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

[Calm]

Enforced unity is not godly unity.

True unity, not just unity in appearance due to never speaking of our disagreements, can only come if we talk about our differences and resolve them.

[LDSToronto]

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.

Why?

[TruthSeeker24]

Why?

Plainly put, it's none of our business to contradict the prophets. And it is a huge hindrance to creating unity. The world has always cried "Diversity, Diversity, Diversity," but Mormonism has always cried, "Unity, Unity, Unity." Unity is what we seek after, and constant oppositions made in open discussion spark diversity and eliminate unity.

[TruthSeeker24]

Enforced unity is not godly unity.

True unity, not just unity in appearance due to never speaking of our disagreements, can only come if we talk about our differences and resolve them.

Let's be realistic, we will never solve our different views. We're to human. That's why it becomes paramount to obeying the prophets.

Edited April 23, 2012 by TruthSeeker24

[LDSToronto]

Plainly put, it's none of our business to contradict the prophets. And it is a huge hindrance to creating unity. The world has always cried "Diversity, Diversity, Diversity," but Mormonism has always cried, "Unity, Unity, Unity." Unity is what we seek after, and constant oppositions made in open discussion spark diversity and eliminate unity.

Following an external voice, whether it be a prophet, president, or god, means you had best learn to question.

And "diversity" is not the opposite of "unity". Checkout the profiles over on "I Am A Mormon". The Church is in love with diversity right now.

H.

[Senator]

My personal view on the matter:

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.

How very totalitarian.

However, given other views that you've espoused, I applaude you for your consistency.

[jwhitlock]

Plainly put, it's none of our business to contradict the prophets. And it is a huge hindrance to creating unity. The world has always cried "Diversity, Diversity, Diversity," but Mormonism has always cried, "Unity, Unity, Unity." Unity is what we seek after, and constant oppositions made in open discussion spark diversity and eliminate unity.

Unity is defined as being of one heart and mind. It is not defined as being obedient to leaders.

[mfbukowski]

Plainly put, it's none of our business to contradict the prophets. And it is a huge hindrance to creating unity. The world has always cried "Diversity, Diversity, Diversity," but Mormonism has always cried, "Unity, Unity, Unity." Unity is what we seek after, and constant oppositions made in open discussion spark diversity and eliminate unity.

So why are you disagreeing with others here on the forum?

Seems inconsistent to me. By your own logic, you should not be posting.

[Damien the Leper]

Truthseeker:

Dissent is the freedom to exercise conscience. Believe and obey is ridiculous. Conformity through coercion is an act of violence. You may want to rethink your idolatrous ideas. The GAs are not above criticism because they are like the rest of the world...only human. Not everything coming out of SLC is inspired.

[Cobalt-70]

Evil speaking: This phrase comes from Titus 3:2 ("To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men") and James 4:11 ("Speak not evil one to another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.")

The Greek word in Titus is βλασφημειν, which means "blaspheme." The Greek word in James is καταλαλεῖτε, which means "slander." John Wesley, whose ideas influenced Joseph Smith, considered "speaking evil" to mean "backbiting." http://new.gbgm-umc....ley/sermons/49/ In none of these senses is there an issue with honest disagreements, or even heated discussion.

Lord's anointed: It seems out of character for Joseph Smith to have required everybody who participated in the Nauvoo Endowment to enter a covenant that protected only himself. Plus, although he was anointed Earthly King in 1844, I am not aware of any example in which Smith referred to himself as the "Lord's Anointed."

Circa 1842, when the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony was created, men and women who received their Endowment were admitted to what is called the Anointed Quorum. This quorum was the central spiritual body of the church. It seems reasonable that agreeing not to "speak evil" of the "Lord's anointed" might refer to members of that quorum. After all, in the prayer circles, nobody was supposed to have ill feelings toward anyone else in the circle.

Plus, there was an 1847 exposé on the Endowment ceremony (I won't link to it here) in which the participant said that after the Initiatory, he understood, "I am now said to be the Lord's Annointed [sic.], as in the days of old, when they were annointed [sic.] to the office of King, &c."

Edited April 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[LDSToronto]

Evil speaking: This phrase comes from Titus 3:2 ("To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men") and James 4:11 ("Speak not evil one to another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.")

The Greek word in Titus is βλασφημειν, which means "blaspheme." The Greek word in James is καταλαλεῖτε, which means "slander." John Wesley, whose ideas influenced Joseph Smith, considered "speaking evil" to mean "backbiting." http://new.gbgm-umc....ley/sermons/49/ In none of these senses is there an issue with honest disagreements, or even heated discussion.

Lord's anointed: It seems out of character for Joseph Smith to have required everybody who participated in the Nauvoo Endowment to enter a covenant that protected only himself. Plus, although he was anointed Earthly King in 1844, I am not aware of any example in which Smith referred to himself as the "Lord's Anointed."

