Since we have already had several prayers this morning, we will dispense with the regular opening prayer for today's Gospel Doctrine class.

Does anyone recall what the topic for today is? Anyone? No, Sister Jones, it is not about polyandry and the possibility of multiple younger husbands. That would be an interesting topic, but it is not the topic of today's lesson.

Today's lesson is on The Plan of ______________. Does anyone have any idea what word should be in the blank? No, Sister Jones, it is not polyandry. Sister Jones, let's talk about polyandry after class. Typically we would fill in the blank with the word salvation or happiness. Today we will talk about The Plan of Salvation.

As I reviewed the scriptures suggested by the manual for this lesson, I was struck by the near exclusivity of the Joseph Smith sourced scriptures. The one Biblical scripture referenced was cryptic and required elaboration in a way that is not accepted by most Biblical scholars. As I pondered on this situation, it struck me that The Plan of Salvation, as is typically taught in our church, is a 19th century construct that fit the knowledge and conventions of that time frame. What do you think? If these scriptures are essentially Joseph Smith sourced, what does it tell you about the overall Plan of Salvation?

Yes, Brother Robinson, we do know that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham are "veracity challenged," to use a politically correct phraseology. Each has it's own unique set of verifiable facts and information which don't square with the stories that are typically told about the origins of these books. Thank you for your insights. This is the primary reason why I had said that it struck me that The Plan of Salvation was a 19th century construct. It is also clear that this theology did not come together all at the same time. Joseph's view of the nature of God, the premortal life, judgment, postmortal life, etc. evolved over time.

This actually brings up an important aspect, or peculiarity of Mormon theology. This is the point about the line upon line, precept on precept as taught in 2 Nephi 28:30. This is a unique strength and weakness of the Mormon theology that justifies the evolving theology surrounding The Plan of Salvation. Why is this line upon line concept so key to Mormon theology?

Yes, Sister Cowen, I do acknowledge that it is often taught that as we grow in faith we are given more knowledge. I suspect that is a little more of an excuse than a reality.

Yes, Sister Kirkpatrick, the good part of this relates to the potential flexibility of Mormon theology. The renowned comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell, describes mythology as the set of stories or constructs that enable and allow a person or group of people to make sense of the world in which they live. Historically, science and knowledge advanced slowly. Many generations could use the same mythological construct, creating a sense of permanence in the mythology. In today's world, knowledge and science is progressing much more rapidly. The line upon line precept gives us the unique opportunity to evolve our theology over time to fit with the advancing knowledge of man. Sadly, we do not take advantage of that opportunity.

What about the downside of this theological peculiarity?

Yes, Brother Rose, this does allow the possibility of using this as an excuse to cover the gradual changes in theology that have gone on behind the scenes. In my mind, it is one thing to publicly say we are changing this doctrine or piece of theology based upon advancing knowledge, but quite another to use it after the fact to cover the tracks when an astute student or researcher uncovers inconsistencies in our church's teachings.

The basic concepts in The Plan of Salvation are a pre-earth life, an earth life, a judgment, and a post-earth life. From a mythology perspective, answers to these questions can be very useful. Indeed the plan provides a construct with which many existential questions can be answered. I find that it may be potentially useful in this regard. Let's just discuss each of these briefly.

Mormon theology teaches quite a bit about pre-earth life. Would someone care to identify one aspect of the framework that is useful and one that you find not useful?

Brother Kennedy. Very good. The notion that we have parents to our spirits or souls is an interesting concept and provides a framework that is comforting to many. I would also agree that a war of spirit people in heaven is a bit odd. I saw Star Wars III yesterday. Yes, Sister Steiner, I do know it is rated PG-13, but they didn't show any T&A. Back to the war in heaven, did we use artillery? How about light sabers? How about just swords? Did we slit the throats of those we caught so they could atone for their sins? No blood, that is correct. I agree that concept seems to be very odd.

What about this earth life? In previous discussions, we recognized the pay, pray, obey mantra. Is that what this life is about? No, Sister Jones, it is not about converting Fabio so he can be your polyandrous husband. Let's talk about polyandry after the lesson. There are several things brought up when discussing the importance of this life, including birth, ordinances, testing, faith, etc. Key to the discussion seems to be about obedience. If obedience is so important, whom should we be obeying? Would it be Christ who said the important commandments are to love God and to love our neighbors? Or would it be the church leaders within the bureaucracy? I submit that we spend too much time obeying the commandments of men and not enough time following the Golden Rule. I mean seriously. What's the deal with this white shirt thing? My sister looks marvelous with her double ear piercing? Would Jesus stand in judgment and condemn someone for wearing a blue shirt to church or for having two piercings in one ear? I think not. Anyone disagree?

Okay, time is running short, but I suspect that if we are judged of Christ... Oh by the way, did you hear that apparently Joseph Smith was supposed to be judging us? That's kind of a crack up. We'll all have to be prepared with our preliminary statement being, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Anyways, I suspect if we are judged that it would be based upon the intent of our heart and desire to be kind to others, rather than what our home teaching or visiting teaching percentages are.

As for the three degrees of glory... Yes, Sister Jones, I understand you think the three degrees of glory relate to Fabio, Tom Cruise, and Pierce Brosnan being your eternal polyandrous husbands. Let's talk about polyandry after the lesson. Joseph taught us that all degrees of glory are better than what we have here. That is a comforting bit of mythology. We are going to a better place. Actually, the Celestial Kingdom sounds a bit iffy to me. Ladies, what do you think about being eternally pregnant and pumping out billions of spirit children? What do you think about being one of many polygamous wives that are eternally pregnant? Men, what do you think about having sex many times each day in order to keep your wives eternally pregnant? Sound good? What about the loss of intimacy with the wife you love and taking on the role of herd bull?

Sure Tom, I understand that the frequent sex may be good. As a 17 year old, sex ten times a day sounded pretty good. When I'm 10,000 years old, I'm not sure things will work the same.

Anyway, there is useful mythology associated with a life hereafter, but the descriptions we have today are not necessarily comforting when we really study them out.

It looks like we are out of time. I wanted to make sure you had a few minutes at the end of class to visit before we are herded into our next meetings. Enjoy the weather today. Take a walk and enjoy the fresh air.

I'll see you next week. Remember the topic next week for lesson 20 is The Kingdoms of Glory. We will get to talk some more about that eternally pregnant issue that I'm sure you women are really anticipating with eternal joy.