Sunday School Lesson

[Damien the Leper]

I decided to attend church for the first time in a few months. The Sunday School lesson was of particular interest today because we discussed foreordination.

I was pleased that the members in attendance understood that this teaching was indeed important. Not that I doubted them because for as long as I can remember, this has been taught in the church.

I do not mean to be overly critical. I also understand that what I proposed in class today may go beyond the Sunday School setting but I did feel that it was important to plant a seed of interest.

Ontology, as I expressed in the discussion, appears to be an important part of the theologocial basis of foreordination. I hope that I'm not off base on this. This is just the impression that I have received as I have more intimately considered the subject.

For me, I believe it is more important to understand WHY foreordination is important and not just understand that it is important.

Am I over-analyzing? Am I way off base? Sorry, I was just very fascinated by the subject and I'm having a difficult time puting into words my thoughts.

[selek1]

While I am inclined to agree that the "why" of our existence is inetricably tied up in the concept of foreordination, I'm not really sure what it is that you're asking or what you wish to discuss.

It is (undoubtedly) a fascinating subject- but you haven't (yet) offered us anything germane to discuss.

So- what specifically is on your mind?

[Damien the Leper]

While I am inclined to agree that the "why" of our existence is inetricably tied up in the concept of foreordination, I'm not really sure what it is that you're asking or what you wish to discuss.

It is (undoubtedly) a fascinating subject- but you haven't (yet) offered us anything germane to discuss.

So- what specifically is on your mind?

I guess my question is: WHY isn't ontological basis of foreordination not of greater emphasis in the church? I mean no disrespect to the ward I attended today but I had to explain what ontology was because no one seemed familiar with the study. I was concerned that no one considered the deeper origins and the theological intimacy of foreordination. It was like they loved the blessing of foreordination without understanding or considering the true meat of the fullness of the blessing.

Perhaps I am undermining them...which is not my intent.

I apologize if it appears so.

[selek1]

I guess my question is: WHY isn't ontological basis of foreordination not of greater emphasis in the church?

I mean no disrespect to the ward I attended today but I had to explain what ontology was because no one seemed familiar with the study.

Why would it be? For the record, I had to look up the word to make sure I understood what you were asking (I did).

My friends often tease me for using "five dollar words in a fifty cent conversation".

I think you committed the same error.

While they may not have understood what the term meant, I suspect that every Latter-day Saint in that room understood that they are unique children of the Most High God, that he is aware of them and their struggles, and genuinely cares deeply for each of them.

I would further wager that- had they been asked- they would have been able to explain (in greater or lesser detail) the purposes of this mortal life.

Finally, those who had received their Patriarchal Blessings would likely insist that said blessing is evidence not only that God had a specific plan (and perhaps even place) for them, but also specific blessings that he wished them to receive.

I was concerned that no one considered the deeper origins and the theological intimacy of foreordination. It was like they loved the blessing of foreordination without understanding or considering the true meat of the fullness of the blessing.

I suspect you give them too little credit.

Like Chris Tucker, they may not have "understood the words that were coming out of [your] mouth", but I suspect they had a better-than-passing understanding of the fundamentals of eternity

[volgadon]

I decided to attend church for the first time in a few months. The Sunday School lesson was of particular interest today because we discussed foreordination.

I was pleased that the members in attendance understood that this teaching was indeed important. Not that I doubted them because for as long as I can remember, this has been taught in the church.

I do not mean to be overly critical. I also understand that what I proposed in class today may go beyond the Sunday School setting but I did feel that it was important to plant a seed of interest.

Ontology, as I expressed in the discussion, appears to be an important part of the theologocial basis of foreordination. I hope that I'm not off base on this. This is just the impression that I have received as I have more intimately considered the subject.

For me, I believe it is more important to understand WHY foreordination is important and not just understand that it is important.

Am I over-analyzing? Am I way off base? Sorry, I was just very fascinated by the subject and I'm having a difficult time puting into words my thoughts.

I had similar thoughts this morning, actually. I also jotted down a diagram of the relationship between the foreordination, the garden of Eden, Exodus, and Psalms.

