078a: This is My Work and My Glory; OT lesson 1(Full)

January 2, 2014

Engaging Gospel Doctrine

“This Is My Work and My Glory”

This lesson only covers thirty-nine verses, but contains profound doctrine. Specifically, these verses illuminate the nature of God, humanity, revelation, and the Plan of Salvation.

I: Sunday School

  • What is the Book of Moses? (historical background)
  • Overview of content
  • Close Reading (focusing on 1:39)
  • Comments on approaching the OT

II: Additional passages (not applicable)

III. Study Notes

  • Value of the Book of Moses
  • What is the Joseph Smith translation?
  • Relationship of Moses to history
  • Comments on Satan
  • Nature of the Old Testament

Class Reading: Moses 1:1-39

Additional Reading: None

Recurring Donation:

$5   $10   $25   $50

One Time Donation:

$25      $50      $100

Join a rich discussion with Jessica, Jody, and Colby

You can access my Lesson Notes here.

You can access the Annotated Reading here.

 

Timeline (Thanks to Brian Dillman for putting these together)

Lesson

0:00        Podcast episodes A/B: Purpose and Overview

8:50        Joseph Smith translation

15:09     Moses Summary and Moses 1

Transition from Part 1 to Part 3 occurs at 20:15

20:29     OT origins via culture/history

Discussion Part 1

25:56     Guest introductions

31:00     Revelation

33:05     Transfiguration

40:18     Nature of God/Interactions with God

49:17     Satan’s Temptation (Temper Tantrum)

58:58     Overall thoughts on The Book of Moses juxtaposed to the Old Testament

Discussion Part 3

1:11:49  Book of Moses inspired by King James Version (Parallel to Matthew 4)

1:22:15  Reading the Old Testament

1:30:58  Anachronistic Satan

1:39:25  Disempowerment


Resources

To be added shortly

Thanks to William Newman and James Estrada for post-production and to Steven Nelson for the bumper music.

 

 

9 Responses to “078a: This is My Work and My Glory; OT lesson 1(Full)”

  1. Helena Jones Says:

    hello, I have been listening to your pod casts for several months and it has really helped me prepare my lessons. I have found your discussions strike just the right balance for me. However I am a little worried about your a and b decision, that in your desire to have the different segments that the balance that you have so successfully achieved previously will be weakened. The mix in a conversation of a difficult academic or political comment with an uplifting thought makes your podcast great. I felt that this lesson was a little too segregated. I am sure you have thought a lot about the change and as Moses stated, I also know I am nothing 🙂 I just wanted to make a comment. I do want to reiterate that I really do enjoy your podcast and as a result we have continued a lot of your discussions in our Sunday school class. Thank you Helena

    Reply

    • Jared Anderson Says:

      Helena, I take this feedback to heart. I too value the productive tension of one episode that seeks to fulfill a spectrum of needs. I still think that the Bible demands more than one approach, but I will continue to try to push the envelope in my core Sunday School lessons as well, and then go deeper into the issues in the full version.

      Reply

  2. Trevor Says:

    Jared, thank you for the wealth of resources and content. For someone like myself who is only familiar with the basics of the Old Testament, they will be invaluable as I try to create engaging gospel doctrine classes in my ward.

    I do have one question (or favor): is there any possibility that you could get ahead of schedule for the rest of us? My ward is jumping into Lesson 2 this week (1/5), having chosen to start Lesson 1 at the end of 2013 (12/29). I fear that if you stay at the current schedule, I won’t be able to use any of your material until after our ward has already covered the lesson. If this is too much of a hassle, or if it is not in the best interest of your other listeners, don’t feel obligated to make the exception for me. Thanks! 🙂

    Reply

    • Jared Anderson Says:

      Trevor, I am so annoyed that some wards jumped the gun and started the new year early! I will do what I can to push ahead of the schedule.

      Reply

  3. Utahhiker801 Says:

    Jared,

    I know I’ve expressed this before to you on several occasions, but I really appreciate the time and thoughtful insight that you bring to these discussions. I loved the brisk back and forth in the recent Historical Jesus podcast. It was both informative and entertaining.

    And since I’ve been following the podcast since you started doing this, I hope it isn’t taking too much liberty for me to start referring to you as “a good friend of mine.” It will make it much easier for me to explain where I’m getting some of my ideas and suggestions as I teach my Gospel Doctrine class.

    As you have dealt with, sometimes when presented with differing perspectives or interpretations, members of the church may be more concerned with the source of the thought rather than the deeper insight offered.

    Of course I’ve told people about the podcast and am happy to share the information, but sometimes when I know the person and that it would be a bit too much for them, it will really simplify things if I can just say heard this from a very good friend.

    And I do consider you as such.

    Thanks.

    PS, I’ve restarted my monthly donation on here so it goes through the new foundation. I jokingly tell people that I have to rent my friends, but you have the honor of being the first where I’ve actually set up a recurring PayPal charge 🙂

    Reply

  4. Lance Says:

    I’m about to start the episode, so please excuse me if this is discussed in it.

    President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “All revelation since the fall has come through Jesus Christ, who is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. … He is the God of Israel, the Holy One of Israel; the one who led that nation out of Egyptian bondage, and who gave and fulfilled the Law of Moses. The Father has never dealt with man directly and personally since the fall, and he has never appeared except to introduce and bear record of the Son” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 1:27). https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-moses?lang=eng

    Basically saying it was Jehovah who spoke to Moses, not the Father (see Moses 1:6).

    Why would JFS need to clarify this? Does it not jive well with other scripture or doctrines to think that God the Father cannot interact with man? I’ve heard criticism of other Christians views of the trinity, particularly when Jesus was baptized and the Father announced his pleasure with the son. “How silly, why would Jesus be speaking of himself?”

    Yet, it sounds like we are doing the same thing with Jehovah speaking in the OT and Book of Moses.

    Any clarification is appreciated. Thanks.

    Reply

  5. Karl Gee Says:

    In the podcast you guys mention Genocide and the importance of an ethical interpretation of scripture…

    In the institute manual and probably in other manuals, genocide and murder are expolicitly justified. The authors of these manuals would apparently rather misrepresent God than risk undermining the authority of the scripture (despite our 8th Article of Faith).

    Here’s just one example, under Joshua 7:7-26:

    “the death of the mortal body may often be a merciful act both to other people and to the offender”

    https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/joshua-1-24-the-entry-into-the-promised-land?lang=eng

    Reply

  6. Karl Gee Says:

    Here’s another disturbing example:

    Under Numbers 15:32–36. The manual asks “Is Picking Up Sticks on the Sabbath Worthy of Death?” Their answer is, given the context, yes!

    https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/numbers-13-36-wilderness-wanderings-part-2?lang=eng

    Reply

  7. Karl Gee Says:

    Okay, Last example for now:

    Under the commentary for Exodus 21:12–36. The Institute manual discusses “Some Case Laws That Clarify Principles” They go so far as to suggest that abortion is a capital offense, as well as uttering “violent reproaches” against your parents.

    I hope it is clear that I think we should get away from this kind of interpretation that takes the text’s morality for granted and comes up with creative ways to justify really twisted and unethical “lessons.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply