Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Evil Speaking Of The Lord’S Anointed. When Do We Go Too Far?


Recommended Posts

If our Church is led by Apostles and Prophets who may, from time to time, stand at the pulpit and say something that is incorrect and shouldn't be followed, and Church members are able through The Spirit or some other means to detect these errors, then that would be something very important to acknowledge.

Even more importantly, the Church should tell the members what the proper course of action would be in such cases.

So, if that is the case, can you show me where the Church has acknowledged this possibility and helped us to understand what we should do?

To the contrary, this is a pretty clear example of what the Church wants the members to hear:

Also this:

When our leaders say we don't have "blind obedience", it's not because sometimes we should be faithfully disobedient. It's because they are saying that our obedience is because of "faith", and if we have faith we aren't "blind". So it's an issue of semantics, not an acknowledgement that sometimes we can figure out for ourselves that our leaders were wrong.

You have a rather narrow interpretation of what is meant by obedience - one that I suspect is tailored to support other biases you have. While it may benefit your point of view to think that absolute, literal obedience to whatever is said from the pulpit - and not everything said over the pulpit or in the publications is cut and dried - in real life, where real people work to understand their membership in the Church each day, it's a far different situation. And the reality is, that there is very, very little actual conflict between what the brethren tell us, and what we are "obligated" to obey.

Link to comment

If you want to see a good example of "Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed", check out Cinepro's blog. He doesn't have the guts to publish it under his real name.

People should also check out my blog if they want to see:

- A new look at Book of Mormon Geography

- Great ideas for Roadshows (including scripts and songs)

- Behind the scenes photos of your favorite TV show

- Creative date ideas for couples on a budget

- Little known quotes from LDS Church leaders on sex

- My "Twilight" fan fiction

Link to comment

You have a rather narrow interpretation of what is meant by obedience - one that I suspect is tailored to support other biases you have.

There are few things that puzzle me more than when I post articles and quotes from the Church website, and then get accused of having biases and narrow interpretations.

Don't shoot the messenger, dude.

Link to comment

There are few things that puzzle me more than when I post articles and quotes from the Church website, and then get accused of having biases and narrow interpretations.

Don't shoot the messenger, dude.

Virtually everything anyone quotes here is subject to how they interpret it and the context that they want to frame it in. You're not exempt from that fact.

Link to comment

A challenge:

Considering the dearth of discussion on this subject actually published by the Church, and the importance of this topic, I propose that any of the faithful LDS on this board help remedy the situation by submitting an article to the Ensign describing the doctrine of "fallible leaders", and sharing a time when they were told by the Spirit that an Apostle or Prophet was in error, and what happened as you declined to follow the erroneous counsel.

If, in reading that challenge, you chuckled at the idea of any such thing being published in the Ensign, then you know whether or not such and idea has any place in LDS culture.

There is no need for this- it has already been said- in fact just a couple of weeks ago- my underlining.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng&query=*+%28name%3a%22D.+Todd+Christofferson%22%29

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5 President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”6

The Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the Savior’s central role in our doctrine in one definitive sentence: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”7 Joseph Smith’s testimony of Jesus is that He lives, “for [he] saw him, even on the right hand of God; and [he] heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father” (D&C 76:23; see also verse 22). I appeal to all who hear or read this message to seek through prayer and study of the scriptures that same witness of the divine character, the Atonement, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Accept His doctrine by repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and then throughout your life following the laws and covenants of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What more do you want?

Link to comment

If you want to see a good example of "Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed", check out Cinepro's blog. He doesn't have the guts to publish it under his real name.

Of course not.

He is still an "active member" or at least the folks in his ward think he is. Isn't that just dandy?

Link to comment
And the reality is, that there is very, very little actual conflict between what the brethren tell us, and what we are "obligated" to obey.

Exactly.

Truthfully pass a temple recommend interview, and you are a member in excellent standing.

Link to comment

A challenge:

Considering the dearth of discussion on this subject actually published by the Church, and the importance of this topic, I propose that any of the faithful LDS on this board help remedy the situation by submitting an article to the Ensign describing the doctrine of "fallible leaders", and sharing a time when they were told by the Spirit that an Apostle or Prophet was in error, and what happened as you declined to follow the erroneous counsel.

If, in reading that challenge, you chuckled at the idea of any such thing being published in the Ensign, then you know whether or not such and idea has any place in LDS culture.

Who needs the Ensign when we have FAIRLDS? http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible

Grasping the rod of iron with sweaty palms is very important.

Link to comment

I have been a LDS for decades. I have never once felt that I had any obligation to follow any leader of the Church blindly just because they said to do something. Having said that I don't recall anything that a prophet has said in the last 50 years that as caused me heart burn, doubt my faith, or caused me to wonder if they were inspired.

Having stated that, I also clearly understand that these are just men that have been called of God. Not a single time have I got the impression they were perfect, beyond reproach, or even far more inspired than I was as a priesthood holder. I recognize that their mantle is different than mine, but the same Spirit that leads and guides them also leads and guides me.

I guess I am a little slow on the uptake than Cine. To me the Church has always taught me to stand on my own testimony once I have received it. When I read history I don't try and force our leaders into a perfect mold. Joseph was very clear that he was not perfect. I think Brigham was equally clear about his own fallibility. They did the best they could as men, never became perfect, and I accept them as leaders that were called of God.

