My New Calling: Sunday School Lesson Recaps

[Anonymous]

Last Sunday, we did a bridge lesson between Apostasy & Restoration and Prophets & Revelation.

I drew a simple timeline on the chalkboard from Adam & Eve to today. I asked everyone to list where in our scriptures we have extended periods of no recorded revelations. We identified four gaps of at least 200 years (and explicitly left out most of the Old Testament and Ether, since they covered thousands of years and were written largely as sweeping genealogical statements rather than careful histories): the end of the Old Testament (roughly 400BC – Jesus’ birth); Omni (with its “stuff happened and I gave the plates to the next guy” summary); 4 Nephi (four generations of righteousness); the end of the New Testament to the Doctrine & Covenants. I mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls and what I consider to be revelation to others outside our scriptural canon as exceptions to theses periods of silence, but we focused on our Standard Works.

We talked about how the Jews at the time of Christ were divided in many ways, just like the Christians at the time of Joseph were divided in many ways – but that one of the few things they all agreed on was that “scriptures” had stopped. Interpretations continued, but God no longer gave scripture. Thus, there were two clear instances of “Great Apostasy” in our Judeo-Christian history: the Jewish apostasy from Malachi to Jesus and the Christian apostasy that started when the Bible was canonized.

We then focused on the definitions of “prophet”, “seer” and “revelator”. I mentioned that we tend to roll them together into one practical word – prophetseerandrevelator – without distinguishing the unique meanings of each term. We talked about how prophecy in ancient times was reading the signs of the times and predicting the results of continued or changed actions; seership is seeing things in ways that cannot be seen naturally; revelation is the uncovering / revealing of things that have been hidden. At that point, the lesson took an interesting turn.

One of the students asked how OD 2 (lifting the Priesthood ban) fits into this – if it was a revelation based on the definition we had discussed. I told the class that I had promised them when I was called as their teacher that I always would be honest with them about how I see things personally. I grinned and said that I was about to tell them the Gospel According to Ray, then I told them that I see OD 2 precisely as revelation in that context, since it uncovered the fact that the ban had been instituted without revelation – that the ban originally had not been based on revelation but that foundation had been obscured and lost over time as the ban continued. I mentioned that Joseph Smith had ordained some black men, that Brigham Young had instituted the ban when inter-racial sealing was requested, that the ban was inevitable given the attitudes of that time, that Pres. McKay stated later that the ban was policy not doctrine and that OD 2 “revealed” that flawed foundation officially. I then used OD 1 (the Manifesto) as an example of prophecy, as opposed to revelation, since Wilford Woodruff said explicitly that he had seen a vision of what would happen to the Church if polygamy continued (“reading the signs of the times and predicting the results of continued actions”).

They all seemed to understand that distinction, and I was glad the question was asked, since I hadn’t thought to use the declarations as an example.

[Anonymous]

The lesson today was a history lesson on the treatment of authority and revelation in Christianity and a discussion of the tension between institutional and individual revelation.

We talked first about what an institution is: an officially recognized, formal organization granted a high degree of legitimacy and power within a society. We talked about the practical difference between an institution and an organization from a societal standpoint – an organization being anything that is organized (including our individual bodies, from purely a scientific perspective) but an institution being a larger organization of social importance. Institutions tend to be universities, churches, governments, prisons, hospitals, etc. Someone mentioned the family, so we talked about marriage and family being institutions only when we give them extra importance and “honor” them in the same way as the other institutions we mentioned.

We then talked briefly about what an individual is, and I focused primarily on the fact that individuals exist almost always within the larger scope of society – that an individual is a part of multiple organizations and institutions.

I gave them a very general summary of the issue of authority and institutional revelation relative to Catholicism and Protestantism, stating clearly that it was a bit stereotypical in its simplicity. I emphasized the Catholic emphasis on institutional revelation to all through the Pope (whom I labeled the “Presiding Cardinal” to make a comparison to our structure) and the Protestant emphasis on the priesthood of believers and the authority of the Bible as God’s revelation to all.

