Sunday School Lesson 36

September 8, 2005 | 8 comments
By

Lesson 36: Doctrine and Covenants 58:2-4; 64:33-34; 82:10; 93:1; and 130:19-21

As with many of the lessons this year, the focus of this lesson is on the history of the early Church. However, these questions are not specifically directed at the lesson, but at the scriptures used in the lesson. As is true of all of these sets of study questions, but more obvious in this case, the questions may help you with parts of class discussion, but they are not designed to supply all of the material for a lesson.

Section 58

Verse 2: What does it mean to be keep the commandments “in death”? What does it mean to be faithful in tribulation? Why is a person’s reward greater if he or she has been faithful in tribulation? Does that mean that our rewards are concomitant with the suffering we have experienced? If so, doesn’t that suggest that we should seek suffering? If not, what is the relation between suffering and reward?

Verse 3: Does the first clause suggest that there will be a time when we will be able to behold the design of God with our natural eyes?

Verse 4: Does “after much tribulation come the blessings” mean that we can expect tribulation before blessings or that we can expect blessings if we have tribulation? What is the difference between those two? How does the meaning of each change our outlook on tribulation?

Section 64

Verse 33: What kinds of weariness do we experience in well-doing? For example, what makes a bishop or Relief Society president weary? A visiting teacher or home teacher? How can one avoid that weariness or overcome it? It is not difficult to see how “out of small things proceedeth that which is great” describes the Restoration. What other kinds of applications might it have?

Verse 34: What does “heart” mean in most scripture? Does it have that same meaning here? Why must our hearts be willing as well as obedient? Is there a difference? If I do what is commanded but not with a willing heart, am I genuinely obedient? Is Moroni 7:6-10 relevant? What did it mean to the early Saints to eat the good of the land? Does it mean the same thing to us? How is that metaphor significant?

Section 82, verse 10

What is it that binds the Lord when we obey, our obedience or his character? To what is he bound? What promise do we have if we obey?

Section 93, verse 1

What does it mean to forsake sins? Can we do this one at a time, or does it require something different, forsaking sin as well as individual sins? What does it mean to call on the name of Jesus? How do we do so? For what do we call when we call on him? Is it significant that he speaks of obeying his voice rather than his commandments? What is the significance of seeing his face? Won’t everyone see it, at least at the Judgment? What is the significance of knowing that he is?

Section 130

Verse 19: Is this verse speaking of knowledge in general or knowledge of salvation? How are diligence and obedience relevant to gaining knowledge? What advantage in the hereafter is being referred to?

Verses 20-21: How do we square this verse with scriptures such as Matthew 5:44-45:

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you? That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Are verse 19, on the one hand, and verses 20-21, on the other, scriptures on the same theme, or are do they take up different topics?

8 Responses to Sunday School Lesson 36

  1. Seth Rogers on September 8, 2005 at 5:34 pm

    Re 93:1:

    I’m not sure everyone will see His face. It says “every knee shall bow and tongue confess.”

    But it doesn’t state that those who have rejected him will have the heart or stomache to actually look at Him.

  2. TexasViolinist on September 10, 2005 at 9:10 am

    Are you asking us to open up our scriptures, read them, and comment? C’mon who does that? This is really anti-intellectual, don’t you think?

  3. annegb on September 10, 2005 at 11:02 am

    I have a question that somebody on some blog (maybe here) mentioned and then I thought about it and couldn’t find it again.

    Did the prophet say we should read the Book of Mormon by December, if we’d never read it before, or did he mean read it again?

    Because that would change the meaning, sort of. I’ve read it countless times, evidence to the contrary, so would that let me off the hook, but make this a make or break thing for my husband, in case the seven years of famine come and he is screwed?

    just wondering. you can answer at my e-mail gardnera@netutah.com I promise I won’t respond.

  4. Costanza on September 10, 2005 at 11:18 am

    Anne,
    Here is what President Hinckley wrote in the First Presidency Message that served as the basis for this challenge:
    “We studied the Book of Mormon in Sunday School this past year. Nonetheless I offer a challenge to members of the Church throughout the world and to our friends everywhere to read or reread the Book of Mormon.” Looks like you’re not off the hook. Sorry ;)

  5. LisaB on September 10, 2005 at 12:17 pm

    Glad to see a SS lesson post again Jim. Is the reference right for the first section (48)? I’m not seeing anything about tributions, blessings, or natural eyes there. (Thought I’d like to comment on that one if I can find the right verse!) Just about land purchases.

  6. LisaB on September 10, 2005 at 12:23 pm

    Now I see… .it’s in section 58. Okay, here’s my comment. My first response was “No, no one sees God [or obtains a divine perspective] with their natural eyes”–not even prophets. Scriptures talk about a transfiguration needed for theophanies and revelations. But my second thought relates to a gradual deepening appreciation I seem to be gaining for the (divinely intended) natural world (not the Satanically corrupted “natural man/woman”). So if it means merely with our biological eyes–I think the implication is as you infer above, and I think the second section of the verse (re the glory to come) points to this. Like Job, we will, in the flesh because of literal physical resurrection, see God and the design of God–whatever all that entails–with our glorified “natural” eyes.

  7. Jim F on September 10, 2005 at 4:49 pm

    Lisa B: Thanks very much for noticing the typo. I’ll change that immediately.

    I can see why you read me to imply that there will be a time when we see God with our natural eyes, but I didn’t intend to. I agree with your first point: we never see him with natural eyes. Resurrected beings are not “natural” beings, though they are physical.

  8. Julie in Austin on September 19, 2005 at 9:34 pm

    Once again, it looks like BYU Studies to the rescue of an otherwise mundane Sunday School lesson.

    here’s an article on the exterior symbolism of the Salt Lake Temple:

    http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=22032&CISOSHOW=21105

    This is interesting, too, about pictures of kids attending the dedication:

    http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies2&CISOPTR=2296&CISOSHOW=2223

    and also this on infrastructure:

    http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=22030&CISOSHOW=20245