Kenngo1969 Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) Haha! I've been a little busy lately! Wha...? You have better things to do than to hang out here all the time?! I'm shocked ... shocked, I tell you! (All the same, good to see you. ) Edited September 29, 2013 by Kenngo1969 1
Stone holm Posted September 29, 2013 Author Posted September 29, 2013 As an academic and an American, doesn't the quote from Elder Oaks rub you the wrong way just a little?Although I am not a great fan of Elder Oaks, I see no reason that we should be divulging personally embarrassing things even if they are true about GAs. On the other hand if a GA were say to tell a falsehood which materially damaged the credibility of someone, then it might be appropriate to call him out on it. Or if a GA were say to use a slur at a Stake Conference, then I would feel free to and have called them out on it, on this board. 1
omni Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 Although I am not a great fan of Elder Oaks, I see no reason that we should be divulging personally embarrassing things even if they are true about GAs. On the other hand if a GA were say to tell a falsehood which materially damaged the credibility of someone, then it might be appropriate to call him out on it. Or if a GA were say to use a slur at a Stake Conference, then I would feel free to and have called them out on it, on this board.Completely agree, however I don't believe Elder Oaks was referring to just personally embarrassing incidents, but to criticism in general of the leaders. If one believes past leaders taught racist, sexist or homophobic doctrine, then that individual should be able to criticize those leaders and doctrine without fear of church discipline or eternal consequences. The idea that one is essentially immune from criticism can lead even the very best of men astray. 1
Stone holm Posted September 29, 2013 Author Posted September 29, 2013 Completely agree, however I don't believe Elder Oaks was referring to just personally embarrassing incidents, but to criticism in general of the leaders. If one believes past leaders taught racist, sexist or homophobic doctrine, then that individual should be able to criticize those leaders and doctrine without fear of church discipline or eternal consequences. The idea that one is essentially immune from criticism can lead even the very best of men astray.Oh, I agree with that.
thesometimesaint Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 Although I am not a great fan of Elder Oaks, I see no reason that we should be divulging personally embarrassing things even if they are true about GAs. On the other hand if a GA were say to tell a falsehood which materially damaged the credibility of someone, then it might be appropriate to call him out on it. Or if a GA were say to use a slur at a Stake Conference, then I would feel free to and have called them out on it, on this board. I'm a big fan of Elder Oaks. OTOH he is just a man like me with points of view that may or may not be true.
Stone holm Posted September 29, 2013 Author Posted September 29, 2013 I'm a big fan of Elder Oaks. OTOH he is just a man like me with points of view that may or may not be true.He has lots of fans.
Sleeper Cell Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) 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. By God, not by me or you. If anything, each of us ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold anybody else -- including church leaders. Edited September 30, 2013 by Sleeper Cell 1
Stone holm Posted September 29, 2013 Author Posted September 29, 2013 By God, not be me or you. If anything, each of us ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold anybody else -- including church leaders.Just because something is true does not necessarily justify publicizing it.
CV75 Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 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 think it is that which is inspired of the devil, or devised to instigate (or reasonably be expected by the perpetrator, once he thought twice about it, to result in) contention, apostasy or ridicule.
Stone holm Posted September 29, 2013 Author Posted September 29, 2013 I think it is that which is inspired of the devil, or devised to instigate (or reasonably be expected by the perpetrator, once he thought twice about it, to result in) contention, apostasy or ridicule.I agree with this for the most part as things that should not be said, but not sure they necessarily constitute speaking evil of the Lords Annointed which seems to me to be aimed more at personal smears. Am thinking more in the line of questioning the moral integrity, honesty, or faith of a leader. You can question the accuracy or wisdom of a statement without impugning a persons faith, honesty or morals. Unfortunately, I think, some people believe that whenever you question a statement made by a GA, that you are launching a personal attack of the former type which then opens you up for exactly that type of abuse. A GA by virtue of his calling and within the scope of his calling has keys to certain enlightenment, however, with those keys comes a heavy burden to choose his words wisely, and because of this if he slips the rails he is likely to get an earful . But that earful should not include personal attacks on his integrity, honesty, or faith. For example, on this Board you will read quite a few comments disagreeing with this or that thing which BRM said or wrote. That is in part because he said and wrote so much. But you do not see people questioning his faith, honesty, or integrity. He was a beloved Apostle.
CV75 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 I agree with this for the most part as things that should not be said, but not sure they necessarily constitute speaking evil of the Lords Annointed which seems to me to be aimed more at personal smears. Am thinking more in the line of questioning the moral integrity, honesty, or faith of a leader. You can question the accuracy or wisdom of a statement without impugning a persons faith, honesty or morals. Unfortunately, I think, some people believe that whenever you question a statement made by a GA, that you are launching a personal attack of the former type which then opens you up for exactly that type of abuse. A GA by virtue of his calling and within the scope of his calling has keys to certain enlightenment, however, with those keys comes a heavy burden to choose his words wisely, and because of this if he slips the rails he is likely to get an earful . But that earful should not include personal attacks on his integrity, honesty, or faith. For example, on this Board you will read quite a few comments disagreeing with this or that thing which BRM said or wrote. That is in part because he said and wrote so much. But you do not see people questioning his faith, honesty, or integrity. He was a beloved Apostle.I agree, and as has been mentioned, this is how we rightly treat everyone. So while we are not to speak evil of anyone, the Lord’s anointed get special mention for a particular purpose (because of the added significance of contention, apostasy or ridicule in relation to the effective operation of the keys they bear in the name of Christ). Of course people can accuse others of something they didn’t do, or didn’t mean to do, or likewise take offense when none was given or intended. By following the Lord, we all, whatever our urbanity/simplicity, will neither seek to offend nor seek to be offended. Those who are sophisticated enough to discern the difference between a personal attack and an objective critique also carry a burden not to knowingly put the less sophisticated in a likely position of being wounded, offended or provoked. Additionally, they have the burden of not getting themselves into a position of being misunderstood. Or pretending to be offended, or to misunderstand, etc. All the things that get folks into this kind of trouble.
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 I agree, and as has been mentioned, this is how we rightly treat everyone. So while we are not to speak evil of anyone, the Lord’s anointed get special mention for a particular purpose (because of the added significance of contention, apostasy or ridicule in relation to the effective operation of the keys they bear in the name of Christ). Of course people can accuse others of something they didn’t do, or didn’t mean to do, or likewise take offense when none was given or intended. By following the Lord, we all, whatever our urbanity/simplicity, will neither seek to offend nor seek to be offended. Those who are sophisticated enough to discern the difference between a personal attack and an objective critique also carry a burden not to knowingly put the less sophisticated in a likely position of being wounded, offended or provoked. Additionally, they have the burden of not getting themselves into a position of being misunderstood. Or pretending to be offended, or to misunderstand, etc. All the things that get folks into this kind of trouble.I agree again with most of this, except for some it is nearly impossible to have a robust discussion of a position or policy without their becoming wounded, offended or provoked. In which case a person can either simply avoid communication, spend time exchanging fluffy platitudes, or go ahead anyway. Which course you take depends on the forum. In this forum the last seems appropriate. In most Gospel Doctrine classes the first two may be more appropriate.
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 This is slightly off topic, but my wife forgot the Women's Broadcast until too late (she listened to it today on the net) , but at Church she asked two sisters their reaction to it. One said best she had ever heard, the other said it was a bunch of fluff. I thought that was quite a range for her little poll
canard78 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 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 join the assumption that the "Lord's anointed" are the church leaders. It doesn't say that. We are all, as members, anointed. Psalm 23 talks of The Lord anointing the psalmist's head with oil. Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is, in my view, a command to avoid gossiping and backbiting at church. I don't think it's saying we can never contradict or disagree with the prophets. 1
CV75 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Which course you take depends on the forum.Yes, and one's comfort level in comporting differently than the forum norm, and how much offense he can handle.
JLHPROF Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Do you join the assumption that the "Lord's anointed" are the church leaders. It doesn't say that. We are all, as members, anointed. Psalm 23 talks of The Lord anointing the psalmist's head with oil.Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed is, in my view, a command to avoid gossiping and backbiting at church. I don't think it's saying we can never contradict or disagree with the prophets.Honestly, I hadn't really thought about it that much...I think I maybe did join the assumption that it refers to those with the higher anointings, aka, those who the Lord had chosen.But you are probably correct in that it applies to any who have been anointed equally.
CV75 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Do you join the assumption that the "Lord's anointed" are the church leaders.Please see http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng Almost 2/3 of the talk discusses "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" in terms of Church's leaders, using a variety of sources. It is a very reasonable assumption to make.
David T Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Originally, it would have been understood as the members of Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed - ie, those who had experienced the endowment ordinance. It was a small circle back in the day. Now almost all active adults are part of that quorum. 2
JLHPROF Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Please see http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng Almost 2/3 of the talk discusses "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" in terms of Church's leaders, using a variety of sources. It is a very reasonable assumption to make. Something about that discourse just really rubs me the wrong way...
canard78 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Please see http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng Almost 2/3 of the talk discusses "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" in terms of Church's leaders, using a variety of sources. It is a very reasonable assumption to make. That's one talk from one perspective. Besides, even this talk does not say that the phrase exclusively applies to the leadership. You're one of the Lord's anointed too. I should, as an endowed member, try to avoid speaking ill of you. Originally, it would have been understood as the members of Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed - ie, those who had experienced the endowment ordinance. It was a small circle back in the day. Now almost all active adults are part of that quorum. Indeed. Whatever it was 'back then' bears little importance to me. Back then people made several assumptions that I disagree with and don't consider to be relevant or applicable to me. I'm ok with that. Different times, different messages. 1
canard78 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 This is slightly off topic, but my wife forgot the Women's Broadcast until too late (she listened to it today on the net) , but at Church she asked two sisters their reaction to it. One said best she had ever heard, the other said it was a bunch of fluff. I thought that was quite a range for her little poll They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I guess the same can be said of our ears.
Damien the Leper Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Constructive criticism is not evil speaking. Just ask Dallin Oaks.
CV75 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 That's one talk from one perspective. Besides, even this talk does not say that the phrase exclusively applies to the leadership. You're one of the Lord's anointed too. I should, as an endowed member, try to avoid speaking ill of you.Yes, one talk with many sources over many years. Be that as it may, how we speak evil of the Lord's annointed "like me" is different than speaking evil of the Lord's annointed "like them (the leadership)." But I pointed this out a few posts ago.
canard78 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Yes, one talk with many sources over many years. Be that as it may, how we speak evil of the Lord's annointed "like me" is different than speaking evil of the Lord's annointed "like them (the leadership)." But I pointed this out a few posts ago.I don't agree. We're all membership of the same church and serving in different functions. I try to avoid speaking ill.
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 Yes, one talk with many sources over many years. Be that as it may, how we speak evil of the Lord's annointed "like me" is different than speaking evil of the Lord's annointed "like them (the leadership)." But I pointed this out a few posts ago.Oh my what is the world coming to? Earlier this wee I had to agree with something ErayR said, now I have to agree with something CV75 says. I may never recover.
Recommended Posts