Lesson 7: Matthew 3

This lesson is one of the most fascinating lessons ever.  No, I’m serious; I’d put it up on the top list of things that logic students, psychology students, business majors and theologians all should study.   It’s about “repentance” and that organizations need to repent too.

You see, it doesn’t just focus on the personal need to repent, like most Christian texts would focus on.  Sure, it begins with “Bring fruits meet for repentance” and John the Baptist, but then it focuses on the Pharisees as a group; and their institution’s need to course correct.  Every organization makes mistakes and needs to course correct from time to time; and so the businessman has a lesson to be learned.  But with the corporate nature of the modern LDS church, I think this lesson takes a deeper dive.  The Pharisee behavior is so similar to what the LDS official position represents that the lesson can be immediately re-directed at the organization that wrote it.  Links to illustrate the hypocrisy will be provided.

John the Baptist preached and baptized in Judea. Jesus Christ traveled from Galilee to the Jordan River, where He was baptized by John. God the Father testified that Jesus is His Beloved Son.

Activity:

Ask the class to imagine how they would feel if one of the students in the class were to get up and begin taking personal items that belong to the other students. Then ask them to imagine that after taking each item, the offending student apologizes but continues to take items from other students.

Ask

• What would you think about this student’s apologies?
• How might this student’s actions be similar to trying to repent insincerely?

Compare and contrast:

The LDS church’s stance on race and the priesthood in Brigham’s day

LDS Essay on Race and the Priesthood; note that the church does not apologize

LDS leaders saying they refuse to apologize:

“I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them,” Oaks said in an interview Tuesday. “We sometimes look back on issues and say, ‘Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,’ but we look forward and not backward.”

The church doesn’t “seek apologies,” he said, “and we don’t give them.” Dallin H. Oaks, Jan 30th, 2015 Trib talk interview

Ask the students how they’d feel if the thieving student from the previous example didn’t apologize, but just stopped taking things when caught.  (Distrust, “how would you know they stoppped taking items, are likely answers but this is their opinion, let them express it freely)

Point out that the church is attempting the same behavior with other minority groups

Links:

• LDS Position on Women and the Priesthood as stated on Mormon.org
• LDS Position on homosexuals

Invite a student to read Matthew 3:1–4 aloud. Ask the class to look for what happened that would help prepare the people for the Savior’s ministry.

Invite a student to read Matthew 3:7 aloud. Ask the class to follow along, looking for whom John spoke to.

Now the Official lesson encourages the teacher to show the students a Palestinian viper

This isn’t anti-Semitic because John the Baptist says it, and he was a Jew… right?

To be clear, this is the official lesson manual of the LDS church telling not-very-trained teachers to instruct kids that the leaders of another religion are vipers; and actually showing them a viper.

What was it that the Pharisees and Sadducees did that was so bad?

You may want to point out that the Pharisees and Sadducees felt threatened by John, as he drew many people away from their evil influence and false teachings

Elder Ballard recently gave a talk I spoke about where he encourages people to stay away from blogs and podcasts.  They excommunicated John Dehlin.  It appears that the Pharisees and Sadducees (who I’m sure love that they are lumped together, they always got along so well) were guilty of the crime of wanting to keep people from apostatizing from their belief system to follow a “lone voice in the wilderness”.

I don’t think it is respectful to compare the leaders of another religion to snakes, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy; in the hopes that emphasis on divisive rhetoric like this can be removed in future versions.  However photo-shopping Elder Ballard wearing snakes seems about par for the course for the CES systems level of respect.

Write the phrase Bring forth fruits meet for repentance on the board.

I hate this 1920’s style of having the teacher write it up on the board while students watch. I’d rather it said to do this prior to class, as every teacher does it anyway.  Maybe we could modernize it with “Text this to your students”

You may want to explain that the phrase “meet for” means “worthy of”

Remind the class of the scenario you asked them to imagine at the beginning of the lesson

Students may use different words but should identify the following truth: We demonstrate true repentance to the Lord as we change our desires and actions to follow His teachings

Now ask the students if the Race and the Priesthood essay, and Dallin H. Oaks words that the church never apologizes for what it has done means that the church is unrepentant.  Ask if it would be worthy of baptism.  Remind the kids of the how John disliked religious leaders and that John combined the thoughts about needing to repent and the corrupt religious leaders.  Ask them if John might have been calling the leaders to repentance even more than speaking to the people who were already there to be baptized.

But what would I know, I’m just one of those blogs that cries out like a voice from the wilderness about what the CES system teaches.

Exercise in Logic: Write out the logical arguments used in this lesson.  Point out that if A->B where Repentance implies worthy for an individual; and that an organization is a group of individuals; how organizations must consist of repenting individuals to be a worthy organization.  Review if that logic is sound.  Are there exceptions where organizations need to be non-repentant?

Exercise in Theology: Can you find any other organizations in scripture that are expressly called to repentance (examples might be kings, like Nebuchadnezzar or Christ calling Israel to repent as a group, or the Tower of Babel that was all cursed together).  Discuss whether an organization that refuses to apologize for wrong is apostate.  Use scriptures to point out how refusal to repent keeps men from god.

