Evil Speaking of the Lord's Annointed

[Carborendum]

I wonder at what point the principle of "evil speaking of the Lord's Annointed" becomes a concern.

I had a friend online who appears to be a fairly faithful Saint.  And he doesn't easily fit into a political mold.  So, that's refreshing.  We haven't spoken directly in many years.  So, I don't know what he's been doing for a while.  But he has published some very useful books for educating children about the founding of the nation and about how to participate in the political process.  I've read them and gave them to my children to learn.  He now has a Youtube channel that is picking up subscribers.

The latest lecture he gave was about how Brigham Young was basically a fraud.  He didn't actually say that Brigham was a fraud.  He said that Brigham did some fraudulent things.  And he backed it up with his interpretation of records from the time.

He lays polygamy and the priesthood ban squarely at Brigham's feet and says that they were clearly uninspired. They should never have happened.  It was completely wrong to include them in our doctrines.  And he also gave a scathing criticism of Adam-God as proof that Brigham was a false prophet.

He stopped short of calling Brigham a false prophet. It seemed that he was going for setting up all the information for the listener to believe Brigham was a false prophet.  But he never actually said it.

From everything I know, he's still a faithful Saint.  But after hearing this, I wonder how closely he can walk up to that line and not step over it.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But after hearing this, I wonder how closely he can walk up to that line and not step over it.

Sounds to me like he's well past it.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

He lays polygamy ... squarely at Brigham's feet and says that they were clearly uninspired.

Erm.  That's a pretty hard sell.  You don't even have to go look up stuff on the Joseph Smith Papers website to know that Joseph Smith started polygamy...

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It seemed that he was going for setting up all the information for the listener to believe Brigham was a false prophet.

And this is a huge part of the point.  This also seems to be the area where the Church draws lines - sure, you can doubt and wonder and think critical things, but the minute you start teaching others to doubt, you've put your foot on the road to apostasy.  This man will draw folk who dislike Brigham Young, they'll feed his ego, and the whole thing will spin out of control.

Fault finding is an exercise in magnification and multiplication, and inevitably turns molehills into mountains, and pretty soon, you're seeing nothing but faults in everyone (or every leader at least).

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Sounds to me like he's well past it.

Hmm... You have to know him.  I still think he may be on this side of the line.  On the other hand, you may be right.

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Erm.  That's a pretty hard sell.  You don't even have to go look up stuff on the Joseph Smith Papers website to know that Joseph Smith started polygamy...

Yes.  He actually addressed that briefly.  Basically, he said that Joseph did it within proper boundaries.  But Brigham went beyond boundaries.  I have to wonder how many of his "documents" were genuine.  He certainly believed them.  I don't doubt his honesty.  But whoever gave those documents to him or who originated them may be suspect.

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

And this is a huge part of the point.  This also seems to be the area where the Church draws lines - sure, you can doubt and wonder and think critical things, but the minute you start teaching others to doubt, you've put your foot on the road to apostasy.  This man will draw folk who dislike Brigham Young, they'll feed his ego, and the whole thing will spin out of control.

Yeah.  His exact words were just shy of actually doing it.  But his attitude was definitely, totally, and completely critical of the man as much as the words.

8 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Fault finding is an exercise in magnification and multiplication, and inevitably turns molehills into mountains, and pretty soon, you're seeing nothing but faults in everyone (or every leader at least).

Yup.  The thing is that he's pretty much held these same positions for as long as I've known him.  And I met him (virtually) in 2008 or so.  He's never moved a single step either way.  He's standing right next to the line and is not moving an inch.

[zil2]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yup.  The thing is that he's pretty much held these same positions for as long as I've known him.  And I met him (virtually) in 2008 or so.  He's never moved a single step either way.  He's standing right next to the line and is not moving an inch.

Except he has moved an inch - he's moved into putting out public videos teaching what he believes.  It will do no good to sow doubts about Brigham Young's validity as a prophet, but there's a strong chance it will cause harm.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

He didn't actually say that Brigham was a fraud.  He said that Brigham did some fraudulent things.  And he backed it up with his interpretation of records from the time.

Man, it's hard to follow Joseph Smith.

If you have a good understanding of all the celestial experiences and insight that Joseph Smith possessed you recognize that if he had a question, he would essentially ask for an answer and receive direct revelation.  Visits from God himself, Angelic messengers, Urim and Thummin, word-for-word revelation, it goes on and on.  

