My New Calling: Sunday School Lesson Recaps

[Anonymous]

I began the lesson today by asking the students to define the words “ordinance” and “covenant“. We talked briefly about the fact that each word has application outside religion (“ordinance” as “law” [like city ordinances] and “covenant” as “contract” [like a rental agreement between landlord and renter]), but we then turned specifically to definitions within the realm of religion. The definitions upon which we settled were:

ordinance: “a physical action that represents / symbolizes a covenant“

covenant: “a spiritual promise between God and humanity in which God sets the terms and we accept those terms, with a reward or benefit associated with faithful adherence to the terms of the covenant” (much like the rental agreement, where a landlord promises to allow habitation as long as we pay the established rent – understanding that we don’t get to decide how much the rent is or pick any house we want regardless of the amount of rent we are willing to pay)

We read the section on “covenant” in the Bible Dictionary, and we talked about the sentence that says “covenant” sometimes is translated as “testament”. I referred to the Bible itself and asked, based on that sentence, what the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament” might mean. The students immediately realized that those terms could draw a distinction between an old covenant (the terms of being God’s chosen people before the birth of Jesus) and a new covenant (the terms of being God’s chosen people after the birth of Jesus).

We talked in detail about the change from circumcision to baptism as the “ordinance” (the symbolic representation) of a people’s relationship to God. I mentioned that circumcision had and still has practical health benefits, but the ancient Israelites were able to imbue it with spiritual, symbolic meaning, as well. I mentioned that it is so widespread and common now as nothing more than a medical procedure within multiple non-religious cultures that it has lost its religious meaning entirely for most people. Thus, we have no problem replacing it with a different ordinance (symbolic representation) that makes sense for us. We talked about the specific covenants and symbolism of immersion and why we immerse instead of sprinkling or eliminating baptism entirely – and I pointed out that some Christians sprinkle or don’t require any form of baptism specifically because they don’t accept and/or understand the symbolism that we accept and understand. They don’t necessarily reject the covenant; what they reject is the symbolic representation of that covenant.

I mentioned the fairly recent change in how the initiatory (washing and anointing) is administered in the temple. I explained how it is done now (much like a standard Priesthood blessing in form) and how it used to be done (by touching various areas while pronouncing the blessings). I asked them if they could think of any reason why such a change would be made, and one of the students mentioned how hyper-sensitive many people now are about “inappropriate touching”. I mentioned how we are much more aware of physical abuse than we used to be and how many people, especially women, have been abused in such a way that they are traumatized to some degree by how the initiatory used to occur – even though there was nothing that I would deem to be close to objectively inappropriate and even though the ordinances is performed by women for women. Given how our culture has changed, we needed to make sure the way we represent that particular covenant continued to convey the intended symbolism – so some of the ordinance form was modified. (I mentioned that changes in temple ordinances and ceremonies can be hard for people who see everything in the temple literally as having come straight from God’s mouth to the temple, but I told them it’s no big deal if the symbolism – and the reason for symbolic representation – is understood.)

I had the students list ordinances that exist within the LDS Church, and then we listed the covenants represented or symbolized by each ordinance. The list they created, along with the associated covenants, was:

1) Sacrament (renewal of baptismal covenants)

2) Baptism (becoming Christ’s children, with all of the associated details of that covenant)

3) Sealing of marriage (eternal companionship and “increase”)

4) Endowment (return to and becoming like God)

5) Gift of the Holy Ghost (constant companionship of the Holy Ghost)

6) Priesthood Blessings (pretty much anything given through revelation through the blessing)

7) Washing & Anointing (cleansing and specific blessings associated with physical health and enlightenment)

(We stopped there, just to make sure we had time to discuss each of them.)

I then asked the students which part or aspect of the ordinances was the most important. They didn’t understand what I was asking at first, so I took them back to the definition on the board (“a physical action that represents / symbolizes a covenant”), told them to read it looking for its “parts” and asked the question again. They agreed that the covenant being represented or symbolized is the most important part.

I used baptism as an example. I told them that I was going to say this very carefully, because I didn’t want to detract in any way from the sacred nature of baptism, but that I would have no problem with baptism being replaced by dressing up a cow in ceremonial garb and enacting a play about being cleansed and becoming God’s children – IF such a symbolic representation was powerful and meaningful in a particular culture. We talked about why we use baptism (because that is what Jesus did and because it works for us as a symbol for being “born again” and “spiritually resurrected”). If, like the washing and anointing, it needed to change somehow to continue to convey that symbolism, I would be fine with it.

Next week, we are going to talk about the covenants we accept in the temple.

[Anonymous]

Last week we talked about the ordinances and covenants outside the temple, so today we talked about the ordinances and covenants in the temple. Given their relative inexperience with the temple, this lesson was much more a traditional lesson (I talking most of the time) than our normal lessons.

