My New Calling: Sunday School Lesson Recaps

[Anonymous]

So would you say the question is more

“Can this book help me come unto Christ and partake of God’s mercy?”

than

“Did King Lamoni really own a chariot?” ?

It makes sense that Moroni would want the focus of our spiritual witness to be on God’s mercy and not on the factual accuracy of his dad’s book. Moroni bemoans his weakness in writing more than anyone.

On the other hand, if the focus is on factual accuracy I think it strengthens the book as proof of Joseph Smith’s prophethood and of the church’s exclusivity. But using the book for this purpose seems to be a modern application not supported by the text.

Thanks again.

[Anonymous]

Last week, we talked about the different ways God is described in our scriptures – and how there are lots of places where legitimate interpretations of isolated verses can lead to different interpretations of God. We read Genesis 1 – noting the use of singular “God” and plural “the Gods”. We read John 1:1-3 and discussed how confusing that passage can be. We read the Book of Mormon description of the Godhead and how it sounds like the classic trinity of modern Christianity, all by itself. We talked about the Hebrew “el” and what it means – and we talked about the classic descriptions of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

We talked again (as we have in other classes) about the danger of proof-texting isolated verses and passages – and I mentioned how our scriptures give us a really good view of the evolution of theology within the Judeo-Christian tradition. I assigned the students to read Jacob 5 and Moses 7 for next week, focusing on the similar descriptions of God in those passages and looking for how they affect our Mormon understanding of God and make it radically different than the rest of Christianity.

This week, we discussed those passages and spent the entire time talking about two things:

1) How God could ask, “What more could I have done for my vineyard?” – as a sincere question, if he could have done anything he wanted to do;

2) Why God wept in Moses 7, and what that says about God and the condition of godhood.

We talked about the caricature of Eternal Life (according to our theology) in the idea of endless rest and peace, with no conflict or turmoil, in light of those two passages. We read the most vivid imagery (“What more could I have done for my vineyard?” – “the devil looked up and laughed” – “Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.“), and I made them pause to try to picture those scenes and imagine the details and the emotions and expressions they convey. We talked about God getting down and dirty in the mud and the muck – pruning, digging, dunging, weeping, waiting, enduring out of love – being the type of Being who could handle that sort of heartbreaking work forever.

I told them that it is a hard concept to wrap one’s heart and mind around, but it is the heart of why we use the title, “God, the Father”. I ended by telling them that they will never be fully Christ-like and godly until they can accept serving others, who often don’t appear to deserve it, in ways that leave them heart-broken and weeping – and still continue to endure to the end, even, perhaps, if there is no end.

[Anonymous]

So are the youth not doing D&C/history of the church like the adults?

If so, is a coincidence they’ve had the youth ‘skip’ this?

Or am I paranoid?

[Anonymous]

You are paranoid. :silent:

There is a new curriculum in all the teenage classes (Sunday School, YM and YW) this year called, “Come, Follow Me”. It is concept-based and there is lots of flexibility for the teachers to teach what they feel their own youth need. The direction we received, from the course description itself, says explicitly that the students are supposed to be involved actively in discussions – that lectures and single perspectives are not supposed to be the norm. The scripture study lessons are staying in Seminary. I have loved it thus far, since the entire month of January has been focused on God – and we have had some wonderful discussions.

Next month is the Plan of Salvation; March is the Atonement of Jesus Christ; etc.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

You are paranoid. :silent:

There is a new curriculum in all the teenage classes (Sunday School, YM and YW) this year called, “Come, Follow Me”. It is concept-based and there is lots of flexibility for the teachers to teach what they feel their own youth need. The direction we received, from the course description itself, says explicitly that the students are supposed to be involved actively in discussions – that lectures and single perspectives are not supposed to be the norm. The scripture study lessons are staying in Seminary. I have loved it thus far, since the entire month of January has been focused on God – and we have had some wonderful discussions.

Next month is the Plan of Salvation; March is the Atonement of Jesus Christ; etc.

I’m glad it’s working well and I’ll quit second guessing…

[Anonymous]

Don’t get me wrong: It’s not what I would call perfect, and there are some obvious weaknesses, imo. However, overall, I really like it.

