Follow your Leaders even when they are wrong

[_zzyzx]

and you will be blessed.

Did not work for Hitlers crowd and it won't work now. No matter what member of the Chosen Twelve repeats this BS, it still does not hold water.

Why are we given intelligence and the ability to choose right from wrong and are still taught bilge water crap like this other than to satisfy the lust for power of low minded power mad fools?

[_ktallamigo]

Yes, I agree..

"Following the leaders even when they are wrong" is the biggest load of b***s*** ever!

I had a nephew tell me this recently. Why would one even need a brain?

[_Ray A]

Bruce R. Mc Knucklehead:

If it is true, as I am advised, that you speak on this subject of the progression of God at firesides and elsewhere, you should cease to do so. If you give other people copies of the material you sent me, with the quotations it contains, you should cease to do so. It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what is doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:11-16.) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. The Lord's house is a house of order and those who hold the keys are appointed to proclaim the doctrines.

Now you know that this does not mean that individuals should not do research and make discoveries and write articles. What it does mean is that what they write should be faith promoting and where doctrines are concerned, should be in harmony with that which comes from the head of the Church. And those at the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works. If they err then be silent on the point and leave the event in the hands of the Lord. Some day all of us will stand before the judgment bar and be accountable for our teachings. And where there have been disagreements the Lord will judge between us. In the meantime if we want to save our own souls we need to strive with all the power we have to be in harmony with the revelations and not to be teaching or promulgating doctrines that suit our fancy.

Rebuke to Eugene England.

[_Morrissey]

This counsel makes sense when one realizes that the purpose of the counsel has nothing to do with the individual's welfare but everything to do with the Church's welfare.

[_Yong Xi]

It seems to me the difficulty the Church has with those who question leadership decisions is rooted in the belief that to question is to imply lack of inspiration or revelation which is authorized by keys. In order to maintain power and control, leadership can display personal infallibility, while claiming revelatory authority.

[_LDSDoubter]

What BRM said in the quote Ray A just posted proves to me that he was bipolar, and had a serious megalomania. I think Jesus Christ would be proud of me for standing up for Him and not following the bs that these thieves put out.

I think most cult leaders have some kind of complex, I think they are usually bipolar and think that they have a special mission in life where even if they lie people should still follow them, like in the BRM quote.

[_Dr. Shades]

In fairness, I think the original statement was uttered by a General Authority no later than Heber J. Grant's day.

Also in fairness, Bruce R. McConkie's statement seemed to imply not to "follow" your leaders even when they are wrong, but simply to "remain silent" when your leaders are wrong. One is advising passivity, the other is advising action.

Last but not least, I think the undercurrent nowadays isn't so much "follow your leaders even when they are wrong," but "follow your leaders because they are not wrong."

[_Mercury]

In fairness, I think the original statement was uttered by a General Authority no later than Heber J. Grant's day.

Also in fairness, Bruce R. McConkie's statement seemed to imply not to "follow" your leaders even when they are wrong, but simply to "remain silent" when your leaders are wrong. One is advising passivity, the other is advising action.

Last but not least, I think the undercurrent nowadays isn't so much "follow your leaders even when they are wrong," but "follow your leaders because they are not wrong."

I distinctly remember a similar statement by Oaks to the effect that "its wrong to question church leaders even if the criticism is true".

Its the same type of arrogant bull.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Mercury's right:

http://www.living-prophet.information/LDS/086_ ... _Oaks.html

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) 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.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“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.” (D&C 121:16.)

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“ ‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

[_Some Schmo]

See, this is the kind of crap that makes me question the intellectual honesty of the church's followers. If this doesn't scream "CULT!!!" I don't know what does.

Remain silent when they're wrong? You may as well consign yourself to the life of a mute.