Evil Speaking Of The Lord's Anointed

[Stone holm]

Given some of the arguments and accusations aimed at various commentators on this board, there seems to be differing opinions as to what constitutes evil speaking of the Lords anointed. Anyone care to describe it?

[Monster]

Saying something that is not true or gossip. If it is true it is not evil speaking. It is just fact. Leaders do not get a pass on bad behavior because of their position. If anything they need to be held to a higher moral ground given their ability to influence others.

[JLHPROF]

Questioning or ignoring their authority that comes with the position they have been called to for unrighteous reasons would also fall into this category.  I know it's broad, but just because they say something you don't like doesn't give us the right to bad mouth them, even if we disagree.

 

One of my favorite stories is attributed to John Taylor.  It was no secret that he and Brigham Young did NOT get along.  In fact they didn't like each other very much at all.

One day they were having a typical disagreement and John Taylor said: "President Young, I sustain you in your office as prophet, seer, and revelator.   But I despise you as a human being." (John Taylor Papers vol 2 pg 522).

 

That pretty much describes the limit we can go to and still sustain them.

[Bikeemikey]

Questioning or ignoring their authority that comes with the position they have been called to for unrighteous reasons would also fall into this category. I know it's broad, but just because they say something you don't like doesn't give us the right to bad mouth them, even if we disagree.

One of my favorite stories is attributed to John Taylor. It was no secret that he and Brigham Young did NOT get along. In fact they didn't like each other very much at all.

One day they were having a typical disagreement and John Taylor said: "President Young, I sustain you in your office as prophet, seer, and revelator. But I despise you as a human being." (John Taylor Papers vol 2 pg 522).

That pretty much describes the limit we can go to and still sustain them.

Do you think we can publicly disagree with then without bad mouthing?

It seems that for some disagreement is bad mouthing?

[Senator]

Given some of the arguments and accusations aimed at various commentators on this board, there seems to be differing opinions as to what constitutes evil speaking of the Lords anointed. Anyone care to describe it?

 

Things along the lines of Oliver Cowdrey's  "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair" indictment against Joseph Smith comes to mind.

[Senator]

Questioning or ignoring their authority that comes with the position they have been called to for unrighteous reasons would also fall into this category.  I know it's broad, but just because they say something you don't like doesn't give us the right to bad mouth them, even if we disagree.

 

One of my favorite stories is attributed to John Taylor.  It was no secret that he and Brigham Young did NOT get along.  In fact they didn't like each other very much at all.

One day they were having a typical disagreement and John Taylor said: "President Young, I sustain you in your office as prophet, seer, and revelator.   But I despise you as a human being." (John Taylor Papers vol 2 pg 522).

 

That pretty much describes the limit we can go to and still sustain them.

 

So then John Taylor was obviously bad mouthing Pres. Young with such a comment. He was guilty of "evil speaking" therefore?

[JLHPROF]

Do you think we can publicly disagree with then without bad mouthing? It seems that for some disagreement is bad mouthing?

 

We can disagree, as long as we defer to their authority and position.  At least, that's my opinion.  My first post on this board was to publicly disagree with the BRM and his 7 Deadly Heresies.  It doesn't mean I don't sustain the apostles.

 

So then John Taylor was obviously bad mouthing Pres. Young with such a comment. He was guilty of "evil speaking" therefore?

 

But the key was he sustained him and therefore supported him.  Technically he was "evil speaking" but he still supported the Lord's annointed and that is what matters the most.  He didn't fight against him in his position (as Orson Pratt did).

[JAHS]

We can disagree, as long as we defer to their authority and position.  At least, that's my opinion.  My first post on this board was to publicly disagree with the BRM and his 7 Deadly Heresies.  It doesn't mean I don't sustain the apostles.

 

 

But the key was he sustained him and therefore supported him.  Technically he was "evil speaking" but he still supported the Lord's annointed and that is what matters the most.  He didn't fight against him in his position (as Orson Pratt did).

 

What two men say to each other in private might not be considered "evil speaking", but you cross the line when you start telling others about your feelings of a leader.

[SamIam]

Given some of the arguments and accusations aimed at various commentators on this board, there seems to be differing opinions as to what constitutes evil speaking of the Lords anointed. Anyone care to describe it?

 

 

Saying something that is not true or gossip. If it is true it is not evil speaking. It is just fact. Leaders do not get a pass on bad behavior because of their position. If anything they need to be held to a higher moral ground given their ability to influence others.

 

The issue with "evil speaking", whether about an anointed or not is like many transgressions. It may affect the one whom is being spoken about in some instances but it always affects those who engage in the practice even more. 