[Damien the Leper]

Why would it be? For the record, I had to look up the word to make sure I understood what you were asking (I did).

My friends often tease me for using "five dollar words in a fifty cent conversation".

I think you committed the same error.

While they may not have understood what the term meant, I suspect that every Latter-day Saint in that room understood that they are unique children of the Most High God, that he is aware of them and their struggles, and genuinely cares deeply for each of them.

I would further wager that- had they been asked- they would have been able to explain (in greater or lesser detail) the purposes of this mortal life.

Finally, those who had received their Patriarchal Blessings would likely insist that said blessing is evidence not only that God had a specific plan (and perhaps even place) for them, but also specific blessings that he wished them to receive.

I suspect you give them too little credit.

Like Chris Tucker, they may not have "understood the words that were coming out of [your] mouth", but I suspect they had a better-than-passing understanding of the fundamentals of eternity

As I suggested before, I did and am worried that I was undermining the members. It was not my intent to do so. It is not my intent to do so. I guess I wish that more had been said on the matter. After my comments no further commenting on my concerns were discussed. I wasn't trying to be a narcissist but I was hoping to hear that others had similar experiences or thoughts on the matter. Maybe I am being somewhat selfish in the fact that I didn't want to be alone in thinking about this.

[selek1]

I guess I wish that more had been said on the matter.

What more do you feel needed to be said?

More to the point, what more needed to be said to illucidate the Gospel principle being discussed?

It seems to me (and I cheerfully admit that I could be wrong) that the topic was the fuel system of a '59 Chevy- while you wish that the more of the time had been dedicated to focussing on the intricate details of the carburetor.

[Damien the Leper]

What more do you feel needed to be said?

More to the point, what more needed to be said to illucidate the Gospel principle being discussed?

It seems to me (and I cheerfully admit that I could be wrong) that the topic was the fuel system of a '59 Chevy- while you wish that the more of the time had been dedicated to focussing on the intricate details of the carburetor.

There is more depth to the principle than what was discussed and I wish we had gone further into that. I would have liked there to have been a connection made between foreordination and the pre-existence. The pre-existence was never even mentioned and I can take part of the responsibility for not suggesting it.

[volgadon]

What more do you feel needed to be said?

More to the point, what more needed to be said to illucidate the Gospel principle being discussed?

It seems to me (and I cheerfully admit that I could be wrong) that the topic was the fuel system of a '59 Chevy- while you wish that the more of the time had been dedicated to focussing on the intricate details of the carburetor.

Sometimes there is the feeling that it is a lesson on '59 Chevy's having fuel pumps, rather than discussing any details of the fuel system.

[Damien the Leper]

I had similar thoughts this morning, actually. I also jotted down a diagram of the relationship between the foreordination, the garden of Eden, Exodus, and Psalms.

Interesting. Care to share any insights that specifically crossed your mind and why?

[selek1]

There is more depth to the principle than what was discussed and I wish we had gone further into that. I would have liked there to have been a connection made between foreordination and the pre-existence. The pre-existence was never even mentioned and I can take part of the responsibility for not suggesting it.

That of course begs the question: How much of this "depth" would have been authoritative, and how much of it speculation (informed or otherwise)?

[Damien the Leper]

That of course begs the question: How much of this "depth" would have been authoritative, and how much of it speculation (informed or otherwise)?

Good question. A person could suggest that their foreordination is dependant upon their performance in the pre-existence. This is an unfounded doctrinal position but it could warrant speculation. As far as something authoritative...that is the responsibility of the church officers. It is a theological subject worth considering for dialogue between LDS and non-LDS.

[selek1]

Good question. A person could suggest that their foreordination is dependant upon their performance in the pre-existence. This is an unfounded doctrinal position but it could warrant speculation.

There may be some truth to that reasoning, but unless such speculation is strictly and carefully moderated (as in regulated), it's also a door way into potential apostacy.

I have little doubt that the "blacks were less valiant the the Pre-Existance" nonsense started in exactly that fashion.

As far as something authoritative...that is the responsibility of the church officers. It is a theological subject worth considering for dialogue between LDS and non-LDS.

