CV75 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 We're all membership of the same church and serving in different functions. I try to avoid speaking ill.Me too, and I also try to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed in their different functions so as not to sabotage the various functions. But, for example, if you were to ever suffer a temporary lapse in your standards of righteousness, and considering the consequences on others (and not your own condemnation alone), would you rather, as a result of speaking ill of any member with a particular calling or function, deny your family: 1) a current copy of Sunday's printed program; 2) contribute to a service or fundraising project; 3) an opportunity to fast for the ward/stake leaders' requested purpose; 4) a husband/father that is a member in good standing; or 5) a belief in the name of Christ as contained in the keys a maligned GA might specifically invite them to enjoy through any particular general conference or stake conference talk?
CV75 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 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.You have before!
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 Me too, and I also try to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed in their different functions so as not to sabotage the various functions. But, for example, if you were to ever suffer a temporary lapse in your standards of righteousness, and considering the consequences on others (and not your own condemnation alone), would you rather, as a result of speaking ill of any member with a particular calling or function, deny your family: 1) a current copy of Sunday's printed program; 2) contribute to a service or fundraising project; 3) an opportunity to fast for the ward/stake leaders' requested purpose; 4) a husband/father that is a member in good standing; or 5) a belief in the name of Christ as contained in the keys a maligned GA might specifically invite them to enjoy through any particular general conference or stake conference talk?Absolutely not. And, a more important question if a GA were to suffer a temporary lapse in the Lord's Standard of righteousness, I would not want to publicize that lapse for the same reasons. However, if the lapse was in the stating of what was true according the Gospel, by a GA or the saying of a slur by the same, I would point it out to my family lest they think what was said was true or appropriate.
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 You have before!Yes, may have to repent of falling into bad habits.
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 Yes, may have to repent of falling into bad habits.While on the subject does anyone know what happened to CASteinman? I miss arguing with him.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Constructive criticism is not evil speaking. Just ask Dallin Oaks.Perhaps, though, My Young Padawan, one should consider whether it is his or her place to offer such criticism before doing so. (See Doctrine & Covenants 121:43). (My $0.02, actual value $0.019637531 ...)
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 Perhaps, though, My Young Padawan, one should consider whether it is his or her place to offer such criticism before doing so. (See Doctrine & Covenants 121:43). (My $0.02, actual value $0.019637531 ...)And whose place would that be?
canard78 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 While on the subject does anyone know what happened to CASteinman? I miss arguing with him.I got a PM from him a while back saying he was taking an indefinite break from the board. I'm impressed that he's stuck with it. I'm now on my third 'break' and keep coming back. Can you be addicted to message boards?
canard78 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Me too, and I also try to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed in their different functions so as not to sabotage the various functions.But, for example, if you were to ever suffer a temporary lapse in your standards of righteousness, and considering the consequences on others (and not your own condemnation alone), would you rather, as a result of speaking ill of any member with a particular calling or function, deny your family: 1) a current copy of Sunday's printed program; 2) contribute to a service or fundraising project; 3) an opportunity to fast for the ward/stake leaders' requested purpose; 4) a husband/father that is a member in good standing; or 5) a belief in the name of Christ as contained in the keys a maligned GA might specifically invite them to enjoy through any particular general conference or stake conference talk?If I make it a policy to not speak ill then it makes no difference. I was raised to give people the benefit of the doubt and see things from their perspective wherever possible, whether they produce the Sunday program or are the prophet. I'm not saying I'm perfect at it, but I try to apply it indiscriminately. I also think there's a distinction between speaking ill of a leader and disagreeing with something they've said. If I say, for example, I don't agree with President Hinkley's two talks on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars then that's not speaking ill in my view. If I said he was a warmongering whatsit who's selfishly trying to manipulate people then that's speaking ill because I'm reading into his motives and intent with no right to. We do not always have to agree with our leaders. They and we see and speak through a glass darkly. 2
Tacenda Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I got a PM from him a while back saying he was taking an indefinite break from the board. I'm impressed that he's stuck with it. I'm now on my third 'break' and keep coming back. Can you be addicted to message boards?I could swear I happened to make a comment about missing his comments, and he came out of the woodwork, then only to disappear again, hope he sees these comments and comes back again! And holy cow yes, it is addicting to be on the board.
