My New Calling: Sunday School Lesson Recaps

[Anonymous]

Curtis wrote:

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.

Thanks Curt. The class is often mainly young adults so it might be appropriate still.

[Anonymous]

Today, we talked about the traditional, Primary / Sunday School answer to the question:

Quote:

“Why do we come to earth, and what are the consequences that need to be overcome?”

I asked the questions and asked for “the standard, Primary answers”. They came up with: to be tried, to gain a physical body, to learn to repent, to progress, etc. – and, for the second part of the question, physical and spiritual death. We then focused on the concepts of physical and spiritual death – what they mean in practical terms and how the scriptures talk about them.

To discuss physical death (and to get to the heart of it within Mormon theology), we read 1 Corinthians 15:1-29, verse-by-verse. I started by explaining Paul’s background (when he was Saul, the high-ranking agent of the Sanhedrin), in order to make sure they understood that Paul had been highly-educated in the law – that he was, in practical terms, like Elder Oaks now. Thus, like Elder Oaks, he often spoke in legalistic terms – since that was how he was trained and how he thought. I wanted them to understand the structure of the chapter we were going to read – how Paul’s treatise about the resurrection basically was like a courtroom “defense” of the concept and precisely what he said about “salvation from physical death”.

I’m going to quote almost the entire passage, with snippets of the conversation, just to present the general flow of the discussion:

Quote:

(1-3) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Paul starts his discourse on the resurrection by reminding the members of the Church that he preached and scripture recorded, and they accepted, the idea that Jesus died for our sins. Thus, he started with the concept of redemption from spiritual death – but then he quickly shifted to the resurrection.

Quote:

(4- And that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

He then cites witnesses to the resurrection – six appearances in all. He does this, again, in order to cover the classic legal requirement of having witnesses to a claim. (I didn’t mention this in the class, simply because I didn’t think of it at the time, but, for this forum, it is interesting that Paul included his own “vision” in the list that otherwise would be interpreted as visitations. He didn’t distinguish in the epistle between those different types of “appearances”.)

Quote:

(9-11) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Paul then re-established that the people who were receiving his epistle had believed what he and the others had preached about the resurrection. It was, again, a legal argument saying, essentially, “This is not new to you. At one point, every one of you accepted and believed this.”

Quote:

(12) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

This verse says quite clearly that Paul was writing this chapter as a direct response to member of the early Christian Church who had started to reject the resurrection (as “physical” in nature), re-igniting the previous division that had existed within Judaism between the Sadducees and Pharisees regarding resurrection. That is important to understand, since there are two capstone verses that only can be understood properly if the intended audience is understood properly.

Quote:

(13-15) But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

Here, Paul places his own character and that of the other witnesses at the center of the question of whether or not a resurrection occurred – and he says, flat-out, that Christianity is useless / ineffectual (“vain”) without the foundation of a resurrection that had been witnessed by lots of people.

Quote:

(16-18) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

This is a repeat or extension of the previous verses, but it sets the stage for his first capstone statement:

Quote:

(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

I asked the students what this verse means – how they would rephrase it in their own terminology. One of the students said, “If we stop believing in Christ, we will be miserable.” I told him that I have heard that translation a lot, but that it wasn’t quite what Paul was saying. (He’s a great kid, so he didn’t take offense at being told he was wrong – and I have done that in more than one lesson in the past, so they are used to it.) They read it again, and someone phrased it correctly as, “If our hope in Christ is confined to this life and has no real effect in the next life, we are more miserable than anyone else.”

We then talked about why that would be – and they quickly understood that it is because of all the requirements involved in accepting Jesus and living as he told his disciples to live. We talked a little about what that entailed back then (which, in many ways, was a lot more than now, as much as we tend to feel restricted now), then we talked about what that entails now. After about ten things were listed as examples of things they do that they wouldn’t do if they were believing Christian-Mormons, we all grinned and agreed that we could keep adding to the list for a long time. I repeated something the High Councilor had said in Sacrament Meeting – that we need to use common sense in how we dedicate time to our callings, since “the Church can take all of our time if we let it” – and that we can’t neglect our family in performing our callings, since “the family is #1 in our lives, not the Church“.

Verse 19 is the first “summation statement” in chapter 15. It is the end of Paul’s first point – that the resurrection is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and warrants the sacrifices required of the early members at that time.

He then moved to the scope of the resurrection – the extent of salvation from physical death.

(20-22) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

I asked the students who, according to these verses, is resurrected. They saw immediately that every person who has been born is said to be resurrected. One of them asked an interesting question: “How do other denominations interpret verse 22? I don’t see how they can read it any differently than that.” I told him that most people tend to interpret scriptures based on what they believe, not based on what the scriptures actually say – especially when what they say is different than what they have been taught. I told them that trying to understand scriptures as they are, not as we want them to be, is an important effort – and I told them again that making that effort has led me to interpret some passages and verses differently even than many other members of the LDS Church.

I then rephrased the answer to: “Everyone who is born already has been saved – from physical death.” Based on that idea, I told them that I hope they never argue with anyone who claims to have been saved. Based on what most of them believe about the next life, they are right; they have been saved, just like all of them and I already have been saved. I told them that it’s important to understand where others are correct and not accuse them of being incorrect in those instances. I told them that if anyone ever asks them if they have been saved to answer confidently, “Yes, I have been saved, just like you have been saved – at the moment we chose to follow Jesus.” If they want to hear more (if the answer shocks them enough to ask), more can be shared; if not, the potential confrontation has been avoided.

Verses 23-28 are simply more “detail” about the resurrection and don’t add anything unique to the discussion that I wanted to address, so I said it that way and we moved to verse 29.

Quote:

(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

This is Paul’s second capstone argument – focusing on the “proof” that the early Christian leaders and members really did believe what they taught about the resurrection. If reworded to make it easier to understand, it might read:

Why are people being baptized for the dead if they aren’t going to be resurrected? (If there is no post-mortal life, of if the next life is nothing more than a spiritual continuation, why would we be baptized for them?