And then Brigham Young takes the helm and much of the constant direct revelation stops.  Brigham has to lean on the limited revelation that he receives and process that with the insights he learned from Joseph.  

It would be like you or I taking over the Kansas City Chiefs QB position after Patrick Mahomes got injured.  It would be a very bumpy ride.  

Like Joshua following Moses.  Big shoes to fill.  

Is it ok for Brigham Young to make some mistakes?  Sure.  I would have done much worse myself.  

Should we be critical and speak evil about him?  No.

Should we recognize that he was in a difficult situation?  Yeah.  Don't candy-coat his history.  Recognize it for what it was.  

[NeuroTypical]

Bishops usually don't take action until they have to.  If dude starts talking crap at church and disrupting priesthood or some such, that might prompt some action.  But talking smack, even publicly, well, that'll keep you out of some callings, but it probably won't prompt any action unless the Bishop figures souls are being led away. 

I mean, we had the records of a lady on our rolls, who had left the church and was actually a paid pastor in another church.  The Bishop kept in friendly contact with her, and offered a name removal, but nobody really acted on it for quite some time.  

Keeping names on the rolls of the church can be a matter of hope, until it becomes a matter of protecting the saints.

[MrShorty]

I obviously don't know this person, but he reminds me of other allegedly faithful saints like Patrick Mason, Paul Reeves, Jim Bennett, and Scott Woodward who would all agree that God did not inspire the priesthood and temple ban. Someone like Carol Lynn Pearson would agree that polygamy is not from God, though she doesn't deny that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

The question of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis, and I think you can look back over some of my posts for a decade or so and see that I've had some of these same questions for a long time. I don't know when doubting our prophets' claims -- or even coming right out and saying they made a mistake -- becomes evil speaking or other problem that God will frown upon. That said, might I interject some ideas:

1) Separating a teaching/practice from the prophets/apostles/people who taught/practiced it. I've often observed that, when someone claims that belief/practice X was wrong, we have a tendency to jump right into defending the prophets/apostles/people who taught/practiced X. It can be difficult, but I find value in focusing my rejection to teachings/practices and not to people/prophets/apostles. In your description of your friends work, you suggest that he might be more focused on Brigham Young himself than on Brigham Young's teachings and practices.

2) I think it is closely related, but get clear about what is redeemable and what isn't. I think Scott Woodward and Stephen Jones's podcast discussion really highlighted this for me, as the two insisted throughout their discussion that, whatever mistakes the prophets/apostles/saints might have made related to race, God was able and willing to redeem those who believed false ideas about race and God was able and willing to redeem those who were turned away from the church because they couldn't believe that those beliefs came from God. I think the hardest part of this is that our high demand religion isn't always very comfortable with God's leniency, so I think we need to think carefully about what we believe about what is and is not redeemable.

3) In many conversations, it often seems that we try to prioritize something else above moral truth and goodness. Some will cite loyalty as a higher virtue. Others, obedience. Sometimes, in relation to point (2), sincerity is emphasized. Sometimes we even suggest that God orchestrates these morally questionable practices as a kind of loyalty or obedience test. I find that there are multiple considerations and nuances that we consider (but never seem to consider them all at the same time) when talking about mistakes that prophets/apostles make.

It's my opinion that this is part of the most significant conversation that a church claiming to be based on the rock of revelation with a foundation of prophets and apostles can have. We have never claimed that our prophets and apostles are infallible. What does that really mean to us?

Edited October 28 by MrShorty

[laronius]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder at what point the principle of "evil speaking of the Lord's Annointed" becomes a concern.

I would say if you have to ask this question you are probably already there.

It doesn't mean that the person in question is an apostate but it means the seed has been planted and only requires some nurturing before it starts bearing fruit. So yes, it's time to be concerned.

Hopefully he will come to realize that even if everything he thought about BY was true, pursuing the issue accomplishes nothing. At the very best it's a complete waste of time. At it's worst it will lead him away from God. 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder at what point the principle of "evil speaking of the Lord's Annointed" becomes a concern.

I had a friend online who appears to be a fairly faithful Saint.  And he doesn't easily fit into a political mold.  So, that's refreshing.  We haven't spoken directly in many years.  So, I don't know what he's been doing for a while.  But he has published some very useful books for educating children about the founding of the nation and about how to participate in the political process.  I've read them and gave them to my children to learn.  He now has a Youtube channel that is picking up subscribers.

