Sunday School Lesson 36: The Desert Shall Rejoice, and Blossom as the Rose

It's General Conference this weekend, so this lesson won't be taught for about 2 weeks. Thinking about General Conference makes some of the parts of this lesson more real. How would I feel, for example, if this Saturday, president Monson reads off a list of people who are being assigned to pack up and move somewhere to establish a community? Or what if I were called to leave my family and go to China on a mission of indeterminate length?

Our Heritage p. 81-96 Tells the story of the seagulls again, and talks about the way members used to get calls to do things back then. The prophet would get up at general conference and read off a list of names of people who were called to go on a mission, or settle a new area, and afterward, they would typically get up and go get to it. I wonder if the reasons we went away from that are related to the fact that you can't just go somewhere and build a house anymore. You now have to purchase the land from someone. Farming is no longer a realistic option for people who want to live.

In 1870 they formed the "Retrenchment Society." The first name of the young women's organization described what it taught - frugal living. I often wonder whether we would be in the financial trouble that we are in (speaking of the nation and the current economic recession) if more people relied less on expected income and more on frugal choices in their lifestyle. Our current housing crisis was created in large part by people buying homes larger than they could afford and counting on increasing values to make the purchase wise in hindsight. Other major contributing factors include people trying to make money off those speculating in real estate. If the first group had purchased homes that were modest, affordable, and that were purchased for use rather than investment, then few would have needed to sell so suddenly and much of the recession could have been avoided.

D&C 64:34 Behold the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. The Lord doesn't require an able mind, but both the willing and the obedient will be blessed. See Mosiah 4:24. The sad thing is that the good of the land of Zion for those first couple of years was pretty meager. It would be tough to be starving to death and read this scripture. I'd probably cry out, "where's the good of Zion?"

D&C 89:18-21 This is the promise from the Word of Wisdom. How does it relate to the desert blossoming? I'm not sure but I've always loved that it is concerned with marrow in their bones. Bone marrow wasn't recognized as super valuable at the time this was written.

D&C 93:1 Every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments shall see my face and know that I am. (First of all, that's a very liberal use of commas.) So that's interesting. The reward you get for doing all of those things is simply to know that God is. Wouldn't it take at least a strong belief that He is in order to do the things in the list? Perhaps he's talking about the more sure word of prophesy, or having your calling and election made sure. A knowledge of God's existence that is undeniable, and therefore, conclusive evidence of your assured salvation.

D&C 130:19-21 Intelligence rises with us in the resurrection; blessings are tied to laws and when we receive a blessing, it is because we kept a law. Elder Ballard gave a talk about this and he said that if there is a blessing we want from the Lord, we should search the scriptures and find the law upon which that blessing is predicated and strive to more fully keep that law. I don't think he was talking about being blessed with a million dollars, but real blessings, like faith, inspiration, and other spiritually valuable blessings.

So this lesson's title is about the desert rejoicing and blossoming, but the scriptures it includes are all about obedience. Obedience is the first law of heaven. In the story where Saul was commanded to go and destroy the Amalekites in 1 Samual 15, Saul was told to utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. He went and destroyed everything that was vile and refuse but kept out the best of hte shep and the oxen and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good. He later claimed that he did so in order to sacrifice them at the temple, in the same sentence, recognizing that they should have been destroyed.

The story has always intrigued me because I think about what he must have been thinking. He's looking at his people, who could use this stuff to improve their lives, he's thinking about the way the Lord said to destroy everything, and I'm sure in his mind, it made a lot of sense to think that the Lord was trying to punish the Amalekites, not their sheep--the sheep didn't do anything, and it meant material benefit for his people which improves his stature as their king. I think we often try to think through the commandments of the Lord and decide when and where to keep them. Let's take the Sabbath Day. We'll buy gas and some treats when we're traveling on Sunday because "surely the Lord doesn't mean keep the sabbath day holy if you are traveling. What does he want you to do--not travel?" Sunday meetings when they interfere with your child's napping schedule. Home teaching when you are really busy. What are the commandments where we look at it and just say, "Surely He doesn't mean it literally." Because we're wrong. I think he does mean it literally. Obedience is the first law of heaven and to obey is better than sacrifice.

Sunday School Lesson 35: A Mission of Saving

This lesson starts with the work of saving that is conducted through missionary work and then moves to the include references to actually saving people from physical privation. Are the two even related? I've heard it said that it is hard for people to focus on spiritual growth if they are concerned that their children are starving, but Alma also said that the poor are easier to convert because of their forced humility.

D&C 4:6 Here, the order goes:

Faith
Virtue
Knowledge
Temperance
Patience
Brotherly Kindness
Godliness
Charity
Humility
Diligence

But there is a very similar passage in 2 Peter1:4-8 that goes

Faith
Virtue
Knowledge
Temperance
Patience
Godliness
Brotherly Kindness
Charity

You'll notice first that the Doctrine and Covenants list is 2 items longer than that in 2 Peter, and then, you might notice that the order is different. Brotherly Kindness and Godliness are switched in the two lists. It's my opinion that the order matters in 2 Peter but not in D&C. Peter was giving a pretty specific step-by-step instruction in how to become fruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was just listing off a bullet list of things to remember as you go forth to serve, and tacked on humility and diligence, which, for some reason, didn't make Peter's list.