This rhetorical question is worded in such a way, in context of the entire chapter, as the clinching argument that ALL who are born will be resurrected – since it places them ALL under the requirement of the law to be baptized. Again, performing baptisms for the dead proved that the people involved really believed what the leaders taught – that salvation from physical death really is universal.

I looked at the person who asked the question about how others view verse 22 and told him that I have heard verse 29 explained away as Paul condemning a practice of the time by an apostate group – but I told them that such an interpretation simply makes no sense as worded or in the context of the entire chapter. Conversely, as a summation of a legal argument about the centrality and universality of the resurrection, it makes perfect sense.

Since this already is a long summary, I will hit only two things about the rest of the lesson:

1) We talked about agency as the central aspect of salvation from spiritual death – and how, in traditional Mormon theology, all but very few people who are resurrected will inherit a degree of glory and live forever in the presence of “God” (or, to be more precise, to be able to exist in the presence of a member of the Godhead).

2) We talked again about how important it is for each of them to act according to the dictates of their own consciences and become unique individuals – not carbon copies of someone else. I told them about Steven Peck’s book, “A Short Stay in Hell“, in which a man goes to a place where everyone is exactly like him and thinks, for a short time, that he is in Heaven – only to realize exact sameness is Hell. (Steven is a Biology professor at BYU and a phenomenal writer. I recommend this book highly to everyone here.) I recommended that book to them, and told them that lack of progress, lack of action, lack of purpose other than praising God constantly, and never-ending sameness would be Hell for me.

We will talk more next week about spiritual death and what it means to be separated from God. It should be an interesting, challenging lesson for some of them.

[Anonymous]

Today, I wrote on the chalkboard the various elements that get outlined when we draw the classic map of the Plan of Salvation: Pre-existence, veil of forgetfulness, creation, Garden of Eden, The Fall, birth, mortality, agency, death, The Spirit World, Judgment, Resurrection, Exaltation. I told the students we had discussed the Plan of Salvation last February and this month in a lot of detail, from multiple angles, so today I had no prepared lesson plan and, instead, was opening up the entire class time to any questions they had about any of the topics on the board. I told them that they had heard “lessons” about this topic all their lives, so today was going to be nothing more than a free-flowing discussion about possible ways to answer any questions they have.

It was good for them to hear how many of their questions were answered first with, “We don’t know, but . . .”

I can’t recreate all of the conversations we had, but the following is a list of the questions they asked – and a summary of some things I want to highlight for this forum:

1) The veil of forgetfulness = Is it complete immediately at birth, or does it fade gradually?

We also talked about how some people simply are more spiritually inclined than others – like my wife’s experience seeing and feeling her recently deceased father in the temple a couple of days ago, while I got no inkling of it whatsoever.

2) Near death experiences = Are they real?

Why can people remember what happened after they “died” but not what happened before they were born – if the veil is allowed to stay open for one experience, why is it still closed to the other experience?

3) Garden of Eden = Why did God create a mortal world and then place immortal Adam and Eve in it? How could immortal beings live in a mortal world?

We talked about multiple interpretations of the Garden narrative. It led to the next four questions.

4) How old is the Earth?

We talked about differing views of the age of the Earth, then we talked about how our teachings on the subject don’t need to conflict with settled science. We also talked about how religion too often has been used as a club against science (with specific examples of the shape of the Earth and the rotation pattern of the solar system based on readings of the Bible) and how we can’t let ourselves fall into that trap as further light and knowledge is revealed through scientific discovery. I told them that I view scientific discovery as revelation in every important way, since it uncovers what previously was unknown – the classic definition of revelation.

5) Where was the Garden of Eden, and how long were Adam and Eve in it – if it was a literal place on Earth?

The summary: “We don’t know, but here are some opinions.”

6) How do we view dinosaur bones? (The student had heard the idea of them being transplanted from a different world.)

See the summary of #4. I also told them directly that I can’t accept the idea that God placed dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith in a young Earth model. I told them that, to me, that’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard in the entire realm of Earth-related issues.

7) Was the material used to create the Earth already there, or was it brought from somewhere else?

We talked about the nature of matter according to Mormon theology, our rejection of ex nihilo creation and the visual presentation in the temple. (“Here is matter unorganized. Let us take it . . . the other worlds . . .”)

When we say we can become like God, do we mean that we can become like Heavenly Father – or is Heavenly Father like the ultimate God who is different than and superior to all other Gods?

We only had about two minutes left in the class, so I told the students we would tackle that question and any others they have next week.

[Anonymous]

Warning: This is a LONG recap, since I am including the handout verbiage I gave each student.

First, however, I want to highlight the purpose of the lesson today and make a few points about how it went. This is not going to be the typical chronological review of most weeks’ summaries.

1) I wanted the students to be exposed to classic Christian atonement theories over time – to see how theologians have framed the atonement in various ways. In a way, I approached this lesson as a condensed college class in Atonement Theory 101.

2) I wanted the students to realize that Mormon theology, in practical terms, does NOT have “the one true atonement theory” – that, rather, the way we talk about the Atonement encompasses all of the official theories to some degree. Our framing is much more a comprehensive puzzle or mosaic of all recorded theories than it is a distinct theory of its own. It is kind of the “we seek after these things” version, in which elements can be taken from otherwise competing theories.

3) I wanted the students to think about each of the seven theories we discussed and see which one resonated the most deeply with each of them individually. Interestingly (and gratifyingly), when I summarized each of them at the end and asked the students which one was their favorite, six of the theories got at least one vote – meaning only one theory (the “ransom theory”) didn’t receive any votes. (That theory didn’t get any votes simply because none of them liked the idea that our sins brought about a payment to Satan as our captor. One student said that he couldn’t accept that Satan was successful in kidnapping us and getting rewarded for it.) Also of interest is that the penal substitution theory received only one vote.

With that overall summary, the following is the material from the printout I gave each of them. We read most of it and discussed it as we read.