Circa 1842, when the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony was created, men and women who received their Endowment were admitted to what is called the Anointed Quorum. This quorum was the central spiritual body of the church. It seems reasonable that agreeing not to "speak evil" of the "Lord's anointed" might refer to members of that quorum. After all, in the prayer circles, nobody was supposed to have ill feelings toward anyone else in the circle.

Plus, there was an 1847 exposé on the Endowment ceremony (I won't link to it here) in which the participant said that after the Initiatory, he understood, "I am now said to be the Lord's Annointed [sic.], as in the days of old, when they were annointed [sic.] to the office of King, &c."

Thanks, Cobalt-70. I always wondered about this and suspected the Lord's Anointed were those who'd been washed and anointed in the initiatory.

H.

[TruthSeeker24]

Following an external voice, whether it be a prophet, president, or god, means you had best learn to question.

And "diversity" is not the opposite of "unity". Checkout the profiles over on "I Am A Mormon". The Church is in love with diversity right now.

H.

According to http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-opposite-of/diversity.html diversity is the oppositie of unity. That's not the only place that will back that up. Do a simple google search. And yes, I'm aware the Church is in love with diversity right now. But it will be a cold day in hell before I bring myself to love diversity.

How very totalitarian.

However, given other views that you've espoused, I applaude you for your consistency.

Well, I've been called a Communist before, so I guess that's a little nicer lol.

Unity is defined as being of one heart and mind. It is not defined as being obedient to leaders.

I agree.

So why are you disagreeing with others here on the forum?

Seems inconsistent to me. By your own logic, you should not be posting.

If I were a member of the Church, I could totally see your point as being valid, but alas, I am not. I'm sure your probably not surprised lol.

Truthseeker:

Dissent is the freedom to exercise conscience. Believe and obey is ridiculous. Conformity through coercion is an act of violence. You may want to rethink your idolatrous ideas. The GAs are not above criticism because they are like the rest of the world...only human. Not everything coming out of SLC is inspired.

Again, much to big of words for me to want to take the time and decipher what your trying to say lol. Forgive me, but I'm simple minded.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited April 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

My personal view on the matter:

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.

I see.

That's an interesting stance for someone who is not a member. And some brilliant person actually gave you a rep point for that.

[David T]

Evil speaking: This phrase comes from Titus 3:2 ("To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men") and James 4:11 ("Speak not evil one to another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.")

The Greek word in Titus is βλασφημειν, which means "blaspheme." The Greek word in James is καταλαλεῖτε, which means "slander." John Wesley, whose ideas influenced Joseph Smith, considered "speaking evil" to mean "backbiting." http://new.gbgm-umc....ley/sermons/49/ In none of these senses is there an issue with honest disagreements, or even heated discussion.

Lord's anointed: It seems out of character for Joseph Smith to have required everybody who participated in the Nauvoo Endowment to enter a covenant that protected only himself. Plus, although he was anointed Earthly King in 1844, I am not aware of any example in which Smith referred to himself as the "Lord's Anointed."

Circa 1842, when the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony was created, men and women who received their Endowment were admitted to what is called the Anointed Quorum. This quorum was the central spiritual body of the church. It seems reasonable that agreeing not to "speak evil" of the "Lord's anointed" might refer to members of that quorum. After all, in the prayer circles, nobody was supposed to have ill feelings toward anyone else in the circle.

Plus, there was an 1847 exposé on the Endowment ceremony (I won't link to it here) in which the participant said that after the Initiatory, he understood, "I am now said to be the Lord's Annointed [sic.], as in the days of old, when they were annointed [sic.] to the office of King, &c."

This post wins the thread.

[mfbukowski]

Plus, there was an 1847 exposé on the Endowment ceremony (I won't link to it here) in which the participant said that after the Initiatory, he understood, "I am now said to be the Lord's Annointed [sic.], as in the days of old, when they were annointed [sic.] to the office of King, &c."

Toronto

Yet of course that specifically excludes people who have received the initiatories.

Did you realize that?

[mfbukowski]

Again, much to big of words for me to want to take the time and decipher what your trying to say lol. Forgive me, but I'm simple minded.

I think not. Double minded is not quite the same as simple minded.

[TruthSeeker24]

I see.

That's an interesting stance for someone who is not a member. And some brilliant person actually gave you a rep point for that.

My position on religion is complicated lol.

I think not. Double minded is not quite the same as simple minded.

I'm not double minded. At least I certainly hope not lol

[David T]

Toronto

Yet of course that specifically excludes people who have received the initiatories.

Did you realize that?

I think for such purposes, anointed to become Kings/Queens is viewed in the same way as those anointed as Kings/Queens.

