Sunday School Lesson Recap: Student Questions and Answers Regarding the Plan of Salvation

Last Sunday, I wrote on the chalkboard the various elements that get outlined when we draw the classic map of the Plan of Salvation:

Pre-existence, veil of forgetfulness, creation, Garden of Eden, The Fall, birth, mortality, agency, death, The Spirit World, Judgment, Resurrection, Exaltation.

I told the students we had discussed the Plan of Salvation last February and this month in a lot of detail, from multiple angles, so today I had no prepared lesson plan and, instead, was opening up the entire class time to any questions they had about any of the topics on the board. I told them that they had heard "lessons" about this topic all their lives, so today was going to be nothing more than a free-flowing discussion about possible ways to answer any questions they have.

It was good for them to hear how many of their questions were answered first with, "We don't know, but . . ."

I can't recreate all of the conversations we had, but the following is a list of the questions they asked - and a summary of some things I want to highlight for this forum:

1) The veil of forgetfulness = Is it complete immediately at birth, or does it fade gradually?

We also talked about how some people simply are more spiritually inclined than others - like my wife's experience seeing and feeling her recently deceased father in the temple a couple of days ago, while I got no inkling of it whatsoever.

2) Near death experiences = Are they real?

Why can people remember what happened after they "died" but not what happened before they were born - if the veil is allowed to stay open for one experience, why is it still closed to the other experience?

3) Garden of Eden = Why did God create a mortal world and then place immortal Adam and Eve in it? How could immortal beings live in a mortal world?

We talked about multiple interpretations of the Garden narrative. It led to the next four questions.

4) How old is the Earth?

We talked about differing views of the age of the Earth, then we talked about how our teachings on the subject don't need to conflict with settled science. We also talked about how religion too often has been used as a club against science (with specific examples of the shape of the Earth and the rotation pattern of the solar system based on readings of the Bible) and how we can't let ourselves fall into that trap as further light and knowledge is revealed through scientific discovery. I told them that I view scientific discovery as revelation in every important way, since it uncovers what previously was unknown - the classic definition of revelation.

5) Where was the Garden of Eden, and how long were Adam and Eve in it - if it was a literal place on Earth?

The summary: "We don't know, but here are some opinions."

6) How do we view dinosaur bones? (The student had heard the idea of them being transplanted from a different world.)

See the summary of #4.

7) Was the material used to create the Earth already there, or was it brought from somewhere else?

We talked about the nature of matter according to Mormon theology, our rejection of ex nihilo creation and the visual presentation in the temple. ("Here is matter unorganized. Let us take it . . . the other worlds . . .")

8) When we say we can become like God, do we mean that we can become like Heavenly Father - or is Heavenly Father like the ultimate God who is different than and superior to all other Gods?

We only had about two minutes left in the class, so I told the students we would tackle that question and any others they have next week.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: We All Have Been Saved Already

Today, we talked about the traditional, Primary / Sunday School answer to the question:

"Why do we come to earth, and what are the consequences that need to be overcome?"

I asked the questions and asked for "the standard, Primary answers". They came up with: to be tried, to gain a physical body, to learn to repent, to progress, etc. - and, for the second part of the question, physical and spiritual death. We then focused on the concepts of physical and spiritual death - what they mean in practical terms and how the scriptures talk about them.

To discuss physical death (and to get to the heart of it within Mormon theology), we read 1 Corinthians 15:1-29, verse-by-verse. I started by explaining Paul's background (when he was Saul, the high-ranking agent of the Sanhedrin), in order to make sure they understood that Paul had been highly-educated in the law - that he was, in practical terms, like Elder Oaks now. Thus, like Elder Oaks, he often spoke in legalistic terms - since that was how he was trained and how he thought. I wanted them to understand the structure of the chapter we were going to read - how Paul's treatise about the resurrection basically was like a courtroom "defense" of the concept and precisely what he said about "salvation from physical death".

I'm going to quote almost the entire passage, with snippets of the conversation, just to present the general flow of the discussion:

(1-3) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Paul starts his discourse on the resurrection by reminding the members of the Church that he preached and scripture recorded, and they accepted, the idea that Jesus died for our sins. Thus, he started with the concept of redemption from spiritual death - but then he quickly shifted to the resurrection.