We started by writing the definitions from last week on the board again:

ordinance: “a physical action that represents / symbolizes a covenant“

covenant: “a spiritual promise between God and humanity in which God sets the terms and we accept those terms, with a reward or benefit associated with faithful adherence to the terms of the covenant”

I explained the difference between “high church” worship (elaborate and ceremonial, like Catholic mass and our own Sacrament ordinance) and “low church” worship (common and horizontal, like many Protestant services, but especially like our open involvement model). I explained how hard it can be for Catholic investigators and converts to accept the low-church aspects of our regular worship but how easy it is for many of them to accept the temple, since it is very much a high church model – and how the opposite is true for many Protestant investigators and converts.

We listed the regular ordinances that are performed in the temple: baptisms for only the dead, the initiatory (washing and anointing) for the living and dead, the endowment, marriage sealing. We talked briefly about each of them and what happens, skipping the endowment to discuss in more detail as the last part of the lesson.

Since we talked about the initiatory last week, we didn’t spend much time on it this week. We only talked about the introduction of the garment – and I told them the covenants we make in the temple regarding the garment: “to wear it throughout our lives and not to defile it.” I told them that lots of members want to told what to do in too many situations, so the handbook has examples of things that generally should or shouldn’t be done, but then the handbook says the specific decisions are up to the members to make with the actual covenants in mind.

We talked about the differences between being married/sealed in the temple and a civil wedding. They knew about the “til death do you part” difference, but they didn’t know about the actual nature of the ordinance – the promise-based wording that is very different than the traditional wording. We talked about the difference in the US and other places where the government recognizes a temple sealing as a legal wedding and where the government does not but requires a civil ceremony. One of the students asked about someone who is sealed in another country without being married civilly first and then moves to the US – if that sealing is recognized as a valid marriage in the US. I explained that governments only recognize marriages authorized by other governments, so it would not be valid in the US – which is why people who get sealed in those countries get married civilly first – and why they don’t require a waiting period for the sealing that follows.

We then moved to the endowment. We defined “endowment” as “gift”. I talked about how some people miss a lot of the beauty and meaning of the endowment because they take everything in it literally – and I mentioned the quote about walking past the angels who stand as guardians to the Celestial Kingdom (modified to remove any reference to the signs and tokens). I mentioned that understanding it as symbolic (going back to the definition of ordinance above) and/or literal allows me to see much more meaning and “learn something new” when I go, since seeing it as literal would limit my understanding and end up being nothing more than sitting through something I have memorized by this point in my life.

I drew a linear representation of the endowment: l—Pre-Mortal Life—l—Telestial—l—Terrestrial—l—Celestial—l

I explained that the endowment is an interactive play (in movie form in most temples now, but still with live actors in SLC and Manti, at least) which depicts out eternal journey from the Pre-Mortal life back into the presence of God in the Celestial Kingdom. I explained that it uses Adam and Eve to represent us – and we talked about the meanings of those names (Adam being “man” and Eve being “mother / initiator / introducer”). Interestingly, one of the students is named Adam, and the meaning associated with the name in baby books is “earthly” – which fits really well. I explained the physical set-up of the rooms and how we move from room to room as we move through the eternal stages. I also mentioned that most of the smaller, most recent temples don’t have extensive murals in the rooms but how the earlier and bigger ones depict each stage visually – and how there are more rooms and moving around in the older and larger temples.

I listed the “Laws” that are associated with each stage and room, and I pointed out again that “ordinance” can be translated as “law” – and that making that connection is important in the temple. I told them that I see the endowment as being structured around a series of ordinances – termed “laws” in the actual endowment wording – and the covenants associated with those ordinances or laws. I told them that there is almost nothing that we are commanded not to discuss outside the temple, as long as we are respectful and reverent in the way we do so – but that there are a few things I would not be discussing, particularly the exact form of the ordinances themselves (the way we perform the ordinances associated with the specific covenants). I think seeing the endowment in this manner makes more sense when dealing with the ritualistic aspects that were adapted from Masonry – seeing those aspects as ways that promises are made in the performance of individual ordinances.

We discussed the telestial laws / ordinances: the Law of the Lord, the Law of Sacrifice and the Law of the Gospel.

I mentioned that the Law of the Lord doesn’t provide specifics but is focused on hearkening to the voice and commandments of God – and that the woman’s covenant includes the promise to hearken unto the “counsel” of her husband as he hearkens unto the Lord. I told them that there is nothing in the wording that requires a woman to “obey” her husband or even accept his counsel if he isn’t righteous or simply because he is her husband – that the promise is to listen to him and consider / follow his “counsel” as (to the extent and in the same way that) he is listening to and following the Lord. Importantly, the wording places the right and responsibility to make that judgment with her, not with her husband.

They all understood the basic concept of the Law of Sacrifice, so we didn’t spend much time on it – but I did point out that it is a type of preparatory law / ordinance prior to the terrestrial Law of Consecration. I asked them for examples of sacrifice that might apply to this law, and they mentioned tithing and serving in callings.

