Provocative quotes in today's Priesthood/RS lesson

[Tex]

Joseph Smith, Ch 27:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”

[MikeWaters]

so much for common consent.

[Archaea]

The quote is frequently used and I don't see how you find it provocative, unless you are holding yourself up to be righteous and those who disagree with you to be unrighteous.

CF, Mike's comment on common consent.

What about people who complain but don't pretend to be righteous?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The quote is frequently used and I don't see how you find it provocative, unless you are holding yourself up to be righteous and those who disagree with you to be unrighteous.

CF, Mike's comment on common consent.

What about people who complain but don't pretend to be righteous?

I find it provocative because it runs counter to man's natural inclinations.

[Archaea]

Sounds very commonsensical to me.

If you are part of an organization, you disagree with the leadership of that organization and believe yourself to be morally superior, you're not likely to stay within. What's so provocative about that.

However, if you parse the statement eliminating the caveats, it provides for more interesting permutations.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you are part of an organization, you disagree with the leadership of that organization and believe yourself to be morally superior, you're not likely to stay within. What's so provocative about that.

I think the line is very much thinner than that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think the line is very much thinner than that.

explain.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

explain.

I don't think it's expected that we always agree 100% with everything our leaders say or do. We all have different backgrounds, experiences, and thus, opinions; not to mention that no one of us is perfect. It's normal.

But there's a difference between thinking/feeling differently than they do on an issue, and saying so publicly. There's an even bigger difference between saying so publicly, and saying so publicly with a negative, critical, self-righteous and/or rebellious attitude.

Some people think they are doing the former, when really they are engaging in the latter. The line gets crossed when one steps outside his stewardship and calling, and it's really not that hard to do.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think it's expected that we always agree 100% with everything our leaders say or do. We all have different backgrounds, experiences, and thus, opinions; not to mention that no one of us is perfect. It's normal.

But there's a difference between thinking/feeling differently than they do on an issue, and saying so publicly. There's an even bigger difference between saying so publicly, and saying so publicly with a negative, critical, self-righteous and/or rebellious attitude.

Some people think they are doing the former, when really they are engaging in the latter. The line gets crossed when one steps outside his stewardship and calling, and it's really not that hard to do.

The line is also difficult from this perspective.

If one is critiquing an administrative decision, and one goes outside the framework of the organization, that is one thing.

If one is discussing the policy analysis, in the way we discuss politics, that's another analysis.

On top of that, we have the culture of the First Amendment which permits and encourages the lively discussion and debate, which runs contrary to the cultural expectations of an authoritarian culture.

Example,

As a ward, member to complain about whom the bishop selected, making the ward feel uncomfortable.

or discuss privately with the bishop recommendations for a position about which you know something.

Discuss in a paper scriptural exegesis.

Discuss the details of historical incidents such as MMM, trying to argue what may have happened, and what impact it may have upon the organization from a socio-political perspective.

The lines are not clear and are quite complex.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We had the same lesson today. I thought that whoever wrote that lesson did a pretty poor job with balance. The mullahs in our quorum had a heyday today.

The most provocative quotes were the three at the end. Something about "Stick with the herd. The herd is never wrong."