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 If I make it a policy to not speak ill then it makes no difference. I was raised to give people the benefit of the doubt and see things from their perspective wherever possible, whether they produce the Sunday program or are the prophet. I'm not saying I'm perfect at it, but I try to apply it indiscriminately. I also think there's a distinction between speaking ill of a leader and disagreeing with something they've said. If I say, for example, I don't agree with President Hinkley's two talks on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars then that's not speaking ill in my view. If I said he was a warmongering whatsit who's selfishly trying to manipulate people then that's speaking ill because I'm reading into his motives and intent with no right to. We do not always have to agree with our leaders. They and we see and speak through a glass darkly.Gave you a bump on this
Kenngo1969 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 And whose place would that be?The Lord's House is a House of Order. You have a problem with a member or with a file leader which you cannot resolve after consulting the member or leader directly (privately), you go to the leader's file leader. 1
CV75 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Absolutely not. And, a more important question if a GA were to suffer a temporary lapse in the Lord's Standard of righteousness, I would not want to publicize that lapse for the same reasons. However, if the lapse was in the stating of what was true according the Gospel, by a GA or the saying of a slur by the same, I would point it out to my family lest they think what was said was true or appropriate.But then that's not speaking evil of him. And we also have to be careful in how we come across in pointing out any errors so as not to undermine the faith of those we have stewradship with or for--like your post about saying certain things in certain ways in ceratin forums.
CV75 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 If I make it a policy to not speak ill then it makes no difference. I was raised to give people the benefit of the doubt and see things from their perspective wherever possible, whether they produce the Sunday program or are the prophet. I'm not saying I'm perfect at it, but I try to apply it indiscriminately.I also think there's a distinction between speaking ill of a leader and disagreeing with something they've said. If I say, for example, I don't agree with President Hinkley's two talks on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars then that's not speaking ill in my view. If I said he was a warmongering whatsit who's selfishly trying to manipulate people then that's speaking ill because I'm reading into his motives and intent with no right to. We do not always have to agree with our leaders. They and we see and speak through a glass darkly.Yes, of course we should treat all God’s children with love without respect to person; and yes, of course I understand the difference between disagreeing and speaking ill (I’m the one who posted the talk about this, which you indicated was limited in perspective). You took exception to my pointing out who the Lord’s anointed* are (see also D&C 124:91 and 132:17, 19), in support of the notion that the Lord’s servants require no special treatment. But D&C 84:33-39 shows why we need to receive them in the context of their calling (anointing*), which is related to why we have the specific command not to speak evil of them. We are also not to speak evil of anyone, but for other reasons. The more people generalize and combine the two principles (even for the sake of discussion), one or the other gets the short shrift (either the role the foundational keys in our salvation, or the role of how we treat people toward the same). But in integrating the two, if you treat the eye like a hand (I Corinthians 12), you’ll never get the full benefit of the eye. That is why we receive the Lord’s anointed for who and what they are, before we can receive the full benefit sustaining and receiving any other part of the body of Christ. Not distinguishing their function and fruits from other members is no different than treating the prophet’s sayings like the Sunday program. This is why the oath and covenant of the priesthood is structured as it is. There is an order that allows us to discern how to properly treat our brothers and sisters, both personally and in their various callings.