The Law of the Gospel isn’t defined clearly in the temple, so we talked briefly about what “the Gospel” is – faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, love / charity, service, enduring to the end, etc. We talked about why those things are necessary to move from a telestial state to a terrestrial state.

We then discussed the terrestrial laws / ordinances: the Law of Chastity and the Law of Consecration.

I gave them the exact wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple: “no sexual relations except with a husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded“. We talked about how non-specific that wording is and how that is intentional. I mentioned the lists of standards in the For Strength of Youth pamphlet and how they represent a kind of Law of Moses approach to chastity – and how the temple wording moves away from that approach and represents our covenant to understand the law more fully and make informed decisions on our own without being commanded in all things.

I also pointed out that the Law of Chastity is accepted in the terrestrial state – and how I believe we devalue it too often when we assume it should be easy for people to live. It actually is the second highest law in the endowment, followed only by consecration, and is accepted as preparation to enter the presence of God. It’s not required of people to be considered terrestrial beings, which means people can be committing fornication and still be considered good people who are terrestrial in nature. (I think that’s important to understand, and I think it is not understood very well among the church membership, including leaders at all levels.)

We talked about the Law of Consecration and how it is a step up, if you will, from the Law of Sacrifice. I gave the the exact wording of being willing to give our time, talents and everything with which the Lord has blessed us and everything with which he may bless us to the building up of the kingdom of God on earth and to the establishment of Zion.

I ended by sharing with them something my oldest daughter said after her first time going through the temple and experiencing the endowment. She said:

Quote:

“Dad, we focus so much on building the kingdom of God that we sometimes forget to establish Zion.”

We talked about how those two things ought to be synonymous, but how we sometimes separate them. I asked them for ideas about how that might happen, and they mentioned focusing so much on baptism that we forget to fellowship, love and retain new members – that we focus so much on tithing that we forget about fast offerings – that we focus so much on church stuff that we forget about family stuff – etc. I asked them to think about that and talk with their parents about it, since I believe that might be our biggest failure as a people when it comes to truly understanding the temple ordinances and living according to the covenants we make in the temple.

[Anonymous]

Really loved your lesson Curt.

Couple of questions… 1) Are you using outside sources? For example I doubt that the temple wording is found in the manual. Might it be easier to justify including extra information if it is all in your brain. IOW, nobody ever said we couldn’t use our brains when preparing a lesson. 2) did you really mention “ritualistic aspects that were adapted from Masonry”?

Keep em’ coming Curt!

[Anonymous]

Given the magnitude of the things we needed to cover, I didn’t quote from outside sources, but I mentioned Boyd K. Packer’s “The Holy Temple” and that Hugh Nibley wrote extensively about the temple and the endowment. The actual lesson was from my brain. 🙂

I see the elements of Masonry exactly as I described, as nothing more, at the core, than the way we perform other ordinances – the motions we use to represent our acceptance of the covenants being represented. It’s like how the default for baptism has become one particular way to lower the person into the water, even though it would be perfectly appropriate to hug the person and both drop into the water – or have three people in the font for a uniquely large person – or any other format that included complete immersion. I didn’t share that in the lesson, but I made that basic point (about baptism) in an earlier lesson.

That’s the primary reason I have no problem with the elements of Masonry – that I see them as a tiny part of the endowment and as nothing more than the form we use to perform the ordinances that symbolize the more important covenants.

[Anonymous]

I’m calling-less. Since I stopped being exec sec, I do almost nothing, although I do have a family history calling in which I do nothing.

[Anonymous]

We were going to combine the youth classes today and have the missionaries show the students how they teach investigators about ordinances and covenants, but we had a transfer in our ward last week, and the missionaries apparently didn’t get the message about the lesson plans – so I ended up winging a lesson that was a continuation of our discussion last week about temple ordinances and, in particular, the endowment. I was able to talk with them in more detail about some of the things we simply didn’t have time to discuss last week – primarily the Masonic connection and the changes that have occurred over time.

I started by mentioning again how I see the endowment as an interactive play and a series of ordinances (Laws) that represent the covenants we make in this life. We talked about baptism and the administration of the sacrament and how the exact way we perform them (the physical actions involved) isn’t set in stone. I gave the example of very large people being baptized and how it might not be possible to get them immersed in the traditional way we envision the ordinance. We talked about different ways the physical actions could be performed – like finding a way to have deeper water available so the people only had to duck their heads to be fully immersed – or having extra people in the font to help lift them from the water – or having the people sit in the water, having someone sit above their legs, having them lie down in the water until they are fully immersed, then having them sit up, move to kneeling, then stand to leave the font – whatever it takes in individual situations to accomplish full immersion. We had the same discussion about the sacrament and how the physical administration can be done in just about any way that makes sense for the congregation / family / person involved.

