Evil Speaking...

[_John Larsen]

I guess I am looking for a working definition of evil speaking. If I say Dallin Oaks lied when he said X. And that sentence is true, is it evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. It seems to me if what criticism I levy are true, they are not evil speaking. Otherwise we must define speaking the truth as an evil act, which I would disagree with.

Yes, that would be considered evil speak. You don't know the circumstances surrounding the lie. We all know that the Lord can and does ask His leaders to lie in the name or righteousness. You have no way of knowing if God sanctioned the lie, so you have no grounds to question the morality of it.

Bottom line, don't say anything bad about the lords anointed because they may be asked to do things that our moral senses would deem horrific. God is the author of morality, so if it is His will, it is, by default, moral.

I think a religion that has a special double secret morality that applies only to its leaders has big problems that cannot be addressed.

John

[_Scottie]

I guess I am looking for a working definition of evil speaking. If I say Dallin Oaks lied when he said X. And that sentence is true, is it evil speaking of the Lord's anointed. It seems to me if what criticism I levy are true, they are not evil speaking. Otherwise we must define speaking the truth as an evil act, which I would disagree with.

Yes, that would be considered evil speak. You don't know the circumstances surrounding the lie. We all know that the Lord can and does ask His leaders to lie in the name or righteousness. You have no way of knowing if God sanctioned the lie, so you have no grounds to question the morality of it.

Bottom line, don't say anything bad about the lords anointed because they may be asked to do things that our moral senses would deem horrific. God is the author of morality, so if it is His will, it is, by default, moral.

I think a religion that has a special double secret morality that applies only to its leaders has big problems that cannot be addressed.

John

You haven't been in apologetics long, have you?

In fact, if Joseph Smith would have sacrificed children on an alter with a harem of naked women all around him, the apologists would claim that since God told him to do it, it isn't immoral. Not only that, but child sacrifice is found in the Bible, so God has commanded it before...why not now??

[_LifeOnaPlate]

To quote Oaks:

"It's Wrong To Criticize Leaders Of The Church, Even If The Criticism Is True."

Care to buttress that with some context?

[_moksha]

To quote Oaks:

"It's Wrong To Criticize Leaders Of The Church, Even If The Criticism Is True."

Care to buttress that with some context?

Context "It's Wrong To Criticize Leaders Of The Church, Even If The Criticism Is True" Context

[_LifeOnaPlate]

To quote Oaks:

"It's Wrong To Criticize Leaders Of The Church, Even If The Criticism Is True."

Care to buttress that with some context?

Context "It's Wrong To Criticize Leaders Of The Church, Even If The Criticism Is True" Context

;)

[_Ray A]

You haven't been in apologetics long, have you?

In fact, if Joseph Smith would have sacrificed children on an alter with a harem of naked women all around him, the apologists would claim that since God told him to do it, it isn't immoral. Not only that, but child sacrifice is found in the Bible, so God has commanded it before...why not now??

You obviously haven't read the Orson Pratt/Brigham Young exchanges on Adam/God. He was also an early critic of polygamy, for which he was excommunicated for some nine months, after believing his wife's report over Joseph's. Nevertheless, for his own reasons he later sided with Joseph Smith (no doubt for corrupt reasons. Not). Some of you see these things in such black and white terms. Your above comments are, frankly, rather silly. You stereotype Mormons in the worst possible ways, and like to perceive yourselves as "thinkers" who escaped the "morg". You think, they don't. You are moral, they are immoral. God commanded child sacrifice, so Joseph Smith "would have" commanded it. Yet today the Church has even distanced itself from polygamy. The memos advocating child sacrifice have been withdrawn.

This is what I call a strawman. Look for the worst in the Bible and history, then claim "it's possible" for Mormons, too. No evidence needed. Just extrapolations.

[_karl61]

You haven't been in apologetics long, have you?

In fact, if Joseph Smith would have sacrificed children on an alter with a harem of naked women all around him, the apologists would claim that since God told him to do it, it isn't immoral. Not only that, but child sacrifice is found in the Bible, so God has commanded it before...why not now??

You obviously haven't read the Orson Pratt/Brigham Young exchanges on Adam/God. He was also an early critic of polygamy, for which he was excommunicated for some nine months, after believing his wife's report over Joseph's. Nevertheless, for his own reasons he later sided with Joseph Smith (no doubt for corrupt reasons. Not). Some of you see these things in such black and white terms. Your above comments are, frankly, rather silly. You stereotype Mormons in the worst possible ways, and like to perceive yourselves as "thinkers" who escaped the "morg". You think, they don't. You are moral, they are immoral. God commanded child sacrifice, so Joseph Smith "would have" commanded it. Yet today the Church has even distanced itself from polygamy. The memos advocating child sacrifice have been withdrawn.

This is what I call a strawman. Look for the worst in the Bible and history, then claim "it's possible" for Mormons, too. No evidence needed. Just extrapolations.

I think it was Orson Hyde and anyone who interviews witnesses knows that when someone is crossed (his wife) that they usally speak the truth right away and only over time, after seeing what their testimony can do, do they change their mind and say they are not sure.

[_Ray A]

I think it was Orson Hyde and anyone who interviews witnesses knows that when someone is crossed (his wife) that they usally speak the truth right away and only over time, after seeing what their testimony can do, do they change their mind and say they are not sure.

So what is this supposed to imply? Using that analogy, the Witness to the Book of Mormon should have denied it, at some stage, but they never did, at any stage.

[_Trevor]

You obviously haven't read the Orson Pratt/Brigham Young exchanges on Adam/God. He was also an early critic of polygamy, for which he was excommunicated for some nine months, after believing his wife's report over Joseph's.

Well, he almost got it right. Gotta give him some credit for that!

[_karl61]

I think it was Orson Hyde and anyone who interviews witnesses knows that when someone is crossed (his wife) that they usally speak the truth right away and only over time, after seeing what their testimony can do, do they change their mind and say they are not sure.

So what is this supposed to imply? Using that analogy, the Witness to the Book of Mormon should have denied it, at some stage, but they never did, at any stage.

are you saying Martin Harris never denied seeing the plates?