Tag: traditions

False Traditions

Both the Book of Mormon and modern revelation warn that false traditions are dangerous. They are like chains, binding and blinding victims. Missionaries to the Lamanites taught the gospel and worked to overthrow the false traditions. When converted, these false ideas were discarded, “And as many as were convinced did lay down their weapons of war, and also their hatred and the tradition of their fathers.” (Hel. 5:51.)

Samuel the Lamanite explained in his warning sermon what had happened to the deceived and why. They had “dwindled in unbelief because of the traditions of their fathers.” (Hel. 15:15.)

Alma explained how the Lamanites had been deceived, “it is because of the traditions of their fathers that caused them to remain in their state of ignorance[.]” (Alma 9:16.) He promised that at some future time they would be freed from this captivity. “At some period of time they will be brought to believe in his word, and to know of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers[.]” (Alma 9:17.)

King Benjamin explained to his sons that the Lamanites were in a corrupt state because of the traditions they had been handed down, “even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct.” (Mosiah 1:5.)

Modern revelation warns about disobedience and false traditions. The “evil one” removes light and truth from a man’s soul through both. False traditions are as effective as disobedience in darkening the hearts, minds and souls of men. “And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.” (D&C 93:39.)

When a false tradition is accepted as truth, it controls a man’s mind. He sees through the lens of the tradition. Hence the blinding effect. When the truth is taught, it conflicts with the tradition. The tradition controls, and the truth, presented in plainness, cannot be seen.

False traditions give people security, reassuring them they are in the right way. When it has been taught to them by parents and trusted adults while they are young, there is a great mental and emotional challenge to seeing things in a new light. Losing the tradition can mean being alienated from friends, family and community.

Because false traditions control men, and the gospel requires men to repent and forsake the false traditions, Jesus warned: “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10:35-37.) It is not easy to follow the Lord when it requires us to depart from comfortable traditions. But it is the only way to obtain salvation.

Joseph Smith explained, “Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things.” (Lecture 6:7.)

Jacob 5: 66-70

In order to develop and grow the tree, the Lord requires there to be good fruit growing before cutting away the bad. (5: 66.) The pruning and trimming away the bad will accelerate as good continues to grow. The good growth cannot be threatened by the bad, because the Lord will cut off, cut down, and discard the bad as the good develops.

Ultimately, the purpose is to have the good overwhelm the bad. When that happens, the bad will be cut down, thrown in the fire, and burned. (Id.) They will not be allowed to overcome the good, or “cumber the ground” of the Lord’s vineyard. (Id.)

It does not matter if the bad occupy positions of authority, or have been “called of God” into the lofty positions of the tree. They will be struck down when they attempt to overcome the good growth. (D&C 85: 7.) The intention of the Lord, and His prophetic promise is that His house will be set in order. (Id.) This, however, is still future.

The natural branches are to return to the natural tree (5: 67) to produce the natural fruit again. (5: 68.) That is the original doctrine, the covenant of adoption to God’s family, the return of covenant Israel. Children suitable for Zion are the Lord’s agenda. It hasn’t changed. He will bring it to pass, and we cannot claim any credit when it comes, for it is the Lord alone who will “bring again Zion.” (See, e.g., 3 Ne. 16: 18; Mosiah 12: 22, 15: 29; D&C 84: 99; Isa. 52: 8.) This is His work, after all. We get to participate in it, but the work is His.

Those who falsely claim to be the Lord’s will be “cast away” from the tree, because they can never bring again the natural fruit. (5: 69.) This great last work, which will unfold over generations and result in a restored tree, will be the last time He will work in His vineyard. (Id.)

The Lord sent His servant to labor. There were to be others. But the numbers of the servants who would be sent were disproportionately small. The servant went, and there were “other servants; and they were few.” (5: 70.)

We do not get to chooose who the Lord sends. He does. When He sends a servant we have the rare and infrequent opportunity to be invited back to the roots of the restoration again. There is no point in insisting that we are doing things right, and that we have no need to repent and return. We must respond, repent, regain whatever was offered, reconnect with the fathers, or risk being utterly wasted at His coming.

