What is Evil Speaking and Who Does it Apply To?

[Finrock]

What does it mean to speak evil of people? Should we speak evil of anyone or is evil speaking of the "Lord's anointed" the only thing we ought not to do?

As long as we don't identify these individuals as the Lord's anointed, is it OK for us to go around speaking evil about people, whoever they may be?

-Finrock

[Silver Pie]

What does it mean to speak evil of people? Should we speak evil of anyone or is evil speaking of the "Lord's anointed" the only thing we ought not to do?

As long as we don't identify these individuals as the Lord's anointed, is it OK for us to go around speaking evil about people, whoever they may be?

-Finrock

(See other thread for what I thought it is.)

I vote no. How can we ever be Zion if we are going around speaking evil and having anger in our hearts?

[ElizaRSkousen]

I would say that disagreeing is not speaking evil of the lords anointed. but some may think it is these days.

[inho]

Here is what Dallin H. Oaks thinks about this:

Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.)

[inho]

Let me address the first part of your question: What is Evil Speaking?

In the above quote, Oaks says that criticism of church leaders is wrong and that "it does not matter that the criticism is true". Let me now offer another perspective. The phrase "evil speaking" is archaic and thus it would be enlightening to see how the early Saints understood it. I will quote Jonathan Stapley from an old blog post at bycommonconsent.com:

The early Mormon’s preferred theological dictionary (Matt and Sam have done some awesome work on this volume, which is forthcoming and I am sure Matt has further insight here) has an entry on “evil speaking,” which I think is helpful. John Wesley, who is the father of Methodism also had a popular sermon on the topic. Both are useful in understanding what the term means in context.

To paraphrase Buck, “evil speaking” is 1) to speak severely without just cause, 2) to speak beyond measure, or 3) to speak out of bad principles or wrong ends. Wesley also describes it as gossip or backbiting. I think all of these encompass well the proscribed practice.

[Thinker]

Interesting, Inho.
So really, speaking truth, even when unflattering of church leaders is not evil.
Lying about them, or criticizing excessively and based on wrong principles is “evil speaking.”

Makes sense. Jesus spoke badly of religious leaders - but it was true, constructive criticism and was not his excessive sole focus. In doing so, he helped people get off the track to hell they were on for following their examples.

To me, going on and on about bad history events with church leaders may be true but are based on the wrong principles. That was then - past is past. What I find more relevant are the issues (like finances and teachings that inspire depression etc) to be more important in helping improve current conditions - constructive criticism based on good principles.

[h_p]

Here is what Dallin H. Oaks thinks about this:

‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’

Does "the Lord's anointed" just mean church leaders? That's what I've always interpreted it to mean, but hasn't everyone who's been through the temple been anointed to become kings and queens? Just something that's been rolling around in my head for the last few years...

[Thinker]

Here is what Dallin H. Oaks thinks about this:

‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’

Does "the Lord's anointed" just mean church leaders? That's what I've always interpreted it to mean, but hasn't everyone who's been through the temple been anointed to become kings and queens? Just something that's been rolling around in my head for the last few years...

That’s one interpretation - logical.

In 1John 20 it implies that all are annointed within...
“27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.”

Another possible interpretation:
“Christ is in the New Testament 509 times and it means – ‘the anointed one.’”

And maybe Jesus didn’t like people pretending to act in the name of God, but in actuality not...
“42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.”

The spirit of the law inspires life - the letter kills. So maybe the Lord’s annointed refers to those whose hearts are set on doing God’s will - not so much an external position of social power.

[inho]

Related to this topic, is this verse in D&C which connects Lord's anointed and false accusations:

D&C 121
16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

[mgridle1]

While I think there is value in seeing the scriptures according to our modern eyes and verbage, I also think there is great value in understanding the scriptures in the verbage as they were seen hundreds of years ago. The 1828 dictionary has some great insight on this.

Evil does not mean generally what we think it to mean today.
2018
Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.
1828 http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/evil
Evil: Heb. to be unjust or injurious, to defraud.]
1.Having bad qualities of a natural kind; mischievous; having qualities which tend to injury, or to produce mischief.
2.Having bad qualities of a moral kind; wicked; corrupt; perverse; wrong; as evil thoughts; evil deeds; evil speaking; an evil generation.

If you notice the very definition of the word evil has significantly changed.

If one takes the 1828 definition of evil, then evil speaking would be speech that is unjust, injurious or spoken in order to defraud.

I do not agree with Elder Oak's assessment that criticisms of Church leaders is "evil speaking". If it was then the scriptures would have said "criticism", but they don't.

Clearly the word "criticism" was well-known and used in the 1800s, yet D&C 20:37 says:

"And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;"

If you look at the context in which it is being used, I think it is obvious it is being used in as in the 1828
definition as in:

A) And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor [unjust, injurious, or fraudulent] speaking.

I personally think that makes a lot more sense vs:

B) And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor criticism.

I think A makes much more sense for B in life there can clearly be criticism which is just and criticism that is unjust, there can be criticism that is due to hardness and there can be criticism that is not due to hardness.

For me, I think evil speaking means speaking done from a position where the intent is to cause injury, hurt, mime, defraud, etc. one another. I do not believe that simply criticizing (as in critically taking what they are saying, evaluating their actions and words and then judging their actions and words based upon scriptures/doctrine, etc. is evil speaking).

[Alaris]

I think intent here is everything. Evil speaking denotes what is in your heart.

[Finrock]

So, there are a few ways to consider this as far as I am concerned. I appreciate the comments shared so far.

First, I think its clear that evil speaking, whatever that means, applies to everyone, whether you're "anointed" or not. To be clear, I mean that we shouldn't be evil speaking about people regardless of who they are.

Second, not evil speaking of the Lord's anointed does not give us license and exempt us or somehow justify us in not reporting the wicked deeds done by those who might be in leadership positions and those who might not be in leadership positions in the Church. For example, if a bishop or a stake president is molesting a child we are not justified in keeping it a secret so that we don't speak evil of this bishop and so that we protect the good name of the Church or so that we can protect the integrity of the "keys" or whatever other thing we might pretend we must do so that we can remain loyal to the priesthood keys. That is utter b**ls**t.

But, what if the situation isn't so harmful or so extreme? What if we know something about a leader that is not flattering, which is true, but not in the realm of child abuse or something in that class? Should we be publicly calling out leaders? I'll share what I think a bit later but for now I want to see what others might think about what I've written and I need to go and don't have time to write the rest and give it justice.

-Finrock

[TrueIntent]

What does it mean to speak evil of people? Should we speak evil of anyone or is evil speaking of the "Lord's anointed" the only thing we ought not to do?

As long as we don't identify these individuals as the Lord's anointed, is it OK for us to go around speaking evil about people, whoever they may be?

-Finrock

No, My thoughts additionally.

“Evil speaking of the Lords annointed and taking the name of God in vain and every other impure practice”. These are Words From our temple ceremony.

Using scripture only to define these things. ...define who “the Lords anointed are”, the title of “apostles”. And what it actually means to “take the name of God in vain” from scripture only, as practiced anciently when these words were written, as well as Jospeh’s understanding. , not according to modern Mormonism. When you define these things using scripture.....

You will find that all these things are connected to false preachers vs true messengers. Just like the temple ceremony. We must discern between the two.

Hopefully this will make sense what I’m saying. But it all goes back to “speaking evil of the lords annointed”. Do we even recognize who “they” are? So frequently I hear teachings at church that contradict the teachings of the New Testament apostles contained in scripture. Do we speak evil of them? Yeah I hear it sometimes, hopefully ignorantly.