(4-8) And that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

He then cites witnesses to the resurrection - six appearances in all. He does this, again, in order to cover the classic legal requirement of having witnesses to a claim. (I didn't mention this in the class, simply because I didn't think of it at the time, but, for this forum, it is interesting that Paul included his own "vision" in the list that otherwise would be interpreted as visitations. He didn't distinguish in the epistle between those different types of "appearances".)

(9-11) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Paul then re-established that the people who were receiving his epistle had believed what he and the others had preached about the resurrection. It was, again, a legal argument saying, essentially, "This is not new to you. At one point, every one of you accepted and believed this."

(12) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

This verse says quite clearly that Paul was writing this chapter as a direct response to member of the early Christian Church who had started to reject the resurrection (as "physical" in nature), re-igniting the previous division that had existed within Judaism between the Sadducees and Pharisees regarding resurrection. That is important to understand, since there are two capstone verses that only can be understood properly if the intended audience is understood properly.

(13-15) But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

Here, Paul places his own character and that of the other witnesses at the center of the question of whether or not a resurrection occurred - and he says, flat-out, that Christianity is useless / ineffectual ("vain") without the foundation of a resurrection that had been witnessed by lots of people.

(16-18) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

This is a repeat or extension of the previous verses, but it sets the stage for his first capstone statement:

(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

I asked the students what this verse means - how they would rephrase it in their own terminology. One of the students said, "If we stop believing in Christ, we will be miserable." I told him that I have heard that translation a lot, but that it wasn't quite what Paul was saying. (He's a great kid, so he didn't take offense at being told he was wrong - and I have done that in more than one lesson in the past, so they are used to it.) They read it again, and someone phrased it correctly as, "If our hope in Christ is confined to this life and has no real effect in the next life, we are more miserable than anyone else."

We then talked about why that would be - and they quickly understood that it is because of all the requirements involved in accepting Jesus and living as he told his disciples to live. We talked a little about what that entailed back then (which, in many ways, was a lot more than now, as much as we tend to feel restricted now), then we talked about what that entails now. After about ten things were listed as examples of things they do that they wouldn't do if they were believing Christian-Mormons, we all grinned and agreed that we could keep adding to the list for a long time. I repeated something the High Councilor had said in Sacrament Meeting - that we need to use common sense in how we dedicate time to our callings, since "the Church can take all of our time if we let it" - and that we can't neglect our family in performing our callings, since "the family is #1 in our lives, not the Church".

Verse 19 is the first "summation statement" in chapter 15. It is the end of Paul's first point - that the resurrection is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and warrants the sacrifices required of the early members at that time.

He then moved to the scope of the resurrection - the extent of salvation from physical death.

(20-22) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

I asked the students who, according to these verses, is resurrected. They saw immediately that every person who has been born is said to be resurrected. One of them asked an interesting question: "How do other denominations interpret verse 22? I don't see how they can read it any differently than that." I told him that most people tend to interpret scriptures based on what they believe, not based on what the scriptures actually say - especially when what they say is different than what they have been taught. I told them that trying to understand scriptures as they are, not as we want them to be, is an important effort - and I told them again that making that effort has led me to interpret some passages and verses differently even than many other members of the LDS Church.

I then rephrased the answer to: "Everyone who is born already has been saved - from physical death." Based on that idea, I told them that I hope they never argue with anyone who claims to have been saved. Based on what most of them believe about the next life, they are right; they have been saved, just like all of them and I already have been saved. I told them that it's important to understand where others are correct and not accuse them of being incorrect in those instances. I told them that if anyone ever asks them if they have been saved to answer confidently, "Yes, I have been saved, just like you have been saved - at the moment we chose to follow Jesus." If they want to hear more (if the answer shocks them enough to ask), more can be shared; if not, the potential confrontation has been avoided.

Verses 23-28 are simply more "detail" about the resurrection and don't add anything unique to the discussion that I wanted to address, so I said it that way and we moved to verse 29.

(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

This is Paul's second capstone argument - focusing on the "proof" that the early Christian leaders and members really did believe what they taught about the resurrection. If reworded to make it easier to understand, it might read:

Why are people being baptized for the dead if they aren't going to be resurrected? (If there is no post-mortal life, of if the next life is nothing more than a spiritual continuation, why would we be baptized for them?