Exercise in Business: Highlight some of your organizations failings.  Discuss how one could “repent” of these mistakes publicly, righting those who were harmed, and altering the course so it doesn’t happen again.  It is typical to affix blame in these cases, but blame matters less than the change.  Talk about how correcting bad behaviors can be profitable for a business

Invite students to ponder any desires or actions they may need to change in order to truly repent. Encourage them to demonstrate true repentance by changing any desires and actions that are not in accordance with God’s teachings.

I invite the LDS leadership to ponder any desires or actions they may need to change in order to truly repent, including publicly admitting historical issues and apologizing for them (including Mountain Meadows, LGBT treatment, and shaming of those who leave the faith).  I encourage you to demonstrate true repentance by changing the desires that drive these actions that are not in accordance with God’s teaching, or basic human kindness.

Lesson 6: Matthew 1–2

Right off the bat we are not covering that Mark is actually the oldest of the gospels and that Matthew is a derivative work

“Marcan priority has been accepted by most scholars since the late nineteenth century and forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory,”

Nary a mention.  But we get into the actual text, so props to that:

Matthew gave the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and an angel declared Jesus’s divine parentage to Joseph. Wise men from the East traveled to find and worship the young Jesus. Joseph was told in a dream to take his family to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter of children in Bethlehem.

Activity: Show a picture of your parents

On my mission, I was approached by someone who asked me why the genealogy of Jesus is so different in the two gospels. One has 42 individuals in the list and starts with Abraham (Mathew) and the other is in Luke and starts with Adam and has 77 individuals that are vastly different.  My answer echoed the answer given by Eusebius, that one was the genealogy of Joseph and the other was Mary.  The person pointed out that the different number of individuals would mean that one line was all oldest children, and the other  was all youngest children of very large families to make it work.  As there is no resolution on this, I leave each reader to come up with their own explanation.

Invite students as they study Matthew 1–2 to look for truths about the Savior’s parents and traits He inherited from them.

Well, we could talk about that in the genealogy father’s-in-law did daughters-in-law (Judah), David killing husbands to get their wives (Bathseba), Solomon and his thousand wives, Rehaobim and his corruption of a kingdom, and Ruth being a non-member but following Naomi  and “Spreading her skirts” for Boaz, but I’m pretty sure they’re going to go for things like hair color.  Which, by the way, Mary was super jewish, so no idea why Nephi saw her as “exceedingly fair and white“.  Nor are they going to point out that Joseph’s DNA has nothing to do with Jesus because, um; Joseph wasn’t the father, remember?

Explain that the word Christ is the Greek form of the Aramaic word Messiah, which means “the anointed.”

But don’t explain why Aramaic matters.  That’s fine.  It’s still a fact, and we love facts.

Point out that Matthew 1:16 also mentions that Mary was Joseph’s wife

Er… no.  I mean read the next line

According to Matthew 1:18, Joseph and Mary were espoused. This means they were betrothed, or engaged, and legally bound to each other but not yet living together as husband and wife.

Ask the students if anyone has someone in their family who are living together and are not married.  Point out what “Common law” marriage is.  Now while Betrothed isn’t the same as common law marriage one can point out how marriage has altered over the years and that it hasn’t had a standard definition of marriage throughout time.  That even Jesus’ parents had a different kind of marriage than we have today.

Stoning Mary

What did Joseph intend to do when he learned that Mary was pregnant? (Explain that “to put her away privily” means Joseph planned to cancel the engagement privately without forcing Mary to face public humiliation or the possible penalty of stoning).

Can we take a minute to discuss stoning?  Who said that anyone should be stoned… oh yeah, God.  God risked Mary getting stoned.  Think about that.  Let’s take away “God” from the equation and think about it if it were humans.  A governor pushes for a law in the state to kill women who have unwed pregnancies.  Then that same governor impregnates (via artificial insemination, if you like) a girl knowing her fiance is going to be upset.  Is this a moral act?  Why or why not?

What does this verse teach us about Joseph’s character?

Joseph is pretty amazing

What does this verse teach us about God’s character?

Would god have been as tolerant as Joseph?  Why did God set up capital punishment (even for Rape victims)?  Was Mary able to consent given that God and she had a large difference in power balance?

Just as Jesus is literally the Son of Mary, so he is the personal and literal offspring of God the Eternal Father.  – Bruce R. McConkie

Let’s be perfectly clear; this is an apostle stating without any qualms that God literally had sex with Mary.  See above where I proposed it could have been artificial insemination? This is an Apostle stating fully, and without any ambiguity that sex happened.  “Literal offspring”.  This was taught by Brigham Young (JoD 1:50-51, also “Answers”, vol. 5, p. 121) and Orson Pratt (“The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).

Students may use different words but should identify the following doctrine: Jesus Christ is the divine Son of Heavenly Father and Mary.