The latest lecture he gave was about how Brigham Young was basically a fraud.  He didn't actually say that Brigham was a fraud.  He said that Brigham did some fraudulent things.  And he backed it up with his interpretation of records from the time.

He lays polygamy and the priesthood ban squarely at Brigham's feet and says that they were clearly uninspired. They should never have happened.  It was completely wrong to include them in our doctrines.  And he also gave a scathing criticism of Adam-God as proof that Brigham was a false prophet.

He stopped short of calling Brigham a false prophet. It seemed that he was going for setting up all the information for the listener to believe Brigham was a false prophet.  But he never actually said it.

From everything I know, he's still a faithful Saint.  But after hearing this, I wonder how closely he can walk up to that line and not step over it.

I haven't heard the lecture but speaking evil of a person's deeds and teachings is not the same as speaking evil of the person. Those are different sins (and at what point do they become sins?). Something to the extent of apostasy would need to be identified by his priesthood leader.

I question why he would go into such depth over Brigham Young if his gig is "about the founding of the nation and about how to participate in the political process", though and on the surface his YouTube series sounds like something I wouldn't trust for my children anyway.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I obviously don't know this person, but he reminds me of other allegedly faithful saints like Patrick Mason, Paul Reeves, Jim Bennett, and Scott Woodward who would all agree that God did not inspire the priesthood and temple ban. Someone like Carol Lynn Pearson would agree that polygamy is not from God, though she doesn't deny that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

The question of prophetic fallibility has been central to my own faith crisis, and I think you can look back over some of my posts for a decade or so and see that I've had some of these same questions for a long time. I don't know when doubting our prophets' claims -- or even coming right out and saying they made a mistake -- becomes evil speaking or other problem that God will frown upon. That said, might I interject some ideas:

1) Separating a teaching/practice from the prophets/apostles/people who taught/practiced it. I've often observed that, when someone claims that belief/practice X was wrong, we have a tendency to jump right into defending the prophets/apostles/people who taught/practiced X. It can be difficult, but I find value in focusing my rejection to teachings/practices and not to people/prophets/apostles. In your description of your friends work, you suggest that he might be more focused on Brigham Young himself than on Brigham Young's teachings and practices.

2) I think it is closely related, but get clear about what is redeemable and what isn't. I think Scott Woodward and Stephen Jones's podcast discussion really highlighted this for me, as the two insisted throughout their discussion that, whatever mistakes the prophets/apostles/saints might have made related to race, God was able and willing to redeem those who believed false ideas about race and God was able and willing to redeem those who were turned away from the church because they couldn't believe that those beliefs came from God. I think the hardest part of this is that our high demand religion isn't always very comfortable with God's leniency, so I think we need to think carefully about what we believe about what is and is not redeemable.

3) In many conversations, it often seems that we try to prioritize something else above moral truth and goodness. Some will cite loyalty as a higher virtue. Others, obedience. Sometimes, in relation to point (2), sincerity is emphasized. Sometimes we even suggest that God orchestrates these morally questionable practices as a kind of loyalty or obedience test. I find that there are multiple considerations and nuances that we consider (but never seem to consider them all at the same time) when talking about mistakes that prophets/apostles make.

It's my opinion that this is part of the most significant conversation that a church claiming to be based on the rock of revelation with a foundation of prophets and apostles can have. We have never claimed that our prophets and apostles are infallible. What does that really mean to us?

I would recommend trying a conversation about the rock of personal revelation. When all is said and done, what else are you going to go by (whatever is real to you), as fallible as you are (remember grace)? 

Our religion (and by extension our Church) is based on the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning the work of Jesus Christ. Whether we receive that testimony by revelation or by empirical evidence, it is a spiritual construct where a growing faith is always required.

Joseph Smith:

"The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.

"But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth."

[mirkwood]

@Carborendum  I've been wondering about him for a while now.  He's said some things the last few years that make you go, "hmmmm...."

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

@Carborendum  I've been wondering about him for a while now.  He's said some things the last few years that make you go, "hmmmm...."

I can't tell if you intended to tease me (joking) or if you know the individual that I'm talking about.

[Vort]

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I've often observed that, when someone claims that belief/practice X was wrong, we have a tendency to jump right into defending the prophets/apostles/people who taught/practiced X. It can be difficult, but I find value in focusing my rejection to teachings/practices and not to people/prophets/apostles.