 

When Brigham corrected his behavior the one time he let an errant thought about Joseph escape his lips, it was not because he thought he was going to hurt Joseph in the effort but because he realized the power of Satan to magnify the negativity to the point that he might loose his soul in apostasy. 

 

So even though what Brigham stated was a truth and perhaps what others think they have a right to say is also "truth" anybody with any degree of wisdom will realize they put their own soul at risk to become servants of evil by cultivating this behavior that gives Satan power just as any other evil behavior does.

 

It is also like second hand smoke, one may be the actual thinker and speaker of the negativity, but it often has great influence on the innocent who simply by their associations contract the cancerous attitude of evil speaking to their own destruction.  Thus the liability for those who become captured in their own bad behavior is increased for every testimony destroyed or ability to exercise faith undermined for having been associated with those who cultivate a culture of evil speaking.  For your own good then, one should resist the tendency to speak evilly of anyone.

Edited September 28, 2013 by SamIam

[Kenngo1969]

So then John Taylor was obviously bad mouthing Pres. Young with such a comment. He was guilty of "evil speaking" therefore?

Did he publicly air his disagreement with, or his dislike of, President Young?  If not, then I'd say he's not guilty of evil speaking.

[Stone holm]

Questioning or ignoring their authority that comes with the position they have been called to for unrighteous reasons would also fall into this category.  I know it's broad, but just because they say something you don't like doesn't give us the right to bad mouth them, even if we disagree.

 

One of my favorite stories is attributed to John Taylor.  It was no secret that he and Brigham Young did NOT get along.  In fact they didn't like each other very much at all.

One day they were having a typical disagreement and John Taylor said: "President Young, I sustain you in your office as prophet, seer, and revelator.   But I despise you as a human being." (John Taylor Papers vol 2 pg 522).

 

That pretty much describes the limit we can go to and still sustain them.

As I understand, which may be wrong, the comment may have been somewhat more harsh, it was given in response to a public slur hurled at Taylor by Young on the streets of SLC. Although the two could work and did work well together to advance the Kingdom, Pres Young and Pres Taylor did not get along well personally. We sometimes perpetuate the myth that the GAs are all just the sweetest friends of each other,which may be true in the majority of the cases, but not always.

[JLHPROF]

As I understand, which may be wrong, the comment may have been somewhat more harsh, it was given in response to a public slur hurled at Taylor by Young on the streets of SLC. Although the two could work and did work well together to advance the Kingdom, Pres Young and Pres Taylor did not get along well personally. We sometimes perpetuate the myth that the GAs are all just the sweetest friends of each other,which may be true in the majority of the cases, but not always.

 Actually, there were numerous incidents.  The one I referred to took place in Brigham's office.  There was another more public issue between them at the St. George Temple dedication.  And I am sure you are correct about one on the streets of SLC as well.  They simply didn't get along but they worked to build the kingdom together.

[katherine the great]

It's a pretty non specific statement.  Anyone who has been endowed is the Lord's annointed and it seems that if it only refers to leadership, it would have been easy to say that.  Maybe we all need to be diligent in thinking of the implications before we unrighteously speak about each other regardless of their priesthood office.

[Stone holm]

My concern is that there tends to be a characterization of anyone who questions the status quo or calls out a GA on something they said publicly as being evil speaking. My personal belief, which could be wrong, is that it refers to character assassination attempts, not to disagreements over policy or doctrine. For example a person might say disagree on women's rights or Prop 8 , but not get down in the dirt and question the sexuality of a GA. Because character assassination is a common thing in politics these days rather than actual debate over the wisdom of policy, the politicization of religion has had the side effect of nastiness in discussion of religion. As a result when some raises a question about the status quo on certain religious issues, the knives come out, and frequently a person's loyalty to the Church, or their righteousness is impugned.

[thesometimesaint]

1. I reserve the right to disagree with anyone at anytime.

 

2. The only person I always agree with is myself, and I'm entitled to change my mind.

 

3.  It never acceptable to be disgreeable while disagreeing.

[Kenngo1969]

It's a pretty non specific statement.  Anyone who has been endowed is the Lord's annointed and it seems that if it only refers to leadership, it would have been easy to say that.  Maybe we all need to be diligent in thinking of the implications before we unrighteously speak about each other regardless of their priesthood office.

She decloaks!   Nice to see you again, Sister Katherine!

[Robert F. Smith]

Saying something that is not true or gossip. If it is true it is not evil speaking. It is just fact. Leaders do not get a pass on bad behavior because of their position. If anything they need to be held to a higher moral ground given their ability to influence others.

Not quite, Monster,

This applies primarily to temple covenants some of us take not to speak evil of the Brethren, and (according to Elder Oaks) it includes things which are true.