---

From Wikipedia – one case where it does a good job of presenting accurate information:

In theology, atonement is a doctrine that describes how human beings can be reconciled to God. In Christian theology the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which made possible the reconciliation between God and his creation. Within Christianity there are, historically, three or four main theories for how such atonement might work:

• The ransom theory / Christus Victor (which are different, but generally considered together as “classical”, it being argued that these were the traditional understandings of the early Church Fathers);

• The moral influence theory, which Aulen considered to be developed by Peter Abelard (called by him the “idealistic” view),

• The satisfaction theory developed by Anselm of Canterbury (called by Aulen the “scholastic” view),

• The penal substitution theory (which is a refinement of the Anselmian satisfaction theory developed by the Protestant Reformers, especially John Calvin, and is often treated together with the satisfaction view, giving rise to the “four main types” of atonement theories – classical or patristic, scholastic, and idealistic – spoken of by Aulen).

There are other theories of atonement, but the above are the main ones. Other theories include the recapitulation theory, the “shared atonement” theory and the scapegoat theory.

The English word ‘atonement’ originally meant “at-one-ment”, i.e. being “at one”, in harmony, with someone. It is used to describe the saving work that God did through Christ to reconcile the world to himself, and also of the state of a person having been reconciled to God. Throughout the centuries, Christians have used different metaphors and given differing explanations of the atonement to express how the atonement might work. Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor or explanation they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective; however all Christians emphasize that Jesus is the Savior of the world and through his death the sins of mankind have been forgiven. The four most well known theories are briefly described below:

The earliest explanation for how the atonement works is nowadays often called the “moral influence” theory. In this view the core of Christianity is positive moral change, and the purpose of everything Jesus did was to lead humans toward that moral change. He is understood to have accomplished this variously through his teachings, example, founding of the Church, and the inspiring power of his martyrdom and resurrection. This view was universally taught by the early church leaders in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, along with what is called by Aulen the classical or patristic view, which can be variously interpreted as Ransom or Recapitulation, or under the general heading of “Christus Victor”. The moral influence theory also enjoyed popularity during the Middle Ages and is most often associated in that period with Peter Abelard. Since the Protestant Reformation it has been advocated by many theologians, including Kant, Hastings and Tillich. It remains the most popular view of atonement among theologically liberal Christians.

Chronologically, the second explanation, first clearly enunciated by Irenaeus, is the “ransom” theory. “Christus victor” and “ransom” are slightly different from each other, since in the ransom metaphor Jesus liberates mankind from slavery to sin and Satan and thus death by giving his own life as a ransom sacrifice. (Matthew 20:28) Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (mankind). The “Christus Victor” theory sees Jesus not used as a ransom but rather defeating Satan in a spiritual battle and thus freeing enslaved mankind by defeating the captor. This theory ‘continued for a thousand years to influence Christian theology, until it was finally shifted and discarded by Anselm’.

The third metaphor, used by the 11th century theologian Anselm, is called the “satisfaction” theory. In this picture mankind owes a debt not to Satan, but to the sovereign God himself. A sovereign may well be able to forgive an insult or an injury in his private capacity, but because he is a sovereign he cannot if the state has been dishonoured. Anselm argued that the insult given to God is so great that only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy, and that Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice. Therefore, the doctrine would be that Jesus gave himself as a “ransom for many”, to God the Father himself.

The next explanation, which was a development by the Reformers of Anselm’s satisfaction theory, is the commonly held Protestant “penal substitution” theory, which, instead of considering sin as an affront to God’s honor, sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law. Placing a particular emphasis on Romans 6:23 (the wages of sin is death), penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God’s wrath with the essence of Jesus’ saving work being his substitution in the sinner’s place, bearing the curse in the place of man (Galatians 3:13). A variation that also falls within this metaphor is Hugo Grotius’ “governmental theory”, which sees Jesus receiving a punishment as a public example of the lengths to which God will go to uphold the moral order.

The less prominent atonement theories include:

The “recapitulation theory”, in which Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including morality). According to William Barclay, man’s disobedience the process of the evolution of the human race went wrong, and the course of its wrongness could neither be halted nor reversed by any human means. But in Jesus Christ the whole course of human evolution was perfectly carried out and realized in obedience to the purpose of God.

The “shared atonement theory”, in which the atonement is spoken of as shared by all. In this view, God sustains the universe. Therefore if Jesus was God in human form, when he died, we all died with him, and when he rose from the dead, we all rose with him.

The “scapegoat theory”, in which Jesus took the place of the tradition goat that was loaded with the sins of the people and driven into the wilderness to die with those sins – which, therefore, could not return to the people. In this view, Jesus took upon himself the sins of the people (going backward and forward in time to encompass all who ever have lived) in such a way that their sins cannot return to them.

Kevin Barney’s post “Atonement Stew” on By Common Consent

When I was young, I thought there was something wrong with me. I didn’t have any idea how the Atonement worked. So far as I could tell, I was the only one who suffered from this malady. Others would say how glad they were that we had the perfect understanding of the Atonement, and I would always wonder what they were talking about, because I just didn’t understand it. I still remember feeling embarrassed about this ignorance of mine and wondering why everyone else seemed to have a handle on this doctrine that I just couldn’t grasp. This state of my (non)understanding continued throughout my mission.

At some point after my mission I read the chapter on the Atonement in Sterling McMurrin’s Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, and my eyes were finally opened. What had always seemed to me a meaningless jumble of ideas and concepts actually reflected discrete theories (or metaphors) that developed historically over time. People acted as though there were a single Atonement theory that we understood well, and I could never see it. But now I knew the reason I could never see it is that it didn’t exist. People would mix and match concepts and vocabulary from these different concepts as though they were part of a coherent whole, apparently without realizing that they were doing so.

(We skipped Kevin’s summary of the main theories, since we had discussed them from the Wikipedia article.)

After I learned about this, I still didn’t really understand the Atonement, but at least now the way we talked about it made sense to me, and I could appreciate the historical development of the different ideas people tossed around. I at least understood why I hadn’t understood it before.

While I was in law school, my EQP was Michael Hicks (now a professor of music at BYU), and he had a terrific handout in which he illustrated each theory by snippets from different LDS hymns. The handout was maybe three pages long, and each theory had about 3/4 of a page (single spaced) with illustrations devoted to it. I wish I still had that handout, but I looked and couldn’t find it among my papers. But it scarcely matters; anyone could go through our hymns and create one for oneself.

