From our stake I can think of eight church leaders (one female) who have been excommunicated. Some of them were responsible for breaking up marriages and families and causing a great deal of heartache. A stake president in a temple recommend interview counseled me to have a highball at night so I could sleep better. He was later excommunicated. A bishop got me involved in counseling and the childhood memories and emotions nearly destroyed me and my family. He was later excommunicated. The list goes on and on.
As I have prayed and fasted about this issue I have realized that I should not put my faith in the arm of flesh (church leaders) but rather in the Lord.
This was a hard and very dangerous lesson to learn.
I can certainly see some seeds of apostasy in some of these comments. How do you handle a disagreement? You go to that person privately and keep it strictly between you and them. Ezra Taft Benson made it clear that it is possible to disagree with priesthood authorities, but when one publicly derides and criticizes to cause that person to be looked upon in a poor light or to force the critics views by raising an army of dissent, that is apostasy as the term is understood. And if that person does not repent, they will forfeit the kingdom.
A man I knew was constantly critical of his local leaders, pointing out what he perceived to be their errors in policy and instruction. To his great sorry, his eldest son left this "church of imperfect people" rejecting his father's and is now a Unitarian minister.
I wholeheartedly agree with the counsel in this article. But I believe the author is incorrect in his interpretation of the "Lord's anointed." The references to the Lord's anointed in the Old Testament are to the king of Israel (Saul). The lone reference in the D&C is to the prophets of God. I see no scriptural support to expanding the "Lord's anointed" to all people, members, leaders etc. Elder Oaks' talk about Criticism in May 1986 refers to Jude 1:8 (evil speaking of dignities) to admonish us not to murmur against church leaders in general, and then rightfully points out that "evil speaking against the Lord's anointed" (the prophet), is "in a class by itself." Having said that, there are plenty of admonitions against "fault finding," etc., to teach us not to find fault one with another, without having to stretch the proper meaning of the "Lord's anointed."
I really appreciate this article, and the thoughtful comments as well. As I pondered on the story at the beginning, II Nephi 28:19 came to mind, which says: For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;
As I read this, when we sin (i.e., belong to the kingdom of the devil), we must choose between repenting, or being stirred up to anger, as anger is the natural refuge of those who are refusing to repent.
When we have been offended, the scriptures also tell us what to do - go to the person who has offended us and strive to resolve the issue and be reconciled. However, this approach requires great humility, and most people would rather nurse a grudge, which can lead to evil speaking, gossip, and other sins. Faith and humility are the key attributes we need to work on to implement this scriptural guidance.
Having a tattoo does not keep you from getting a temple recommend and attending the temple. Sounds like your friend was already on the way out, and wanted a scape-goat.
I have no fundamental disagreement with the basic theme of this article, that evil speaking of people is almost always wrong. However, although I understand this is with reference to a scripture, surely evil speaking of anyone creates negativity whether they are annointed or not. Evil speaking of your daughter would have been just as wrong before she was annointed as after would it not? My other point is regarding the presumption your friend's apostasy was the result of evil speaking of Church leaders when in fact his evil speaking may well be based on something far more important and crucial. He may have had legitimate unresolved issues which caused the frustration leading to the outburst. Maybe if leaders had resolved those issues the outburst would not have occurred! Are such presumptions in themselves evil speaking? I tend to believe they are!
As I was reading the comments, my eye caught the word "Truth" by Trina Hawthorne. What we need to remember is "evil speaking". We know our true intent and words. Speaking truth is the key. As we are mortals, we may need to consider if our opinion is really the truth.
Great article. I'm also constantly surprised how many people justify not following the counsel of the prophet and apostles because they disagree with what they say. It is one thing to disagree with someone like the prophet when you are having a secular discussion individually about what sports team to cheer for, but it is an entirely different thing to question what they say from the pulpit or in official letters/declarations to the church. Some people confuse obeying this counsel with blind obedience and use that to justify their failure to obey. There's is nothing wrong with not understanding, but then seeking for understanding why the church leaders would offer specific counsel. While you seek for that understanding it would probably be wise to obey the counsel in the interim so as to be prepared for the guidance of the spirit rather then distancing yourself from it. Too many of my own friends have fallen into this trap and later left the church just as you described in your story. I personally went through my own struggles in the church, but have now come to realize that obedience is the key. I'm not perfect, and I don't always understand why certain counsel is given, but I follow it without argument or justification. Understanding usually follows swiftly.
"When the prophet speaks the debate is over." I believe that Elaine Cannon said that at G.C.
