with the idea that they’re “not doing it right” because living “the plan” isn’t bringing them happiness. I’m glad you addressed that.

Will you cover the atonement in this month as part of the plan?

We had that yesterday as part of the plan (Joseph Fielding Smith, priesthood). I was struggling to make sense of it.

1/ Come down to earth, living a mortal life of learning. Check, makes sense

2/ The offer of a Saviour to help us overcome mistakes and move on. Check, makes sense

3/ The need for a Saviour to make payment for the mistakes. Got stuck. I’ve heard it so many times before. But it doesn’t make sense. At least not yesterday. I accept that there’s a need for it to be believed to be needed, else why bother with repentance (or effective restitution and change as I think of it these days)? But the teacher asked the question: “If God is all powerful, why did he need Jesus to carry out the atonement to pay for the price of sin?” (or words to the effect) The question didn’t get a good answer and I’ve been wondering that too. Why is it actually needed? Anyway, perhaps a bit too off topic for this thread. Just a musing.

[Anonymous]

The Atonement is next month. I am planning on printing explanations of various Atonement theories and discussing how different people view the concept, each as deeply as possible in the time frame available.

[Anonymous]

Curtis wrote:

The Atonement is next month. I am planning on printing explanations of various Atonement theories and discussing how different people view the concept, each as deeply as possible in the time frame available.

Thanks, I’ll look out for it.

I’ll need to teach it in the coming weeks in GP and I’m still wondering how to approach it.

[Anonymous]

mackay11, my class is a bit different than Gospel Principles, since they are the oldest youth (all of the high school students) and since my Bishop asked me to teach the class as if it was Gospel Doctrine. However, if you want to see how I approached teaching about the Atonement last year, there are lesson summaries in this thread from last March that deal with that topic.

[Author]

Posts