I then explained Joseph Smith’s statement that Mormonism embraces and encompasses all truth and goodness in the world. I had them recite the 13th Article of Faith, focusing on “the admonition of Paul”. I asked someone to summarize that part as if they were teaching it to a five-year old in Primary. The summary they liked the best was: “We accept and believe anything that is good and true.” I told them that Joseph had an amazing ability to see things that others taught and did and adapt those things into our own practices – like the Masonic aspects of how we perform the ordinances within the endowment. (this also gave me a chance to dispel a couple of misconception about Masons that a student had.)

We then talked about the changes in the endowment since it was instituted back in the day. We talked about the length, fabric and styles of the garment – and how things have gotten a lot better for women, especially, than they used to be, even though there still are issues that need to be addressed in that area. We talked about what to do when garments get old and need to be replaced – and most of them understood the basics already, although it was new to some of them. We talked about the length of the endowment ceremony. We talked again (like last week) about the cultural change that led to the changes in the initiatory – that led the current version to resemble a standard Priesthood blessing in form. We discussed the cultural change from a time when members literally had to worry about being killed if they wouldn’t talk about the endowment to our day now when they probably won’t face that threat – and, in very general terms, about the change in the endowment as a result. We talked about the dropping of the minister from the play and the former reference to specific Christian leaders, especially since we now are a world-wide church in which many members would not understand the former presentation in any meaningful way and where we are trying more openly to work with other denominations in many ways we simply didn’t do in the past.

I ended by telling them that more changes wouldn’t shock me in the slightest – and that I believe some of the next changes probably will deal with concerns many women have with the current version.

The students won’t understand everything when they go to the temple for the first time, but I believe none of them will be shocked or surprised – and I believe that is important.

[Anonymous]

This month’s topic is “Marriage and Family”. The very first resource listed in the lesson outlines is “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” – and we are going through it sentence-by-sentence and discussing it in detail. We will be going over what the words themselves mean, the history of how we and other religions have viewed what it written and the implications in our broader society and culture.

We made it through the first three paragraphs today, so this is going to take two or three weeks.

Quote:

“We . . . solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

We talked about the wording of “a man and a woman” – and how that is different than in the past, when polygamy was accepted; we talked about what “ordained” means (sanctioned or set apart in some way); we talked about other family structures (one-parent families, grandparents raising grandchildren, gay marriage, etc.) and how we need to treat people in marriages and families that aren’t “a man and a woman” (with children).

All of them agreed with the student who said we need to respect and love people, regardless of their family situations.

I mentioned a friend of mine whom I respect greatly. She is a convert; her husband got into addictive activities that were highly destructive; they ended up getting divorced; she is pursuing an advanced degree while trying to raise her children on her own; etc. I told them how much she loves the Church and the Gospel and that the hardest thing about attending church meetings for her is the constant tsunami of messages she and her kids hear every week about the “ideal family” – that the message she gets constantly is that her family situation sucks – that her children get told (as part of the general Primary group) to go home and talk with their parents (plural) about what they heard that week – etc. I asked what we can do to help her and others in different situations not feel so alone and, sometimes, attacked at church – and we talked about various answers. I told them that I believe the most important, fundamental things we can do is be aware of other people as we talk about marriage and family and be willing to not beat them over the head with this type of belief once we become aware of how it can affect them to hear it so frequently and stridently.

It was an excellent discussion and lasted much longer than I thought it would.

Quote:

“All human beings – male and female – are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.”

We talked about how our theology says each of them, the boys and the girls, is a child of God and can become like God and gods in their own right. We talked about the historic association with God being spoken of in exclusively male terms, and I asked them what this wording says about that idea. When one of the students began by saying, “He . . .”, I immediately interrupted and pointed out that always talking about God and using “he” reinforces the idea that “God” is a male figure and completely ignores our teaching about having a Heavenly Mother who also is God in every meaningful sense.

Quote:

“Gender is an essential characteristic of of individual premortal, moral, and eternal identity and purpose.”

I laughed and told them that I get a kick out of this sentence, since “gender” has role connotations, while the more accurate word to fit the meaning I believe is intended is “sex” (as in, biological sex). I told them that most people wouldn’t read it that way, however, if the sentence said, “Sex is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose” – so I believe the leadership chose to use “gender” instead. They all got a chuckle out of that.

I told them that the kind of discussion we had about the first paragraph is important for this sentence, as well – but that I wanted to be able to take enough time to talk about it extensively and answer any of their questions, so we were going to skip it for now and come back to it next week or the following week.

Quote:

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life.”

We talked about how each and every person who is born has chosen once to accept and follow God and, therefore, they will be blessed as a result. We talked about looking at other people, no matter how different they are, and seeing them as valued, loved brothers and sisters – seeing them as worthy of God’s love and our own love.

Quote:

“The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave.”

We talked about what that means in practical terms. The description everyone liked the best was of great-grandparents who live together and watch their own children who live together, watching their own children who live together, who are raising their children still – NOT each couple living with and raising their children. I mentioned that I will be my children’s father forever, but they will be their own children’s parents simultaneously.

That was an eye-opening discussion for some of them.

Quote:

“Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.”