Next time you’re sitting there singing the sacrament hymn in church, think about this. For example, “Behold the Great Redeemer Die” is immediately followed by the lines “a broken law to satisfy/he dies a sacrifice for sin,” mingling concepts from the satisfaction and substitution theories in adjacent lines.

So I no longer feel so self-conscious about my ignorance concerning the Atonement. But I’m also not overly impressed by occasional expressions of our supposed greater light and knowledge on this subject. Sure, we have some insights on the margins, such as a greater emphasis on Gethsemane. But as far as I can tell, we dip our ladle from the very same pot of Atonement stew of theories that all Christians do.

Comments from the post:

1) “It seems like there are two competing ways of approaching the Atonement – the inquisitive approach such as you manifest here, vs the approach that says that the Atonement is inherently mysterious and paradoxically unapproachable. Those who ascribe to this second approach almost make it a point of pride to not look to closely at the Atonement, like giving away the magician’s secrets or something. I confess I waver between the two approaches; sometimes I want to know exactly how it works, sometimes I just want to bask in it.”

2) “I’m also of both minds simultaneously. On the one hand, of course I would like to understand the mechanics of how the Atonement works. A Jewish peasant was killed 2,000 years ago–how exactly does that have anything to do with me and my salvation? Part of me would like someone to be able to walk me through the mechanical steps of how that all is supposed to work.

But, despite the various theories and metaphors, I don’t think we really have a handle on the mechanics of it all. Mormons generally aren’t big on the concept of mystery; like curious boys who subscribe to Popular Mechanics, we want to know how things work. And this is one where we don’t really know. I’m at peace with that.

Not all Mormons are, however. A few years ago I taught a lesson on the Atonement in EQ, and one of the quotes I used was from Talmage to the effect that in the end the atonement is beyond the capacity of our finite human minds to grasp. And I almost had a riot on my hands; the elders were highly offended that any part of the simple plan of salvation should be beyond our ken.”

3) “The four theories of atonement seem to present a ‘blind men and the elephant’ problem with each theory grasping different elements of something too big to be described by the smaller pieces, and in some senses the differences may seem to contradict, yet all part of a bigger whole.

I’m drawn to the ‘mystery’ approach, if just because I’ve found so much I don’t understand, I’ve grown comfortable in my cluelessness.”

4) At a Sunstone West many years ago, I heard Lorin K. Hansen deliver a version of what he later published in Dialogue vol 27 n1 (Spring 1994) as “The Moral Atonement as a Mormon Interpretation.” After surveying the various interpretations, he noted that he could divide them into “Objective” theories and “Subjective” theories, that is, “The Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories of Christian Orthodoxy were predominantly objective interpretations: man and woman, according to these views were, are redeemed by God’s works, not their own works, for they are morally incapable of contributing to their own redemption. And the Moral-Influence theory (the predominant example of a “moral” theory of the Atonement) was a subjective interpretation; that is, man and woman are morally autonomous and are redeemed through their own initiative, responding to the moral example of Jesus Christ. So the polarization in Christian theology is primarily one of moral-subjective interpretation versus transactional objective interpretations.” (Hansen, 201)

So he made the case that the Book of Mormon uniquely includes both objective and and subjective atonement. (Hansen, 209). It’s a provocative piece that I’ve thought deserves more attention.

Recommendations to the students of interesting treatments of the Atonement:

Hugh Nibley’s “The Meaning of the Atonement”

Blake Ostler’s “Com-passion Theory”

Eugene England’s “Shakespeare and the At-One-ment of Christ”

Margaret Barker’s “Atonement: The Rite of Healing”

Truman Madsen’s “The Olive Press”

Rene Girard’s “I See Satan Fall Like Lightning”

[Anonymous]

I forgot to mention that our Bishop attended the class today, and later, in Priesthood Meeting, he slipped me a note telling me which theory resonated most deeply with him – and a scripture about his role as Bishop relative to the Atonement. He didn’t want to mention anything in class, because he didn’t want to assert any implicit influence on the students.

He’s a good man.

[Anonymous]

My wife, my oldest son and I spoke in Sacrament Meeting today on the Atonement (outlines of our talks coming when I get the time), so in Sunday School we held another question and answer session about the Godhead, the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement. Two week ago, one of the students had asked a question that we didn’t have time to discuss adequately, and I told them we would do so in a different lesson – so we started with that question.

1) When we talk about becoming like God, do we mean that we will end up as “equals” to Heavenly Father – or is Heavenly Father the “top God”, so we always will be subject to / below Him?

First, I asked how the students would answer that question – if any of them had a particularly strong belief one way or the other. Two of the students said they tend to see it as becoming like God but always being subordinate to Heavenly Father, and one of them used the example of studying Greek mythology and how Zeus, Poseidon and Hades were the “ruling Gods” among the broader group of gods. I mentioned how interesting it is that our Godhead / Trinity concept is so similar in that regard, being composed of three gods, and then I described how members differ in how they answer the question – that, like so many other topics, faithful members can disagree or reach different conclusions.

2) Where does God live? Isn’t there something in the scriptures that talks about a planet where God lives? Will we live on our own planets and create / manage our own universes?

We read from Abraham about Kolob, and I pointed out that it is said to be “near unto God” – NOT the actual dwelling place of God. We talked about our Article of Faith that mentions the fate of this Earth – that it will become a paradise and that we tend to interpret that to mean that it will become the Celestial Kingdom for those who lived on it. I mentioned the Church’s recent statement that says we don’t teach officially that each couple will get their own planet, and I said that we have no idea, really, if Heavenly Father lives somewhere with Heavenly Mother on a planet of their own – or if they were once human (the famous couplet) and live somewhere with other God-couples who also lived on whatever “Earth” was their mortal home – or if there is some other arrangement for them and us. I had mentioned in my Sacrament Meetings talk Elder Maxwell’s quote about the dimensions of the cross not being as important as what happened on it, and I told them that this sort of discussion was a great example of not getting so caught up in the details that we miss the central message – that it’s FAR more important that we believe in becoming like God than exactly where and in what situation we will be living.

