Hey everyone,
One problem I had with the endowment ceramony was this one. One of the Covenants made are against "All Light Mindedness, Loud Laughter, EVIL SPEAKING OF THE LORD'S ANOINTED..." Does that mean that you are not suposed to say bad things about apostles or any church leaders? If so, in my presentation last week I broke that one by saying to everyone in my class that "I think Boyd K. Packer is a world class Ass Wipe."
Not that it matters anymore. Well I just need clarity on what "Evil Speaking of The Lord's Anointed Means." If it is what I think it is, than that is another sign that Mormonism is a cult.

On PBS The Mormons, when Dallin H Oaks (I believe that's who it was, I could be wrong) said, "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if it's true".

Even if it's true. Wow!

As I understand it, it is pointing out any problems with what the leaders have to say.

I'm sure most everybody who knows many Mormons knows at least one who is a groupie of the GAs. In my neighborhood there are at least three that come to mind. These are the guys who cry in the priesthood meeting following general conference. They get all choked up and talk about how wonderful it was to listen to the profit and apostles......gag me.

Anyway, I've always wondered if they are just building protective walls so they don't accidentally break the temple vows. Their thinking might be: "If I'm always praising the Priesthood then I'll never slip up and accidentally call them fucked up dipshits and condemn myself to Hell".

It also seems to imply saying you disagree with ANY priesthood leader's decision.

The lords annointed includes EQ presidents, Bishopric, Stake presidency, High Council, on up to the profit.

In short, any one who has any authority over you is the "Lords Annointed" and is not to be questioned.

Note: this never means women

Of course it doesn't mean women. Women are chattel and around just to make babies for their husbands. Right?

When I said in EQ that Bednar's conference talk felt like a whack on the head to me, I was told after class by a member of the bishopric that I was out of line, and reminded that we sustained him as a prophet seer and revelator and that we had covenanted against evil speaking of the lord's anointed.

Yup, even saying how you personally feel is against the rules.

I think the lack of respect for the "lord's annointed" when I started reading this board was the biggest shock for me. At that point, I still thought highly of them. Gradually, I realized it wasn't gays who had messed up my life, but the LDS LEADERS. That was a real shock, but one of the best things that ever happened to me as far as losing beliefs. I loved telling the bishop I didn't recognize him as having authority over me. I was shocked when he said that since I hadn't been in the meeting where he was sustained as bishop that I was correct.

For that much respect - I'd like a little proof

When an RfM poster referred to our Prophet, Gordon B. Hinkley, as "The Hinkster."

It was my first time lurking on the board and I was scandalized.

;o)

Who put that phrase in the ceremony? Con man, liar, adulterer, etc. Joseph Smith or his successor, about whom you can say, "All of the above plus murderer"?

Of course these guys didn't want any negative stuff circulating about them, true or not. Especially the true stuff.

Temple - shield - oil - old lady chanting promises on my loins. Doesn't that make me the Lord's anointed? If so, Bishop Jackwagon and his two minions are in a heap, heap, heap of trouble. Actually, more than a few tale telling ward members are due for an @ss kicking too.

GOOD!

It IS ok to criticize the leadership even when the criticism is true. If it were not, our agency would be limited, thus upsetting the great plan. Balance has to be maintained. Theocratic rule distorts and twists personal religious freedom. It contradicts having a personal relationship with deity. No one else can intepret religion for you.

The leaders will never be able to reconcile "obedience" and "covenant" with free agency.

When a prophet makes a false claim and we call him on it, is that evil speaking?

When a prophet teaches Blood Atonement, is it evil speaking to point that out? And what about those who claim he did not- are they the ones who are actually evil speaking? After all they are denying the prophets words.

When we discover our family history includes Josephs multiple wives, is it evil speaking to tell about it?

When a prophet lies, is he speaking evil of the Lords annointed, or is it the person who points it out?