Which (almost) automagically removes it from the realm of Sunday School.

Our time in class is limited. Is it wise or prudent to take time away from what we do know in order to speculate about what we do not?

[halconero]

There may be some truth to that reasoning, but unless such speculation is strictly and carefully moderated (as in regulated), it's also a door way into potential apostacy.

I have little doubt that the "blacks were less valiant the the Pre-Existance" nonsense started in exactly that fashion.

Which (almost) automagically removes it from the realm of Sunday School.

Our time in class is limited. Is it wise or prudent to take time away from what we do know in order to speculate about what we do not?

To be honest....I think it actually is wise to speculate when kept within the boundaries of discussion, peace, and the other fruits of the Spirit.

Go to your standard thesaurus and a synonym for the word speculate is ponder. Pondering is one of the strongest mediums of revelation. When I have discussed a principle, read a scripture or prayed, and then pondered on its personal application and deeper meaning I have received incredible insight and strong spiritual witnesses.

Speculation, when handled carefully, can lead to great spiritual growth in knowledge and testimony.

I'll give an example, being careful to not be to detailed as there were some very sacred moments that our personal to me in it.

I was once studying a section that seemed very cut and dry to me, D&C 89. I was pondering, or speculating, on the entailed blessings found within the Word of Wisdom while preparing a lesson for an investigator with a smoking issue. As I thinking and studying the chapter I suddenly felt my mind open and the true blessings entailed within that section flooded into my mind and actually increased my personal conviction about that commandment. It wasn't something I would teach my investigator, or share with a ton of people, but it edified me. I was able to later confirm my findings with the appropriate priesthood leader.

I think there is nothing wrong with raising little discussed points in class as long as it doesn't do two things: 1) intentionally create doubt and 2) take away from the purpose of the class.

[bcuzbcuz]

The Sunday School lesson was of particular interest today because we discussed foreordination.

Ontology, as I expressed in the discussion, appears to be an important part of the theologocial basis of foreordination.

I agree with many poster here that had you framed the discussion around foreordination and not used the word "ontology" that more would have joined in the discussion. Or it could be that many there do not believe in "ontology" but in their own uniqueness as in "onology". (See Steve Martin's "Non-Conformist Oath") http://mikewhitmore.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/steve-martins-non-conformist-oath/

[Senator]

To be honest....I think it actually is wise to speculate when kept within the boundaries of discussion, peace, and the other fruits of the Spirit.

Go to your standard thesaurus and a synonym for the word speculate is ponder. Pondering is one of the strongest mediums of revelation. When I have discussed a principle, read a scripture or prayed, and then pondered on its personal application and deeper meaning I have received incredible insight and strong spiritual witnesses.

Speculation, when handled carefully, can lead to great spiritual growth in knowledge and testimony.

I'll give an example, being careful to not be to detailed as there were some very sacred moments that our personal to me in it.

I was once studying a section that seemed very cut and dry to me, D&C 89. I was pondering, or speculating, on the entailed blessings found within the Word of Wisdom while preparing a lesson for an investigator with a smoking issue. As I thinking and studying the chapter I suddenly felt my mind open and the true blessings entailed within that section flooded into my mind and actually increased my personal conviction about that commandment. It wasn't something I would teach my investigator, or share with a ton of people, but it edified me. I was able to later confirm my findings with the appropriate priesthood leader.

I think there is nothing wrong with raising little discussed points in class as long as it doesn't do two things: 1) intentionally create doubt and 2) take away from the purpose of the class.

Great post halconero!

I simply wait in anticipation for the speculative responses in class.

[CV75]

For me, I believe it is more important to understand WHY foreordination is important and not just understand that it is important.

Am I over-analyzing? Am I way off base? Sorry, I was just very fascinated by the subject and I'm having a difficult time puting into words my thoughts.

I would say you are not overanlayzing. Our teacher asked the class to share why they thought it was important for them to know that (or have faith that) they were foreordained. Most expressed it as a sense of having a vote of God's confidence, that they are on the right track, that they needed to live up to their potential, that we could act again in the flesh as faithfully as we did in the pre-existence, etc.