3) When I mentioned the quote about the cross, that lead to a discussion of different views about the cross – why it happened that way, questions about the form of the cross used, where the cross fits in our theology, etc.

The main take-away from the discussion that I want to record here was that we do NOT reject the cross and shouldn’t reject or ridicule others’ use of the cross as a symbol of their faith, even if we don’t use it as much as or like they do. I told them that the cross for most faithful Christians is like our temple garment – that they wear it as a manifestation and reminder of their faith. I told them that if we don’t want people to mock the temple garment, we shouldn’t mock their use of the cross.

That ended our question and answer period, so I used the remaining time to discuss again the Beatitudes and what they mean in our lives – since the main point of my Sacrament Meeting talk was that Jesus’ life is just as important a part of the Atonement as the Garden of Gethsemane and Golgotha – and that we limit the Atonement and miss one of the most powerful elements of it when we focus exclusively on the Garden and the Cross, as important as they are.

[Anonymous]

Today, we talked about how the Atonement is taught in our hymns. We used the sacrament songs as the text, going through as many as we could (in numerical order in the hymn book) in the time we had – having each student read one verse at a time and summarize the message of that verse.

It was interesting to lead them through a study of what is taught in the hymns and point out how many atonement theories (lesson from earlier this month) were mentioned. I won’t go into detail, but I do want to mention one thing that hit me and about which we talked in more detail at the end of the lesson.

A number of the hymns we read talked about partaking of the sacrament with clean hands and/or a pure heart. (e.g., “Let us remember and be sure our hearts and hands are clean and pure.” “In Jesus’ name we ask thee to bless and sanctify, if we are pure before thee . . .” etc.)

“O Lord of Hosts” (#178), however, in its entirety, says the following, emphasis added:

Quote:

O Lord of Hosts, we now invoke thy Spirit most divine to cleanse our hearts WHILE we partake the broken bread and wine. May we forever think of thee and of thy suffering sore, endured for us on Calvary, and praise thee ever more. Prepare our minds that we many see the beauties of thy grace – salvation purchased on that tree for all who seek thy face.

I pointed out the contrast between the idea that we need to be pure to partake and be blessed and the idea that partaking is part of the process of cleansing wrought by the Atonement – that we don’t have to be perfectly clean and pure but, rather, are required merely to be actively and sincerely seeking God.

I told them about a dear friend who went to the temple for the first time and was overwhelmed by the covenants he made – who was a wonderful man but didn’t return to the temple for about 15 years, since he felt fundamentally unworthy. I told them that I hoped they never latched onto the idea that we need to wear ourselves out and become “perfect” before the Atonement can benefit us but that, as the song above teaches, strive to “seek (his) face” and allow the Atonement to be a force for progress in that pursuit – that we see it not so much as a reward in the next life but more as a guiding light in this life.

[Anonymous]

The topic this month is The Apostasy and the Restoration. There are five potential lesson outlines but, due to General Conference and Easter, there are only two Sundays available to teach about that topic. Therefore, I combined two lesson concepts today: “How can I recognize the difference between truth and error?” and “Why is it important to teach pure doctrine?”

I started the class by telling everyone that I really struggled to prepare this lesson, because I had felt some impressions about structuring it around something that might be seen as controversial by some members – but which I believe is probably the best example possible of why it is important to focus on pure doctrine, why it is important not to stray into the purely / highly speculative and how we should approach understanding anything in relation to truth and error.

We then read the first scriptural passage in the truth vs. error lesson outline – John 8:31-32. I read 25-29 to lay the groundwork to understand the context, focusing on the fact that Jesus started by talking about doing the will of the Father and then addressing 31-32 exclusively to those who “believed on him” – a subset of those to whom he had been teaching originally. Thus, 31-32 was said to believers – those who accepted his statement that he was representing the Father and were looking for a practical answer to what they should do with that belief.

John 31-32 says:

Quote:

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We talked about the most important words in that passage: “continue”, “truth” and “free”. We discussed the idea that “continuing” means nothing more than “not stopping” – but, in Mormon theology, it also carries connotations of “progress” (which includes an inherent aspect of “growth and change”). It is that continuation of growth and change that, eventually, creates a “new creature in Christ” that is free – specifically from the limitations, restrictions, bonds, etc. that existed prior to “know(ing) the truth”. Thus, the ultimate end of knowing truth from error is freedom from ignorance and all of its mortal applications.

We then discussed D&C 9:7-8 (all of 7 and the first sentence of , after discussing the context of the section, which reads:

Quote:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind.

I mentioned to them how often we talk in the Church about the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in terms of how we feel (our spiritual/emotional/heart experience) but how little we tend to mention our minds as part of the testimony toolbox, if you will. I explained that I don’t take anything as “pure doctrine” unless it speaks compellingly to BOTH my heart AND my mind – that there are things that resonate with my heart or mind but not with the other – that I try not to rely on only one of those things in constructing what I believe – that I only accept it as part of my own faith if I like how I feel and think about it. I told them that when there is a disconnect between the two, I try to dig deeper into the disconnected aspect and understand why the disconnect exists by looking more closely at it – not by ignoring it. I mentioned that problems can occur when either the heart or mind is allowed to dominate – that the heart alone can lead to emotional conclusions that aren’t true, while the mind alone can lead to an intellectualism that denies feelings and can allow someone to lose sight of morality and humanity.

Focusing on “pure doctrine” is important in this process, because it explicitly is when we leave pure doctrine and move into speculation that things get all kinds of messed up and we become enslaved (not free) by our mistaken understandings.

I told them that this was the point over which I agonized in the preparation of the lesson. I wanted to use a real example of something that was not “pure doctrine” but which mutated into being seen as pure doctrine due to the mortal inability to distinguish between truth and error and the similar mortal tendency to hold on to false traditions and teachings. The best example I know of this is the Priesthood ban, so I mentioned the Joseph Smith Papers Project and the explanations of various things that the Church has published on lds.org in the Gospel Topics section.