D&C 18:12 And he hath risen again from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him on conditions of repentance. This is an interesting thing. We talk about the atonement in two parts: the suffering in the garden and on the cross to atone for our sins and allow us to repent, and the death and resurrection to allow us to be resurrected. In my mind, the goal of the suffering was to allow us to return to God, and the goal of the resurrection was to allow us to live again, but this indicates that the reason He rose from the dead was so that we could return to God. And I suppose that makes sense, in a way. We could certainly not return to God as disembodied spirits, and the fact that we lacked physical bodies in the pre-mortal world was one of the major differences between us and God that would be overcome through the plan and our descent to earth.

D&C 52:40 And remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple. I've been pretty irritated with the growing trend of socializing that the government has been pushing, particularly with health care. The irritation comes from selfishness, I'm willing to admit that. I don't want to pay for someone else to not work. But does that mean I'm not a disciple? I'll be honest, I don't want them to work for their own betterment, I want them to work so I don't have to pay for their freeloading. The problem is, we know there are people who take advantage of the system and are happy to take their government benefits that they only get if they are not working, but there are also people who are literally needy. How do you serve the one while not rewarding laziness in the other?

Our Heritage, pages 77–80 A member of the Martin Handcar company, speaking of his experience said, The price we paid to become acquainted with God was a privilege to pay. What price have we paid to become acquainted with God? The technical requirement is to keep the commandments, repent of your sins, but often it seems that people who are forced to suffer find humility that is difficult to find elsewhere. How can we find that humility and faith without the suffering? Is it wrong to want to, or should we pray for trials that will be nigh unbearable?

Sunday School Lesson 34: Faith in Every Footstep

D&C 136:4 And this shall be our covenant--that we will walk in all the ordinances of the Lord. That's a very interesting company slogan. You have a group of people who have already made that covenant deciding to re-make it as a group. What is the added value to collective covenanting? Another thing that is interesting is that the company size is essentially capped at 100 people. In the book, Freakonomics, one of the things the author discussed was group size and its relative social pressure. Groups have a much greater social pressure when they are under 150 people, and if I remember correctly, groups under 100 were not broadly based enough for every member to find close support.

136:24 Cease drunkenness. Often I am really glad that we have adopted as command the instruction given as words of wisdom to abstain from all alcoholic beverages.

136:28 If thou art merry, praise the Lord with singing and with dancing, and with a prayer of praise and thanksgiving. What do you suppose it takes to convince a congregation to open their mouths and let the singing pour out? We have much better singing from the brethren in Priesthood opening exercises than we get from them in Sacrament meeting, but you would think they'd be the same. It's probably the group size.

136:34 Thy brethren have rejected you and our testimony, even the nation that has driven you out. This sounds a little anti-american but when the saints had their first pioneer day celebration, they celebrated with American flags, Patriotic songs, parades where they wore their American military uniforms, etc. and Brigham Young said something about how it was no great secret that despite some Americans who didn't understand the principles of freedom on which America was founded, it was still the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

Temple Sealings - What are they for?

I had a "professor" of religion in college who quoted some obscure reference from an early apostle that implied that God was Adam's literal father. I had issues with that, particularly with the idea that there were now two only begotten sons of God, but I don't want to get into that. Suffice it to say that his biggest justification for that being true was the fact that we needed to do temple work for all of humanity, tying us to our parents and they to theirs and so on, back to Adam and Adam to God. Last night, Betsy and I were discussing temple sealings and I realized that adopted kids are sealed to their parents but are not begotten by their parents and it is entirely possible for Adam to seal the rest of humanity to God without being the literal offspring of his diefic flesh. I'm not going to evaluate whether he was created out of the dust of the earth or not at this time.

Hebrews 11:40 - God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect, speaking of the people who had died having great faith. They did a lot of great things, that demonstrated their faith, but without us, they can not be made perfect. Of course, the JST changes it a bit and says that without their sufferings they could not be made perfect, but then it cross references topical guide, geneology and temple work. Why reference that if the JST just made it irrelevant?

D&C 27:5 - Moroni has the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim. In what way would priesthood keys be necessary for a record? In my understanding, keys in the priesthood are essentially right to authorize ordinances and receive revelation for a specific group.
27:6 - Elias has keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things. Apparently I've misunderstood keys.
27:7 - Says that the angel that appeared to Zacharias was "Elias". Luke 1:19 says that the angel said, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God. What are the odds that Gabriel was the Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration?
27:8 - Which John I have sent unto you...to ordain you unto the first priesthood...that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron. Ordained so that you can be called as was Aaron? The calling happens because of the ordination, not the other way around?

D&C 27:13 -

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?