[TAO]

Good question. A person could suggest that their foreordination is dependant upon their performance in the pre-existence. This is an unfounded doctrinal position but it could warrant speculation. As far as something authoritative...that is the responsibility of the church officers. It is a theological subject worth considering for dialogue between LDS and non-LDS.

But it is... on at least one thing. We came here to Earth, and for men, received the priesthood. From what I heard from my lesson, that was foreordained based on our choice to follow Father's plan in the pre-existence.

As for other offices, I think they are pre-ordained, but am guessing that there is no way to tell until God gives the inspiration that it will happen.

It's an interesting subject definitely though =D.

[Damien the Leper]

But it is... on at least one thing. We came here to Earth, and for men, received the priesthood. From what I heard from my lesson, that was foreordained based on our choice to follow Father's plan in the pre-existence.

As for other offices, I think they are pre-ordained, but am guessing that there is no way to tell until God gives the inspiration that it will happen.

It's an interesting subject definitely though =D.

Is there a scriptural reference for this? Just curious.

[selek1]

To be honest....I think it actually is wise to speculate when kept within the boundaries of discussion, peace, and the other fruits of the Spirit.

And I am inclined to agree.

Take note, for a moment, of all of the qualifiers you used to keep a tight rein on the conversation, though.

Within those restrictions- and with constant checks to make sure you're not getting off the "glide-slope", pondering can be a good thing.

Without those restraints, such pondering is like trying to control an avalanche- one can all too easily get buried in the rush.

Instances where this occured is what led to the Church "forbidding" private study groups in the late '80's or early '90's- they became breeding grounds for "Gospel hobbies" and eventual apostacy.

[TAO]

Is there a scriptural reference for this? Just curious.

I have no idea. It was just said in class. =)

In any case, the Melchezidek Priesthood thingy, I believe that is more of something that relates to the temple... but not sure (I don't have my endowment yet).

I'm guessing there are slight things in the scriptures, but I'm also guessing there'd be better sources from teachings of prophet ABC, or something. Of course, this is entirely guessing, so yeah =p.

[Damien the Leper]

I have no idea. It was just said in class. =)

In any case, the Melchezidek Priesthood thingy, I believe that is more of something that relates to the temple... but not sure (I don't have my endowment yet).

I'm guessing there are slight things in the scriptures, but I'm also guessing there'd be better sources from teachings of prophet ABC, or something. Of course, this is entirely guessing, so yeah =p.

Fair enough.

[volgadon]

Interesting. Care to share any insights that specifically crossed your mind and why?

Be glad to. A lot of it comes from Psalm 95, a connection made by David Bokovoy. The key here is the idea of entering into God's rest, which, of course, relates to the garden, to God's resting after creation, and to ancient concepts of temples as the link between heaven and earth. Then there ir recieving the priesthood contingent on a choice between faith and hardened hearts, paralleling the two trees in the garden. Entering into the rest depends of keeping the commandments, which is an aspect of covenants, similar to the Exodus theme of the psalm. These are a few brief thoughts.

[Damien the Leper]

Be glad to. A lot of it comes from Psalm 95, a connection made by David Bokovoy. The key here is the idea of entering into God's rest, which, of course, relates to the garden, to God's resting after creation, and to ancient concepts of temples as the link between heaven and earth. Then there ir recieving the priesthood contingent on a choice between faith and hardened hearts, paralleling the two trees in the garden. Entering into the rest depends of keeping the commandments, which is an aspect of covenants, similar to the Exodus theme of the psalm. These are a few brief thoughts.

Now you have me fascinated. Do you have an online source or saved resource which you could share so that I can better understand the insight you are trying to illustrate? I would greatly appreciate it, Volgadon.

[volgadon]

Now you have me fascinated. Do you have an online source or saved resource which you could share so that I can better understand the insight you are trying to illustrate? I would greatly appreciate it, Volgadon.

I feel like pulling my hair out, David's comments don't seem to be archived in the board. Means I have to put the insight together in a more coherent fashion. A similar idea is found in Hebrews, as well as in Jewish Sabbath liturgy, but the roots of the concept are older.