First, I asked the students who was allowed to be baptized when the Church was established in 1830. They all answered that anyone of age could be baptized, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I asked who could be ordained to an office in the Priesthood and attend the temple. They said all worthy members could attend the temple and all worthy men could be ordained, except for black men. (My daughter wasn’t allowed to answer, since we have talked about all of this in the past.) I told them that answer was wrong – that, originally, there were no restrictions based on race and that a handful of black men had been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood and endowed in the temple. I then summarized the lds.org explanation and talked about the prevailing “philosophies of men” and how they worked their way into our teachings – and how uniquely Mormon justifications arose when people tried to explain why the ban was in place. I mentioned the belief in a curse of Cain, the idea that the Church couldn’t ordain black men in the political environment of the time, the belief that black men and women had been less valiant in the pre-existence / fence-sitters, etc. – and how those justifications allowed white people to think they were better than black people. I explained that every reference we have in our scriptures that might seem to support those conclusions to any degree occurs PRIOR to the life and death of Jesus – and that there are verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that state, clearly, that, as of that time, ALL people were alike to God – including both black and white, explicitly.

We talked about how we all tend to explain rules, policies, commandments, counsel, etc. in order to justify them – in school, at work, in church and everywhere else. I mentioned Elder McConkie’s statement in 1978 after OD2 and the rescinding of the ban about forgetting everything he and anyone else had said about the reason(s) for the ban – that they had spoken with limited light and knowledge and now had increased light and knowledge that repudiated everything they had said in the past. I stressed the importance of not holding so tightly to anything that they might lose the ability to let go when further light and knowledge appears, as I’m sure will happen in their lifetimes.

In the context of the lesson topics, we talked about how the entire thing might have been avoided if the early saints (including Pres. Young) could have let go of their bias against inter-racial marriage, focused solely on “pure doctrine” and been open to new understanding of truth and error. I told them that they never have to accept or believe something FULLY, without question or concern, simply because it is taught in the Church – that, ultimately, they have to receive confirmation in their hearts and minds about anything and, if necessary, hold onto hope and faith that what they can’t accept or believe fully at the moment will change in the future – either the thing they can’t accept or their personal understanding of it.

[Anonymous]

Wonderful. I wish with all my heart that all youth in the church would get a lesson like this. I wish I had gotten this lesson. I might have been saved a lot of agony.

[Anonymous]

Last Sunday, as I was thinking of finishing touches for the lesson, I had the distinct impression that the kids would hear my lesson in Sacrament Meeting and that they should attend Gospel Doctrine, instead. I cleared that with our Bishop, and we cancelled class. Sure enough, the speakers in Sac Mtg went over every major part of my prepared lesson – and the Gospel Doctrine lesson was excellent. Also, I had an epiphany during it that served as the foundation of the lesson outline today.

Today was the final lesson about the Atonement, and I approached this one in a way that was new for me. I was a bit concerned about how it would go, but it went really well.

I started by writing “Chosen People” on the board and drawing a simple timeline below it. I asked the students to name some “chosen people” from the earliest records to the present time. We came up with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses, David, John (the Baptist), Jesus, Paul and Joseph Smith. I mentioned Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk “Faith of Our Fathers” and added the Protestant Reformers to the list. We then added Lehi and Nephi to the list to better represent our overall canon.

Next, I asked them who constituted “The Chosen People” at the time each person on the list lived. Adam and Eve were the first two chosen people; Noah’s family is listed as eight people; the Abrahamic Covenant extended the number to millions / billions of people, eventually (and I explained how, genetically, by now, everyone is related if we go back far enough); Israel began a different kind of chosen people – one that was focused on laws and ordinances and was a restriction in a real way; Jesus re-established the universality of chosen-ness; it was restricted again through the apostasy to be only Christians; Joseph restored the idea that ALL are chosen for salvation and chosen for potential exaltation, while ALSO restoring the idea of a smaller chosen people who perform ordinances that make universal chosen-ness possible.

We then talked about what that means about us (the LDS Church) being “chosen people”. We talked about the natural tendency to make discussions of chosen-ness turn into “us vs. them” conflicts. We talked about how, in our theology, even people who inherit the Telestial Kingdom are “chosen” in a very real way – that only those who consciously and knowingly choose Lucifer over God are not chosen in any way. We talked about how our “chosen-ness” is unique ONLY in the sense that we have been given the responsibility of making sure everyone has the opportunity to be chosen, as well. I held my hands together to form a small circle and said that we fail in our chosen-ness if we don’t expand that circle as broadly as possible – and spread my arms as I talked to illustrate that point.

I told them that there are two “states of chosen-ness”, if you will. There is being chosen to teach and share the Gospel (to expand the circle), and there is being chosen to receive God’s glory. They all understood that receiving God’s glory is more important than any idea of chosen-ness in this life – and that those who accept God fully in the next life are “more chosen” than those who have a chosen status in this life only.

We ended by talking about the ultimate vision of the Atonement – the ideal that every child of God ends up in the Celestial Kingdom and that we have to learn to view every child of God as having that potential and treating them accordingly, no matter how we see them naturally or how little potential we see in them currently. I explained the Atonement as the bridge between a smaller chosen people and a universal chosen people.

[Anonymous]

Today, we started the month’s topic of Prophets and Revelation. I focused on the lesson outline entitled, “How does revelation help me receive revelation?”

I didn’t introduce the topic at first but, instead, pulled out my cell phones (personal and work-provided) and asked each student to name one benefit of having such technology available individually. They mentioned a bunch of things, all of which could be grouped into two general categories: information access and interpersonal connectivity. I then asked them to name something that is a negative about having such technology individually. The answers fell into two general categories: information access and interpersonal disconnectedness / distraction. We talked for a short time about how having so much information available to us allows us to receive answers to many questions almost instantaneously and to stay connected with people from whom we naturally would be separated, but having that same amount of information available constantly also can cause obsession, distraction, non-productivity, interpersonal distance, erosion of communication skills, etc.