Yup.  They emphasize that this is the correct answer.  Which immediately discounts what is taught publicly by FAIRMormon:

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event

Deception in pure form.  They are actively teaching against the CES Manual of Seminary right now.

Jump to the Wisemen

Who brought gifts to the Savior after He was born?

Who were these wisemen?  Why did they know about Jesus?  These are great questions people spend entire lifetimes trying to study and answer and there isn’t an accepted one.

Nevertheless the lesson ends by giving a quiz about the wisemen like anyone actually knows the answers.

The wisemen were named Larry, Moe and Curly; the Apocrypha are wrong; and they brought Frankincense and Myrrh because Curly dropped half the gold and they swung by the only shop still open in town.

Disprove me using actual sources, or my claim is as legitimate as any other about them.

Before the Plan of Salvation™ was introduced to the students, it would have been very good to clarify what counts as “doctrine” and what doesn’t.

However, the editing of the curriculum online gives us a unique view that even the CES program doesn’t know what doctrine is.

The key thing to note is that what is being edited is how to know if a prophet is speaking as a prophet and how to know true sources of doctrine.  With four edits on Friday and  Saturday (someone was working unpaid overtime) it’s pretty clear that there is some internal strife on what is and is not valid doctrine.

Seminary teachers, this is a great time to stand up and take note; what is doctrine?  Why doesn’t the CES program know?  Why is such a fundamental question like “Do prophets guide us in truth” so openly debated?  Why are you teaching kids these kinds of things if you don’t know; and the church office building doesn’t know.

Time to ask some tough questions of yourself and your curriculum writers.

Lesson 5: Context and Overview of the New Testament

In this lesson, students will learn about the historical and cultural context of the New Testament, including factors that contributed to many Jews rejecting Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. Students will also learn about the structure of the New Testament.

I think we need to know the actual context.  First of all, the New Testament is not in order.  The Gospel of Mark is the first of the gospels, for example.  The epistle of James is the first book written.  Understanding that God did not guide the process of the New Testament being assembled is very important for understanding the text in context.

I find this video (Although it covers both Old and New Testaments) helps explain where we got the Bible from far better than any church-produced source.  Note, the man in the video is a preacher.  He visits only theologians who spent their lives dedicated to studying the history and context of the bible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXlFWBcxBo

Stoning: In Context

The lesson has the kids look at a picture of someone being stoned without context.  Then they read Acts 6 and find out it is Stephen being stoned.  That helps a bit, but  I think this shows a very surface level of understanding.  They should read in Leveticus where God commands the Hebrews to stone people to death over and over.  They should see how these Jews are just obeying the scriptures they were given.  A discussion that Saul/Paul was trying to be righteous by following the scriptures and his current authority was helping people to murder Christians, that’s a much deeper understanding of the context.

But beyond that, we should know about Romans and their relationship to Israel at this point and why the Jews expected a savior.  How Isaiah’s words set them up to believe a man would throw off the literal government, and how they expected a very physical structure.

My point is, that if you watch the rest of these lessons, you’ll see a very clear “make the students feel learned without actually letting them think” approach.  And that is exactly what Jesus railed against in the New Testament.  Ironic.

Jewish religious leaders during the Savior’s ministry

Invite a student to read 2 Nephi 10:3–5 aloud. Ask the class to follow along, looking for words or phrases the prophet Jacob used to describe the spiritual condition among some of the Jews during the Savior’s ministry.

Trying to learn about the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sadducee from the Book of Mormon is like trying to learn about what Utah Government is like by reading the Ensign.  This is just bad.

For example, how many “Jesuses” were there?

• Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach , part of the Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish ‘wisdom’ and Homeric-style heroes
• Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.
• Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’.
• Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias (“the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people” – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.
• Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea.
• Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests.
• Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. Crucified in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem).

That no Seminary manual explains that the Jews were perhaps “Messiahed out” with so many anointed ones indicates they are not interested in actual context. Instead they turn to the Book of Mormon to understand the context of Jerusalem.

What could be the danger of adding man-made rules to God’s commandments?

Ask your teacher if Coffee is against the Word of Wisdom.  Point out that the scriptures only say “Hot Drinks”.  Ask if a man added rules to the scriptures and which man.  Ask to see the scripture he added.  Point out that you will bring a coffee tomorrow as you are now convinced that it is wrong to trust man-made rules added to scripture.

They took the plain and simple things of pure religion and added to them a host of their own interpretations; they embellished them with added rites and performances; and they took a happy, joyous way of worship and turned it into a restrictive, curtailing, depressive system of rituals and performances.  (Bruce R. McConkie)

Note, he’s not actually talking about mormonism, but he could be.  This is how most of the world views Mormons.

Point out that the Jews in Jesus’s day were in a state of apostasy.

…And they didn’t realize it. They followed their leaders, did their rites, had the same scriptures and were entirely wrong.  Yet this manual encourages kids to follow their leaders, do the rites and read the scriptures.

Wake up.  Throw off the chains that bind you.  Shake off the Dust of the Earth.

Wait, did I just use Nephi to explain the conditions of Seminary Manuals… Shame on me.