I guess I don't try looking for pricks to kick against. The 13th article comes to mind and I try, with much failing, to follow it. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. If you want to seek after that things that offend, exclude all evidence to the contrary of your focus, go for it. But as you do this, never stop telling yourself and those around you that you are NOT INTERESTED IN SEEKING AFTER ANYTHING THAT IS VIRTUOUS, LOVELY, OR OF GOOD REPORT OR PRAISEWORTHY. You want to seek for those things whereby you can take offense. It is a sad endeavor, but it is amazing at how many people follow in those same old, worn, unhappy tracks.

Link to comment

An excellent intro to this topic: Criticizing the Brethren

A pertinent quote:

This has always been the familiar scenario in the Church—people using perceived imperfections of the Church as a pretext for them to relax their own personal moral standards. The psychologists tell us regarding our own emotional feelings not to keep these feelings bottled up too tight, because it can lead to an explosion. So what should we do? Be like the importunate widow and complain; itemize your griefs, your doctrinal objections, your personal distastes to yourself, and then lay them all out in full detail before the Lord and get it out of your system. (You may wonder why people see me talking so much to myself.) With this understanding—you will do all this before the only Person qualified to judge either you or your tormentors. As you bring your complaints, be fully aware that he knows everything already—including everything there is to know about you.
Link to comment

And T-Shirt is your real name?

Mine actually is Darth Bill.

First of all, I do not consistently mock the Church and its leaders on the internet while boasting the fact that I hold a Temple Recommend and a calling.

Second, if you go to my profile, you will find my real name, my birthday and where I live. I have nothing to hide.

Link to comment

First of all, I do not consistently mock the Church and its leaders on the internet while boasting the fact that I hold a Temple Recommend and a calling.

Second, if you go to my profile, you will find my real name, my birthday and where I live. I have nothing to hide.

The quote you are responding too, your comments don't match??? Did I miss something?

Link to comment

I had the privilege of seeing live the last Conference talk of Elder Bruce R McConkie. It was one of the greatest sermons I have ever heard. Even though he said things (that btw he mellowed on and moderated later in life) that upset some, he has become a favorite whipping buy non-Mormons and Mormons alike. Elder Packer has been through the same. Some have even saddled Joseph Fielding McConkie with the perceived errors of his father. Too much in academia, scripture is no longer quoted with authority (or as the final authority in an effort to seek the ‘praise of the world’. (Granted this is my opinion but I am not alone.

When do you go too far?

When are they allowed to have opinions like others without worrying about being PC?

Also, do we have the right to make apologies for what these men say when others mock?

As for Bruce R…I loved the guy. I once received a blessing at the hands of Paul H Dunn and I love him and I make no apologies. As I try to remind many…God works with flawed men because that is all he has to work with.

The only difference between them and us, is we don’t have people hanging off every word we speak, or seeking to exploit our words.

Again where is the line for those of us who promise not to speak evil of these men every time we enter the Temple?

I have my disagreements with some of the leadership of the church. I don't believe that is grounds to speak ill of them. I have to remind myself constantly that they are just men doing the best they can with the best they've got. The people and the church are imperfect and will always fall subject to humanity and its flaws.

Link to comment
If you have ANY opinion or view that runs contrary to what the Lord's anointed people are teaching, do not express it in any way, shape, or form. Keep it to yourself. Even in these forums.

Hmm. Nah.

"I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled." -- Joseph Smith
"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. [...] Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right." -- Brigham Young
"Because of [...] the apparent imperfections of men on whom God confers authority, the question is sometimes asked, -- to what extent is obedience to those who hold the priesthood required? This is a very important question, and one which should be understood by all Saints. In attempting to answer this question, we would repeat, [...] that willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but we would further add, that a proper conservative to this power exists for the benefit of all, and none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood.

We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do any thing they were told to do by those who presided over them, [even] if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows, would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men.

Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty (!) authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong; or else because they have done wrong, and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with, lest it should be discovered by their superiors, who would require an atonement at their hands." -- Millenial Star, 1852

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Link to comment

That seems like slavery in the extreme, to me. What good can our thoughts do if we're not allowed to speak them?

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied [...] Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord. [...]

Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." -- Brigham Young

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone." -- George Q. Cannon
"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak." -- George A. Smith
"I have said these things because I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance [in the Church] even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees." -- President Stephen L. Richards
"More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the Church and resist all efforts to suppress it.

The Church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation.

And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within." -- President Hugh B. Brown

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Link to comment

I agree with those statements. I'm not implying that having contrary views is out of order with the Gospel, only that expressing them to others is out of order.

Yes motivation makes all the difference, doesn't it?

That's generally how we behave at church. This is the internet. Here you find the existence of everything under the sun. Forums for ex-mos, or LDS.org - and everything in between.

If this forum were set up with those rules in mind I imagine that is how this forum would be run. Apparently those who run the forum don't have that as an objective for participation.

It's nice to be able to have the liberty to talk and discuss issues with other believers don't you think?

Also ideas presented here are resources useful in understanding and helping to fellowship those who have wandered away from church. I know that there are plenty of those in the High Priest's Group in my ward.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...