[Anonymous]

Curt,

I’m interested to know how things are going with the new youth curriculum. One of the things I’m hearing in our ward is that the youth are having a hard time learning how to lead a discussion and participate as much as the leaders would like them to. Based on the wide variety of thought-provoking topics you’re introducing, I wonder if you’re having more success. As I listen to our youth leaders, I wonder if the youth are having a hard time because they already know the “Primary answers” and don’t really want to rehash those, and they’re afraid to talk about their real questions and concerns…

[Anonymous]

alltruth, I think you are spot-on in both concerns: that they already know the easy answers and don’t feel comfortable in a group setting asking tough questions. It’s something I would bring up with the Bishop, but I’m comfrotable doing that and many members aren’t.

If you read the original post, you realize my Bishop called me largely because he wants the students to go beyond the Primary answers. He said, essentially, that he wants it to be a youth Gospel Doctrine class – with as much opportunity to get honest input as our Gospel Doctrine class does (and our Gospel Doctrine teacher is really good at that).

[Anonymous]

The lesson today was about how to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to others. Since we had talked about the Gospel a couple of months ago in the lessons about 3 Nephi 11 & 27, I quickly summarized that concept and quoted from Elder Christofferson’s talk in the April 2012 General Conference (the part I excerpted is below). I then spent the rest of the time reading and talking about a new post on By Common Consent that posted yesterday entitled, “The Agenda” – about how it feels to be on the other side of missionary work and being subjected to a scripted “witnessing experience”. (http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/02/16/the-agenda/)

I am copying the materials I gave to the students upon which the discussion was based:

Quote:

In the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation.

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” (We talked about how each member is obligated to accept specific statements as God’s word only if they receive a manifestation of the Holy Ghost confirming it to them personally.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the Savior’s central role in our doctrine in one definitive sentence: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” Joseph Smith’s testimony of Jesus is that He lives, “for [he] saw him, even on the right hand of God; and [he] heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father” (D&C 76:23; see also verse 22).

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 2012 General Conference

Quote:

The Agenda

February 16, 2013 — Karen H.

I sat on the other side of a very interesting table Valentine’s night. I got proselytized to at a dinner party by a member of a local protestant church. I realized that it’s been a long time since someone tried to put the sell on me, because most of my non-Mormon friends are either not religious, or just openly and non-controversially a happy member of some other religion. I know about it, but it’s not a thing. Anyways, back to the somewhat surprising dinner party. I think the episode was a bit jarring to me, because the motivations were so so transparent, and so clunkily executed. I came away annoyed. Mission not accomplished.

It was a progressively more aggressive three pronged approach. She started with the relatively innocuous “shiny happy people” prelude. During the pre-dinner mingling, she introduced herself and another woman as fellow congregants of our mutual friend. She dropped a couple stories about super fun church activities. References to nice people from church. I think it was an attempt to sweeten up the deal for the future sale. Kind of a scene-setter, but all in all pretty innocuous.

Once we sat down to dinner, it got serious with the “I’m super committed, I promise!” offense. There were six of us sitting at the table, and the inevitable “what are you giving up for lent” conversation began. A few funny stories, and then her friend from church said she was giving up shopping for lent. “What? Why are you doing lent? We’re Presbyterian!” The unashamed lent-practicer said “well, every time I’m tempted to go shopping, I’ll just think of Jesus instead.” The proselytizer kind of looked at her and said “I think of God all the time without lent.” Silence. Awkward silence. Then she attempted to walk it back a bit. “Ha, just kidding.”

Someone next to me tried to change the subject to travel but during a pause in the conversation, my persistent neighbor brought out the big guns–establishing a denominational hierarchy. “You know, my sister actually joined the Episcopal church. She called me yesterday and said that it was ash Wednesday, and she didn’t know if she was supposed to go get ashes. Can you believe that? She joined a church, and they didn’t explain to her what their practices were. So I just told her it is a non-biblical practice. It’s not important. It’s just a nice symbol, and so it doesn’t even matter if she does it because it’s not biblical. I explained that the most important thing was to be born again and that salvation…” At this point the table revolted and someone just out and out cut into what she was saying. She tried to talk over them a bit, but we moved on to discussing our favorite airports. At that point, I would have happily discussed the history of library science or the anatomy of a hedgehog. Please, for the love, someone change the subject and don’t stop talking. Don’t give her enough of a pause to start up again….

