Join me in teaching this week’s PH lesson.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I’ve been asked to teach Sunday’s lesson in our new ward, providing me with an excellent opportunity to establish a new Church persona. I told the Group Leader he was exercising considerable faith in assigning the lesson to someone he hadn’t vetted, but he said he knew I’d been a bishop, and he was apparently willing to overlook the nonwhite shirts I’d worn during our first two visits to the new ward (regretfully, I yielded to my wife’s demands that I not use the press-on diamond ear stud). I also discussed with him and his assistants my misgivings about Prop. 8 and the Church’s political campaign--didn’t faze him.

And the topic of this week’s lesson from the Joseph Smith manual? Obedience. Despite my occasional reservations about Church pronouncements, I believe in the importance of obedience, and if we only “obeyed” when we fully understood and accepted the commandment, obedience really wouldn’t mean very much—faithful (if occasionally blind) submission may be more important and beneficial than well-reasoned acceptance.

I’m not a sheep, but I don’t want to engage in prick-kicking either. Perhaps a panel discussion involving SU, Tex, ‘Napper, SteelBlue and, what the hell, landpoke would be the right approach this Sunday. I’d spring for airfare. With landpoke’s inclusion I fear the discussion of obedience may veer in the direction of leather, chains and a surly woman named Ilse wearing an SS uniform.

But seriously, folks, thoughts on the principle of obedience would be welcome. If a past thread has been devoted to the topic, I apologize, but I’d appreciate a link.

[creekster]

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...ight=obedience

[MikeWaters]

out of respect to pelagius, I did not read your post, and will not read the thread as it develops.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I’ve been asked to teach Sunday’s lesson in our new ward, providing me with an excellent opportunity to establish a new Church persona. I told the Group Leader he was exercising considerable faith in assigning the lesson to someone he hadn’t vetted, but he said he knew I’d been a bishop, and he was apparently willing to overlook the nonwhite shirts I’d worn during our first two visits to the new ward (regretfully, I yielded to my wife’s demands that I not use the press-on diamond ear stud). I also discussed with him and his assistants my misgivings about Prop. 8 and the Church’s political campaign--didn’t faze him.

And the topic of this week’s lesson from the Joseph Smith manual? Obedience. Despite my occasional reservations about Church pronouncements, I believe in the importance of obedience, and if we only “obeyed” when we fully understood and accepted the commandment, obedience really wouldn’t mean very much—faithful (if occasionally blind) submission may be more important and beneficial than well-reasoned acceptance.

I’m not a sheep, but I don’t want to engage in prick-kicking either. Perhaps a panel discussion involving SU, Tex, ‘Napper, SteelBlue and, what the hell, landpoke would be the right approach this Sunday. I’d spring for airfare. With landpoke’s inclusion I fear the discussion of obedience may veer in the direction of leather, chains and a surly woman named Ilse wearing an SS uniform.

But seriously, folks, thoughts on the principle of obedience would be welcome. If a past thread has been devoted to the topic, I apologize, but I’d appreciate a link.

Try to work this quote into your lesson, because it seems perfect for your topic.

"Men rejoice at being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of freedom that brought them so much suffering removed from them . . . . We will convince them that they will only be free when they have surrendered their freedom and submitted to us . . . . Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: 'Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!'"

[landpoke]

Her name's actually Greta (long story). You are correct in all other details which is a bit disconcerting.

My only suggestion is don't forget to mention the 38 virgins you all are promised for obeying. That is you folks right? Or is that the Scientologists? I confuse you people all the time.

I'll board mail you my info for the ticket. I'm looking forward to it.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

out of respect to pelagius, I did not read your post, and will not read the thread as it develops.

Get a grip Waters, this near obsession is so umbecoming. Plus, I am pretty sure you've got me confused with the priesthood ban.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I’ve been asked to teach Sunday’s lesson in our new ward, providing me with an excellent opportunity to establish a new Church persona. I told the Group Leader he was exercising considerable faith in assigning the lesson to someone he hadn’t vetted, but he said he knew I’d been a bishop, and he was apparently willing to overlook the nonwhite shirts I’d worn during our first two visits to the new ward (regretfully, I yielded to my wife’s demands that I not use the press-on diamond ear stud). I also discussed with him and his assistants my misgivings about Prop. 8 and the Church’s political campaign--didn’t faze him.