This rhetorical question is worded in such a way, in context of the entire chapter, as the clinching argument that ALL who are born will be resurrected - since it places them ALL under the requirement of the law to be baptized. Again, performing baptisms for the dead proved that the people involved really believed what the leaders taught - that salvation from physical death really is universal.

I looked at the person who asked the question about how others view verse 22 and told him that I have heard verse 29 explained away as Paul condemning a practice of the time by an apostate group - but I told them that such an interpretation simply makes no sense as worded or in the context of the entire chapter. Conversely, as a summation of a legal argument about the centrality and universality of the resurrection, it makes perfect sense.

Since this already is a long summary, I will hit only two things about the rest of the lesson:

1) We talked about agency as the central aspect of salvation from spiritual death - and how, in traditional Mormon theology, all but very few people who are resurrected will inherit a degree of glory and live forever in the presence of "God" (or, to be more precise, to be able to exist in the presence of a member of the Godhead).

2) We talked again about how important it is for each of them to act according to the dictates of their own consciences and become unique individuals - not carbon copies of someone else. I told them about Steven Peck's book, "A Short Stay in Hell", in which a man goes to a place where everyone is exactly like him and thinks, for a short time, that he is in Heaven - only to realize exact sameness is Hell. (Steven is a Biology professor at BYU and a phenomenal writer. I recommend this book highly to everyone here.) I recommended that book to them, and told them that lack of progress, lack of action, lack of purpose other than praising God constantly, and never-ending sameness would be Hell for me.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Plan of Salvation vs. The Plan of Happiness

This month's topic is "The Plan of Salvation". I focused today on the trend recently to talk about "The Plan of Happiness" and how that term compares to the traditional "Plan of Salvation". I wrote "Heavenly Father's Plan" at the top of the chalkboard - and then "The Plan of Salvation" on the left side and "The Plan of Happiness" on the right side. Under each term, I had the students tell me how they interpreted each term - "salvation" and "happiness".

"Salvation" means "being saved from something" - with an obvious reference to something bad in some way. The students mentioned anything that is unacceptable, uncleanliness, sadness, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc. They defined "happiness" as joy, contentment, peace, satisfaction, lack of misery, etc.

We talked about how "The Plan of Salvation" is focused mostly on one's condition prior to being blessed - taking someone "from" one condition to another condition. The emphasis is on the condition "from which" the person is saved. It is on the "savior" who does the saving.

We talked about how "The Plan of Happiness" is focused mostly on one's promised condition of blessedness - taking someone "to" one condition from another condition. The emphasis is on the condition "to which" the person is taken. It is on the "blessed" who is being rewarded.

I then asked each of them to think about the two phrasings and which one resonates the most for them personally - and why. I told them that I wasn't looking for any particular, unanimous answer; rather, I really was interested in their personal responses. Five of the eight liked "Plan of Salvation" better, while the other three liked "Plan of Happiness". I used that to start a fuller discussion about why it's important to understand how things can be phrased differently to help people understand the same overall concept, since the overall message of both phrasings really is the same.

We talked about missionaries teaching investigators (or even inactive members) about Heavenly Father's Plan. I asked them how they could know which phrase we had discussed would be the most powerful for each person. One of the students immediately answered "the Spirit". I agreed with that but added that the missionaries could use both terms and ask the other people directly which was the most meaningful for them and why. With that understanding, other teachings could be tailored to the natural "orientation" of each investigator / member. All possible legitimate phrasings could be used, but understanding multiple phrasings could help increase understanding among differing people - and it's much more important to teach people than to teach specific wordings. ("Preach My Gospel" emphasizes that, explicitly.)

We then talked about people who sometimes struggle with either wording. The students came up with some really good examples, then I mentioned two broad categories.

First, people who are already happy, even generally, might not feel the type of uncleanliness, sadness, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc. that would help them feel a strong need to "be saved". For them, continued or enhanced happiness might resonate more deeply.

Second, people who struggle with depression, bi-polar disorder or any other condition that makes them feel like happiness is not possible in this life might really like a promise of future happiness, while others might feel much more strongly about being saved from their current condition.