The problem for us True-Bluers is that those arguing against the prophets (that is, those arguing that the prophets were engaging in false and evil practices) basically cite themselves and their opinions as their proof.

EXAMPLE 1

• "Plural marriage was evil! Brigham Young really established plural marriage!"
• Um...even if we believe that's true, so what?
• "Well, OBVIOUSLY polygamy is wrong!!"
• Okay, but why?
• *eye roll* "Step outside your little bubble and just LOOK at things! Polygamy is oppressive to women and against the law of chastity and terrible for children and gives you chlamydia and clogs your toilets and makes you go bald!"
• Those are mere assertions, not at all self-evident. The fact that we find polygamy distasteful today in our modern culture is no proof that it's evil. That is the essence of ignorant presentism.
• "Well, no, because you're just WRONG!"

EXAMPLE 2

• "Brigham Young was a racist! THAT is why the Priesthood ban against black Africans was established!"
• Oh, really? Prove it.
• "Just look at what happened! It's obvious!"
• Okay, if it's so obvious, show me the irrefutable evidence.
• "You're just closing your eyes to the truth! It's right there in front of you!"
• Look, you made a claim. Now back up your claim. It's really simple. Show that Brigham Young's supposed racism resulted in the Priesthood ban.
• "Okay, I grant that you can't draw a straight line based on the history we have. But come on! Be reasonable! What other explanation IS there?!"
• Well...maybe that God instituted the so-called Priesthood ban.
• "Oh, so you're saying that GOD IS RACIST, huh?!"
• Sure. God created people of different races. That is the most primal possible example of sorting people by race.
• "God CAN'T be racist! He's PERFECT!"
• So maybe what you define as "racism" is not actually an evil thing.
• "WHAT?! That's....you...racism is...what are you saying?! OF COURSE RACISM IS BAD! THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF RACISM! SOMETHING BAD!"
• No, actually, that is not the definition of racism. Racism is the different treatment of people based solely on race or race-based characteristics.
• "Yeah! That's BAD! Duh!"
• But we treat different races differently all the time, and claim it's good. Hospitals use racial classifications to scan for likely diseases or problems.
• "That's DIFFERENT! That's not BAD!"
• No, but it's different treatment. That's what you said "racism" is. Remember, God created the races.
• "Yes, but it's not wrong! The Priesthood ban WAS wrong! God would never have commanded such a thing."
• Why not?
• "Because God is just!"
• Like God confers His Priesthood on men but not on women or children?
• "That's different!"
• Why?
• "Because...because...IT JUST IS!"

These are real examples, not made-up strawmen. I daresay most of us have heard (and perhaps, in some cases, actually used) exactly these sorts of mindless, self-referential arguments.

Brigham Young lived plural marriage because he believed very firmly that God had commanded plural marriage to be lived by the Saints, beginning with Joseph Smith.

Brigham Young enforced the so-called Priesthood ban because he believed very firmly that God had commanded that those of black African descent not receive the Priesthood or engage in certain Priesthood ordinances at that time.

I realize that these are hard doctrines for some people to swallow. So be it. Jesus' doctrines were hard, too, so much so that many ceased to follow him. Are we like those faithless people? Or are we like Christ's faithful disciples who, when asked by the Lord if they too would leave, responded, "To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

Of course our prophets are not perfect. That's obvious, and irrelevant. Do we sustain them, or do we speak evil of them?

When the day comes that we are required to live plural marriage again—and if plural marriage is a true principle of the eternities, which I believe it is, then at some point those who gain their exaltation will certainly fall under that law—I dearly hope to be faithful and strong enough to enter into that covenant and to encourage all those whom I love to do the same. In the meantime, it is not currently required of us (or even allowed with living spouses), so why worry about it? And for heaven's sake, why would we damn ourselves by speaking evil of the prophets over things that we clearly do not even understand?

[zil2]

22 hours ago, zil2 said:

It will do no good to sow doubts about Brigham Young's validity as a prophet, but there's a strong chance it will cause harm.

It occurred to me as I read this a second time that the potential harm is disastrous: If Brigham Young was a false prophet, if he did not have God's authority (it seems to me that's the definition of "false prophet"), then either some other successor in some other sect did, or the line of authority was broken (just as when the original apostles died)  and Christ's priesthood is no longer on the Earth.  At least, that's how it logically looks to me.

And if your friend doesn't believe that, then he has to believe Brigham Young was the Lord's choice for continuing that line of authority, in which case, said friend has no business second-guessing the Lord.

[mirkwood]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I can't tell if you intended to tease me (joking) or if you know the individual that I'm talking about.

I don't know him personally, but I know who you are talking about.  

[Carborendum]

30 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I don't know him personally, but I know who you are talking about.  

Well, I still have hope for him. But you're right.  He says things that make one wonder.

[Traveler]

I will begin my post by saying that all the posters of this thread have the basic concept all wrong and upside down.  Well – that statement could get some attention.  Sometimes we look at things within a specific context and we panic because of the only conclusion we can draw in that context.

Joseph made some very serious mistakes.  He lost several sacred pages of the translation of the Book of Mormon strictly in open rebellion against G-d’s command.  What chosen prophet does that?  Joseph also got caught up in the Kirtland Safety Society and lost millions of precious dollars to the poverty-stricken fledgling Church.

It is not that difficult – if you want to find fault in the “L-rd’s Anointed” it is not that difficult.  Lucifer found fault in our Eternal Father in Heaven and divided the most advanced, intelligent and sophisticated society that exists in association to this universe.  The Scribes and Pharisees – the most knowledgeable students (and preservers) of sacred scripture found sufficient fault in Jesus of Nazareth to condemn him to death.  Any prophet of any time period that has said anything important has been seriously discounted – sometimes even put to death (example Abinadi).

The arguments against truth have never found difficulty in criticizing those that bear that truth.   It is not uncommon that there is some justification in such criticism.  Our G-d knows these things and that opposition is necessary.  It is my personal belief that G-d has his servants and covenant Saints in the palm of his hands.  He sees where all things come from and where all things lead to.

There are many of us multi-generational members that have speculated badly why certain children of G-d were kept from the priesthood and temple covenants because of their lineage.  As to polygamy – both the act and purpose was seriously abused by many that should have known better having received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We live in turbulent times – not just physically but spiritually and theologically as well.  We have our living prophets, our living G-d and our living Church.  The operative concept here is “living”.  Included in the concept of living is the revelation of truth.  Our living Church has living stake presidents, bishops and many ministering servants – most certainly including our sister Saints.  We do not need to rely of the testimony of any one single individual – we have many anointed Saints.  More than at any other time in the history of mankind on this earth.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

On 10/28/2024 at 7:30 AM, Carborendum said:

He lays polygamy and the priesthood ban squarely at Brigham's feet and says that they were clearly uninspired. They should never have happened.  It was completely wrong to include them in our doctrines.  And he also gave a scathing criticism of Adam-God as proof that Brigham was a false prophet.

For a self proclaimed expert to charge Brigham Young with the origin of polygamy is nonsense.

We don’t have enough information about the ban on priesthood.  And we shouldn’t judge the early saints based upon our current understanding of racism.

Adam-God is still a conundrum of a line of thought.  I think that Brigham Young heard something that Joseph Smith Shared with him that he confused.  But to act like Adam-God theory was the only teaching the Brigham Young taught is hateful and just wrong. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.  As well as all the other prophets of the Lord.

Go BYU!

Edited October 29 by mikbone

[JohnsonJones]

On 10/28/2024 at 8:30 AM, Carborendum said:

I wonder at what point the principle of "evil speaking of the Lord's Annointed" becomes a concern.

I had a friend online who appears to be a fairly faithful Saint.  And he doesn't easily fit into a political mold.  So, that's refreshing.  We haven't spoken directly in many years.  So, I don't know what he's been doing for a while.  But he has published some very useful books for educating children about the founding of the nation and about how to participate in the political process.  I've read them and gave them to my children to learn.  He now has a Youtube channel that is picking up subscribers.

The latest lecture he gave was about how Brigham Young was basically a fraud.  He didn't actually say that Brigham was a fraud.  He said that Brigham did some fraudulent things.  And he backed it up with his interpretation of records from the time.

He lays polygamy and the priesthood ban squarely at Brigham's feet and says that they were clearly uninspired. They should never have happened.  It was completely wrong to include them in our doctrines.  And he also gave a scathing criticism of Adam-God as proof that Brigham was a false prophet.

He stopped short of calling Brigham a false prophet. It seemed that he was going for setting up all the information for the listener to believe Brigham was a false prophet.  But he never actually said it.

From everything I know, he's still a faithful Saint.  But after hearing this, I wonder how closely he can walk up to that line and not step over it.

There are many who have problems with some of the things Brigham Young did. 

One that I take exception with is the Adam-God theory.  Most do not understand it or what Brigham was actually saying.  As Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out, Brigham Young readily stated that there were three members in the Godhead, as we also acknowledge.  He also acknowledged a difference between who The Father was in the Godhead and Adam's role as Micheal.  It is (or has been in the past, probably still is, even if it isn't as explicit) made extremely clear in certain activities in the Temple, and in other items that originated from Brigham's and Wilford Woodruff's time.  Thus, most of what people think Adam-God is saying, is actually not accurate. 

It was due to these inaccurate understandings that the church eventually had to say it was not doctrine, because the way people were understanding it is not doctrine nor doctrinally sound.  However, what Brigham Young said and felt it was...is doctrinally sound.  It comes down to how people misunderstand what he said and what he was saying.  When it is understood it makes certain temple ceremonies make a lot more sense and the symbolism inherent with them far more applicable and understandable.  (unfortunately, I'm skirting way to close to the edge of things already, so I unfortunately cannot expound further on this unless we someday find ourselves in the temple ourselves where we may be able to discuss it more openly).

As for the other things, I feel the Brigham Young was inspired as a prophet.  I know there are those who don't agree with that in certain areas (for example, the above areas of polygamy and the racial ban, which I think most snufferites have as a pretty strong bastion of belief).  In this, I can say we don't have to believe everything that a prophet says is inspired to believe that the prophet is to be followed.  The prophet is a man.

The problem I see in the church today is that people worship the prophet and apostles rather than worshipping the Lord.  This leads to an idea that they are infallible (like the pope supposedly is).  They are not.  They are men, and as men can make mistakes.  So what if they said or did something that is not doctrinally sound?  Does that make them a fallen prophet instantly? 

My question would be if the gospel is still intact.  If it is, then it doesn't matter in the long run.  As long as we have not apostatized from the gospel of our Lord, than we are still good.  The Gospel continues, the ordinances for salvation and exaltation continue, and the church continues on with it's mission.  The prophet and apostles may be men and thus fallible, but Jesus Christ is perfect as is his gospel, and thus are the pathway for us to follow.  The prophet and apostles are the accessories to help us along that path.  With Salvation, it has to be our own decisions and choices to follow Jesus Christ and his mercy and atonement.  It is not in the ability nor capacity for a prophet or apostle to save us.  Thus, they are there to help us on our way in the best way they can, but it is on us to follow the gospel's principles and ordinances in order to accept the Lord's atonement that is what we truly are striving for. 

When we talk about the Prophet's and apostles, if we have problems that are nagging us and tearing us from the gospel, it is probably good to try to talk to someone about it to help us resolve the issue (before we fall away due to petty things).  I would not classify that as talking evil, but trying to overcome personal problems one has. 

People make mistakes, and people have different opinions on things.  Discussing differences of opinions on things is not necessarily a bad thing.  When we make one person's opinion taboo to discuss, and put them on a pedestal equal to deity, I think there becomes a grave problem.  The problem is not being able to tell the difference between worshipping someone, and adhering to another's guidance in how to follow the Lord while understanding they may make mistakes, thus ultimately it is on us to make the right choices and decisions.  In the first we can blame the prophet or apostles for any sins or shortcomings we have.  In the latter, our sins are on us and is a reason we need the atonement of our Lord.

On the otherhand if one is trying to destroy the church and the testimonies of the saints on purpose, and will in no wise ever change their mind on it, that is probably evil speaking and should not be done.  I feel many snufferites at this point are doing this, and that would qualify as evil speaking...in my opinion. 

 

PS:  I should add, on the Priesthood ban and on polygamy, the Church essays at some points imply that they were not inspired.  This is particularly strong in the essay relating to the Priesthood ban.  It doesn't not go explicitly into blaming Brigham Young as making it as merely a man rather than a prophet, but it has heavy implications into certain aspects.  If an LDS author is basing their current ideas off of the essays, then it is not hard to see where they may get the idea that the Priesthood ban and Polygamy were not inspired actions by Brigham Young.  I am not saying I agree with that position, but reading the Church essays on those topics certainly can give someone that opinion these days.

Edited October 29 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I should add, on the Priesthood ban and on polygamy, the Church essays at some points imply that they were not inspired.  This is particularly strong in the essay relating to the Priesthood ban.

This is simply false. There is no such implication. You appear to be confusing your own inferences with the essays' supposed implications.

[Carborendum]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is simply false. There is no such implication. You appear to be confusing your own inferences with the essays' supposed implications.

I have no idea how he concluded that from the Essays.  It repeats multiple times that the Lord had commanded many throughout history (many including Biblical figures) to submit to the practice to raise up seed unto the Lord.  Further, it says:

Quote

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage.

...

(Plural marriage) shaped 19th-century Mormon society in many ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population. Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition.

Where on earth is this implying that it is "uninspired"?

[zil2]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The problem I see in the church today is that people worship the prophet and apostles rather than worshipping the Lord.

We've established in a previous thread where you made this claim that you're attending a different church than I am (or ever have).  I reject the notion that you have objective evidence of even a significant percentage, let alone a super-majority of the Church members' attitude in this regard.  I just did some quick math - the percentage of members found in a single ward, or even stake, is so small that it's statistically irrelevant.  Quit making sweeping accusations against your brothers and sisters.

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, zil2 said:

We've established in a previous thread where you made this claim that you're attending a different church than I am (or ever have).  I reject the notion that you have objective evidence of even a significant percentage, let alone a super-majority of the Church members' attitude in this regard.  I just did some quick math - the percentage of members found in a single ward, or even stake, is so small that it's statistically irrelevant.  Quit making sweeping accusations against your brothers and sisters.

I had originally made the claim that he's attending a different church as a sarcastic accusation.  But I'm beginning to wonder if he really does attend a different church.

[zil2]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I had originally made the claim that he's attending a different church as a sarcastic accusation.  But I'm beginning to wonder if he really does attend a different church.

I doubt it.  The leaders of the Church are very much treated as celebrities here in the Utah media, and probably in various parts of social media.  I find it bizarre and sometimes mildly disturbing, but I've never seen anything remotely like "worship".  Just like we had a guy here on TH not that long ago who was converting to an orthodox Christian church because the ward and stake he was in were (according to him) celebrating all things LGBT (his description also sounded like he was attending some other church), I think it's possible some folks in JJ's area have gone overboard with following the prophet.  But I reject the idea that it's a wide-spread problem in the Church today - since I've never seen a hint of it.

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, zil2 said:

We've established in a previous thread where you made this claim that you're attending a different church than I am (or ever have).  I reject the notion that you have objective evidence of even a significant percentage, let alone a super-majority of the Church members' attitude in this regard.  I just did some quick math - the percentage of members found in a single ward, or even stake, is so small that it's statistically irrelevant.  Quit making sweeping accusations against your brothers and sisters.

Worshipping the prophet and apostles over the Lord means that you act as if they are like what the Catholics say the Pope is.  You see them as infallible.  This leads to people stumbling when we do this, and I see that there are many who stumble today because they see a problem with something a leader does and are told to either accept it or leave.  In some instances, they choose to leave rather than to resolve the issue.

This very thread has people saying that if someone has problems with a man, they cannot voice those problems.  This comes VERY close to worship, if not a form of worship.

Infallibility, or the belief of infallibility (the idea that a man, such as a pope, cannot make a mistake or to be wrong) is inherent in worshipping.  The gospel directs us that we are not to see our leaders as infallible or worship them in the place of deity (and of interest, the example Nephi gives to his brothers not to worship him, but the Lord instead).  However, what I see in reality is the idea of people worshipping a man rather than the Lord. 

You can criticize things that you are having problems with.  Evil speaking is a different item.  It is when one slanders the chosen of the Lord.  I'm not going into detail on this, but the difference would be if someone had a problem with where a temple was being built and felt it may cause problems with the local populace.   That's a problem with temple construction, but not necessarily the prophet.  Saying bad things about the prophet and decrying their position as the prophet would, on the otherhand, be evil speaking. 

Instead, in this thread I see some who seem to correlate the two and say you cannot ever have problems with decisions from the top.  That is almost akin to saying you need to accept something because whatever they do is like a deity doing it.  The idea goes that because one gets revelation from deity, they are acting as deity and thus are to be treated as deity.   I see this in this thread, and I see it occurring among church members.  They do not say it in that way, normally just saying one cannot express "criticism" or what they have difficulties in, but when saying things like that, it equates to this same idea. 

Seeing church leaders as infallible is a problem.  Invariably this causes problems in most religions that adhere to this, because when people see that they are led by men, instead of a deity, they start to question.  If they aren't allowed to see that these are men and that men make mistakes (and this is the problem when we conflict these ideas between evil speaking, and the ability to have an opinion or think critically about our own beliefs) and resolve that issue, many will think that we believe in the infallibility and deification of Church leaders when in reality, this is found nowhere in the gospel itself.

I see a LOT of people online criticizing church leaders and giving that as a reason they left (which really is evil speaking in this instance when that occurs).  If they could have had their questions given and addressed instead, where they realized that following the gospel and it's tenets does not necessarily mean accepting that men can do no fault, I think some of the problems we have with some members today could  have been resolved in a better fashion.

12 hours ago, Vort said:

This is simply false. There is no such implication. You appear to be confusing your own inferences with the essays' supposed implications.

I'll quote the following.  Though it has been toned down since it first was written, it would have been easiest simply to state this was done by a Prophet, as given by revelation.

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

It does not say that this was revelation or divinely given.  It does not say it has anything to do with his prophetic calling and in fact says that NO explanations of why these restrictions were given are accepted today as official doctrine of the church.  It is NOT hard to see where people may get the idea that it was something that Brigham Young himself just created, rather than something under the umbrella of Brigham Young's calling.  It would be easy enough to simply state that, rather than leaving the implication that the church has no idea or doesn't know (original wording was that they did not know why) this was done.

Then they include this section which Heavily implies it was done for other reasons that prophetic inspiration or revelation

Quote

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

You may disagree with the idea of the implication, but you are not society at large and most of society taking in the above three paragraphs are going to see that the priesthood ban was not due to inspiration, but due to other circumstances. 

I am not saying I agree with such interpretations of why the ban occurred, but the essay itself has what could be seen as a very strong implication that the ban was not incurred due to divine purposes, but social and cultural problems during that time period.

We can also see the church implying similar ideas on how Plural Marriage was implemented, though not quite as strongly implied as we see with the Priesthood ban essay. This is from the Plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay

Quote

Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties. Church leaders and members experienced these challenges as they heeded the command to practice plural marriage and again later as they worked to discontinue it after Church President Wilford Woodruff issued an inspired statement known as the Manifesto in 1890, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church. Through it all, Church leaders and members sought to follow God’s will.

It's not that plural marriage would then be uninspired, but it calls into question on whether it was followed correctly or not.  Once again, seeing that there are those that read these church essays and get that these things were not inspired, or how they were implemented were not inspired is not something that is hard to see.  It is there before our eyes.

I'm not saying that I agree with that assessment, but I've seen enough people who have drawn these types of conclusions from these essays that I'd say the accusations saying I'm seeing something that's not there are sort of a false witness against me.

 

PS:  Here's a litmus test I thought of to help determine whether you see church leaders as men, or see them as some sort of divine figure. 

Do you think the Prophet (or which ever church leader you are asking about) is righteous?

Why do you think this?

If your answer boils down to something such as...they are the prophet, of course they are righteous (and perhaps are more righteous than me), you probably are not seeing them as a man.  You have assigned to them that by virtue of position, they have to be something which you may or may not have evidence of. 

(and this happens in society far more than just worship of church leaders, we see it with celebrities and many others.  The shock some people have when they find a celebrity has done evil, or others have, shows how this type of celebrity worship can lead people to think things that are not necessarily correct about others.  The truth is in most instances, people have no evidence one way or the other regarding how righteous one is or is not).

If you say they are not righteous, that may actually also point to a serious problem if you are ascribing it simply due to their position as well.  How can you tell whether they are righteous or not simply from their position in life? 

There may be other reasons to say they are righteous or unrighteous and that implies that you aren't worshiping them for their position, but if your reasoning that they are or are not comes from their calling that they have (and be honest with yourself), then yes, that starts to become a type of worship, just like any other form of celebrity worship.

There are many saints out there that I know will say someone is righteous (or more righteous) simply because they know that person is called to a certain calling (Bishop, Stake President, and above that, Seventies, Apostles, and Prophets).  Maybe, for some odd reason, you have not seen this, but I have seen it from members in every place I've lived and every ward I've gone to in some way or fashion. 

We are supposed to follow the Prophet and he speaks to us for the Lord.  However, that does not mean we know who he really is (unless, of course, he is your personal friend or relative, which some of you may have that relationship with the Prophet or an apostle) and what his own personal life is like. 

Edited October 30 by JohnsonJones