I think the proposition is self-evident that this will always be in or near the church. The numbers may not be large in comparison to the world, but the work of the Lord has never created a great harvest. The last days vineyard is either filled with bad branches requiring trimming and burning, or in the Lord’s parable, always mingled with tares needing gathering and burning. (See Matt. 13: 30; D&C 86: 7.) The field is always to be burned. (D&C 86: 7.)

Remember, however, that any fruit produced is infinite, eternal, and will produce forever in His House. (See D&C 132: 20.) Even if there were only one couple saved, from that single source there would be worlds without end, and seed like the sand of the sea or as the stars in heaven for their number. (See Gen. 22: 17.) Therefore, from this vantage point, you cannot look upon the harvest as meager. From the vantage point of the Lord in His vineyard it is infinite and eternal. Even if the harvest produced but one, how great would be the joy in heaven over that one. (See D&C 18: 15.) And if there were one, how much greater would it be if there were as great a number as seven? (D&C 18: 16.) Remember the first Zion was made of seven patriarchs and their families. (D&C 107: 53.)

The labor to produce fruit is great. The amount of humility and meekness required to repent and return is almost beyond the tolerance of mankind. Even those who learn a little think they know much more than they do. We tend to gather together, speak reassuring words to one another, and stop up our repentance by the mutual praise we lavish on each other. We interfere with our own repentance.

I’ve often reflected on our presumption that we can apply the words of scripture that were originally given when Joseph Smith was the church’s presiding officer to all later times and individuals. Joseph, of course, stood in the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Therefore, the revelations to him – about him – have their veracity derived from that standing. Can we now apply statements to him, or about him to every situation we’ve encountered since then? Do we have the right to do that without some further revelation giving us that right? Is God’s promise about His protection of the church from error, given while Joseph was living, still applicable when we have lost the man who communed with Jehovah? Are we to expect all successors to also act as if they too hold the keys to the mysteries and sealed truths (D&C 28: 7) even when some have told us they have never received any audience with angels or the Lord? Are we allowed to presume the Lord invariably “sends another” when we vote to fill Joseph’s former office? (Id.) Our traditions gives us an answer that we heard again in last General Conference through President Eyring’s Priesthood Session talk. (Families Under Covenant) That talk was reassuring indeed. I hope it is altogether correct. I hope it answers this question.  

2 Nephi 33: 7-9

2 Nephi 33: 7-9:

“I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at his judgment-seat. I have charity for the Jew– I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.  I also have charity for the Gentiles. But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation.”
It is necessary to read all three verses to see what Nephi is saying. What distinctions does he make? Is his charity to his people unequivocal? Is his charity to the Jews unequivocal? Is his charity to the gentiles equivocal? Why?
Does the condition that appears in the final verse apply to the preceding group (gentiles) or to all three groups? How do the remarks made by Nephi in the prior verses we have looked at modify or explain which group the final limitation should be applied?
What has Nephi foreseen or said to suggest he has hope for his own people? What has he done to seek charity by his consecrated petitions for his own people? What has he said about the future inheritance of the covenant blessings for both his people and the Jews?
On the other hand, how little promise has he shown for the gentiles?  How conditional are their latter-day rights? How much failure has been prophesied regarding the gentiles? 
Since we’ve been discussing this for months, I am not going to repeat it. You can look to see the scope of Nephi’s declarations for his people, for the Jews and for the gentiles. After you’ve done that, it becomes plain that Nephi has:
Charity for his people.
Charity for the Jews, from whence he came.
Charity for the Gentiles, but he cannot hope for the gentiles except they shall be reconciled to Christ, enter into the narrow gate, walk in the strait path, and continue to do so until the end of the day of probation.
We are reminded again of the Savior’s own prophecy of the failure of the gentiles. (3 Nephi 16: 10.) We are reminded of the Lord’s promise to take the fullness from us in 1841 if we did not complete the construction of the Nauvoo Temple within the allotted time given. (D&C 124: 32.) If we failed, we would be rejected. We did not complete the Nauvoo Temple in the three and a half years allotted after that revelation while Joseph was alive. Then Joseph was taken, much like Moses was taken.  (D&C 84:25.) What the Lord threatened we would lose permanently at the end of our appointment was the fullness of the priesthood, which He had already removed from us in 1841. (D&C 124: 28.) So the gentiles sit in a precarious position indeed.
You must answer for yourself the questions posed by Nephi’s teaching:
-Have we been reconciled to Christ?
-Have we entered into the narrow gate?
-Do we walk in the strait path?
-If so, have we done so as a people until the end of our days of probation?
To be able to restore again that which we lost before 1841 would require someone truly mighty in Spirit. Fortunately, we have been promised that lifeline will be extended to us again at some point. (D&C 85: 7.) However even he will not be able to help a gentile who has not been diligent having their name written in the book of the law of God.
The mothers who minister to their children in patience and love will undoubtedly be among those whom the Lord will remember in that day.  The first parable, The Busy Young Man, is about those little acts through which we find our Lord. The Weathered Tree is about the enduring power of a mother’s love, and how like the Lord’s own sacrifice, this often under appreciated calling has been and continues to be.
Mothers oftentimes do not take time to study because they are too busy engaged in the actual work of charity, love and service. Some may not be able to construct a scripture-based explanation or exposition, but they recognize truth by the light acquired within by their fidelity to the Lord’s system of conferring light and truth.
I have been far more impressed with mothers in Zion than with the tattered remains of what is now called Zion by the gentiles. The pride and foolish traditions which claim authority while lamenting the lack of power are the expected results of the latter-day gentile stewardship according to Nephi.