Finally, we talked about how people who can't envision happiness in this life might feel like they are being beaten with a hammer if they hear happiness in this life preached regularly as the goal. Thus, even if they might like "The Plan of Happiness" that is focused on the next stage in life, that same phrase might be discouraging or even painful if it is focused on this life. Again, the end result is the same, but the unique focus of each phrasing might mean more to each person in question - and it's really important to teach people "in their own language, according to their own understanding".

As an example of what I meant, we read from 2 Nephi 4 and talked about what it says about Nephi. We summarized "the things I have seen and heard" (v. 16 - his visions and what he was told in them) and then looked more closely at vs. 17-19, in which he describes how he feels about his "natural man" tendencies and actions. The wording is quite extreme, and it is worth pasting here (with the words we discussed in more detail bolded):

O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins.

This paints a picture of serious internal turmoil - and, taken literally without the help of the visionary background, it even could be seen as describing a bad man. That is interesting, since we Mormons tend to describe Nephi in such glowing terms that he comes across as almost perfect - an ancient superhero of sorts. I mentioned how we have the "good parts version" of prophets in our scriptures (and I explained the Princess Bride reference to them) and how we might buy into Nephi as superhero without weakness if we didn't have 2 Nephi 4. (I told them that if Nephi was alive today and talking with a therapist, he might be diagnosed with depression or bi-polar disorder or something like that - and he might be given medication to control his condition.) At that point, our Bishop, who was sitting in on the class, made a really profound comment that led perfectly to the conclusion I wanted to make. He said:

I see that man every day when I look in the mirror. I know what he meant in these verses and in the following verses about knowing in whom he trusted.

I then told the students that we tend to treat our modern prophets and apostles in the same way - overlooking or ignoring their weaknesses and mistakes and talking about them as if they were flawless. I reminded them once again that Joseph Smith was the most chastised person in the D&C, and we talked about his reference to himself as a "rough stone rolling" and what that means. I mentioned how much we tend to talk about Joseph the same way we tend to talk about Nephi - and how hard it can be for some people when they finally realize that Joseph wasn't a nearly perfect superhero.

I told them that if any of them ever was in a situation in their life, at any point, where they felt wretched and were grieving and groaning because of temptation, iniquity, sin or simply feeling like they didn't measure up to what they felt they should be, I hoped they would remember these verses and this lesson and not let themselves lose hope.

It Can Be Difficult to Accept the Plan of Salvation in All It's Messiness

In Mormon theology, there were two plans: one that dictated beliefs and actions (and, as a result, allowed no growth) and one that left it up to each individual to decide what to believe and do (and, as a result, allowed both greatness and depravity - and everything between those extremes). The good news is that this theology also posits an intervention (through a Savior and Redeemer) by which sincere efforts to believe and do good things are rewarded, no matter how they align with objective, absolute truth. Not everyone in the Church understands how "liberal" that theology is, but it's there in spades.

I know how hard it is to deal with the ambiguity and relativity on which such a theology rests, as evidenced by how many members (including leaders) can't accept it fully (since it can be incredibly messy and painful), but, personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want others to be able to force me to act against the dictates of my own conscience, so I have to be willing to accept that I and mine can't do the same to them. That is true no matter how strongly I feel about the difference. 

The type of truth that I believe all should accept and follow is wrapped up in principles and characteristics and focus, not detail. I don't really care how someone describes charity, faith, hope, compassion, love, forgiveness, etc., as long as they are describing and trying to live them. I don't care if I see lots of the details differently, as long as I am working with others according to those characteristics. I really do believe that the "Gospel" is incredibly simple and "universal truth"; I just don't put much else that I can understand in that category. Pretty much everything else is more blurry or dark to me, so I don't get hung up on it when someone else sees through the mists differently than I do - or when those differing views add complexity, messiness and even pain to my life.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Apostasy, Restoration and the Atonement

Last Sunday, we talked about the general meanings of the words "apostasy" and "restoration", then we talked about how the concepts of apostasy and restoration fit into the concept of atonement. We didn't talk about specific instances of organizational / societal apostasy, and we didn't talk about "The Restoration"; instead, we talked only about the concepts and what they mean at the big picture level.

One of the students started by defining both terms. He started by asking everyone how they define the terms. The answers were really good for that age group, including the example of restoring furniture and antiques by returning them to their original condition. The student then gave the definitions he had found, which included both "abandonment" and "digression / deviation".