When the prophet speaks and HE'S ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A PROPHET, the debate IS over.
A few weeks ago Jeffrey Holland threw the first ball onto the field at a Dodger's game. He was acting in the capacity of a man who likes baseball. When he speaks at General Conference or gives a speech at Dixie college, BYU, etc;, he is speaking as a servant of the Lord.
Either way these imperfect men have been called by inspiration to lead our church.
Elder Holland may have an affinity for baseball (which I do not) but he is speaking as a servant of the Lord at those other times I mentioned.
When the General Authorities speak by the power of the Holy Spirit the debate is over.
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
This is an example of how the author could have chosen to be empathetic instead of critical.
This reminds me of a story told by President Marion G. Romney in 1953 (and repeated by Victor L Brown in 1977 and James E. Faust in 1997):
WE are all God's anointed children. whether endowed or not. we are all heirs to HIS kingdom. Jospeh Smiths brother who had not been endowed entered into the Lords rest in the Celestial Kingdom. I think we all as humans make mistakes including the Leaders of the church. We all have a path to follow that God forordained just for us. so who are we to judge another. we are however commanded to LOVE OUR BROTHER AS OURSELF. But being silent definitiely shows agreement in what is obviously contrary to what the Bible says.
Each of us have in inate connection with God and He converses with us if we open the door. I firmly believe that everyday people can and do have certain knowledge that the Leaders do not have. the Leaders speak to the church as a whole but are not albe to receive revelation particular to my family and circumstance. God speaks to me and I listen.
This interpretation is one that has resonated with me for some time now.
However, I think we really need to distinguish between productive and destructive criticism. We need to be able to disagree with someone, even a leader, without it being seen as an action that puts our eternal welfare in jeopardy. Jesus was outspoken in his criticism of some of the spiritual leaders of his day. But his criticism was not backbiting or gossip. It was done to fix and improve things, not to break them down.
We need to weigh importance of the issues at hand. I know a member of the Church in Georgia, who disagreed when their Branch President said that members *must* root for BYU, when BYU played Georgia in football in 1982. But, some issues, like Blacks and the Priesthood, had importance, but, a variety of opinions before June 1978. We should also be ready to own up when we are wrong. Like Pres. Benson said about pride, it is not who is right, it is what is right.
As a convert to the church, I find myself amazed when someone questions our leaders. I agreed to follow the lord, & in so doing follow his chosen leaders. I have never found them to lead me astray, they are the guides I need to lead me to my Father!!
As has been pointed out, our leaders are not perfect and make mistakes. Admitting this is not "speaking evil". mentioning specifics isn't either. Joseph Smith said that following any church leader when they are wrong, simply because of that leader's position, is wrong. This is why I don't feel that i'm breaking any temple covenants by opposing our leaders on Prop. 8. Regarding, POLICIES, we should follow our leaders. We may not agree with not allowing bishops to have beards or disagree about having girls with 2-3 ear piercing, but our leaders have been called to make those choices. there is no objective (scriptural) right or wrong, just opinion. I've been in bishopric meetings, PEC meetings, ward council meetings, etc... where differing opinions were given. The bishop is the decider. We are to accept that and work to make his decision successful. If it fails, despite our best efforts, also does NOT mean that our idea was better. The bottom line is that disagreeing over things where the evidence suggests that they are wrong does not make is covenant breakers. Failing to support our leaders when they put forth a policy/opinion DOES make us guilty of not sustaining our leaders, even if "evil speaking" isn't involved.
1. I am having real difficulty trying to ID anyone who is not anointed (think PH blessings).
2. The Lord uses humans to accomplish his work. Consider the pagan/ criminal Moses who angered God when he was called (Aaron got to speak the Lord's words to the people as a result). Compare the similar conversation the Lord had with Jeremiah and the difference in response.
Elijah cried out in anguish when the widow's son died -- who he subsequently called back from death.
Jeremiah had a major pity-party melt-down and swore he would never preach again --- but his testimony had quietly grown to such power that he could not keep that oath.
Paul had his "thorn" that I am certain was an ongoing topic of criticism/ gossip.
Search the scriptures --- the Lord has used weak men to accomplish his purposes all through time.
I converted to the Church at 15, almost 16 years ago, and thought I would never experience "evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed." Perhaps my bliss at finding the restored Gospel coupled with a wonderful support system of experienced and faithful Church members (so unlike the fledgling members of Doctrine & Covenants lore) shooed away any worries of grappling with doubt or doubters. But serving a mission and now experiencing the societal unease of gay marriage and Proposition 8 have shown me that "evil speaking" is by no means a relic of the early Latter-day Saint church. I very much appreciate this article and eagerly await Part 2.