I mentioned again, after all the lessons last month, that I love the temple ordinances as symbolic of our belief in being united with our ancestors and willingness to accept living eternally with all of the rest of God’s children. We talked about the difference between predestination and fore-ordination, and I told them directly that I cannot worship a God who would created people and condemn them to a life of eternal torment and separation regardless of their choices.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for taking the time to write these out. I read your lesson weekly and refer back to them often. You have such a calming voice. Sincerely, thank you!

[Anonymous]

Thank you, GodisLove – and everyone else who has commented in this thread. I enjoy posting these summaries, especially since they help me reflect on the lessons and, sometimes, see things I forgot to mention or discuss that I can add to the next lesson.

[Anonymous]

Today, we talked about the rest of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”. This is going to be long, since we went through all but the first three paragraphs (covered last week) sentence-by-sentence and talked about what each sentence means.

I began the lesson by reminding them that I had skipped the sentence last week dealing with gender, identity and purpose, and I told them that I had thought a lot about how to address that sentence openly and honestly with them. I told them that my own view on those topics is very much outside the norm for most members – that it is not orthodox – and that I didn’t feel comfortable sharing that view with them as their Sunday School teacher. I told them that I would be willing to discuss it with any of them on an individual basis, as long as their parent(s) approved, but that we simply would skip it in the setting of a lesson.

Quote:

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”

We talked about that first commandment – to multiply and replenish the earth. I mentioned that some people can’t have kids and others never marry, so this isn’t a universal commandment that must be followed, but rather a commandment for those who can multiply within marriage. For example, I told them explicitly that I would rather have someone die single than marry just to marry and end up being miserable their entire lives. We also talked about the fact that the LDS Church has NO mandate relative to how many children any couple should have and that there are top leaders who don’t have large families – and, in some cases, have no children or are not married.

We talked about how in the temple Adam and Eve report their partaking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden to the Lord – and how, in a very real way, Adam chose to suffer with his wife rather than remain in paradise with God.

Quote:

“We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”

We put it in direct, simple terms: No sex outside of marriage – and I pointed out that there is no prohibition in this wording on intimacy that is not procreative. I mentioned our previous lesson about the actual wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple and how the Church does not take any official stance on what can and cannot be done within marriage or outside of marriage that is not sexual in nature, for consenting adults.

Quote:

“We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed.”

We put it in direct, simple terms, which started as, “Sex is good.” I told them the sentence goes further than that by calling it divinely appointed. I told them that I hate it when I hear any member of the LDS church echo the old Catholic original sin concept and call sex bad, dirty, or in any other way that implies negative connotations.

Quote:

“We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.”

I asked them what that means and what issues are addressed in it. One of the students said, “No abortion” – so we talked about the Church’s official statement about abortion. We talked about how it emphasizes that life is sacred, but it also mentions explicit cases where abortion is not forbidden – like rape, incest, the health of the mother (and I mentioned that the wording includes emotional health, not just physical health). It also says, ultimately, that the decision is up to the parent(s) involved. We talked about how the Church no longer encourages teenage mothers to marry the father in all cases or have the grandparents raise the child – that the counsel is to give birth to the child and allow it to be adopted. We talked about why that is the current counsel – all of the issues related to teenage parenthood and marriage and the effects on the parents and the baby. I told them that we do not see abortion automatically as murder, like many other people do. I told them that the best description I have heard of the statement is that it is BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice – but that, ultimately, it is based on agency and individual accountability.

The next paragraph deals with caring for children and how God will hold people accountable for how they do that. There was a very good talk in Sacrament Meeting about that basic topic given by one of the students in the class, so I endorsed what was said in that talk and we moved on to the next paragraph.

Quote:

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.”

I simply reiterated what I said last week about being aware of and sensitive to how we teach that within a group that includes many people who are not part of traditional families.

Quote:

“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

I told them I believe deeply in the “general ideal” being taught in this sentence, but that I am bothered by how badly it is misused by some people. We talked about what “entitled” means (possessing a right), so this sentence is focused on what would be ideal for children – to be raised by a couple who are faithful to each other. I told them that this sentence is used often as an explanation for why people believe gay marriage should not be allowed (giving children something to which they are entitled), but I asked them if they would support taking children away from single parents – or putting children into abusive situations simply because the parents were married and monogamous. They all agreed they wouldn’t do that, so I emphasized again, like when we talk about interpreting scriptures, that we can’t pull something out of context and use it in damaging, uncharitable ways.

The rest of the paragraph deals with happiness in family life and parental responsibilities, and since we have talked about that paragraph in at least two former lessons, we simply emphasized that it is up to each couple to decide how to balance the things they have to do to care for their families. As an example, I mentioned that I know some Mormon couples where the husband stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works – and that such an arrangement is not forbidden in the actual wording of the proclamation. I told them that they have to make those decisions on their own when they get married and that they shouldn’t do anything just because most other people do it. They have to take responsibility for how they structure their marriage and family life.

We also talked about what it means to have a marriage and family “founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ” – that it does NOT say successful marriages and families have to be Mormon or Christian or anything else. As long as the teachings of Jesus are the foundation, even if Jesus is not known to the people, successful, “ideal” marriages exist – and Mormon or Christian marriages are worse than other marriages if they are not founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity (adultery, particularly, since the word “covenant” is used), who abuse spouse or offspring (in any way, not just physical or sexual), or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.”

I told them about the temple recommend question about obligations for children and how someone is not supposed to receive a temple recommend if they are not taking care of their children – like failing to pay child support, for example.

Quote:

“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

I emphasized that this is focused on “disintegration” – NOT general issues all marriages and families face and not occasional divorce or death. I told them how much I am bothered whenever I hear this sentence used to preach against divorce in a broad, general way – again, because it hurts good people doing their best to cope with divorces that are necessary and, in many cases, better than really bad marriages. I also told them about working for years in places where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is over 90% – and how “calamity” is a good description of what life is like for those communities and many of the children, especially, who are raised in them.

Quote:

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

I told them that there are controversial things we could discuss relative to this sentence, but I stressed instead practical things like parental leave policy differences between Europe and America – how much longer the leave is for parents in Europe and how fathers can take paternity leave as part of that extended leave, if the mother returns to work before it ends. I told them that there are so many “simple things” like that we need to address that it would be a shame to spend all of our effort fighting people and ignoring the things that actually can improve our own marriages and family lives.

[Anonymous]

I just realized I forgot to add one thing from the lesson on Sunday:

When we were talking about how people talk about sex, I also told them, with a grin, that getting really good at it after marriage is a good thing – and that got laughs.

They appreciated the humor and honesty.

[Anonymous]

I drove our second daughter (fourth child) to college this weekend, so I didn’t teach Sunday School. I drove all day Friday, helped her move into her dorm room Saturday, and drove all day today to get back for work tomorrow. I’m exhausted.

I just wanted to let everyone know, so you don’t expect a lesson summary today.

[Anonymous]

Two weeks in a row with no lesson to summarize.

Today is Stake Conference, and I am home with a terrible headache. :thumbdown: (Going to bed as soon as I submit this.)

[Anonymous]

This month, the focus is on commandments. I decided to model my approach on what I did when we covered ordinances and covenants – focusing on the meaning and purpose of commandments, generally, as the foundation of understanding what commandments can teach us about God, and then dissecting specific commandments to see how they fit into the overall framework of what commandments can teach us about God.

We began by looking in the Bible Dictionary and seeing that “command” and “commandment” are not defined there. I told the students that I think there are some things that are assumed to be so simple and obvious that we tend to think they don’t need to be defined in a place like the Bible Dictionary but that I disagree – strongly. I believe commandments are a complex subject, worthy of an entire month of study. We did read the entry for the Ten Commandments, since they are the foundational commandments of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

We then defined “commandment”. We got “rule” – which then was amended to “God’s rule” – which then was changed to “a rule that is so important that it has to be followed or dire consequences occur”. I asked where else the word “command” is used, and we talked about the military application. I pointed out that we now allow soldiers to not obey a direct order if that order is particularly egregious but that soldiers used to be discharged, jailed or even killed automatically for not following a direct command. We talked about how commandments and punishments have changed over time – how we no longer accept some things that used to be seen as commandments and no longer punish people the same way for not obeying commandments. We used honoring parents, adultery and polygamy as specific examples, and we talked about what we can learn about God from the fact that commandments have changed throughout history.

The students suggested the following things:

1) God gives us commandments that are best for our own circumstances – that the world changes and, therefore, some things about how we need to live change, as well. We talked about what it means to believe in continuing revelation and how we can’t get stuck following outdated rules simply because people used to accept them as commandments.

2) God gives broad commandments, and we are the ones who make the smaller rules that we accept as commandments.

We used the second reason as a springboard to discuss the old Mosaic Law – to understand how ten original commandments ended up being over 600 specific rules. I told them that we would talk about that in more detail as we discussed specific commandments this month.

I asked them if we can rank commandments in order of importance. They all agreed that we can, so I asked how we might do that properly. They came up with the following, which we discussed – after my disclaimer that we can’t let ranking sins allow us to think that it’s okay to commit “lesser” sins simply because we aren’t committing “greater” sins.

1) By severity of consequence to others: Thus, as a rule, killing is worse than stealing.

2) By severity of consequence to ourselves: Thus, adultery is worse than not keeping the Sabbath holy.

3) By personal temptation: Thus, lying can be “worse” than killing, if someone is not inclined at all to kill but is inclined to lie.

With that foundation, we read Matthew 22:35-40:

Quote:

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I asked them what “tempting him” meant in that context, and they understood it meant it was a test – a way for the man to start an argument and discredit Jesus.

We talked about what it means to love others as ourselves: not doing anything to someone else that we wouldn’t want done to us; doing things for others that we would want others to do for us; sacrificing what we want to make sure others have what they need; etc.