However, I'm not sure how that might apply to a professional newspaper reporter or broadcast journalist who happens to be an endowed Mormon who is obliged to report the news (which is supposed to be done without stating one's own opinion on the matter).  In such cases, I have always felt that the General Authorities are big boys who can take a hit now and then without whining.

I am also not certain how this rule might apply to a professional historian who considers it important to portray General Authorities, past and present, warts and all.  We have seen in some cases that professional standing and a PhD might not protect one from excommunication.

However, in the case of an unendowed professor such as the late Sterling McMurrin, no one made a move to excommunicate him -- despite his open and repeated declaration that the Book of Mormon was fiction.

For endowed Mormons, I would recommend privately communicating any disagreements or concerns you have to the General Authority with whom you disagree.  This can be done in a polite and frank manner, with proper documentation and background.

[katherine the great]

She decloaks!   Nice to see you again, Sister Katherine!

Haha!  I've been a little busy lately!  

[ERayR]

Do you think we can publicly disagree with then without bad mouthing? It seems that for some disagreement is bad mouthing?

 

How you handle disagreements.

 

Read D&C 42:88-93

and Matt 18:15-17

Edited September 28, 2013 by ERayR

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Given some of the arguments and accusations aimed at various commentators on this board, there seems to be differing opinions as to what constitutes evil speaking of the Lords anointed. Anyone care to describe it?

I would think that I am one who has felt like "The Lord's Anointed", (especially some who people feel are easy targets) are being used as targets. Some have thought it OK for those who have passed on, but now that does not keep many

out of the sights.

[3DOP]

A calumny is an allegation designed to harm someone's reputation by sharing information known to be false.

A detraction is an allegation designed to harm someone's reputation by sharing information known to be true.

 

It isn't always okay to repeat every true bad thing that we know about someone. If the truth needs to be known, then we have an obligation to share the information. This might happen when a boss asks an employee for his honest evaluation of someone who is recently hired. Journalists and historians may frequently have the need to expose the questionable character of prominent figures both past and present. But the interior motive may never be merely to harm someone's reputation. We must not despise anyone. Journalists and historians may find an ethical necessity to frequently examine their own consciences to discern the motives for their words and even for their chosen profession. 

 

The difference between calumny and detraction is the truth. That is important of course. But the similarity is equally important. The similarity between detraction and calumny is an evil heart which wishes to reveal something that will harm the reputation of another without sufficient reason. Bad truth, whether it is about bad breath or a bad life, does not ordinarily require to be published. Charity requires that we always wish, if we can, to cover up the deficiencies, sins, and crimes of others, even our enemies, to the extent that justice will allow. We have to ask if we are motivated by love when we say a bad thing about anyone.

 

As to the Lord's Anointed, the same principles would apply, but the sin of detraction could be more serious given the office that is occupied. For instance, it would probably be worse to reveal that the Lord's Anointed once got into a drunken state, than that a sailor on shore leave did the same. I am not sure about how it would be if the Lord's Anointed was once a drunken sailor on shore leave! Heh. There are obviously a lot of factors that may enter into when there is necessity. It seems to me like in some cases, good people could disagree about whether there is a need. The main point is to have a profound appreciation for why we do not have the right to just willy nilly always repeat everything we know to be true. We can seriously sin with the tongue while being scrupulously true.

 

I fear that even if we understand the need to preserve the reputation of living people, we don't always afford the same privilege to the dead. Dead persons have similar rights as do the living. 

 

Rory   

Edited September 28, 2013 by 3DOP

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How you handle disagreements.

 

Read D&C 42:88-93

and Matt 18:15-17

Good idea, first revisit scripture and then revisit faith.

[Stone holm]

If there is a disagreement over some opinion as to doctrine that is given in a general speech by a GA, I see no need to try and contact them privately before a challenge. Normally, however, if it was just a perceived blunder by a Bishop or Stake Pres I would approach them privately. Although if it were in a class discussion situation, I would probably call them on it right there. I do not, however, think it is my province or the province of any member to be challenging the morality or spirituality of another member whether they be just another member or a GA.

[omni]

Not quite, Monster,

This applies primarily to temple covenants some of us take not to speak evil of the Brethren, and (according to Elder Oaks) it includes things which are true..

As an academic and an American, doesn't the quote from Elder Oaks rub you the wrong way just a little?

[Billy the Law]

Things along the lines of Oliver Cowdrey's "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair" indictment against Joseph Smith comes to mind.

Well, it was "nasty" what he did with Fannie. And the temple ceremony hadn't been restored when Oliver said that so Joseph wasn't yet anointed. I'd say Oliver was spot on.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Billy the Law