I told them that Mormonism is a composite of Catholicism and Protestantism in regard to revelation. We looked again at the Bible Dictionary description of revelation, emphasizing that we believe in BOTH institutional revelation for all (including for the Church as a whole, presiding over by the President of the Church) AND individual, personal revelation to each member. I wrote “Prophet” and “prophet” on the board and talked about the significance of the capitalization within Mormonism: “Prophet” being the presiding prophet among the Twelve Apostles and “prophet” being anyone who speaks the word of God under the influence of the Holy Ghost. (I also pointed out how, in those terms, Lehi was a prophet without being “The Prophet”.) We talked about a High Priest Group Leader and his responsibility concerning revelation – that he communicates revelation (and other stuff) as a representative of the Stake President (the presiding High Priest in the area), receives revelation for his local group (but not the individuals in the group), his family (with his wife, as an equal partner and participant) and himself.

When we talked about the HPGL and his responsibility to receive revelation for his own family, I emphasized that he had no more authority or responsibility for that kind of revelation than his wife – that, ideally, they two act as one and receive revelation jointly, honoring each other in that process. We read directly from the Proclamation to the World, and I emphasized that each sentence about primary responsibilities would read very differently if either was the only relative sentence. I read the sentence about each parent being “obligated” to help in “these” sacred responsibilities as “equal partners” and the open-ended, non-restrictive “other circumstances” that require “individual adaptation”. We talked about how lots of members think the only righteous model for providing a living is a father working outside the home and a stay-at-home mother but that the Proclamation leaves it entirely up to each couple to make the decision about how they will provide and nurture. It was interesting to see that they all understood that without any difficulty (even the ones with parents in the traditional model) – and it reinforced my belief that this generation will change the Church naturally and radically.

We focused the last ten minutes on the inherent tension between institutional and individual revelation. I used Nephi and his beheading of Laban as an extreme example – and I worded it that way, as an extreme. I asked them if Nephi followed immediately and gladly what he perceived to be revelation from the Lord to kill Laban. After their responses, I asked them why Nephi struggled to accept it – and how he came to accept it. I pointed out that Nephi eventually had acted in the way that he believed was consistent with what God was asking him to do – and that, whether or not I would have done what Nephi did, the point is that Nephi had to own his decision and act according to the dictates of his own conscience.

I shared the example of when I lived in Missouri and had to commute 40 minutes each way to church, while starting over again in my new career and being quite poor. We attended church almost every Sunday and youth activities most Wednesdays – but we attended almost no other church activities. It was a choice my wife and I had to make, even though other members might have decided differently and might have judged or criticized us for it – claiming we weren’t faithful enough. I told them explicitly that I have said “no” to some requests from leaders and spoken up in some meetings and privately when I felt like something that was being said was too incorrect and/or damaging to remain silent. I told them that I almost could guarantee that each and every one of them would face something, at some point, in their lives when the direction they get from a leader (“institutional revelation” in at least someone’s eyes) would conflict with their own personal beliefs (“individual revelation” in their own mind) – and that, in the end, even if hopefully it never rose to the level of Nephi’s situation in any way, they also would have to decide between the dictates of their own consciences and the organizational / institutional rules. I told them that, as my default, I accept institutional rules – but that, ultimately, I honor personal revelation whenever the conflict is such that I feel I must do so in order to look God in the eye and say:

Quote:

“I did my best to do what I believed you wanted me to do and any revelation I believe I received from you.”

[Anonymous]

I should have added that I thought of everyone here as we discussed the last part of the lesson, especially.

[Anonymous]

Today was the last lesson on Revelation and Prophets. We had a purely discussion-oriented conversation about the following concepts that I believe are some of the more central, important, unique aspects of the Restoration. I wrote them on the board and told the students we would talk about any of them they wanted to discuss or about which they had questions, without a formal lesson structure.

In order of discussion:

1) Heavenly Parents: One of the students asked why we don’t have much written about Heavenly Mother. I asked them what they think, figuring they probably would repeat some of the common answers I don’t accept. Two of them mentioned the idea of shielding her from blasphemy and (another idea I can’t remember right now). I stressed that we don’t have anything official recorded in our scriptures, so any answer is speculative in nature – the best people can do to think of something that makes sense to them. I told them that I think the biggest reason is that our scriptures were written by men – and that those men related well to Heavenly Father and didn’t have any motivation to even think about a Heavenly Mother.

We then talked about what we do have that teaches explicitly about Heavenly Mother and about what our reasoning is for that belief. We read the 3rd and 4th verses of “Oh, My Father”. They saw that Eliza R. Snow’s wording says, essentially, that she learned to use the term “Heavenly Father” before she joined the Church but didn’t know why until she gained further light and knowledge – and that it was “reason” that testifies of Heavenly Mother. We talked about our overall theology of men and women being sealed and sharing the same potential – how “marital sealing” is the foundation for this belief.