Otherwise, without a Public announcement of those who have received their Second Anointings, the Covenant is somewhat practically moot. The direction for all those who are anointed as King/Queen candidates, however, has a practical application as a covenant of loyalty to all present in experiencing the Endowment (you would view all those who have experienced the Endowment as constituting the Quorum of Anointed - the oath would be of one of unity and loyalty to that Quorum). Which, from my study and understanding, appears to be a key and essnetial part and understanding in Joseph's Day - and has a direct antecedent in Masonic pledges of loyalty and brotherhood.

Edited April 24, 2012 by David T

[mfbukowski]

I think for such purposes, anointed to become Kings/Queens is viewed in the same way as those anointed as Kings/Queens.

Otherwise, without a Public announcement of those who have received their Second Anointings, the Covenant is somewhat practically moot. The direction for all those who are anointed as King/Queen candidates, however, has a practical application as a covenant of loyalty to all present in experiencing the Endowment (you would view all those who have experienced the Endowment as constituting the Quorum of Anointed - the oath would be of one of unity and loyalty to that Quorum). Which, from my study and understanding, appears to be a key and essnetial part and understanding in Joseph's Day - and has a direct antecedent in Masonic pledges of loyalty and brotherhood.

OK but obviously that is a huge difference in who "qualifies", and that is not what the quote actually says. If one wants to make that presumption, to group everyone together, fine- but it should be acknowledged that there is indeed a difference.

That would make every elder who goes on a mission "the Lord's annointed" vs a very much smaller possible set size, including virtually only apostles and prophets and some general authorities as known members of the group, and others which would not be known to the general membership.

I guess I am saying that knowing someone's temple status is nearly as useless a way to distinguish the Lord's "annointed" from just using the word "leadership".

At least it is clear who the leaders are, but going by temple status which is unknown is not all that useful especially in the case of women.

Is a female Relief Society leader who is unendowed one of the "Lord's Annointed"? I would say "yes". Could this happen? Of course. I am sure it happens all the time in student and singles wards where there are unmarried and young relief society presidents. In fact, one of my daughters was in this category for a while.

Edited April 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

Plainly put, it's none of our business to contradict the prophets. And it is a huge hindrance to creating unity. The world has always cried "Diversity, Diversity, Diversity," but Mormonism has always cried, "Unity, Unity, Unity." Unity is what we seek after, and constant oppositions made in open discussion spark diversity and eliminate unity.

If this is the case, then many have no business being LDS.

[David T]

OK but obviously that is a huge difference in who "qualifies", and that is not what the quote actually says. If one wants to make that presumption, to group everyone together, fine- but it should be acknowledged that there is indeed a difference.

That would make every elder who goes on a mission "the Lord's annointed" vs a very much smaller possible set size, including virtually only apostles and prophets and some general authorities as known members of the group, and others which would not be known to the general membership.

I'm in favor of the wider interpretation than for a small restricted group who don't even let us know who they are. Even if it may be the understood view, it makes no practical sense.

In Joseph Smith's day, those initiated into and considered part of the Quorum of Anointed included more than those who had received their Second Anointing. There is much documentation on that. (see especially the most complete record, Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845: A Documentary History) - those initiated into the Quorum were understood to have oaths of loyalty and fealty (and confidence) towards each other - not just those within who had received the Ultimate Blessings.

That said, I am open to an even wider interpretation meaning all those who have taken upon them the name of Christ (anointed) in Baptism. You can't go wrong with that one.

Edited April 24, 2012 by David T

[Damien the Leper]

According to http://www.wordhippo.../diversity.html diversity is the oppositie of unity. That's not the only place that will back that up. Do a simple google search. And yes, I'm aware the Church is in love with diversity right now. But it will be a cold day in hell before I bring myself to love diversity.

This is interesting. The site that you cite that declares unity as opposite of diversity names uniformity as the opposite of diversity.

If I were a member of the Church, I could totally see your point as being valid, but alas, I am not. I'm sure your probably not surprised lol.

This is telling.

Again, much to big of words for me to want to take the time and decipher what your trying to say lol. Forgive me, but I'm simple minded.

You should probably work on that.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

That said, I am open to an even wider interpretation meaning all those who have taken upon them the name of Christ (anointed) in Baptism. You can't go wrong with that one.

That sounds good to me.

In fairness to you, I think I edited that last post after you made this comment, so you didn't have a chance to comment on what I said about a young and unendowed sister being a RS president, but you solved the problem in this post anyway!

[mfbukowski]

Plainly put, it's none of our business to contradict the prophets. And it is a huge hindrance to creating unity. The world has always cried "Diversity, Diversity, Diversity," but Mormonism has always cried, "Unity, Unity, Unity." Unity is what we seek after, and constant oppositions made in open discussion spark diversity and eliminate unity.

So who's this "we" then? That's what I meant by double minded. Sounds to me like you are representing yourself as a member while you are not.