- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
All I have is this simple question. Who are the “Lord’s Annointed”? Is it the Prophet, and the Quorum of 12? Does your Stake President or Bishop fall into this category? Is your local priesthood leader (EQ President) considered the Lord’s annointed? Why the term “annointed” rather than “servant”? I’ve always wondered this. Christ alone is the Anointed. Or, from another perspective, we all are the Lord’s Anointed. Anointed to bring Light into the Universe.
It all depends on how you look at it. It could be that the word “anointed” is an intentional consciousness state altering device, intended to jar you out of automatic listening.
Christos and Moshiach (Messiah) both mean anointed, so there is truth in what Tom says. I’ve heard both these answers before: 1 – Christ alone
2 – anyone who has been “washed & anointed” through initiatory work in the temple
There was an excellent thread on this about a year ago in the b’nacle. Can’t remember if it was T&S or BCC. I’ll look around. It was actually pretty funny. There was a story about a DL in someone’s mission who said that it meant that the other missionaries had to do what he said and couldn’t talk bad about him.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I’ve heard both these answers before:
1 – Christ alone
2 – anyone who has been “washed & anointed” through initiatory work in the temple
There was an excellent thread on this about a year ago in the b’nacle. Can’t remember if it was T&S or BCC. I’ll look around. It was actually pretty funny. There was a story about a DL in someone’s mission who said that it meant that the other missionaries had to do what he said and couldn’t talk bad about him.
I agree with hawkgrrrl. Esp. #2.HiJolly
YOU are. That’s why you’re here….
hawkgrrrl wrote:I’ve heard both these answers before:
There was an excellent thread on this about a year ago in the b’nacle. Can’t remember if it was T&S or BCC. I’ll look around. It was actually pretty funny. There was a story about a DL in someone’s mission who said that it meant that the other missionaries had to do what he said and couldn’t talk bad about him.
Isn’t this the meaning of the idea that we shouldn’t criticize our leaders? Granted, you can’t claim that right as the District Leader did (to force everyone to march in step, or to stop saying negative things about him), but isn’t that the standard that members of the Church should be abiding by? I believe it’s definitely referring to leaders, and not necessarily each person in the Church.
I dont’t believe it refers to just people who have done initiatories. Why have this requirement to not speak evil of them, and leave out all the other people in the world, including non-members who have never been formally annointed?
I guess we ought not to speak evil of each other, since we are each the vessel of God. Quote:Isn’t this the meaning of the idea that we shouldn’t criticize our leaders?
In some people’s minds, surely, but I think the idea goes way beyond that – especially as Tom has said.
Having said that, I don’t take criticism of ANYONE as a light thing, especially of those who are striving sincerely to help others. I can disagree with what someone thinks and believes – and even express that disagreement – without criticizing them personally. When you then consider the actual wording of “speaking evil of” – then perhaps you can start to see why I have no problem with this phrase in its “purest” sense. I know of NOBODY personally of whom I feel comfortable speaking evil – although I know some such people do exist.
Interpretations of that passage I can reject, but the idea itself is vital to happiness and love and charity and peace, imo.
Btw, the Epistle of Jude is fascinating if read with the general issue of speaking evil of others in mind. It can be hard to understand, and it certainly is controversial in some regards, but vs. 8-16 especially are interesting. Quote:I believe it’s definitely referring to leaders, and not necessarily each person in the Church.
I think that’s the most common way this is quoted, but I’m not sure that’s what it actually means.
Quote:I dont’t believe it refers to just people who have done initiatories. Why have this requirement to not speak evil of them, and leave out all the other people in the world, including non-members who have never been formally annointed?
There is a distinction inherent in the temple ceremony (as well as the D&C where it repeatedly says to only show these things to the believers) between the insiders & the outsiders. For example, you consecrate with the others who consecrate, not the whole world. Especially in the earliest iterations of the endowment, the focus was very much on those who were “in” vs. those who were not “initiated.” Insiders are afforded higher respect, loyalty and the accompanying privileges of the same. So, there is a case that could be made for this scripture to actually refer to washings & anointings.
It is often used in reference to not speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. That is interpreted as obeying leaders without questioning. I disagree with that interpretation. We should not speak evil of our leaders or make their work harder. We should not do that to anyone. We should help our leaders be good and effective leaders. Sometimes that might require us to disagree with them. There is a difference though between being constructive and uplifting, of helping someone else fill their role and do good work, and the opposite; of being destructive, draining and negative, of becoming a hindrance to the community good.
Well, we got the original reference for this term today in Sunday School. It’s what David used in explaining why he didn’t kill Saul in the cave. David meant that the despicable Saul was anointed by Samuel, the prophet of Jehovah, to be king, and was therefore worthy of some deference and respect (or some such reasoning). Tom
Tom Haws wrote:Well, we got the original reference for this term today in Sunday School. It’s what David used in explaining why he didn’t kill Saul in the cave. David meant that the despicable Saul was anointed by Samuel, the prophet of Jehovah, to be king, and was therefore worthy of some deference and respect (or some such reasoning).
Tom
Wow, I did not know that. It’s amazing how the culture can transform nuisances into doctrine. And it only took 190 years! I’m sure it happens in EVERY religion for the last thousands and millions of years. And we wonder why it’s so hard to find the “Truth.”
Brian Johnston wrote:It is often used in reference to not speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. That is interpreted as obeying leaders without questioning. I disagree with that interpretation.
We should not speak evil of our leaders or make their work harder. We should not do that to anyone….
For me, it means simply not to complain about them behind their backs. As a former leader many times over, I’ve been criticized for certain decisions I’ve made. People often make these judgments without a complete version of the facts at hand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.