I then asked them what it means to have all the law and the prophets “hang” on the first two, great commandments.

They understood the concept quite well, and we settled on the analogy of multiple articles of clothing hanging on a rack. Remove the rack, and the clothing falls to the floor – lying there gathering dirt and dust. The thing that is the “hanger” provides support so what hangs can be used properly – so it can be effective and proper. Also, from one of the students, without the support of the hanger, we could have all the clothing in the world but it wouldn’t help us – since we wouldn’t want to wear clothing that had been lying on the floor getting dusty and dirty. We talked about how we can “keep every commandment” without it changing us in any way if we don’t keep the two great commandments upon which all the others hang – that, if we obey without love, we are following the Mosaic Law and not the Law of Christ. Conversely, if we really love God, others and ourselves, we will keep the commandments naturally – especially if we understand how each commandment can be grounded in love.

With that in mind, we turned to the list of commandments we had written on the board and talked about each one of them in the context of how they can be related to loving God, others and ourselves. One of the students had mentioned earlier that a Seminary teacher had said that each negative command (“Thou shalt not”) could be rephrased in a positive manner (“Thou shalt”), so we used that concept in analyzing each command we discussed.

Honor they parents: How do we do that within the context of love?

We honor righteous, caring parents by showing our love for them – accepting their right to lead us and set rules, becoming who they want us to become, etc. I explained the Protestant idea that honoring God generally is framed in terms of praise – but I pointed out that, given the choice of either extreme, I would MUCH rather have my children become whom I want them to become than to hear them praise me every day. Praising God is important, but it’s more important to “honor” God by becoming what he has asked us to become.

I told them that they all have wonderful parents, but I asked them how someone with lousy parents can honor them. What about a girl who grows up with a father who beats and sexually molests her? How can she honor him? We talked about how breaking the cycle and becoming someone different brings honor to the family name – how that person can live in such a way that others who used to curse or belittle the family name can praise it, instead.

Thou shalt not kill: How do we reframe that in the context of love?

We can love others so much that we treat them the way we would want to be treated – and, out of that love, not kill them. I mentioned the acceptable exceptions, like self-defense, protection of others being threatened, justifiable wartime actions, etc – but, even then, we can do everything possible to avoid such an extreme action.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: How do we view that in the context of love?

We can love our spouse so much that we would not hurt him or her by breaking our marriage covenant. We can love the other person and their spouse so much that we would not hurt them by contributing to their marriage covenant being broken.

We ran out of time, so we will pick up the discussion next week and continue to talk about other commandments (and rules), their meaning and purpose, and how they can help us understand God.

[Anonymous]

We continued the discussion from last week (the meaning and purpose of commandments and what they teach us about God) by focusing on the Ten Commandments. The only one we didn’t discuss this week was honoring parents, since we talked do much about it last week.

In each case, we talked about how the commandments can be read, based strictly on the words themselves, and, in some cases, discussed why we have to look at the overall concepts being taught (the purpose) to understand the meaning in a way that makes sense to us.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

We talked about the cultural context of that statement – that the Israelites were part of a world that believed in competing gods, much like the gods about whom we read in ancient Greek mythology. This command originally wasn’t about “competing interests” (like money, fame, jobs, etc.), as many people talk about now; it was about not leaving the “LORD they God” – their deliverer – to start worshiping a different god. I told the students that I think it can be a good discussion to talk about other things that get in the way of our worship in this day and age, but I stressed that this command was direct, explicit and obvious in its time.

We talked about other religions and “their gods” – and how important it is to understand those other religions enough not to say they are breaking this commandment if they really aren’t. First, it was given to a particular people who had accepted and followed “the LORD their God”, not to all the world. Second, Muslims and Jews clearly worship the same God we do, even if they do so differently than we do and use different names. Buddhists worship a different god, but I told them that I still identify with Buddhism’s teachings more than most of Protestant theology – so we shouldn’t use this commandment to dismiss other religious teachings automatically.

2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

If verse 4 is read literally and comprehensively, we would not be able to make any images of the sun, stars and moon – or trees, mountains and animals – or fish, corral or ocean animals. The key is found in verse 5, where it says, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” It’s not making images that is the problem; it’s what we do with them – how we use them – if we substitute them for God in our worship – if we can’t worship without them – if they “become God” in a real way for us.

I asked the students about crosses and the rosary – if these things were graven images that should not be used. It was interesting to see them think about it, and one student finally said, “It depends on how they are used.” We talked about the difference between them helping people remember God and their covenants and people not being able to pray to and worship God without them – that we could say the same thing about the Priesthood garment I wear or a CTR ring. Any of these things can be a symbolic reminder, or it can be an object of worship – and, if the second, it constitutes a graven image.