Other than enjoying the unexpected little Valentine of awkward fun, I’ve actually thought quite a bit about the dinner. I think the thing that bugs me the most is that I felt like a prop. Having been on the receiving end of exhortations that “every member” be a missionary, I can understand why someone would feel obligated to try and actually drum up some interest in God. However, what was so easy to see when I was on the other end of the equation, is that I had no interest in what she was selling because she clearly had no interest in me. It was a self-gratifying exercise for her. “I witnessed today.” Check the box. “Maybe someday those people will question their non-biblical practices because of my explanation.” Check the box. “Missionary moment accomplished.” Check the box. I’m not really in the market for a new church, but if I were, this would not be the thing to draw me in.

With the new influx of sister missionaries, I’m sure most of you will get pressured to give up referrals, or even spend more time with the missionaries. How do you all handle this? I won’t lie. I didn’t like proselyting when I was on my mission. I don’t know if you could pay me money to do it now. But if you do engage in member missionary work, how do you keep it real? (Hint: don’t try to out-righteous the Episcopalians.)

Quote:

Elouise Bell Says:

February 17, 2013 at 8:11 am

A surprisingly effective missionary moment almost went unnoticed on my mission. We were visiting a member couple who had been baptised some years earlier and had PERHAPS been to church twice since. The husband was a very intelligent, very sardonic fellow who liked to talk with the missionaries, mostly to get them upset and befuddled.

One day I had a new companion. Frere Dupont started in on a lively conversation with her, exhaling clouds of cigarette smoke as he did. Sister Newby jumped into the conversation, which was rather general and gave me no leads into the discussion that was scheduled. The talk went faster and faster. It was not an argument, just two people exchanging their points of view. The ash on Frere’s cigarette grew longer and longer. Still focusing on what he was saying, Sister Newby casually reached across the table to get an ash-tray that was on the far side, and placed it beneath his cigarette. The dialogue went on until it was time to go. Nothing from the lesson plan had made any air time at all.

But as we left, Frere took me off in a corner and said (almost cordially) that we were to visit any time we liked. He said that Sister Newby had responded to him as a person, not as someone to be sold something. He said that the act of supplying him with the ashtray, without any comment or facial grimace, made a simple, human connection that he appreciated.

“Perhaps it would be wiser for your purposes to come as people first and missionaries second.”

Quote:

kevinf Says:

February 17, 2013 at 10:59 am

Having just been called as the ward mission leader (to be sustained today), this is pretty terrific. I loved Eloise Bell’s story, and grimaced at your account of the clumsily executed missionary approach. The bishop and I have talked over the last two weeks, and though I have always been a terrible, really bad member missionary, and didn’t serve a mission while I was younger, we both agreed on one thing. The way we have been doing missionary work in our ward and stake for the last two decades has not worked. And to keep doing the same things, will only confirm to many of my fellow ward members that I really am insane.

I think the two things I am going to focus on, are getting ward members more fully involved with others outside our circles of LDS friends. Some do this well, others not at all. And the second grows out of the first: more community related service projects. We currently are involved with a multi-denominational coalition to feed the homeless, and have also sponsored a combination fund raiser and service project with the local VFW post, getting packages together to send to the troops in Afghanistan. I truly believe the more that we interact with non-members as people rather than check-boxes or potential targets, the more successful we will be at missionary work.

At least that is my hope. What I won’t be doing is organizing a bunch of ward members to dress up in suits and ties and go on a door knocking blitz, which my predecessor was trying to plan. Sorry, I can’t thing of anything that might be more of a hindrance, emphasizing our insularity and the “us vs them” mentality that has so often characterized our member missionary efforts in the past.

[Anonymous]

I would attend your classes. I skip Sunday School and tolerate Priesthood.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

Don’t get me wrong: It’s not what I would call perfect, and there are some obvious weaknesses, imo. However, overall, I really like it.

Curt, would you agree with me that these new lesson plans for the youth, both in Sunday school an in YM/YW classes, are dramatically better than the overly-correlated stuff of previous manuals? The key word you mention, IMO, is flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I agree. The new lessons are better than the previous ones, especially in the direction to address what the students actually need to hear.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

Quote:

Elouise Bell Says:

February 17, 2013 at 8:11 am

A surprisingly effective missionary moment almost went unnoticed on my mission. We were visiting a member couple who had been baptised some years earlier and had PERHAPS been to church twice since. The husband was a very intelligent, very sardonic fellow who liked to talk with the missionaries, mostly to get them upset and befuddled.

One day I had a new companion. Frere Dupont started in on a lively conversation with her, exhaling clouds of cigarette smoke as he did. Sister Newby jumped into the conversation, which was rather general and gave me no leads into the discussion that was scheduled. The talk went faster and faster. It was not an argument, just two people exchanging their points of view. The ash on Frere’s cigarette grew longer and longer. Still focusing on what he was saying, Sister Newby casually reached across the table to get an ash-tray that was on the far side, and placed it beneath his cigarette. The dialogue went on until it was time to go. Nothing from the lesson plan had made any air time at all.

But as we left, Frere took me off in a corner and said (almost cordially) that we were to visit any time we liked. He said that Sister Newby had responded to him as a person, not as someone to be sold something. He said that the act of supplying him with the ashtray, without any comment or facial grimace, made a simple, human connection that he appreciated.

“Perhaps it would be wiser for your purposes to come as people first and missionaries second.”

I love this. Thanks. No quick conclusion, happy ending or baptism, just kindness.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

Quote:

Elouise Bell Says:

February 17, 2013 at 8:11 am

A surprisingly effective missionary moment almost went unnoticed on my mission. We were visiting a member couple who had been baptised some years earlier and had PERHAPS been to church twice since. The husband was a very intelligent, very sardonic fellow who liked to talk with the missionaries, mostly to get them upset and befuddled.

One day I had a new companion. Frere Dupont started in on a lively conversation with her, exhaling clouds of cigarette smoke as he did. Sister Newby jumped into the conversation, which was rather general and gave me no leads into the discussion that was scheduled. The talk went faster and faster. It was not an argument, just two people exchanging their points of view. The ash on Frere’s cigarette grew longer and longer. Still focusing on what he was saying, Sister Newby casually reached across the table to get an ash-tray that was on the far side, and placed it beneath his cigarette. The dialogue went on until it was time to go. Nothing from the lesson plan had made any air time at all.

But as we left, Frere took me off in a corner and said (almost cordially) that we were to visit any time we liked. He said that Sister Newby had responded to him as a person, not as someone to be sold something. He said that the act of supplying him with the ashtray, without any comment or facial grimace, made a simple, human connection that he appreciated.

“Perhaps it would be wiser for your purposes to come as people first and missionaries second.”

I love this. Thanks. No quick conclusion, happy ending or baptism, just kindness.

I love it too. It’s so incredibly subtle, so authentic. in a very, very small moment, there was a sense of total acceptance and service.

[Anonymous]

This month, the lesson topic is “The Atonement of Jesus Christ”. The topic I chose for this week (and next, assuming it would take at least two weeks) is “What do the scriptures teach us about the Atonement of Jesus Christ?”

I had four questions on the board: “What?” “Why?” “How?” “Why God?” I told the students that we might not get to all four questions, especially the last one, and that we probably would have to take at least two weeks to cover everything I wanted to cover.

I started by not opening the scriptures first, but rather by asking the students how they would define the atonement if someone at school asked them what it means. They mentioned the Garden of Gethsemane and Golgotha, and they mentioned “returning to God”. We probed a bit further and went into the Bible Dictionary for what it says. We focused on the meaning of bringing two things together as one and talked about what that means – and how oneness in Mormon theology is different than just being with God – that it’s being like God enough to be gods in our own right.

I had them open the Topical Guide and look under “Atonement” to see how many scriptures are listed there. They saw that there are NO verses or passages listed; instead, there are other topics listed, including “Jesus Christ – Atonement through”. We turned to that topic, and they saw that there are about 1 1/2 columns of verses listed there. I asked each of them (10 students total) to take 5 seconds and choose one of those verses to read and discuss. I told them to close their eyes and put their fingers on one if they wanted, since I didn’t care at all which ones we read. I waited about 10 seconds and then asked them, one-by-one, which verse they picked. They stayed in the Topical Guide, while I found and read each scripture. (I did that to save time and to allow them to pick a different scripture if someone before them picked the same one they had chosen.) I read the ten scriptures and we talked very briefly about each one. I told them we would talk more next week about the ones that dealt with pain, suffering, affliction, temptation, sickness, infirmities, etc. being covered by the Atonement.

I then asked why an atonement is necessary. They mentioned that we can’t get to heaven on our own and a couple of other good but standard answers. I asked them to think even more fundamentally and simply, using the definition we had read as the basis for their answer. One girl said, “Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve” – so I asked what she meant. She said that we are separated from God and need to get back to Him and be like him, which we aren’t right now. I agreed and said that being made “at one” can’t occur unless we aren’t at-one.

I then asked them how we can become at one with God – not how Jesus suffered, but what our responsibility is in the process of atonement. That stumped them at first, but someone mentioned obeying the commandments. I changed that to “doing what we think will make us like God”, since not everyone agrees about what the commandments are, and they all agreed with that. Someone then said we need to repent, and we talked about the meaning of repent being, at the core, nothing more than “change”. I pointed out that if we are different than God and want to be like God, the ONLY thing that is necessary is to change that difference – and, again, that means our part of the deal simply is to try our best to change in ways that we believe will make us more like God. I told them that I don’t really care much about exactly how someone understands the Atonement intellectually; what I care about is how someone strives to be Christ-like in how they act and how they treat other people.

We ended by reading John 17 – the Intercessory Prayer – the entire chapter. I reminded them that this was Jesus’ farewell prayer right before the Garden and the Cross. I asked them to keep that in mind as we read the prayer. I highlighted, especially, verse 3 (life eternal is knowing God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ), verse 5 (which I read as a request by Jesus that he be given back the glory of his status as a God, so he could handle what he knew was coming), verse 10 (that Jesus’ glory was in his disciples – a very different definition of glory than many people have concerning God), verse 13 (that full joy is internal and shared), verse 15 (saying, essentially, “I have protected them up to this point, but I won’t be around much longer, so take care of them when I’m gone” – which hits my heart every time I read it), verses 21-23 (which I told them I believe is the simplest, most pure description of “at-one-ment” we have in all of our scriptures) and verse 25 (which says, in essence, that the disciples still didn’t know the Father like Jesus knew the Father). We went back to verse 3 and read just that verse and verse 25 back-to-back, pointing out that Jesus was praying in a very real way that the disciples would be able to gain “life eternal” in his absence – that AFTER he left them, they could come to know Heavenly Father in a way they couldn’t when Jesus still was with them.

We will talk next week about why the Atonement had to include a God suffering for us, and, honestly, I will take more than one week to cover that concept, if necessary. It will include more discussion of all of our pains, illnesses, sufferings, infirmities, temptations, etc. and the deep meaning of our Second Article of Faith that we seldom recognize and discuss. We will talk about the Gods’ part and responsibility in all of those things and Jesus, (the mortal) of Nazareth’s, part in them, as well. If they remember, years from now, no details from any of the other lessons I teach them, I want them to remember what we will discuss next week, and possibly the following week. I want them to understand just how different our pure theology is than other theologies and what it really means to believe in a God-made-man (literally OR symbolically), a God-treated-as-sinner, a God-sufferer, etc. – and why those things are so vital to our communal faith. Most of all, I want them to see God as the author AND finisher of our suffering and not just our joy – of our “complete” faith, in a way I’m sure they haven’t considered yet.

[Author]

Posts