I then talked about my experiences blogging and how hard it can be to convey full meaning with just words on a screen – how nuance and emotion can be difficult or impossible to express adequately, which can lead people who actually agree with each other to argue with each other due to misunderstanding what has been written. I mentioned one particular person whom I used to count as a friend who can’t discuss anything online without turning it into a debate she is determined to win – and how she isn’t that way in person. I also mentioned how anonymity can lead to people saying things they wouldn’t say, ever, in person.

I then asked the students to define “reverence”. One student said “respect” – while another one said it comes from the word “revere”, which is extreme respect. I added the element of awe.

I asked if we tend to talk about revering food or such things, and one of them said, “Yes – chocolate!” After a good chuckle, we focused on the ultimate object of reverence in the context of church and a Sunday School lesson. Obviously, that is God. I asked about prophets and apostles – and they all answered that we should respect them but not revere them in the same way that we revere God, simply because they are human and make mistakes.

I asked how reverence generally has been defined in their years in the Church, especially in Primary. The answers were, “Be quiet,” “Sit still,” “Fold your arms,” “Don’t argue with your teacher,” etc. We talked about how children need structure from which to learn – and I told them that, at some point, the challenge is to transition from the understanding of children to an individual, adult view. As an example, we talked about the “form of prayer” and how it is important for someone just learning to pray – but that, at some point, we need to learn to talk with God naturally and not in a formulaic manner. We need to revere God, not recite things to God.

In order to illustrate the point about moving to a more mature understanding of reverence, I asked if our hymns are supposed to be reverent. They said the hymns are supposed to be respectful and expressive of awe – but not all of them are supposed to be sung quietly and/or in a subdued manner. I had them open the hymnals randomly and read the titles of the hymns and the word at the top left (above the first line) explaining how they were to be sung. We laughed at the first person’s selection, since it was “Reverently and Meekly Now” – but almost half of the hymns were supposed to be sung “exuberantly” or “with rejoicing” or “exultantly” or “energetically” or some other similar adjective. Each and every hymn dealt with a topic for which we should have deep respect, and even awe, but, for some of them, singing quietly and solemnly would be the opposite of reverently.

I told them that I wanted to go through all of that to make sure the last part of the lesson, which is really important to me, wasn’t the only thing they took away from the lesson – that there is a very important element of the traditional focus on quietude and solemnity in reverence, which we were about to discuss, but I wanted them to be able to “rock” reverentially, as well.

We read 1 Kings 19:12 and 3 Nephi 11:1-7 (about the still, small voice) and D&C 63:64 and 84:54-57 (about valuing and not making light of sacred things), then we read Psalms 46:10 (“Be still, and know that I am God.”). I went back to the discussion about cell phones and distraction / disconnectedness, and we talked about how hard it is to develop a reverential attitude when we aren’t “still” and contemplative. I mentioned that when I recruit high school students I rarely call them; rather, I text them and ask them to call me or let me know when I can call them. I do that because most of them won’t interrupt multiple, simultaneous text conversations to answer the phone. They have to stop what they are doing and set aside time just for me to have the important discussions that are necessary to get ready to go to college.

I ended with the idea that there is a cause-and-effect relationship articulated in: 1) Be still, and 2) Know that I am God – that, often, we need to eliminate distractions in order to commune with, recognize and gain understanding of the divine. We can be reverential without being quiet, but we can’t be fully reverential if we never are still and quiet, especially internally. It is in that stillness that revelation often can come and be recognized – no matter how we reach that stillness (prayer, meditation, pondering, contemplation, etc.). Revelation can come amid chaos, but some revelation only can come in the stillness of the soul.

[Anonymous]

The lesson yesterday was based on the outline entitled, “How can I use scripture study skills to help me learn more about the Priesthood?” – but I changed the focus to learning more about revelation instead of the Priesthood.

We started by reading a bunch of the scriptures listed in the outline, focusing on the key words and phrases I have bolded below:

Quote:

1 Nephi 10:19 – For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

I emphasized that it’s not enough just to read – that we need to SEEK and do so “diligently”. I also pointed out that being “unfolded” implies multiple steps and more time that just one or two times.

Quote:

D&C 88:118 – And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

I asked the students what they think of when they read “the best books” – that we would be focusing on the scriptures today but what other books would fit that category. They mentioned textbooks, books about science, math, history, etc. One person mentioned historical fiction and how it can be easier to read and ponder than the more “dry” textbooks. I mentioned scriptural commentaries, even by people outside our religion, and the scriptural texts of other people. I told them that they need to find their own “best books” – the things that will give them the “learning” they want to obtain.

Quote:

1 Nephi 19:23 – And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.

I mentioned that we usually talk about likening things from the scriptures by focusing on the positive messages and how we can get a “moral to the story” from them. I told them that such an approach is important, but it is more important to read each story and passage carefully to see what we can learn from it, no matter what that is, good or bad. I mentioned that, later in the lesson, we were going to look at two specific stories in the Old Testament with that in mind.

Quote:

2 Nephi 4:16 – Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.

and

Quote:

D&C 138:1 – On the third of October, in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen, I sat in my room pondering over the scriptures;

I simply emphasized with these verses that it is important to think about what we read at times other than while we are reading them – that often the deepest insights occur after we have had time to “digest” what we’ve read and mull over it a bit.

Finally,

Quote:

2 Nephi 32:3 – Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ;

Using that as the foundation (really digging into the words as if we were participating in an old fashioned feast), we turned to two stories in the Old Testament: Abraham and the attempted sacrifice of Isaac (which we have discussed at least twice previously in class) and Moses and the annihilation of the Midianites.

We read Genesis 22:1, and I told them that I had missed a word and its implications for nearly 50 years as I read and talked about this story. That verse says:

And it came to pass after these things, that God did TEMPT Abraham.

We looked at the notes at the bottom of the page and saw that two possible alternative readings for that word are “test” and “prove”. I asked the students why we always use “test” when talking about this passage and never “tempt” – the word that actually is in the translation we use. They said that “tempt” has a negative connotation and is used to talk about trying to get someone to do something that is bad – that we don’t see God as someone who tempts people and tries to get them to do bad things.