We talked about verse 6 and the statement that God is a jealous god who will visit the iniquities of people to the third or fourth generation. We read the footnote definition for “jealous” (possessing sensitive and deep feelings) and the natural effects of people’s beliefs often being passed on for at least three or four generations – that it’s not God saying, “I’m jealous, so I’m going to punish your grandchildren and great-grandchildren for what you do”, but rather that actions have consequences that naturally last that long. We also read verse 7 where it says that God will be merciful to all who love him and keep his commandments, meaning the generational effects can be changed and avoided.

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

First we talked about the Jewish prohibition of speaking the proper name of God, but that the actual wording doesn’t teach that – since it includes the qualifier “in vain”. We talked about what “vain” means: senseless or foolish; without real significance or worthless; ineffectual or futile; arrogant or without authority; etc. We discussed how each of these definitions can apply to using the name of God: using the name as nothing more than an exclamation, using it in a vow (“swearing” in the Biblical sense of that word), saying “God damn you” (multiple definitions apply to that one), etc. We talked about the purpose of the command being, at the core, humility and proper reverence.

4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

We talked about why this is a commandment, focusing on verse 11 – which says that we are to keep it sacred as a day of rest, because God set it aside for rest after he completed the six stages of creating the earth. This means that God said, “I rested, and I command you to do the same thing.” We talked about the practical need for rest (using the athletes in the class as an example they all would understand) and the need to clear our minds of earthly things in order to contemplate heavenly things.

One of the speaker in Sacrament Meeting did a great job talking about this one, so we didn’t talk more about it.

5) Honour thy father and thy mother.

We talked about this last week, in detail, so we skipped it today.

6) Thou shalt not kill.

The same speaker in Sacrament Meeting (an active soldier in the army) talked about this one, as well, so we focused exclusively on understanding the original meaning. We looked at the footnote that gives the actual Hebrew word – “murder”. I asked the students for reasons why that is an important difference to understand, and they came up with the following:

a) People can claim it’s wrong to kill animals. (We talked about that justification for vegetarianism, and I told them that I can respect that stance, even if I don’t read such a prohibition in the command itself.)

b) The people obviously didn’t see the command at that time as all inclusive, since they were engaged in multiple wars to gain a new homeland.

c) A comprehensive prohibition would mean nobody could kill in self-defense or to protect someone else – or, for example, to stop someone from torturing someone else, no matter how gruesome.

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

We talked quite a bit about this one last week, as well, so we talked only about why the core command was focused on adultery and not fornication of all kinds. We talked about the personal and social effects of adultery, and I shared a couple of my experiences working in communities where the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 90% or higher.

Thou shalt not steal.

This also was addressed in Sacrament Meeting, with a great example of using the office copy machine to make copies of an invitation to a personal party, so we just listed a few more examples of stealing that are so commonplace most people don’t see them as theft.

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

I asked them what they normally hear this command shortened to say – how they think it would be explained to a five-year-old. They immediately said, “Don’t lie.” I then told them that is NOT what the commandment actually says – and that the difference is important.

We talked about what a “witness” is – an official testimony given in court. It is a statement describing what someone has seen. Thus, a “false witness” would be giving an incorrect description of something seen OR not giving a description of what was seen – actively giving a false witness or refusing to give a true witness. We talked about how they feel when they hear things that people say about them that are not correct – or how they feel when they know someone knows the truth but won’t protect them by telling it.

We then refocused on the phrase “against they neighbor” – with the emphasis on “against”. Bearing false witness means hurting someone in a real way, knowing that what is being said or not said is not true. This is why gossip actually is a FAR worse sin than lots of other things we tend to consider to be worse – because it very often is a case of bearing false witness, either by passing along something that is not true about someone else or by presenting it in such a way that people think it is a personal witness when, in reality, it only is a repeat of what someone else said – which that person might not have seen personally. It serves almost always as a “witness against thy neighbor” – and, lacking sure knowledge, it generally is “false” in some way.

(On a personal note, not shared in the lesson: This is why I try really hard not to make authoritative, declarative statements about people, currently living or dead, if I am not absolutely sure about what I am saying. Gossip isn’t only about the living. I tend to use more qualifiers and disclaimers than most people, specifically because I don’t want to “bear false witness” – especially when I have no personal witness to bear.)

I finished by pointing out that this command says nothing about lying to protect someone – like telling a Nazi that there are no Jews hiding in your house when there are Jews hiding there – or lying to a rapist about where your wife or daughter is – or any other instance where not telling the truth is not a “witness against” someone.

I told them that I do not advocate lying about very many things, but I understand the commandment itself isn’t about all forms of lying; rather, it is focused on one particular kind of lie – the kind that hurts others, particularly in a formal, legal situation.

10) Thou shalt not covet.

We were out of time, so we hit the initial reaction regarding definition (“wanting something someone else has”), and I pointed out that it can’t be that all-encompassing, since we are commanded to want some things others have if we don’t have them. I told them the best definition of “covet” I have heard is “wanting something so badly that you are willing to take it from the person who has it” – not to gain it ALSO, but to have it ONLY – not to share something with, but to take something away.

[Author]

Posts