As you have seen from many of my posts, I am a devotee of the Church history blog Keepatichinin. In her most recent post, Keepa founder, Ardis Parshall, raises a question that feeds into one of my pet peeves: The short shrift Easter sometimes gets at LDS Church services, especially Sunday School. I really love Easter and sometimes feel a little out of synch with the rest of Christianity after leaving church on Easter. And, it seems a little odd to me to teach a Sunday School lesson on Easter without even mentioning Christ's resurrection.
So, Undergrounders: Do you stick with the manual, modify the lesson to "work Easter in," or ditch the lesson material altogether and do a special Easter lesson?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What better way to teach about the law of consecration than to bring out the fact that the Lord consecrated himself to the will of the Father, which by law entitled him to be raised in exaltation? To me the message of Easter is one that would totally fit into the message of the law of consecration.....don't you think?
ReplyDeleteI agree that our church in general is sadly lacking in the Easter department across all fronts. Luckily this lesson is easy to interpret with Christ in the center (as I believe it should be!)
ReplyDeleteI'm going to focus on the "path of discipleship" using the law of consecration as a pivotal step along that path. We see this especially in the temple. One cannot truly take upon Christ's name without giving of himself in the process. I want to lead a pointed discussion on how we can each take a step further in this direction and what it means for us in our lives, as well as the lives of the early Saints.
I tried to compromise and teach the first half of the lesson on Easter, and then do whatever I can for the "real" lesson. (I did the same thing at Christmas.)
ReplyDeleteI like the suggestion made by In the Dog House. However, all the wards in our stake will be creating their own Easter Lessons. Obviously I'm not quite ready or I wouldn't be googling for additional ideas.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the consecration lesson lends itslef pretty well to a discussion on Easter and the atonement. It will be a little more challenging for the wards that are on Lesson 13, but even that could probably work. I can see a lesson discussing Joseph Smith's testimony and teachings about the atonement, scriptural passges from the BOM, D&C and PofGP that give special insight to the resurrection and atonement, etc.
ReplyDeleteI know it's past Easter now but our GD teacher shared his feelings on Easter, the Atonement etc with us and then went on to teach the lesson. I thought it was a good compromise but would have loved an "Easter lesson".
ReplyDeleteI actually wanted to start with this dialogue between a father and son on Easter (borrowed from a secret favorite TV show):
ReplyDeleteSon: Can I ask a question? Why do we do this?
Father: What do you mean, why do we do this, it’s Easter!
Son: Right, so why do we color eggs?
Father: Well… so that the Easter Bunny can hide them.
Son: Yeah, but why?
Father: Easter celebrates the day that Jesus was resurrected after being crucified for our sins.
Son: So we dip eggs in colored vinegar so that a giant rabbit can hide them?
Father: That’s right.
Son: You don’t see the missteps in logic with that? Look, I’m just saying that somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross and a giant bunny hiding eggs there seems to be a gap of information.
But I abstained. I think it worthy to interrupt the lesson on special occasions. I really enjoy discussing thoughts on conference with the class, and since it was Easter Sunday, I took Hollands talk and we explored it for about 15 minutes.
We actually spent quite some time talking about Hollands idea (actually Spencer W. Kimballs, as Holland cited) that Peter might have been directed by the Savior to deny Him, as a measure of protection. How fascinatingly gnostic.
Easton: I would have enjoyed your fictional dailogue as part of SS, but that but I have a higherr threshold for irrevernace tha some in my class.
ReplyDeleteI am sure the discussion of Elder Holland's talk made for a great SS lesson. I remember reading Pres. Kimball's suggestion that the Savior might have instructed Peter to deny him. Since then, I never read that passage without considering that possibilitiy and how Peter would have felt.
I really need to spell check my comments . . .
ReplyDeleteI ditch the lesson altogether and dedicate the time to talk about the resurrection? What could be more important? In my view, teaching is supposed to be adapted to the current situation and needs of the members of the class. I view the lesson manual as a guide for times when the Spirit is not indicating to me that I need to teach something else.
ReplyDeleteIn onservation of the truth in the word, we must realize that the resurection of Christ is pivital and of the utmost importance. Without a risen savior then the rest of the word is simply an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteSatan has a goal of deception and the more seperated he can get man from the truth of the word then the better chance he has of leading us down the wrong path.
Satan is the father of lies and a deceiver. We should be diligent in our study of the truth of the word and stand against anything that vails the importance of Christ's cause.
Easter isn't about hiding eggs or any other tridition of man; instead its all about an empty tomb.