Something that has helped me is realizing it is OK to disagree with others; even on matters of our religion. Realizing that helps us to not be so critical of each other.
Thank you for this article. I have been very moved by the temple ordinance worker who told you that we are all anointed. This has given a greater perspective on life and speaking about others.
As a convert to the church, I have made a lot of changes in my lifestyle.
I went through the temple when my husband was a non-member.Eventually he joined the church and we were sealed to each other and our children.
Over the years, because of non member extended family members, I have on occasion broken the word of wisdom. I felt that I had a great burden by not being strong enough to avoid breaking my covenants. I felt even worse by not setting a good example to my children.
When I discussed this issue with my children, I explained that the Church's standards are correct and that I was WRONG. I also explained to them that the General Authorities are the mouthpiece for Jesus Christ and when they speak, they speak truth. We discussed the atonement and that I go to Sacrament meeting to get strengthened because I have a weakness that I must overcome. I have never criticized the General Authorities because I do not want my children to stray from the truth.
By telling my children that I was WRONG to break my covenants, they have an unwavering devotion to the church and realize that it is true, but comprised of imperfect people like me, who try every day to repent and live up to the covenants I made at baptism and in the temple. They also have a better understanding of the atonement. My children are now adults who have a greater understanding of others who fall from grace, and they know that the Lord's Anointed will never lead them astray.
For me, this is a very timely post. As I've sat in the temple over the past three or four months, my mind has pondered on this very topic, as to who qualifies as the Lord's anointed. I had concluded that the anointed includes anyone who had received their endowments or, more specifically, anyone who had been washed and anointed in a Temple of our God. I am now considering applying that phrase my discussions of those family members for whom I have had temple work completed. It is a sobering thought but, when adhered to, would do much to seal and sanctify the ties that bind the generations.
There are too many that place themselves above the Lord's anointed. Some, like your friend, feel that they know more than General Authorities. I have found and learned that many who start down this road are those who feel they should have been called to leadership in the Church, but have not. D&C 121:16-17 describes them. Criticism is the road to apostacy. It is a cancer that unless it is removed will destroy testimony and standing in the Church.
..In his book, The Miracle of Forgiveness by the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball. President Kimball gives a list of "sins" to include evil speaking, bearing false witness, blasphemy, slander, double-tongued talk, profanity along with boasting and flattery. I think what needs to be highlighted is how to repent, and the Prophet explains that also.
M. Hardy Peterson
I think the principles you talk about in this article are absolutely above reproach. We should all respect one another, and not engage in idle or hurtful chatter at the expense of one another's reputations or regard. I'm not sure I agreed with the interpretation of "Lords Anointed," however. I've always felt that there is some ambiguity about the term. Does it refer solely to Jesus Christ? He is after all, the only one who's name actually includes the term "anointed" --which is what "Christ" means, as a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "messiah." Or does it include additionally the church leadership? But in what sense might most of them be considered "anointed," since in most cases no actual anointing takes place in their being called. Or does it, as you suggest here, apply more broadly, perhaps to all members--in the sense that by taking upon ourselves the name of Christ we in effect become "anointed"? I myself am far from certain how these questions ought to be answered, but am even less certain to what extent they actually matter. But perhaps they do, which is why I'm bringing them up here.
Thank you for this excellent article. As I was reading I was wondering if you would come to the point of evil speaking in relation to all of "the anointed" and I would add potentially "anointed" of God's children not just those who are presently called to positions of leadership within the organization of the church.Thank you for making this important point and reminding us of the personal dangers inherent in criticism of any and all of our Heavenly Fathers children.
This topic has needed to be explored for a long time. I never fail to be shocked at those who will talk behind the back of leaders, local as well as general authorities. The idea of all of us being anointed is new to me, but should have been obvious.
Nice article.. my problem with it is... these days.. the "evil speaking" your talking about is the "truth"... Its so sad... but people dont give you anything good to say about them with their actions... We have to speak the truth as followers of Christ... and thats pretty much the opposite is what the church.. the government.. and everybody else is speaking...
Wonderful article! I am anxious to read the next one. When will it be posted?
Excellent point about the annointed. But we also don't claim infallibility for anyone, including our leaders, who are, as we are, liable to have a bad day sometimes. I hope rolling of one's eyes doesn't constitute evil speaking, but the important issue is letting go of offences and moving on. Otherwise they chew away at the back of your neck till you put the pack down.
Email (will not be published)
Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.