Evil Speaking Of The Lord's Anointed

[thesometimesaint]

I'm under no obligation to follow anyone into Hell. As Saints we are to confirm for ourselves that what the prophets have said is true.

[Stone holm]

I'm under no obligation to follow anyone into Hell. As Saints we are to confirm for ourselves that what the prophets have said is true.

Where is everybody getting the "obligation" language?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

We should define who are the anointed. That does not mean a only a church leader btw.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[canard78]

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.

Can you define what you mean by "speaking evil" and "the Lord's anointed?"

If it all leaders or only the top 15? What about 70s? Stake Presidents? Bishops? Deacon's quorum president?

Which of these would you call speaking evil of the prophet:

1. I disagree with what President XYZ said his talk.

2. I didn't enjoy the article by President XYZ, it didn't really catch my imagination.

3. I think President XYZ is a selfish ego-maniac.

For me 3 is, 1 isn't and 2 is not very productive but still probably not (unless it becomes backbiting).

How about the discussion about "the prophet will never lead us astray." If I were to say that not everything a prophet says is worth every person following, would that be speaking evil?

I remind myself when consodering questions like this of Hugh Nibley's quote:

"There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit.

Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things."

Hugh Nibley

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=books&bookid=103&id=1154

I select and apply teachings that I believe to aid me in my progress on my path to godliness. Lots of them are via the standard works and the Prophets' perspectives. But I do so because they work for me. Not because I am bound to follow the words of another imperfect human.

I've come to the conclusion that the LDS prophet actually never can lead me astray. Only I can do that. I often say to the kids (after they blame bad behaviour on a sibling) "if he'd told you to jump off a cliff would you have done it?"

I have no idea, in absolute terms, where the words of revelation ends and the words of a fallible leaders start. I don't know for sure what is true. But I do know what works (for me). I keep on applying the things that work. Many are things taught by Mormon prophets. But it's still my choice and responsibility. Was any of that speaking evil? Again, I don't think so.

[Tacenda]

Can you define what you mean by "speaking evil" and "the Lord's animated?"

If it all leaders or only the top 15? What about 70s? Stake Presidents? Bishops? Deacon's quorum president?

Which of these would you call speaking evil of the prophet:

1. I disagree with what President XYZ said his talk.

2. I didn't enjoy the article by President XYZ, it didn't really catch my imagination.

3. I think President XYZ is a selfish ego-maniac.

For me 3 is, 1 isn't and 2 is not very productive but still probably not (unless it becomes backbiting).

How about the discussion about "the prophet will never lead us astray." If I were to say that not everything a prophet says is worth every person following, would that be speaking evil?

I remind myself when consodering questions like this of Hugh Nibley's quote:

Hugh Nibley

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=books&bookid=103&id=1154

I select and apply teachings that I believe to aid me in my progress on my path to godliness. Lots of them are via the standard works and the Prophets' perspectives. But I do so because they work for me. Not because I am bound to follow the words of another imperfect human.

I've come to the conclusion that the LDS prophet actually never can lead me astray. Only I can do that. I often say to the kids (after they blame bad behaviour on a sibling) "if he'd told you to jump off a cliff would you have done it?"

I have no idea, in absolute terms, where the words of revelation ends and the words of a fallible leaders start. I don't know for sure what is true. But I do know what works (for me). I keep on applying the things that work. Many are things taught by Mormon prophets. But it's still my choice and responsibility. Was any of that speaking evil? Again, I don't think so.

Luckily for me the prophets don't ask life changing things of us in our day. Like polygamy, they are the real mormons imo. They sacrificed more than any other group. Or their generation who left family/possessions to sail/move to Nauvoo and then to Utah. Second pair of earrings & tattoos what a joke....or back in the day, no face card playing (this is all I remember).... no real sacrifice. The leaders are happy just to have active members, hold callings, pay tithing (which is a sacrifice to some).

[Scott Lloyd]

Where is everybody getting the "obligation" language?

As I see it, the only way I can see that a generally moral person would purposely allow himself to be led by an authority figure into wrongdoing is out of a sense of obligation to follow that authority. Edited October 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Luckily for me the prophets don't ask life changing things of us in our day. Like polygamy, they are the real mormons imo. They sacrificed more than any other group. Or their generation who left family/possessions to sail/move to Nauvoo and then to Utah. Second pair of earrings & tattoos what a joke....or back in the day, no face card playing (this is all I remember).... no real sacrifice. The leaders are happy just to have active members, hold callings, pay tithing (which is a sacrifice to some).

With all the complaining I see about the teachings against body piercings and tattoos, that apparently imposes a real hardship on some people today. Edited October 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

As I see it, the only way I can see that a generally moral person would purposely allow himself to be led by an authority figure into wrongdoing is out of a sense of obligation to follow that authority.

I agree and the only reason there would be that sense of obligation would be an engrained conditioning as to ones duty. I tend to think sometimes of Colin Powell being the good soldier and marching into political oblivion with the UN speech after having protested that evidence was bogus.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Although I am not a great fan of Elder Oaks,

I've seen this a lot as of late. Saying you are not a fan of a GA, is this not just another way of expressing disapproval? Which feeds back I. To thread title. They are no Rock Stars who needs fans or groupies. The are men called of God, no less flawed that any other men. Would you say to you Bishop, I support the leadership of the Church but I am not big fan of (insert name here)? I have personal friend is (30 year friend) I know his he is not perfect, by I sustain him in every way. Edited October 4, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Stone holm]

I've seen this a lot as of late. Saying you are not a fan of a GA, is this not just another way of expressing disapproval? Which feeds back I. To thread title. They are no Rock Stars who needs fans or groupies. The are men called of God, no less flawed that any other men. Would you say to you Bishop, I support the leadership of the Church but I am not big fan of (insert name here)? I have personal friend is (30 year friend) I know his he is not perfect, by I sustain him in every way.

 

My point in saying that was that while I agreed with what Elder Oaks was specifically being quoted as having said, I did not want to give the impression that I agreed with everything that Elder Oaks said or the tone in which he sometimes says it.  I hardly think that elevates the remark to speaking evil of the Lord's Annointed.  I think there are some Prophets and Apostles that people personally tend to agree with more than others.  I make it perfectly clear that I tend to favor President Brigham Young's opinions and President Spencer W. Kimball's opinions over say the opinions of Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith, or Elder Bruce R. McConkie or President Ezra Taft Benson (before he was President).  That is not evil speaking.  I confess that I once brushed close to evil speaking of Elder Oaks because of a slur he made at Vermonters while speaking at NH Stake Conference, but even then I believe I stayed short of doing so.  Evil speaking is more than saying you don't care for somebody or their opinions, its a personal attack on their integrity, morality, honesty or the genuineness of their faith.  I have no doubt of the sincere faith of all the GAs and have no reason to question their integrity, personal morality, or honesty.  I sustain them as officers of the Church, etc.  I am, however, more likely to challenge their opinions publicly, than I am say the opinions of the Bishop or Stake President, mainly because I know if I have a serious difference of opinion with either of them, I can easily contact them and their opinions are not broadcast publicly, but are rather restricted in the audience they reach. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree and the only reason there would be that sense of obligation would be an engrained conditioning as to ones duty. I tend to think sometimes of Colin Powell being the good soldier and marching into political oblivion with the UN speech after having protested that evidence was bogus.

I have no interest in a political back-and-forth with you. And it's off topic and prohibited here anyway.

[Stone holm]

I have no interest in a political back-and-forth with you. And it's off topic and prohibited here anyway.

Oops, didn't really intend for it to go political, was trying to think of an example of what I meant without saying anything about a GA and that was the first to come to mind. I guess one more on point was a remark made by BY that he got a bit weak in the knees when Joseph Smith proposed the safety society in Kirtland , but decided to sustain him in the action anyway. That all ended a bit badly for all concerned .

[Scott Lloyd]

Oops, didn't really intend for it to go political, was trying to think of an example of what I meant without saying anything about a GA and that was the first to come to mind. I guess one more on point was a remark made by BY that he got a bit weak in the knees when Joseph Smith proposed the safety society in Kirtland , but decided to sustain him in the action anyway. That all ended a bit badly for all concerned .

We could argue the livelong day about whether or not the Kirtland Safety Society was a prudent enterprise, whether and how much the Brethren were victims of circumstance, etc.. But it would be irrelevant to the question at hand, which deals with whether one should follow an authority figure into immorality or wrongdoing, not questionable business decisions.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That is not evil speaking.  I confess that I once brushed close to evil speaking of Elder Oaks because of a slur he made at Vermonters while speaking at NH Stake Conference, but even then I believe I stayed short of doing so.

This is about the third or fourth time I've seen you grousing here about Elder Oaks making you mad with something he said at stake conference. I'm glad you're stopping short of speaking evil about him.

[canard78]

With all the complaining I see about the teachings against body piercings and tattoos, that apparently imposes a real hardship on some people today.

 

Usually when I see it complained about it is in context of it being somewhat a trivial thing to be telling people when there are things of far greater significance. Like the way we treat our neighbour.

[Stone holm]

We could argue the livelong day about whether or not the Kirtland Safety Society was a prudent enterprise, whether and how much the Brethren were victims of circumstance, etc.. But it would be irrelevant to the question at hand, which deals with whether one should follow an authority figure into immorality or wrongdoing, not questionable business decisions.