I wrote the following on the board:

Apostasy ---> Restoration ---> Atonement
abandonment, digression/deviation ---> re-establishment, return ---> bringing together, fixing

I drew a crude outline of the classic Plan of Salvation picture - the one with circles for the Pre-Mortal Life, Earth and the Three Degrees of Glory and lines connecting them. I asked them when apostasy officially began relative to our lives. Earth was mentioned initially, but we focused on the War in Heaven and the fact that apostasy didn't occur when Lucifer proposed a different plan. Rather, it occurred when he insisted on that plan once Heavenly Father had said, "No, this is what we will do." I talked about a Ward Council and how there is no hint of apostasy when people in a council disagree about solutions to any problem, and not even when people don't agree with the decision of the council, but only if someone then takes a different path and tries to implement it instead of the decision of the council. Thus, apostasy happened only after Lucifer rebelled and recruited people away from Heavenly Father and to himself. (I also told them that I like the interpretation of ancient numerology that believes 1/3 means "an unspecified minority" and 2/3 means "an unspecified majority" - since, in terms of the War in Heaven, that interpretation means we can say that some spirits followed Lucifer, but most followed Heavenly Father and Jehovah.)

We then turned to mortality, and I asked when apostasy started here on earth. The consensus was The Fall, so we talked again about how apostasy started there only when Adam and Eve chose to follow Lucifer's plan instead of what God had commanded them - not when they first questioned the commands. I also told them that I personally view the story of the Garden of Eden as a figurative retelling of the War in Heaven and our need to be in mortality where Lucifer was cast, but I emphasized that I don't really know for sure.

We then talked about when apostasy first begins for us as individuals. In the sense of "digression/deviation" that is when we are born - since birth separates us from God and makes us subject to heredity and all the crap with which we deal in this life; in the sense of "abandonment" that happens when we sin, by choosing to do things we know we should do. One is not our fault, since we simply were accepting God's plan for us; the other is our fault, since it involves choices we make that are in opposition to our consciences. Thus, the effects of one (transgressions due to birth) are covered automatically by the Atonement (2nd Article of Faith), while the other (sin due to choice) is covered conditionally upon our effort to repent (change).

We then turned to the concept of Atonement and how it fits more fully into the eternal progression picture.

I asked them which plan (Lucifer's or Heavenly Father's) was the best plan IF, and only if, the ultimate purpose was simply to bring God's children back to him - to "restore" them merely to their former condition. It took a little thought, but they all saw that Lucifer's plan was perfect for that purpose. I then stressed that what I was about to say should not be how they explain this to other Christians, without substantial background and prior discussion, since it can sound much harsher than I mean it to be, but the picture of being spirits in the presence of God praising him forever with no true growth or progression is Lucifer's plan - precisely. That is exactly what he proposed - and it was pointless, since that same condition is exactly what we possessed prior to birth. That plan makes ALL of the pain and suffering and trials we experience in mortality pointless, and it makes God a sadist who allows us to suffer terribly for no reason other than to make us praise him for saving us from what he demanded we do - which is why Lucifer's plan essentially would have eliminated all of our mistakes in the first place.

In Lucifer's plan, there would have been no need for restoration, since there would have been no apostasy. Thus, no need for atonement of any kind, if atonement meant merely returning to live with God - if it meant nothing more than "restoration of condition", like the example of the furniture being restored to its former beauty. To have any meaning, restoration and atonement need to go beyond that and include some other kind of condition - which I labeled as "restoration of potential".

I mentioned that the promise we were given in the Pre-Mortal existence was the potential to become like God, not just to live with him. Apostasy (both the transgressive aspect as a result of the Fall and the sinful aspect as a result of our choices) thwarts that potential; Jesus paid for that apostasy through his life, in the Garden and on the Cross; he restored us to our former condition of purity and empowered us, as a result, to claim our promised potential. He took care of the restoration of condition completely on his own, as a gift freely given; we tackle restoration of potential through taking his yoke upon us, taking up his cross, etc. and trying to become Christ-like / godly (all aspects of full repentance). He freed us from the debilitating guilt of our human-ness to pursue our potential for godliness - and we deny the Atonement and accept Lucifer's plan, in a very real way, when we reject that godly potential - in ourselves and in others.