I then asked them, since it was Mother’s Day, how they would react if the thought hit them that they should kill their mothers – or if a friend told them he had had a dream in which he was told to kill his mother. They all looked shocked and said they would never have that thought (and certainly not act on it) – and that they probably would recommend professional counseling if a friend seemed serious at all about it.

I summarized by saying that such a thought / impression / whatever would not be a temptation for them – and asked them why it would have been a temptation for Abraham if he thought God had asked him to kill his son. We talked about the story of the destruction of Sodom and how Abraham had argued / bargained with the Lord about saving the city. I asked them why Abraham hadn’t argued / bargained with the Lord about killing Isaac – and, again, why the word “tempt” might be a great word to use for what happened.

That stumped them completely, so I took them through an abbreviated version of the story in the PofGP about Abraham’s background – how he had been raised in a culture and religion that practiced human and child sacrifice – how nobody in that area would have questioned the idea of him sacrificing Issac (that nobody at that time and place would have suggested professional counseling). They would have understood and supported him, so, given his own personal history, it really would have been a temptation – and, given how he reacted, a temptation to which he succumbed. Ultimately, God had to stop him from actually doing it – so, even if we use “test” instead of “tempt”, the use of “tempt” can help us see that Abraham might have failed the test by succumbing to the temptation of his upbringing and not questioning or arguing with the Lord about it.

I emphasized that what we had just discussed was completely consistent with the actual account in the scriptures and only hit me as I talked with others about the story and pondered / feasted on it.

We then turned to the story in Numbers 31 about the Israelite war with the Midianites and how similar it was to the current situation in Nigeria with the girls who were kidnapped and given as “brides” to the soldiers. We read verses 1-2, which say:

Quote:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, “Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.”

I pointed out that the only thing the Lord commanded was that the Israelites fight the Midianites and win. There are NO specifics in the account.

In verse 14, it says Moses was “wroth” (extremely angry) and that Moses commanded what happened next – not just the death of all the men capable of fighting (which already had been done) but the killing of all the women and male children and the giving of all the virgins to the Israelite soldiers as wives.

I told them that it is easy to skim over the story and assume that God commanded everything that was done – but that simply isn’t what the account says. I then shared with them the idea articulated by a friend that we can get so passionate about doing what we believe to be what God wants that we end up being over-zealous and going beyond what was commanded. We can believe that tithing is important – and figure that if 10% is good, 11% or 60% has to be better; we can believe that the scriptures are important – and eliminate all other books from our lives; we can believe that the Sabbath is a day of rest – and sleep all day each Sunday; we can believe that missionary work is important – and harangue people until they avoid us like the plague; etc., etc., etc.

We discussed the concept of using scriptures not just to teach us “the good parts version” (anybody recognize that reference?) but also to help us avoid making the mistakes other people have made (even prophets) throughout history.

We finished by going back to the title of the lesson, and I told them that I view the new insight I had gained from studying those two stories over a long period of time and with “real intent” to be a good example of one type of important revelation – the uncovering of something that previously had been hidden.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

I then shared with them the idea articulated by a friend that we can get so passionate about doing what we believe to be what God wants that we end up being over-zealous and going beyond what was commanded. We can believe that tithing is important – and figure that if 10% is good, 11% or 60% has to be better; we can believe that the scriptures are important – and eliminate all other books from our lives; we can believe that the Sabbath is a day of rest – and sleep all day each Sunday; we can believe that missionary work is important – and harangue people until they avoid us like the plague; etc., etc., etc.

We discussed the concept of using scriptures not just to teach us “the good parts version” (anybody recognize that reference?) but also to help us avoid making the mistakes other people have made (even prophets) throughout history.

I have been out of church for several weeks due to health reasons and I SO needed to read over your lessons. Can I move to your ward and enroll my kids in your class? I feel inadequate to teach them even at home since I am so full of questions myself.

The over-zealous part…I used to be that way…I am either black or white. I’ve never been comfortable in the grey…I find it now difficult to know “how” to behave. I’m too old to start my life over! :geek:

Thank you for taking the time to blog about your lessons. :wave:

[Anonymous]

Thank you, QA. I really appreciate that comment.

[Anonymous]

In preparing for a week of extensive travel that began last Sunday, I forgot to post the summary of my Sunday School lesson last week. The following is an abbreviated version, minus the scriptural background from the first half of the lesson.

We focused on the lesson outline entitled “What does it mean to bear testimony?” After the scriptural discussion, I took them through a comparison to court proceedings and what different types of witnesses testify in that setting. (eye-witness, character – both good and bad, expert – like psychiatrists or forensic scientists, etc.) We talked about which ones are least reliable (only one eye-witness) and which ones are most reliable (often experts who analyze data without perceptual biases). We talked about why more than one eye-witness is important.

We then applied each of those types to spiritual testimonies and talked about the importance of gaining a testimony from each category – to have a well-rounded, balanced, multi-faceted testimony.

I asked each of them to take a minute and think about one aspect of the Gospel that they feel is the strongest part of their testimony – and why it is. We talked about some of those aspects, very briefly. I am not going to share any of those details, since it was a very personal discussion.

I then asked them to identify one thing about which they didn’t have a strong testimony but want to gain. One student said tithing, since she hasn’t earned much money in her life to this point and doesn’t feel like she has a personal testimony of it. Another student hesitated and then said, “Everything.” He explained that, due to some pretty serious ward issues where he used to live, he had withdrawn emotionally and become mostly inactive. When he moved here, everyone accepted him – and one friend in particular made a huge difference in his life and helped him look at the Church differently. He said he wants to understand everything better, which wasn’t the case a couple of years ago. (On a personal note, it was one of the highlights of my time as a teacher of that class – and I told him afterward that I was grateful he had had the courage to comment, especially since the other members of the class needed to understand that situation better.)

We read John 7:16-17, which says:

Quote:

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

I told them that the best way to figure out how they feel about something (to “gain a testimony” that is unique to each of them individually, no matter what it ended up being) was to “experiment upon the word”, as Alma said – to try it over an extended period of time, both when it was easy and when it was hard. If they do that, they might come to differing conclusions among themselves, but those conclusions would be uniquely their own.

[Author]

Posts