CH1 Now online for all membership

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not sure how "special" the "special attention and treatment" is, though, in the case of surgical sterilization. There are no consequences at all for not consulting the bishop at all. Obviously, the policy with sex-change surgery does carry membership consequences.

It's similar with cremation. The Church states that it doesn't recommend it, but there are no consequences at all if you do (and in fact, the Church recommends that temple clothing be worn for cremation if it happens). So, the Church not recommending it . . . how important is that, really? Obviously, good members are going to want to do what the Church recommends, and not do what the Church recommends you not do. 

Seems like the counsel of Elder Ballard about how members should not expect their leaders to have expertise in areas that they really have no expertise really applies to many of the things over time that the church has weighed in on.  From politics to family planning to finances to medical decisions.  The church should stick to spiritual advice.  

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not sure how "special" the "special attention and treatment" is, though, in the case of surgical sterilization. There are no consequences at all for not consulting the bishop at all. Obviously, the policy with sex-change surgery does carry membership consequences.

It's similar with cremation. The Church states that it doesn't recommend it, but there are no consequences at all if you do (and in fact, the Church recommends that temple clothing be worn for cremation if it happens). So, the Church not recommending it . . . how important is that, really? Obviously, good members are going to want to do what the Church recommends, and not do what the Church recommends you not do. 

My question is, if it's not a sin, then why does the church not recommend something?  Why not be neutral on cremation, for example?  Cremating someone instead of burying them has zero emotional, mental, or spiritual consequences, and the church recognizes that.  So what's the point of making a 'good' member feel bad if they choose cremation?

Edited November 17, 2017 by bluebell

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

As you shared, the only time people become aware of the policy that I am aware of is after the fact, and like you, they are bothered that they didn't know.

I have an acquaintance who was aware of the policy before he got a vasectomy.  He knew because . . . he inquired.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Not bothered by the policy, but bothered that they didn't know to consult with the bishop (which they gladly would have, had they known).

I don't fault people for not being aware of the policy.  It's an obscure issue, and not one that lends itself to everyday chitchat at church or to treatment in General Conference talks.  I can see why Latter-day Saints might not think to confer with their bishop.  I can even think of situations where an LDS couple might simply choose to not confer with the bishop at all.  The policy does not mandate such a thing, after all ("the persons responsible for this decision should consult ... with their bishop...").

Moreover, consultation with the bishop would be mostly in an advisory capacity.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I disagree with smac that these people should have known about it, because . . . internet.

 What is there to disagree with?  A Google search for "lds position on vasectomy" takes ten seconds, and the first search result is . . . section 21.4.15 of Handbook 2.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

They don't even know enough to have questions about it, or to know that they should know about it . . .  

Again, I can see why Latter-day Saints might not think to confer with their bishop.  I can even think of situations where an LDS couple might simply choose to not confer with the bishop at all.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

In our case, I knew about it because I had read the handbook. I didn't want to get it done. We were done having children, but still, it's so final. My wife physically could not have any surgery (including tubal ligation), due to her blood disorder and blood thinners, so it was all on me. She also can't have hormonal contraceptives because of the blood disorder (they may have caused it in the first place). After two "scares" where she was late (the last time quite late), I had to do it. In fact, this was the first time in my life that I seriously pondered whether abortion could possibly be a justified choice for observant, faithful LDS, in accordance with the handbook policy on abortion (my wife was adamant that if she were pregnant, we would trust in God and the priesthood. Me, I wasn't as adamant with the risk of losing her . . .).

But, other members who discussed thinking about surgical sterilization were surprised when I gently told them about the policy, and they were to a man (and woman) surprised --- they had no idea. 

Again, if the Brethren want people to counsel with bishops about this, it really needs to be directly communicated rather than simply put in the policies section and assuming that everyone seeks it out before it becomes an issue.

I'm not persuaded that consultation with the bishop is mandatory.  The bishop is there to help.  To provide counsel if requested/needed.  To help those involved understand the Church's position.  Otherwise, the decision is left to the individuals and their medical advisors.

Perhaps you have a point to the extent that elective surgical sterilization is becoming more common.  Perhaps the Church's position on this should be presented and explained, albeit with tact and decorum, and in the right time, place and manner.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Plus, as you indicated, the policy actually frowns on doing it for birth control reasons, which is 99% of the time that people are thinking and praying about it (as opposed to medically essential situations, like Rain or my wife).

The Church

Quote

strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law.

So the the issue is surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control.

And such a procedure is not merely "frown{ed} on," and is instead "strongly discourage{d}" and "should be considered only" in two specific, non-elective circumstances.

Again, perhaps you have a point.  If "99%" of those considering surgical sterilization as as an elective form of birth control, then perhaps the Brethren should address it (perhaps by a letter to be read in Priesthood and Relief Society).

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think there needs to be an adult conversation about this in the Church, and that means directly addressing it, rather than assuming/hoping people read it before they do it . . . and then feel bad that they at least didn't know to consult.  

Okay.  You've convinced me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not sure how "special" the "special attention and treatment" is, though, in the case of surgical sterilization.

Special enough to get a section in Handbook 2 devoted to it.

Quote

There are no consequences at all for not consulting the bishop at all.

Yep.

Quote

Obviously, the policy with sex-change surgery does carry membership consequences.

Yep.  The Church seems to work hard at giving as much discretion to the individual as possible.  So some things are not "normally encourage{d}" (cremation), while others are "strongly discourage{d}" (elective surgical sterilization), while some few things are simply incompatible with continued membership in the Church (polygamy, same-sex marriage

Quote

It's similar with cremation.

Well, not really.  Section 17.2.2 of Handbook 1 states that the Church "does not normally encourage cremation," but allows for family preferences and legal requirements to be determinative.

"Does not normally encourage" (cremation) seems a far softer stance than "strongly discourages" (surgical sterilization).

Quote

The Church states that it doesn't recommend it, but there are no consequences at all if you do (and in fact, the Church recommends that temple clothing be worn for cremation if it happens). So, the Church not recommending it . . . how important is that, really?

There seems to be a lot more discretion left to the individual and family as to cremation.

Quote

Obviously, good members are going to want to do what the Church recommends, and not do what the Church recommends you not do. 

I would have a very hard time directly ignoring the Church's "strongly discourages" policy as to elective surgical sterilization.  The importance of the Church's position is self-evident in the nature of the decision, and in the wording of the policy.

As for cremation, I am a bit more open to that.  I have read some disturbing stuff about the unregulated nature of burials, particularly as pertaining to the chemicals used to embalm the body.  I have some concerns about the environmental impact, such that an alternative to burial might be okay for me.  Not cremation, though.

I also have some real qualms with the expense associated with burial.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 17, 2017 by smac97

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My question is, if it's not a sin, then why does the church not recommend something?  Why not be neutral on cremation, for example?  Cremating someone instead of burying them has zero emotional, mental, or spiritual consequences, and the church recognizes that.  So what's the point of making a 'good' member feel bad if they choose cremation?

I agree. I can see some deadweight policies available for future handbook revisions (e.g., cremation). Since there are no doctrinal or eternal consequences for it, why give a recommendation at all?

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My question is, if it's not a sin, then why does the church not recommend something?  Why not be neutral on cremation, for example?  

I think the Church is not entirely neutral on the issue of cremation.  So the policy is what it is.  It's a soft one.

I think the Church is working hard to provide guidance to the members in appropriate degrees.  Some things the Church is genuinely "neutral" about (like political affiliation), and so it states as much.  Some issues the Church has a very firm and clear and unequivocal stance on (same-sex marriage, polygamy).  Some issues the Church has a very firm and clear stance on, but allows for some limited individual discretion (abortion).  Some issues the Church provides generalized guidelines/preferences, but leaves the decision pretty much to the discretion of those involved (cremation).  

I am quite appreciative of the Church seeking to clarify its guidance on these issues.  100 years ago the members did not have as many medical/social options as are available today.  I am grateful that we have prophets and apostles who are working to provide issue-specific guidance with clarity, including how much discretion the individual has relative to that decision.

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Cremating someone instead of burying them has zero emotional, mental, or spiritual consequences, and the church recognizes that.  So what's the point of making a 'good' member feel bad if they choose cremation?

I don't think the Brethren are in the business of guilt trips.  They are trying to provide guidance that they feel is appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for cremation, I am a bit more open to that.  I have read some disturbing stuff about the unregulated nature of burials, particularly as pertaining to the chemicals used to embalm the body.  I have some concerns about the environmental impact, such that an alternative to burial might be okay for me.  Not cremation, though.

I also have some real qualms with the expense associated with burial.

A brother in his 80s in my ward just passed away this Tuesday. His widow was concerned because she could only afford cremation, and I assured her that there is no eternal detriment to him or her. He will rise in the resurrection! It's caused me some thought on this.

Similar to circumcision for me, I want to be buried simply out of cultural conditioning. Cremation would be a lot cheaper. A lot cheaper. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

A brother in his 80s in my ward just passed away this Tuesday. His widow was concerned because she could only afford cremation, and I assured her that there is no eternal detriment to him or her. He will rise in the resurrection! It's caused me some thought on this.

Similar to circumcision for me, I want to be buried simply out of cultural conditioning. Cremation would be a lot cheaper. A lot cheaper. 

But cremation is still a messy and environmentally toxic process.  

I watched a YouTube video that outlines some alternatives to burial and cremation.

The ideal process would be both affordable and environmentally friendly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

A brother in his 80s in my ward just passed away this Tuesday. His widow was concerned because she could only afford cremation, and I assured her that there is no eternal detriment to him or her. He will rise in the resurrection! It's caused me some thought on this.

Similar to circumcision for me, I want to be buried simply out of cultural conditioning. Cremation would be a lot cheaper. A lot cheaper. 

I'm thinking I'll be cremated. No need for my survivors to waste money on a fancy casket. I'm positive I won't appreciate it at that point, and they could better spend their money on things for the living.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But cremation is still a messy and environmentally toxic process.  

I watched a YouTube video that outlines some alternatives to burial and cremation.

The ideal process would be both affordable and environmentally friendly.

The Egyptians had it right thousands of years ago. Canopic jars are still messy, though . . .  

[hope_for_things]

This whole topic has been interesting, and I think it also shines a light on how we look at the advice that church leaders and the church institutionally gives.  What is inspired advice, vs. what is just advice.  How do we look at the advice the church gives, should we look at it as directly God given and not to be questioned?  Or should we put it in the category of the way we might take advice from a co-worker or friend.  We appreciate the advice and will consider it along with other information we gather, including our experiences in life and then weigh the pros and cons and make a decision for ourselves.  

Its clear that not everything coming from the church or from church leaders is inspired, so why not just admit the limitations of the advice the church gives right up front and quit giving carte blanche deference to church advice?  

Edited November 17, 2017 by hope_for_things

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church is not entirely neutral on the issue of cremation.  So the policy is what it is.  It's a soft one.

I agree, they're not.  My question is, why?  The church recognizes that cremation has no spiritual consequences.  It does not harm anyone's mental or emotional well being, and it does not thwart the purposes of God.  So, why not be neutral on the subject?

Quote

 

I am quite appreciative of the Church seeking to clarify its guidance on these issues.  100 years ago the members did not have as many medical/social options as are available today.  I am grateful that we have prophets and apostles who are working to provide issue-specific guidance with clarity, including how much discretion the individual has relative to that decision.

I don't think the Brethren are in the business of guilt trips.  They are trying to provide guidance that they feel is appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I appreciate when the church offers guidance, but don't think they offer it in a very effective way sometimes.  When the church says 'we don't recommend this' but then gives no reasons why they don't, I don't think that counts as guidance, for example.  

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Non sequitur.

 

 

15 hours ago, Gray said:

You're not using that correctly.

A non sequitur is an inference that does not follow from the premise.

What I meant in this instance was that it does not follow that, because I think it wrong to speak evil of the Lord's anointed that I'm OK with speaking evil of everybody else. That is a fallacious conclusion and, to me, a non sequitur under the above definition.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

I believe either you or I misread the original statement. 

That's possible.

Quote

I understood it to mean that the defense becomes so out of control and aggressive that it becomes an evil unto itself; not that the Brethren did something that caused any defense to be evil.  I believe the point of the proposed thought exercise was to make us think whether defense, even of something righteous, can cross lines of what is appropriate and/or righteous.

OK.

What I understood it to mean was that if the Brethren engage in behavior that is indefensible, then to defend them becomes "an evil unto itself."

My reaction was that, although it is certainly possible for them to engage in such behavior, it is unlikely that they would ever do so to the point where castigating them in public would be a good or desirable thing, especially by active Church members who are under covenant to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, they're not.  My question is, why?  The church recognizes that cremation has no spiritual consequences.  

Probably so.

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It does not harm anyone's mental or emotional well being, and it does not thwart the purposes of God.  So, why not be neutral on the subject?

I don't know.  It may have to do with traditions/doctrines about the resurrection and literally "rising" from the grave, burial in temple clothing, but that's just a guess.

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I appreciate when the church offers guidance, but don't think they offer it in a very effective way sometimes.  When the church says 'we don't recommend this' but then gives no reasons why they don't, I don't think that counts as guidance, for example.  

I can appreciate that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's possible.

OK.

What I understood it to mean was that if the Brethren engage in behavior that is indefensible, then to defend them becomes "an evil unto itself."

My reaction was that, although it is certainly possible for them to engage in such behavior, it is unlikely that they would ever do so to the point where castigating them in public would be a good or desirable thing, especially by active Church members who are under covenant to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

 

I get where you are coming from.  Based on hope_for_things later clarification, his intent was along the lines of defenses that cross the lines, rather than the brethren doing something wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, they're not.  My question is, why?  The church recognizes that cremation has no spiritual consequences.  It does not harm anyone's mental or emotional well being, and it does not thwart the purposes of God.  So, why not be neutral on the subject?

I appreciate when the church offers guidance, but don't think they offer it in a very effective way sometimes.  When the church says 'we don't recommend this' but then gives no reasons why they don't, I don't think that counts as guidance, for example.  

What I see them doing is using phrases such as "strongly discourage" and to only consider something under certain conditions. That strikes me as being pretty clear guidance, about as clear as it can get without being absolutely hard line. Take, for example, the handbook provision on surgical sterilization (including vasectomy):

Quote

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

As for not giving reasons, sometimes reasons can be determined intuitively.

And yes, I get that intuition can vary from person to person. The 2015 leaked policy was intuitively understandable to me, for example, even before the video was posted with Elder Christofferson explaining the rationale.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's possible.

OK.

What I understood it to mean was that if the Brethren engage in behavior that is indefensible, then to defend them becomes "an evil unto itself."

My reaction was that, although it is certainly possible for them to engage in such behavior, it is unlikely that they would ever do so to the point where castigating them in public would be a good or desirable thing, especially by active Church members who are under covenant to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

 

As I've thought about your point further, I think you bring up a scenario that also could be problematic for defending the brethren, even though this wasn't the point I was making earlier.  For example, when some church leaders seemed to support the Iraq war.  Is defending this support morally problematic if you're a proponent for peace, and could supporting the brethren on this issue be evil if it contradicts your deeply held personal values.  

I wasn't thinking along these lines at first, but I tend to think that this probably happens more often than not.  On the SSM issue in particular, I know many people that believe that the church's current policies and practices around this topic are morally wrong, and that by supporting church leaders they feel they are complicit in sustaining something morally that they disagree with.  I have had similar concerns myself, although I find this is a complicated issue.  There are things the U.S. government is doing or has done that I don't support morally as well, and yet I'm a citizen and a tax payer and consider myself a patriot as well.  How we negotiate these kinds of dilemmas is a challenge for each of us to consider as members of organizations, governments, and religious institutions.  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I see them doing is using phrases such as "strongly discourage" and to only consider something under certain conditions. That strikes me as being pretty clear guidance, about as clear as it can get without being absolutely hard line. Take, for example, the handbook provision on surgical sterilization (including vasectomy):

I think that the church wants people to make their own decisions with the Spirit (as it should) and that's why it doesn't come right out and say 'yes' or 'no' to some things.  Guidance by the church is important but it's also disjointed and lopsided.  They have a weird habit of staying silent about some things that are spiritually significant but speaking up about others that are spiritually irrelevant. 

On some subjects, such as cremation, it would be better for members if they were just silent.  All their guidance does it make some members worry, feel guilty, or second guess themselves for no legitimate reason.  

Quote

 

As for not giving reasons, sometimes reasons can be determined intuitively.

And yes, I get that intuition can vary from person to person. The 2015 leaked policy was intuitively understandable to me, for example, even before the video was posted with Elder Christofferson explaining the rationale.

 

If that's true, then they don't need to give recommendations on it, do they?  

Edited November 17, 2017 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I don't know.  It may have to do with traditions/doctrines about the resurrection and literally "rising" from the grave, burial in temple clothing, but that's just a guess.

 

Like smac97, I can only guess at the reason, but what he offers here makes sense to me. If we believe in a certain doctrine, our choices and behavior ought to reflect that belief. Ergo, if we believe that the physical body one day is to literally rise from the grave, why be inclined to anything that might be seen as impeding that process? Even if we believe that, as in Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, the bones will come together and the flesh will attach itself to the bones, etc.

Which makes me think of a song:

Intro 1 Ezekiel connected dem dry bones, Ezekiel connected dem dry bones, Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones, Now hear the word of the Lord. Verse 1 Toe bone connected to the foot bone Foot bone connected to the heel bone Heel bone connected to the ankle bone Ankle bone connected to the shin bone Shin bone connected to the knee bone Knee bone connected to the thigh bone Thigh bone connected to the hip bone Hip bone connected to the back bone Back bone connected to the shoulder bone Shoulder bone connected to the neck bone Neck bone connected to the head bone Now hear the word of the Lord. Chorus Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around. Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around. Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around. Now hear the word of the Lord.

Intro 2 Ezekiel disconnected dem dry bones, Ezekiel disconnected dem dry bones, Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones, Now hear the word of the Lord. Verse 2 Head bone (dis)connected from the neck bone Neck bone connected from the shoulder bone Shoulder bone connected from the back bone Back bone connected from the hip bone Hip bone connected from the thigh bone Thigh bone connected from the knee bone Knee bone connected from the shin bone Shin bone connected from the ankle bone Ankle bone connected from the heel bone Heel bone connected from the foot bone Foot bone connected from the toe bone Now hear the word of the Lord. Chorus Dem bones, dem bones gonna rise again. Dem bones, dem bones gonna rise again. Dem bones, dem bones gonna rise again. Now hear the word of the Lord. Finale Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones. Now hear the word of the Lord.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that the church wants people to make their own decisions with the Spirit (as it should) and that's why it doesn't come right out and say 'yes' or 'no' to some things.  Guidance by the church is important but it's also disjointed and lopsided.  They have a weird habit of staying silent about some things that are spiritually significant but speaking up about others that are spiritually irrelevant. 

On some subjects, such as cremation, it would be better for members if they were just silent.  All their guidance does it make some members worry, feel guilty, or second guess themselves for no legitimate reason.  

I think we need to beware of jumping to the conclusion that matters they speak out on are "spiritually irrelevant."

Tattoos and body piercings come to mind. I don't believe for a moment the clear counsel from the Brethren on this is spiritually insignificant though I've seen some contend that it is.

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

A non sequitur is an inference that does not follow from the premise.

What I meant in this instance was that it does not follow that, because I think it wrong to speak evil of the Lord's anointed that I'm OK with speaking evil of everybody else. That is a fallacious conclusion and, to me, a non sequitur under the above definition.

 

I didn't say that you were OK with speaking evil of everyone else. That's why "non sequitur" was incorrectly used. I was trying to get you to think about the futility of trying to apply the idea of "evil speaking" so narrowly.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think we need to beware of jumping to the conclusion that matters they speak out on are "spiritually irrelevant."

Tattoos and body piercings come to mind. I don't believe for a moment the clear counsel from the Brethren on this is spiritually insignificant though I've seen some contend that it is.

 

What is spiritually significant about their recommendations concerning cremation? 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that the church wants people to make their own decisions with the Spirit (as it should) and that's why it doesn't come right out and say 'yes' or 'no' to some things.  

Yep.  And yet there are members of the Church who still want some guidance from the Church.  So the Church provides it, and does so with appropriate gradations (i.e., the Church has no position, the Church "encourages" or "discourages" something, etc.).

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Guidance by the church is important but it's also disjointed and lopsided.  

I'm not sure that's a problem.  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things..." (D&C 58:26).  “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves” (Joseph Smith, quoted by John Taylor, Millennial Star, 15 Nov. 1851, p. 339)

The Church provides guidance where needed, with the appropriate level of emphasis.  Otherwise, the Church seems to want to refrain from micromanaging our lives.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They have a weird habit of staying silent about some things that are spiritually significant but speaking up about others that are spiritually irrelevant. 

Hmm.  That has not been my experience.  Can you give some examples of each?

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

On some subjects, such as cremation, it would be better for members if they were just silent.  

How do you know that?  What about members who want some guidance from the Church on this subject?

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All their guidance does it make some members worry, feel guilty, or second guess themselves for no legitimate reason.  

If the Church did not provide guidance, the complaint would be only slightly different ("The Church is indifferent to the needs of the members.  It does not provide guidance on topics important to members, leaving them to fend for themselves, which may make them worry, feel guilty, or second guess themselves for no legitimate reason."

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If that's true, then they don't need to give recommendations on it, do they?  

But what about people who do want recommendations/counsel from General Authorities?  Who are we to assert that they have "no legitimate reason" to ask for such guidance?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

I didn't say that you were OK with speaking evil of everyone else. That's why "non sequitur" was incorrectly used. I was trying to get you to think about the futility of trying to apply the idea of "evil speaking" so narrowly.

Then you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I didn't apply it "narrowly," as I have shown here.

Even so, I understand why there is a specific covenantal obligation not to speak evil of the Lords anointed. Doing so can undermine their credibility in the eyes of those they lead and thus bring about division and disorder in the earthly administration of the kingdom of God. The prohibition thus makes perfect sense to me.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd