Guest Starsky Posted January 26, 2004 Report Posted January 26, 2004 Are only the GAs and ward and stake leaders the Lord's annointed?I remember somewhere in the back of my wee little brain...having a book in hand which expressed the idea that we were all annointed before we came here...and then again in the temple.So if we are being abusive gossips about everyone but the leaders...are we not still guilty of speaking ill of the Lord's annointed? Quote
Guest curvette Posted January 26, 2004 Report Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Jan 25 2004, 11:39 PM So if we are being abusive gossips about everyone but the leaders...are we not still guilty of speaking ill of the Lord's annointed? It would seem so, yes. Quote
Blessed Posted January 26, 2004 Report Posted January 26, 2004 Could you explain to me what you mean by the Lord's Annointed?I believe there are those with special annointings, but all belivers who have been confirmed have been annointed with the Holy Ghost.Is this different? Quote
Behunin Posted January 26, 2004 Report Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by Blessed@Jan 26 2004, 02:50 PM Could you explain to me what you mean by the Lord's Annointed?I believe there are those with special annointings, but all belivers who have been confirmed have been annointed with the Holy Ghost.Is this different? Blessed,You have got the right stream of thought here. Peace is correct. All are the Lord's annointed. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted January 26, 2004 Report Posted January 26, 2004 It does give one some interesting thoughts. :) Quote
Traveler Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 Just adding a thought. Annointing is an indication of covenant. I have attempted to explain before but many do not seem to understand covenants. Besides the verbal exchange of covenant, which is to honor by mouth the ancients indicated that a trial of the "heart" was also a part of the covenant. Therefore a covenant was not complete or "perfect" until the covenant had been put to the test and proven loyal.In ancient societies the general punishment for covenant disobedience was to be blinded (as was Sampson). This is where the saying of Jesus came where he said "He who has eyes to see". Which is an indication of covenant obedience.The warning in scripture is to not speak ill of someone loyal to their covenants. There is no provision for which covenants. In general I do not support any denegration of covenants made to G-d, nor do I incourage anyone break any covenant they have made to G-d - regardless of their professed religion. As a final note I am not impressed with verbal commitments that are not backed up by how a person lives. I believe such a commitment of the heat is necessary.The Traveler Quote
Guest Starsky Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 ....Thank you Taveler.So covenant taking isn't necessarily covenant keeping/seeing people.And covenant keeping people are the Lord's annointed....if they have their covenants tested and committed in their hearts.Thus the blind are covenant breakers.This is so cool because it stands right with the spiritual blindness and the spiritual seeing.Blind guides/covenant breaking leaders...like Wicked King Noah.This really opens a new area of thought for me. Quote
Cal Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the phrase (ill speaking of the L--ds annointed) originate with JS? And wasn't he speaking about the leadership of the Church? Isn't that actually what was meant when he said it? Wasn't it about keeping people from bad mouthing the Brethern so as to cause dissention in the ranks; something that had caused a lot of apostacy in the early Church in the Ohio, Missouri and even Nauvoo eras? Quote
Guest Starsky Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Jan 26 2004, 08:52 PM Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the phrase (ill speaking of the L--ds annointed) originate with JS? And wasn't he speaking about the leadership of the Church? Isn't that actually what was meant when he said it? Wasn't it about keeping people from bad mouthing the Brethern so as to cause dissention in the ranks; something that had caused a lot of apostacy in the early Church in the Ohio, Missouri and even Nauvoo eras? Everything JS said was based upon an eternal principle...his application was suited for the time...but the principle is eternal with many many applications which are just as valid. Quote
Cal Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 Peace--what it really means is "the emperor has no clothes, but don't tell anyone out loud." Quote
Guest Starsky Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Jan 26 2004, 09:41 PM Peace--what it really means is "the emperor has no clothes, but don't tell anyone out loud." LOL...I just read your other thread about how you feel in your active membership....I have felt like that for decades as well...I have also felt the way Jenda feels in her church...Now I come here and find you harrassing me.... Well with my new found understanding of where you are coming from....I will answer your post with this:Be true to yourself. Be honest with yourself. Be loving with yourself. Feed your spiritual need. Stay within the church, yet go beyond it for what you need.I, personally, seek principles to live by because the applications can change from year to year, stake to stake.....but the principles will never change.That is why I feel steady and unshakable....principles are eternal.So...my emperor does have clothes.... Quote
Guest curvette Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Jan 26 2004, 08:52 PM Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the phrase (ill speaking of the L--ds annointed) originate with JS? And wasn't he speaking about the leadership of the Church? Isn't that actually what was meant when he said it? Wasn't it about keeping people from bad mouthing the Brethern so as to cause dissention in the ranks; something that had caused a lot of apostacy in the early Church in the Ohio, Missouri and even Nauvoo eras? I believe it is now "Evil" speaking of the Lord's annointed. I think it it did originate with the very early brethren for the reasons you stated. As it is spoken in the temple's today though, it probably has a different meaning to those who receive it. In an ideal world, I guess none of us would speak evil of any other person. I suppose the "Lord's annointed" would feel that they are a little more worthy of this blessing. :) Quote
Cal Posted January 27, 2004 Report Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by Peace+Jan 26 2004, 11:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Jan 26 2004, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 26 2004, 09:41 PM Peace--what it really means is "the emperor has no clothes, but don't tell anyone out loud." LOL...I just read your other thread about how you feel in your active membership....I have felt like that for decades as well...I have also felt the way Jenda feels in her church...Now I come here and find you harrassing me.... Well with my new found understanding of where you are coming from....I will answer your post with this:Be true to yourself. Be honest with yourself. Be loving with yourself. Feed your spiritual need. Stay within the church, yet go beyond it for what you need.I, personally, seek principles to live by because the applications can change from year to year, stake to stake.....but the principles will never change.That is why I feel steady and unshakable....principles are eternal.So...my emperor does have clothes.... Hey Peace---you actually said something I can agree with. I guess I can quit "harassing" you now Quote
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Maybe we should just stop speaking "ill" of anybody. Anointed or not. Quote
Guest curvette Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 29 2004, 06:22 PM Maybe we should just stop speaking "ill" of anybody. Anointed or not. Naw--then we'd all be translated and we wouldn't have this board to vent on! Quote
Cal Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 What, by the way, would "evil" or "ill" speaking consist of? Quote
Guest curvette Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 I always interpreted it as meaning anything negative--even when the "annointed" one earns it. Quote
Cal Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. "Follow me over the cliff guys. When we get there I promise you'll sprout wings". Quote
Guest Starsky Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by curvette@Jan 29 2004, 08:05 PM I always interpreted it as meaning anything negative--even when the "annointed" one earns it. So would that include reporting a bishop who was being abusive with his authority? Because if it does, it would explain why the church is having such a big problem with such authority... Quote
Guest curvette Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by Peace+Jan 29 2004, 10:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Jan 29 2004, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Jan 29 2004, 08:05 PM I always interpreted it as meaning anything negative--even when the "annointed" one earns it. So would that include reporting a bishop who was being abusive with his authority? Because if it does, it would explain why the church is having such a big problem with such authority... I suspect it does. I think that the church expects it's members to go through the chain of command when problems present themselves. For instance: speak to the Stake President if you suspect ecclesiastical abuse by the Bishop instead of voicing criticism to other ward members.(?) I'm not sure if this is in order to prevent mutiny or to keep good public relations. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Jan 30 2004, 08:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 30 2004, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Peace@Jan 29 2004, 10:47 PM <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Jan 29 2004, 08:05 PM I always interpreted it as meaning anything negative--even when the "annointed" one earns it. So would that include reporting a bishop who was being abusive with his authority? Because if it does, it would explain why the church is having such a big problem with such authority... I suspect it does. I think that the church expects it's members to go through the chain of command when problems present themselves. For instance: speak to the Stake President if you suspect ecclesiastical abuse by the Bishop instead of voicing criticism to other ward members.(?) I'm not sure if this is in order to prevent mutiny or to keep good public relations. Actually our stake presidents have always sided with out bishops until we took more drastic measures....like having the stake president sit in on one of our TR interviews with out bishop and us...LOL Boy...oh Boy....lets just say this bishop wasn't in the seat very long....LOLAnother time we had to go clear to the Area President to get it resolved because the stake president wouldn't listen to us...only his bishop. LOL....LOLBoth times the bishop was not in office very long. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.