I told them that there are some really interesting beliefs about Heavenly Mother within the church membership, but the lesson wasn’t the right place to get into those unorthodox beliefs. (My teenage daughters in the class asked me afterward in the hallway about that, and I told them briefly about two of them.)

2) The scope of the Atonement: A student asked what I meant by that. We talked about how everyone (except a few Sons of Perdition who are the exception that proves the rule) is “saved” and everyone has the chance for exaltation – and how radically different that is than the dominant philosophies within Protestantism and many other religions.

3) Prophets and Apostles: One of the students asked if there have ever been more than one prophet on the earth at the same time. We talked about the difference between a “Prophet” (the head prophet in an organization) and a “prophet” (anyone who speaks the word of God, especially about consequences of actions). They zeroed in on the example of the New Testament and the Book of Mormon following the death of Jesus – of Peter and Nephi living simultaneously in different parts of the world as “The Prophet” of their people; we also talked about the wise men at the time of Jesus’ birth and how they easily might have been “Prophets” or “prophets” – giving us at least three simultaneous locations. We talked about Lehi being a prophet but not a “Prophet” and how there were multiple prophets at various times in the Old Testament.

4) Eternal Progression: We talked about what it means to progress eternally – to become like God. We talked about how our perception of God is very different than within other Christian denominations. We talked again a little about how godhood includes pain and long-suffering and watching one’s “children” hurt and kill each other. I mentioned at the end how I believe we must emphasize the importance of this life so we take it seriously and actually focus on personal growth and repentance, but I told them I believe “eternal progression” is exactly that – growth throughout all eternity until we are “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed), which, as Joseph Smith said means we will be learning and growing and progressing long after we die. I told them that I see the judgment as occurring whenever we are done growing – that our reward will be whatever type of person we become (telestial, terrestrial or celestial) – no matter when that completion happens.

We didn’t get to pre-mortal life or the nature of the Godhead vs. the Trinity.

This was the first time I have used that specific format (completely discussion-based, according to what the students wanted to discuss), and I loved it. Now that they are used to it, I hope it will affect future lessons – both the more traditional ones and more like this one.

[Anonymous]

Today was the first lesson about the Priesthood and Priesthood Keys. I used the lesson to go into detail about what the Priesthood is and isn’t and the difference between the Priesthood, the priesthood, power, authority and keys. It was titled, “Priesthood and priesthood” – and I wrote each term above on the chalkboard, with definitions or descriptions under each one added as the lesson progressed.

1) We started by reading from D&C Section 121. I mentioned that we nearly always read the first part (Joseph’s plea to the Lord) as completely separate from the last part (how to use the Priesthood) but that they are the beginning and end of the same section and, I believe, important to understand together. I had them read verses 1-6, and I described what was happening in Joseph’s life – that he was in the Liberty Jail for months under extreme duress as he heard about all the terrible things that were happening to his people. I told them that I view this as the moment he finally “broke”. We read the verses and translated them into wording teenagers might use. (“Where are you, God? Where are you hiding? How long will you watch and listen to your people suffer without helping them? God, come out of hiding. Let you anger and fury loose and wipe out our enemies! If you remember us, we will praise you forever.”)

God’s response was:

Quote:

“My son, chill out. Be at peace.”

He then went on to teach Joseph why the request had been an attempt to use the Priesthood unrighteously (verses 36-37) – and he told Joseph how to use it righteously (verses 41-43).

2) We read from the Bible Dictionary, in which “Priesthood” is not included, but “Priests” is. It says that OT priests acted as mediators between God and the people – that they were able to “draw nigh to God” but the people weren’t. I pointed out that this structure was the same as the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages – and that it extended to the people being illiterate and not being able to read the Bible for themselves, relying totally on the Priests to tell them what it said and meant. That changed dramatically with the Gutenberg Bible and the people being able to read and interpret on their own – and the subsequent rejection of the “Priesthood” being embodied in men and, instead, the “priesthood (of believers)” not requiring mediators between God and the people.

I asked the students which model we have in the LDS Church, and they recognized that we have both “The Priesthood” and “the priesthood” – since we accept communication from God to church leaders but also personal revelation. I told them that this structure is more complicated and can be messier than only having one of the models, but that I see it as an aspect of the “Restoration of ALL Things”. This means that the LDS Church has designated Priests, but it also allows everyone, male and female, to be priests. (I will get into Priests and Priestesses and how this plays out in the temple in a later lesson.)

