Sunday School Lesson 33: President Brigham Young Leads the Saints

D&C 107: 22-24

Section 107 was given (at least in part) when the 12 "met in council, confessing their individual weaknesses and shortcomings. expressing repentance, and seeking further guidance of the Lord." Here's an interesting thing that we don't do much in the church any more: public confession of personal sins. It used to be the major portion of Fast & Testimony meeting. The testimony portion used to contain public confession of sins and pleas for forgiveness from God. It's moved away from that and I wonder how much is because people were doing it wrong, and how much was because it was making others sin through anger and resentment, and how much is for some other reason entirely.

People, being what they are, I could see this escalating from humble acknowledgement of personal guilt to a contest of who could come closest to the line of church discipline without crossing it, demonstrating the greatest repentance?

Also, I could see it being a problem if you people constantly got up there and said, "Brothers and sisters, I have sinned. Every time I look at Betsy, I am filled up with lust and my own wife looks like a fat cow in comparison." That can't be good for my friendships or Betsy's.

And, of course, there could be a different reason entirely, that is not coming to my mind right now. Perhaps they just wanted to focus the meeting more on our faith and trust in Christ's atonement, rather than on our remorse and guilt. (Although, the first fruits of our faith in Christ are those acts of repentance.)

Our Heritage Pages 66-71

Joshua 1:1-5

God starts off by saying, "Moses my servant is dead". But Moses was translated. Or so I thought. Deuteronomy 34 makes it quite clear that he died except for one casually thrown in "no man knoweth of his sepulchre," with a footnote referencing "translated beings." So where do we get that Moses was translated? Alma 45:19, speaking of Alma Sr. says that Alma was taken of God, "as was Moses," and Bruce McKonkie says that Moses' appearance on the mount of transfiguration indicates that he was a translated being, otherwise, he would not have been able to participate in an ordinance of laying on of hands to pass Priesthood Keys to Peter, James, and John.

It does seem like he would have had a hard time getting there if he hadn't been either resurrected (unlikely, considering it hadn't started yet) or translated, since people don't get to leave the Spirit World once they go there.

2 Kings 2:8-15

Elisha picked up the physical mantle of Elijah. Israel seems to have had a pretty relaxed attitude about prophetic appointments. Or, rather, they seem to have based a prophet's calling on his actions. If a fellow shows up, wearing some camel-hair and does a miracle and tells them they need to repent, then they agree (sometimes not until later) that he was a prophet. What if we judged our prophets that way? Who would qualify? Ezra and Nehemiah didn't do much in the way of the miraculous, they just rebuilt the temple, so I would say that President Hinckley would qualify in that sense. Obviously Brigham Young and Joseph Smith would count. I think Lorenzo Snow was the one who went around preaching tithing during the depression, so I'd count him too. Am I just missing events in the lives of the other prophets that would help me feel like they would meet the Old Testament requirements?

Jacob 1:12, 18-19

Nephi died, Jacob and Joseph took on the responsibility of teaching the people.

Sunday School lesson 32: To Seal the Testimony

Suggested Reading: D&C 135

This is one of Benj's favorite sections.

v.1 For a long time, I wondered why Joseph would have jumped to the window when he knew there was an angry mob outside the jail. Then I visited the jail. The window is probably 7 or 8 feet off the ground, and if people with guns were definitely firing into the room from the door, I would probably have tried to escape through the window as well.

I'm also surprised that an armed mob of 150 -200 people would only shoot them each 4 times. Seems like you have a strong element in the mob and a following element as well.

v.3 In life they were not divided and in death they were not separated! He ends that statement with an exclamation point. It's a shout.

v.5 The testators are now dead and their testament is in force, implies that their witness against men would not be admissible until after they had lived their life unspotted, but hasn't the Lord said that the cries of the women and children have come up to him in heaven? Or am I thinking of places where they had killed all the women and children? In 3 Nephi 9:5, he's definitely talking about dead people crying to him against the destroyed cities.

v.6. They lived for Glory and they died for glory; and glory is their eternal reward. What is glory, scripturally speaking? Alma 22:14, that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory. Is glory the same as exaltation? Moses 1:39, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Could it be that literal? God's exaltation is to make ours happen? Sam 4:21 - Eli's daughter-in-law said, "the glory is departed from Israel for the Ark of God is taken. Granted, she doesn't really have any more authority to make that statement than any random relative of the prophet has to give revelation to the church, but it could be a reflection of teachings from her father, who at one point did have the authority. Psalms 8:5 - Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels , and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Exaltation again?

Traditional Gender Roles

In the old Testament, God said, through Moses, that a man should not lie with another man as with a woman, and anybody who did it should be put to death. I’ve heard it said that the sin for which Sodom was destroyed was the sin of homosexuality, though I find no clear statement of that fact in the Bible; they clearly wanted to rape the angels who came to town to destroy it.

Also, there’s the thematic element of God creating a woman for Adam and Christ talking about it, saying, What God hath joined, let not man put asunder, indicating that if God has a preference, it is for the heterosexual relationship he instituted.

Do we have a circumstance where God gave a woman to a man who didn’t need to have children for some reason? Well, we have Nathan, the prophet, giving David wives when he had plenty already, and more kids than he could possibly rear in paternal love, as evidenced by the disastrous end of his life (although I do want to point out that aside from not creating the loving relationships that would have helped him avoid the struggle for his crown, he was also an adulterer who couldn’t be satisfied with the multitude of wives he already had, so he probably had other issues that contributed to his disastrous home life).

Do we ever have a circumstance where God gave a man as a companion to another man? Paul and his missionary companions, perhaps? Christ sending his messengers forth two-by-two? No. I don’t think so. Both of those were assignment specific. They had a task and a duration, while the relationship commanded for Adam and Eve included references to providing for each other, and that she was to desire him, and that they were to cleave unto one another all the days of their lives.

Does the fact that we are clearly not at a population shortage risk obviate the commandment to form heterosexual monogamous (and anciently plural) marriages? Does the command to multiply and replenish the earth still have value in today’s society? Does a homosexual couple who adopt or become parents through any of various alternative methods fulfil the commandment to multiply and replenish the Earth?

Where is the scriptural basis for abandoning the roles that God established? I believe in a God who will give specific instruction for a specific time without intending it to apply to the global audience for all eternity, but if there is instruction given for all men at one point, I like to look for a specific instruction to stop before I do so.

What circumstances have changed that would support changing the requirement from man + woman to man + companion?

• Do we have the same obligation to have children that Adam did?

o In my mind, this depends on why God told Adam to multiply and replenish the Earth. If He told him to do so in order to ensure the survival of the species, then I would say we are fairly well entrenched and this circumstance may have changed. If, however, He told Adam to do so in order to provide physical bodies for a specific number of God’s children, then we are not removed from this obligation until we hit that number, and should in fact, be having more children as opposed to fewer, which is the trend in most civilized countries.

• Do we have the same obligation to fill the gender roles God gave Adam and Eve (Provider and Nurturer)?

o Once again, this depends on why God told Adam to provide for Eve, and why he told Eve she would conceive and bear children, and why he told Adam he would work all the days of his life. Modern society has eliminated the need for gender discrimination in the workplace by eliminating the type of work where brute strength is a significant advantage, but did God tell Adam he would work because he was stronger than Eve or because of some other gender specific reason, or for some other reason entirely? Did he tell Eve that she would desire her husband because he was a man or because he was her life partner?