And the topic of this week’s lesson from the Joseph Smith manual? Obedience. Despite my occasional reservations about Church pronouncements, I believe in the importance of obedience, and if we only “obeyed” when we fully understood and accepted the commandment, obedience really wouldn’t mean very much—faithful (if occasionally blind) submission may be more important and beneficial than well-reasoned acceptance.

I’m not a sheep, but I don’t want to engage in prick-kicking either. Perhaps a panel discussion involving SU, Tex, ‘Napper, SteelBlue and, what the hell, landpoke would be the right approach this Sunday. I’d spring for airfare. With landpoke’s inclusion I fear the discussion of obedience may veer in the direction of leather, chains and a surly woman named Ilse wearing an SS uniform.

But seriously, folks, thoughts on the principle of obedience would be welcome. If a past thread has been devoted to the topic, I apologize, but I’d appreciate a link.

Hey! We had this lesson last week! Someone in Salt Lake is falling down on the job, we ain't properly correlated here....

Our lesson started out pretty good. The teacher brought up the "blind obedience" issue, and a fairly lively discussion broke out. Then one elder stated that in some cases, it may be blind obedience, but in many cases, it is a matter of trust. Just as a young child will obey her parents because she trusts them (I wish mine would do that a bit more often), some people have enough trust in God to simply do as they feel he requests.

The tone of the discussions changed after that, and many other comments linked obedience and trust. I thought it was pretty thought provoking.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Try to work this quote into your lesson, because it seems perfect for your topic.

"Men rejoice at being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of freedom that brought them so much suffering removed from them . . . . We will convince them that they will only be free when they have surrendered their freedom and submitted to us . . . . Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: 'Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!'"

Seriously, I may do this, albeit probably not for the reasons that prompted you. For the few who may not know the source, I believe it comes from "The Grand Inquisitor," a chapter from The Brothers Karamazov and which many regard as one of the finest passages in all literature.

I first read and discussed the book from which the quote comes in a class taught by Arthur Henry King (of Cambridge and former U.K. Assistant Director-General in charge of education who joined the Church) and Gary Browning (a professor of Russian literature). The class would often begin with prayer, a fact I suppose you would find ironic, but that I found inspiring. Thanks for the suggestion.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Seriously, I may do this, albeit probably not for the reasons that prompted you. For the few who may not know the source, I believe it comes from "The Grand Inquisitor," a chapter from The Brothers Karamazov and which many regard as one of the finest passages in all literature.

I first read and discussed the book from which the quote comes in a class taught by Arthur Henry King (of Cambridge and former U.K. Assistant Director-General in charge of education who joined the Church) and Gary Browning (a professor of Russian literature). The class would often begin with prayer, a fact I suppose you would find ironic, but that I found inspiring. Thanks for the suggestion.

Don't mention it. They have old translations online that should be good enough for your purposes. This came form one of those.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Seriously, I may do this, albeit probably not for the reasons that prompted you. For the few who may not know the source, I believe it comes from "The Grand Inquisitor," a chapter from The Brothers Karamazov and which many regard as one of the finest passages in all literature.

I first read and discussed the book from which the quote comes in a class taught by Arthur Henry King (of Cambridge and former U.K. Assistant Director-General in charge of education who joined the Church) and Gary Browning (a professor of Russian literature). The class would often begin with prayer, a fact I suppose you would find ironic, but that I found inspiring. Thanks for the suggestion.

Two thoughts: First, paradoxically, Ivan's (Dostoyevski's) point in the story appears to be that Christ came to set humans free; you will recall the Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that he was an idiot for rejecting Satan's offer in the desert. Satan proposed that Christ make himself earthly ruler of all, which miracle would make it easy for everyone to believe in him. The GI goes on to say that instead organized religion has taken Satan up on his offer and inherited the worldly earth. The key to this maneuver is relieving humans of that terrible gift of freedom that Christ preserved for them by rejecting Satan's offer help him seize Rome, etc.

Second, you might tell them what the Christian Alyosha did when atheist Ivan finished telling the story. He leaned forward and kissed his tormented brother on the lips.

These points seem to dovetail with Adam's.