2) I asked the students to define “Priesthood”. One of them said it is “the power of God” – so I wrote that on the board. Another one said it is “the authority to act in the name of God” – so I wrote that also. I then added that it is “an obligation to serve” and wrote that on the board, telling them I would talk about that later.

3) Given those definitions and what we had discussed up to that point, I asked them what the difference is between “Priesthood” and “priesthood”. That stumped them, so I added “to perform ordinances” under Priesthood and “to hear and share God’s word and do his work” under priesthood. I called Priesthood the “administrative, formal” Priesthood and priesthood the “informal” priesthood. I mentioned that men are the only ones in the Church right now who can administer Priesthood ordinances outside the temple, but every member can speak and act in God’s name and, therefore, every member (men, women and children) have that portion of the priesthood.

We talked about how every person ever born has the light of Christ and can receive revelation from the Holy Ghost – how every baptized member has committed to take the Lord’s name upon them and renews that commitment each Sunday through the sacrament, how every temple endowed member makes covenants and receives promises relative to the priesthood (more detail in a future lesson), etc.

4) We defined “authority” as “permission or right, given by someone to someone else”. Thus, young men in the Aaronic Priesthood have differing things they are authorized to do. They have the same general authority, but they are authorized to do different things.

5) We defined “power” as strength or ability, and we talked about how someone can have authority but no power – either due to general unworthiness or, going back to D&C 121, by trying to compel someone to do what they say “by virtue of the priesthood” (lower case, interestingly). I used them as examples, looking at one of the young women and mentioning that if she received personal revelation and tried to compel me to follow it, she would be using her priesthood authority unrighteously and, thus, would lose her priesthood power.

6) I asked them what the purpose of Priesthood ordinances is. That got some blank looks at first, so I asked them whom the “target” of the ordinances is – the people performing them or the people receiving them. They got that distinction as we used baptism, the sacrament and healing blessings as examples. I asked about vicarious temple ordinances – and I pointed out that those ordinances are a bit different in that we can receive the blessings of humility and having our hearts turn to our ancestors – that I don’t see temple ordinances in quite the same way as non-temple ordinances, since I see just as much benefit to the “performer” as for the “recipient”.

I ran out of time at that point, but our Bishop (who sat in on the lesson) told me after the class that all of the men in the ward need to hear that lesson. He said he might ask me to teach it to the adults on a 5th Sunday at some point.

[Anonymous]

Nice compliment Curt. I love that you post the lessons for us to read. I learn a lot from them, and my only teenager doesn’t attend. I like the potential of the new lessons, a lot.

[Anonymous]

Just so everyone knows, I will be on vacation for a week, starting tomorrow, so I will not be teaching the Sunday School lesson or posting a summary tomorrow.

We are taking our second daughter to her college orientation. I will have a computer with me and try to check in each night, but it might not happen some days.

Don’t tell cwald :shh: , but if he starts a Word of Wisdom post this week, humor him.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

Just so everyone knows, I will be on vacation for a week, starting tomorrow, so I will not be teaching the Sunday School lesson or posting a summary tomorrow.

We are taking our second daughter to her college orientation. I will have a computer with me and try to check in each night, but it might not happen some days.

Don’t tell cwald :shh: , but if he starts a Word of Wisdom post this week, humor him.

Well, I won’t start any WoW threads this week….but I am headed out to the East Coast to drink beer with some NOMs.

[Anonymous]

Have a great Vacation!

[Anonymous]

The lesson today was about councils, so I cleared it with my Bishop to do a mock Ward Council with the youth, but to make it as real as possible – including discussing real issues and solutions.

First, we talked for a few minutes about what a council is and how it is supposed to be conducted. We defined a council as a group of people who discuss things and try to reach consensus about what they discuss, generally with the idea of understanding things and coming up with solutions to problems.

I mentioned that in the November 2010 World-Wide Training session, Elder Bednar or Elder Holland (I couldn’t remember which one) said that Bishops should NOT share their opinion first and then ask the council members what they thought – since the answer generally would be, “I agree with you.” He then paused and said, “Duh!” He said that the person who is presiding should solicit input from everyone first and then make a decision.

I started the mock council by asking each student to think of something they believed would help improve the ward in some way, with one of the students taking notes, so I could share the final suggestions from the class with the Bishop. I gave them about two minutes of silence to think about it and then went around the room and asked each of them for one suggestion. The suggestions were:

1) Have more opportunities for the youth to attend the temple, not just the two or three times each year as a substitute for YW/YM activities that week.

2) Fix the heating and A/C in the building, so it isn’t so cold in the winter and hot in the summer in the YW room.

3) Increase the “worship” aspect of Sacrament Meeting.

4) Stop flooding people who have problems with service for a few weeks and then moving on to someone else (a feast or famine approach to service).

5) Start YM/YW activities earlier, since the students sometimes aren’t getting home until 9:00 or later – especially during the school year. With Seminary the next morning, this is a real problem.

I told them that we wouldn’t talk about the heating and A/C issue in this council meeting, since I would have to talk with someone who understands that issue better to know if it is something that can be changed or fixed. Rather, we would focus on the other issues – and, since #3 above (Sacrament Meeting) was my issue, I put it last on my list (and never got to it).

I then asked for input on each issue, one at a time, and we talked about it until we had something to present to the Bishop as a concrete suggestion:

1) For the temple attendance issue, we will find out from the temple what days and times are available during the summer to bring a group of youth, talk with the youth to see how many could attend on those days at those times and, if necessary, talk with another ward in town to see if they would like to combine with us in order to have enough youth and adults to make it work.

2) For the issue of more even, regular fellowship, we will suggest a more active ward activity schedule – so everyone has a chance to get to know each other better. We also will suggest regular service activities – things focused strictly on unconditional outreach, with no activity or baptism strings attached. The students thought this would give everyone a chance to get to know each other better, so any outreach in a time of crisis would be more natural and seem more genuine than lots of simultaneous attention all at once that ends suddenly after a few weeks.

3) For the issue of the YW/YM activities ending so late, we talked about all of the implications of that situation and exactly what the issue(s) were. After talking extensively about it, we decided that there are two main issues:

a) There is a lot of socializing when opening exercises are supposed to be happening – which means opening exercises often are taking over a half-hour – which means the lessons and activities are starting late and then running late – which is followed by more socializing after the lesson ends.

b) Since the start time is set at 7:00, this means that the regular end time can be as late as 9:00 – and many families have multiple children of varying ages at the building, with each class / group ending at different times (the YW generally going the longest).

We will suggest to the Bishop and the YW & YM Presidents that the arrival time be changed to 6:30 – with 30 minutes designated as time to socialize. Any earlier time would be hard for athletes, musicians, actors, etc. who have extra-curricular activities that keep them from getting home before 6:00-6:30. From 6:30-7:00, the youth could talk, eat food they could bring rather than trying to eat at home, etc – so that their normal schedule could start at 7:00 sharp and end at 8:00. Then, anyone who wanted to stay could do so, but anyone who needed to leave could do so without feeling like they had missed a chance to socialize. Also, we will suggest that all meetings and activities have the same start and end times, so families aren’t waiting for children in different settings and can know exactly what time their children will be done. As part of this, the bell will be rung just like in Sunday School, as a reminder of the need to honor the scheduled times.

I ended the lesson by stressing three things:

1) Not all things that are proposed in council meetings like this can be done, especially immediately. I told them that I would pass along the results of our council, but that our Bishop (whom they all love) is the person who has to decide how or whether to proceed with any of them.

2) I explained that PEC used to be the primary council at the ward level but that Ward Council has taken its place in that regard. I explained that one of the main reasons this was done back in November 2010 was that the Church leadership recognized that men had been the only voices in the lead council for too long and that we had sucked at listening to the women and ensuring they had an equal voice in the top council in the ward. I told them as they get older and are involved in Ward Councils (and other leadership meetings) to remember that the women’s input is supposed to be part of any decision that impacts the ward as a whole – and to insist that their voices be heard.

3) I talked very briefly about how the Church leadership has been stressing lately a new model of presiding – particularly that I have heard multiple references lately to “co-presiding” in the home and that single mothers are being recognized as the presiders in their homes, even if they have sons who hold the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood. In a home with a single parent, she presides – not a son, not the Bishop, not a Home Teacher, not any man. She presides. Period. I also stressed that, at the class level, the youth presidencies preside in the YM/YW organization, not the adult leaders and advisors. When it comes to the final decisions about what should happen in those organizations, they shouldn’t give up that right and responsibility – that they need to take ownership and accountability.

I really enjoyed this lesson, and it illustrated how much our youth can contribute if we let them – especially since most of them had not been in attendance last week and had not had time to think about what they would suggest for our discussion.

[Anonymous]

Very cool lesson. I’m stealing your council’s scheduling recommendation for Mutual night. Tell them thanks!

[Anonymous]

Today, the lesson title was:

Quote:

“Why is it important to follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders?”

I wrote that title on the board and then wrote the following on the leftt side of the board, under the title:

1) Follow vs. Obey

2) Counsel vs. Command

3) Sustain & Support

4) Group vs. Individual

I asked everyone for the first thing that came into their minds when I read the lesson title – whether that was an answer to the question or any other thought or comment. The responses were all answers to the title question, and I was impressed by how thoughtful and, in a couple of cases, nuanced they were. Among the responses were:

Quote:

“Because they are older than we are and have years of experience.”

“Because they are good people who only want the best for us.”

“Because there has to be order in the Church, not chaos.”

“Because they usually try to know what God wants and share it with us.”

“Because they care about us, and what they say usually is good.”

I agreed with all of those reasons, and I asked them how they would react if I changed the title to the following:

Quote:

“Why is it important to obey the commands given by priesthood leaders?”

All of them immediately got the difference and expressed concern over that wording, so we moved into a discussion of the numbered list above. I won’t got through all of it here, but it was a very good conversation that lasted about 15 minutes. (It helped that we had covered revelation and Priesthood & priesthood extensively over the past couple of months.)

We then read and discussed the following scriptures, which all were in the official lesson outline:

1) Ephesians 4:11-14 – We talked about some of the “purposes” for the offices listed (most of them) were institutional, while a few (“perfecting of the saints”, “coming to a knowledge of the son of God”) relate to personal growth – just as the reasons they had given at the beginning of the class were split between institutional and personal reasons. We talked about why it’s important to distinguish between those purposes when determining whether or not to “follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders” – and I mentioned again the example I used of a High Priests Group Leader and spheres of revelation and stewardship in the lesson about Priesthood vs. priesthood.

2) D&C 1:38 – I asked them what the standard, easy interpretation of that verse might be. They agreed among themselves that it seems to say that church leaders speak for God. I told them that I was about to share my personal opinion, as I always do when that happens, and I told them that this verse is a perfect example of why I read scriptures very carefully, word-by-word, to see what meaning seems most likely and “true” to me.

We went phrase by phrase:

Quote:

“What I, the Lord, have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;”

This means that the Lord doesn’t rescind anything he has said – that he doesn’t “make excuses” for things he’s said in order to get out of responsibility for saying it. In other words, “I stand by whatever I’ve said.”

Quote:

“and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my words shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled,”

This means that everything God has said will happen, even if it is after this earth is gone.

Quote:

“whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

I asked them if they believe that everything a church leader says, even apostles and prophets, is the pure word of God. They all said no. We talked about things that have been taught in the past that we no longer teach or believe – like Paul’s statements about women being silent in church and Brigham Young’s Adam-God Theory. (They hadn’t heard about that, so I gave them a very short, very simple summary.) I asked them if that makes Paul and Brigham disqualified as prophets, and they all said that it doesn’t. I asked them if that was the case, what D&C 1:38 could mean.

That stumped them, so I broke down the last phrase and showed them that God’s voice is singular – and so is the “voice” of (plural) servants. I told them that I read that verse to say that when something has been taught throughout our history by all of our prophets and apostles (when their “voice” is united), with no variation or disagreement, it’s a very good bet that it is “what the Lord hath spoken”. I told them that the list of those things is relatively small, like: there is a God, we are his children, love is important, Jesus is the Christ and our Savior and Redeemer, we need to repent, etc.

3) D&C 21:4-5 – We did the same reading exercise, and the students immediately recognized the importance of “as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me“. We talked about those disclaimers, and I used the example, which I emphasized happens very, very rarely but does happen, of a Bishop whom they know is having an affair. That type of egregious sin invalidates the charge to “give heed to ALL his words” – even though we still ought to consider those words and give heed to those we can accept as coming from God while he serves in that office.

4) D&C 124:45-46 – They saw that the wording in this passage is phrased exactly like D&C 1:38 – with “voice” being singular.

I told them that we will be reading Elder Oaks’ “Two Lines of Communication” and focusing again, like when we talked about institutional and personal revelation last month, on the need to balance both “lines of communication” Elder Oaks describes in that talk. I told them that 90+% of my time in the Church, I have been able to “follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders” – but that there have been quite a few times when I felt I had to speak up and express my disagreement with something or propose a different course. Whenever I felt that the final decision was not so damaging as to violate my core conscience, I have accepted that decision – especially when the decision was focused on the institution, not individuals. Whenever I felt the decision simply was something I couldn’t do or support in good conscience, I said so and refused to “preach it”, even if I still sustained and supported the leader whose decision it was. I also told them about the time I quit a job, with four kids and no job lined up, because I was asked to do something I couldn’t do in good conscience.

I told them that I believe each of them, at least once in their life, will be in a situation where they have to make that type of decision, even if it might not be that extreme – and that I hope they are able to follow their own conscience in that situation.

[Anonymous]

Curt, I like what you are doing.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Thank you, cwald.

[Anonymous]

[Warning: This lesson summary is LONG.]

Today, we went through Elder Oaks’ talk from General Conference in 2010 titled, “Two Lines of Communication”.

For this summary, I’m going to highlight sentences from the talk that we discussed as we read the talk:

Quote:

“We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance . . . All should understand and be guided by both of these essential lines of communication.”

I reminded them of how often in the past two months we have talked about exactly this principle – that balance means finding a point in the middle of extremes that works for us and allows us to live according to the dictates of our own consciences. I mentioned that Elder Oaks repeats this basic charge (to be balanced) throughout the talk and never, not once, stresses one line of communication over the other. Rather, what he does is lay out the pros and cons of each – or, more accurately, of relying too much on either.

Quote:

“In the personal line, we pray directly to our Heavenly Father, and He answers us by the channels he has established, without any mortal intermediary.”

I mentioned that this is a refutation of the old Catholic teaching that the Priest served as an intermediary between God and humanity – that this is what we discussed when we talked about “The Priesthood” and “the priesthood” in a previous lesson.

Quote:

“The direct, personal line of communication to our Heavenly Father is based on worthiness”

I asked them what this means, in practical terms. Before any of them could answer, I asked them who is most worthy of communicating with Heavenly Father: each of us in the room, attending church or a homeless guy begging for money on the street or someone who used to be a member of the Church but had become inactive (or even started attending another church). After a few answers, two of them said, essentially, “You haven’t given us enough information about the other people to know how worthy they are.” I agreed, and we read Alma 41:5, which begins with:

Quote:

“The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good”

I asked what it takes to receive answers to prayers, and one of the students immediate answered, “Praying.” That got chuckles, but everyone agreed.

We talked about “worthiness” being defined best, in the context of communicating with God, as “proper condition of the heart” and “willingness to ask, listen and accept” – rather than adherence to a checklist of do’s and don’ts. It is measured more in terms of doing the best you can to follow what you believe. However, it also is influenced by actions that inhibit one’s ability to hear – and the best example of this might be addictions that alter one’s ability to see and feel clearly and/or act upon belief, knowledge and desires.

I asked them if they could think of a prominent example of someone who received communication from God without appearing to be worthy of it. Alma, the Younger, was mentioned immediately, but I pointed out that his father, the Prophet, had been praying continually for him – so some people could say that his communication really was a result of his father’s worthiness. We then talked about Saul, of Tarsus, and his vision.

I told them to think about Saul and tell me who, in generic terms (as in what type of person), a “Saul” would be now – whom we might compare to Saul based on our own time and circumstances. Someone mentioned a person who leaves the LDS Church and then fights against it (an apostate in the clearest sense of the word), but I pointed out that Saul never had been a Christian in the first place. I told them that perhaps the best example would be a preacher who condemned and persecuted Mormons – a classic, traditional anti-Mormon agitator (like a man I know in Idaho who has made it his ministry’s mission to lead members out of the LDS Church). I asked them why God would communicate directly with Saul, given how we would tend to call him an evil man if he lived in our time and persecuted us the way he did the early Christians.

We talked about the description of people who inherit the Celestial Kingdom – those who are “valiant” in their testimonies. Saul certainly was valiant and passionate and dedicated – and he was exactly that way after his conversion. Even though his actions prior to his conversion were not “worthwhile” in our eyes, he was “worthy” to receive communication from God. I emphasized that we can’t dismiss other people’s “revelations” and communications with God, simply because their actions aren’t what we would consider to be worthy for us.

Quote:

“On this personal line of communication with the Lord, our belief and practice is similar to . . . Christians (who believe in) . . . the principle Martin Luther espoused that is now known as ‘the priesthood of all believers’.”

I reminded them of the same conversation we had when talking about Priesthood and priesthood.

Quote:

“The personal line is of paramount importance in personal decisions and in the governance of the family . . . the priesthood line, which operates principally to govern heavenly communications on Church matters”

We talked again, as we had in a previous lesson, about a church leader who confuses these “spheres of responsibility” (as one student phrased it) and tries to tell someone that s/he has received revelation for that person outside the realm of “church matters”. I asked the students what they would say if a church leader walked up to them and said, “I have received a revelation that you should marry (a particular person).” They all agreed with one young man who said, “I wouldn’t say it to the person, but I would think he was nuts.” I told them that is a perfect, albeit extreme, example of what Elder Oaks said in the quote above – that each line of communication has its place and sphere and that neither should cross into the other.

Quote:

“Some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them, decisions they should make for themselves through the personal line.”

I told them about a member I know online who argues all the time with people almost solely by quoting former church leaders who agree with him. He ignores those that express different opinions and almost never includes original thoughts of his own. I like the man and try not to argue with him, but I am saddened by that type of “quote fighting” – since it says, at the core, that he wants church leaders to do his thinking for him and, therefore, has surrendered his own right to receive answers from God directly. I also mentioned that church leaders over time have disagreed about a lot of things, so it is impossible to rely on them (“mortal intermediaries“, as Elder Oaks called them) to answer questions unanimously outside their callings as people who strive to use the priesthood line to “govern heavenly communications on Church matters“.

Since we were starting to run out of time, I summarized the section on the priesthood line by telling them that Elder Oaks did the exact same thing in that section that he had in the section about the personal line: explain its place (the Church), its history (ancient to present) in the emphasis on “authoritative ordinances (sacraments)”, the danger of underestimating its importance (at the extreme, rejection of “organized religion”), the tendency of some members to over-emphasize it and devalue the personal line, the need to not be “solely dependent on one priesthood leader or teacher for our personal testimony” to avoid being “forever vulnerable to disillusionment by the actions of that person” (and I mentioned that Prophets and apostles are included in that statement).

We read the paragraph about Joseph not being able to translate when he was upset and how he had to calm down, pray and apologize to Emma before he was able to translate again.

I asked everyone if they could draw something that represents, for them, the concept of two lines of divine communication – using a circle to represent each of them as an individual. One person drew two waves going through the circle that intersected occasionally within the circle. Another person drew a circle for God and a line between him and God, then another circle to the left of the line for the Church and lines going from God to the Church to him – ending up being a triangle. Another drawing was of multiple circles of increasing size (looking like a shooting target), the smallest being herself and each larger circle being a family, then the Church, then the community, then the world, then God – with the personal line of communication going out to family and then jumping (“tesseracting” – for those who had read “A Wrinkle in Time” or seen the new Superman movie) straight to God and skipping the other circles.

One of the students asked where the prophet fit into the drawing of multiple circles, and we ended up agreeing that he fits exactly where each one of them fits – with the only difference being how far out into the circles his line extends before jumping to God. I mentioned that the problems arise when someone confuses how far out the personal lines go and how far in the priesthood line goes.

I ended the lesson by explaining, once again, why I believe this concept of finding a balance that works individually is so important that it would come up again and again in our lessons – and I used “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” as a concrete example. One of the talks in Sacrament Meeting had included a reference to it, and the speaker had said that she believe it was for the membership more than those who are not members. I told them that I admire and respect that person greatly but that I disagreed with that statement. I said I believe it is directed primarily to “the world” – and that I have worked in my professional life in enough places that need some of the central messages badly – that some of those concepts literally would change the world if enough people really believed them. I talked about the paragraph about parental responsibilities – how there is a general statement about “primary responsibilities” that constitutes “the priesthood line” (general guidelines for all) but also a clear statement that puts the responsibility to figure out how to be “equal partners” based on “individual circumstances” that allow each couple to “adapt” individually (personal lines). I told them that such a balance (general outlines and personal adaptation) is what I read in Elder Oaks’ talk – honoring and valuing each, but crafting a personal combination that is our own.

[Author]

Posts