Well see that didn't work out either

[canard78]

We could argue the livelong day about whether or not the Kirtland Safety Society was a prudent enterprise, whether and how much the Brethren were victims of circumstance, etc.. But it would be irrelevant to the question at hand, which deals with whether one should follow an authority figure into immorality or wrongdoing, not questionable business decisions.

 

What conclusion do you reach on that question? Is it acceptable to follow a prophet into immorality or wrongdoing?

 

If you followed the prophet into a wrong choice because they had spoken "in their weakness" do you think you would be absolved of responsibility for that or would you still be responsible for your own independent choices.

 

I've reached the conclusion that I agree with the statement "The prophet can never lead you astray." In the say way I agree with the statement "A lemming can never lead you off a cliff." I'm not comparing the prophet to a lemming. I'm simply saying that even if a prophet did go astray the choice of whether to follow him or not would still be independently my decision. The blame for going astray rests not with the prophet but with myself for making a choice for which I'm personally responsible.

[Stone holm]

What conclusion do you reach on that question? Is it acceptable to follow a prophet into immorality or wrongdoing?

 

If you followed the prophet into a wrong choice because they had spoken "in their weakness" do you think you would be absolved of responsibility for that or would you still be responsible for your own independent choices.

 

I've reached the conclusion that I agree with the statement "The prophet can never lead you astray." In the say way I agree with the statement "A lemming can never lead you off a cliff." I'm not comparing the prophet to a lemming. I'm simply saying that even if a prophet did go astray the choice of whether to follow him or not would still be independently my decision. The blame for going astray rests not with the prophet but with myself for making a choice for which I'm personally responsible.

Well I guess I would have to disagree, it seems to me if the Prophet says do thus and so, you are not under obligation to do so...but if you do go and do it then as far as The Lord is concerned you would get a pass. If that is not true, then we shouldn't be teaching our kids all those hymns about obedience and following the Prophet. On the other hand, if the Prophet in a less inspired moment hands out misguided advice and you don't follow it, The Lord is not going to hold you accountable...the problem is if you do that and it turns out the Prophet is right then you are left with no excuse. That is why, the GAs need to be very careful about their rhetoric because if they are wrong and someone goes off the cliff as a result The Lord is going to hold them accountable. It also explains why Apostles as they come closer and closer to becoming the President of the Church tend to tone down their rhetoric. The best example of that being the difference between ETB as an Apostle and ETB as prophet.

[Scott Lloyd]

What conclusion do you reach on that question? Is it acceptable to follow a prophet into immorality or wrongdoing?

 

See my post #94, where I've already expressed myself on this question.

 

For your convenience, I'll reiterate: My answer is no.

[Scott Lloyd]

Usually when I see it complained about it is in context of it being somewhat a trivial thing to be telling people when there are things of far greater significance. Like the way we treat our neighbour.

As though the prophets and apostles don't teach at length on things like the way we treat our neighbor. Nothing to preclude them from addressing both.

 

For the record, I disagree that body piercings and tattoos, as they pertain to the broader principle of respecting the body as God's temple, are trivial matters and inappropriate subjects for the servants of God to address.

[Stone holm]

As though the prophets and apostles don't teach at length on things like the way we treat our neighbor. Nothing to preclude them from addressing both.

 

For the record, I disagree that body piercings and tattoos, as they pertain to the broader principle of respecting the body as God's temple, are trivial matters and inappropriate subjects for the servants of God to address.

Oh my this scary I completely agree with Scott Lloyd on a post, I may lose my progressive credentials over this.

[Tacenda]

As though the prophets and apostles don't teach at length on things like the way we treat our neighbor. Nothing to preclude them from addressing both.

For the record, I disagree that body piercings and tattoos, as they pertain to the broader principle of respecting the body as God's temple, are trivial matters and inappropriate subjects for the servants of God to address.

I don't know if this pertains to what I posted about this....about how it would be a far less sacrifice to refrain from wearing more than one pair of earrings for women and not getting tattoos. And that these commandments/revelations are far easier to obey than polygamy IMO. I wasn't saying these were trivial, just easier to abide to. Edited October 5, 2013 by Tacenda

[canard78]

See my post #94, where I've already expressed myself on this question.

For your convenience, I'll reiterate: My answer is no.

Thanks, I think I missed a middle chunk of the conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh my this scary I completely agree with Scott Lloyd on a post, I may lose my progressive credentials over this.

Let us hold hands and sing "Kum-ba-ya."

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know if this pertains to what I posted about this....about how it would be a far less sacrifice to refrain from wearing more than one pair of earrings for women and not getting tattoos. And that these commandments/revelations are far easier to obey than polygamy IMO. I wasn't saying these were trivial, just easier to abide to.

I agree.

 

And my prior post was not by way of disagreement with you, just an observation.