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 The Lord's House is a House of Order. You have a problem with a member or with a file leader which you cannot resolve after consulting the member or leader directly (privately), you go to the leader's file leader. Yeah, that doesn't work so well with General Authorities does it? 1
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 But then that's not speaking evil of him. And we also have to be careful in how we come across in pointing out any errors so as not to undermine the faith of those we have stewradship with or for--like your post about saying certain things in certain ways in ceratin forums. Yeah its tough situation when a GA does a slur or makes a ridiculous argument in a speech, you try to sustain them and repair the damage they did to themselves and the Church at the same time. I have started to simply avoid situations where I am likely to hear someone in authority go off the rails, but I wouldn't recommend that for most members.
CV75 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Yeah its tough situation when a GA does a slur or makes a ridiculous argument in a speech, you try to sustain them and repair the damage they did to themselves and the Church at the same time. I have started to simply avoid situations where I am likely to hear someone in authority go off the rails, but I wouldn't recommend that for most members.You must have a very specific instance in mind, and it must have been very bad in order to be irreparable.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 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.A tendency to find fault, to nitpick, to make a man an offender for a word, to slant the facts or ignore relevant context, to be unmerciful or uncharitable in one's discourse, to publicly pass judgment while having limited knowledge or understanding, to undermine the authority or leadership ability of an office holder, all of these things would fall into the category of evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. And that would be the case whether or not one claims to be speaking the truth. Edited October 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 You must have a very specific instance in mind, and it must have been very bad in order to be irreparable. I have caught myself going head to head with some leaders, and realized that this was not good for me, for them or the Ward -- so now if I know that a certain meeting is likely to be one where I will be tempted to do that, I simply avoid the temptation. During the SSM debacle, I found it easier to just avoid Stake Conference under one Stake President or to avoid it if I knew a certain GA was going to be speaking. It has worked pretty well for me. But I wouldn't recommend it has a prophylactic approach to most members, and it can be carried too far -- we have a bevy of people who sit out in the foyer during Sunday School, RS and Priesthood for similar reasons which I believe is taking it a bit too far, although we joke about the foyer class.
CV75 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I have caught myself going head to head with some leaders, and realized that this was not good for me, for them or the Ward -- so now if I know that a certain meeting is likely to be one where I will be tempted to do that, I simply avoid the temptation. During the SSM debacle, I found it easier to just avoid Stake Conference under one Stake President or to avoid it if I knew a certain GA was going to be speaking. It has worked pretty well for me. But I wouldn't recommend it has a prophylactic approach to most members, and it can be carried too far -- we have a bevy of people who sit out in the foyer during Sunday School, RS and Priesthood for similar reasons which I believe is taking it a bit too far, although we joke about the foyer class.I see -- it's very wise to avoid the temptation! ...maybe the "foyeurs" are just shy.
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 I see -- it's very wise to avoid the temptation! ...maybe the "foyeurs" are just shy. One thing is certain the Foyer class is not shy, its actually very interesting, but I have quit attending it as I know several Bishops have unsucessfully tried to bring an end to it, and I don't think it right to taunt the Bishop.
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Perhaps, though, My Young Padawan, one should consider whether it is his or her place to offer such criticism before doing so. (See Doctrine & Covenants 121:43). (My $0.02, actual value $0.019637531 ...) No person, not even past/present prophets/apostles, are above criticism.
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 No person, not even past/present prophets/apostles, are above criticism. No but unless the criticism is pertinent to their calling, not sure that one should shoot first and aim later. Course us mere members are fair targets for all kind of criticism and name calling like "socialists, intelectuals, secularists, sinners, etc."
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 No but unless the criticism is pertinent to their calling, not sure that one should shoot first and aim later. Course us mere members are fair targets for all kind of criticism and name calling like "socialists, intelectuals, secularists, sinners, etc." Hence why those accusors of such labels are actually the problem at least and the source of the problem at most.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 No person, not even past/present prophets/apostles, are above criticism.But the matter is not that simple. How valid, fair or well-placed the criticism is; how, when, where and to whom it is uttered, due consideration of its consequences, the intent behind it, all these have a bearing on whether or not the criticism amounts to evil speaking. Please see my previous post.
Recommended Posts