The good news, and the thing we should rejoice over, is that Nephi does
extend to us gentiles an opportunity to be saved. All we must do to join in the blessings is to:

-Be reconciled to Christ.
-Enter into the narrow gate.
-Walk in the strait path.
-Endure to the end of our days of probation.
So we do have a choice. No matter what failings have occurred or things we lack.
It was Lifehouse who sang an anthem to yearning:
Desperate for changing,
starving for truth,

Letting go of all I’ve held onto,
I’m standing here until you make me move
I’m hanging by a moment here with you

Forgetting all I’m lacking
Completely incomplete
I’ll take your invitation
You take all of me..
I like that song. It is strangely applicable to the condition we find ourselves. But our yearning of course ought to be for the Redeemer who alone can save us.

1 Nephi 14: 6

“Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.” 
Interestingly, rather than shouting out in rejoicing that all who repent will escape punishment, the angel instead pronounces a “wo” upon the gentiles. It is almost as if the future of the gentile conduct inspires nothing but pessimism for the angel. It inspires another warning and condemnation for the gentiles who, having received the Book of Mormon and other sacred writings, are then fully responsible to repent.

Notice that the relationship is between the “Lamb of God” and the gentiles. It is not between the gentiles and “leaders” or “prophets” or “administrators” or “general authorities” or even messengers. It is between the gentiles and “the Lamb of God.” 

Why that specific a relationship? Why is it exclusively between the individual and Christ? 

Read again the description of the Telestial folk who return “worlds without end” to their condemnation: “And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world; For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.  These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch; But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.”  (D&C 76: 98-101.)

From what you’ve now learned can you see how one might follow even a true messenger but fail to gain “the testimony of Jesus?”

Can you now understand why, although you have followed messengers, you may have not in fact received the “everlasting covenant?”

The Temple is a type and shadow. It is a symbol of the real thing, but it is not the real thing. The “everlasting covenant” is taught there. But to gain it you must receive it through “the testimony of Jesus.” Is this “testimony of Jesus” yours?  Of is it rather Jesus testifying to you? If it is He testifying to you, then what must His testimony be?

In light of that does it mean then to “harden your hearts against the Lamb of God?” As you answer that, keep in mind His formula in D&C 93: 1: “Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am.” Here Christ is but reiterating the message of the Book of Mormon.

Then how do you repent? I was asked about idolatry among the Saints. Anything that separates you from the Lamb of God is an idol. Cast it aside and come to Him. Why we have idols between us and the Lord is as different as one person is from another. Almost without exception, it comes as a result of a false tradition handed down. Your false traditions are based on your life’s experiences while another’s false traditions are based on theirs. No matter what they are or how they were acquired, whatever separates Christ from you must be set aside. Come to HIM. Not to me or any other. Only He can save you.

No wonder that after making great promises to the gentiles, if they will but repent, the angel cries out “wo be unto the Gentiles!” They won’t receive: 1) the Gospel, neither 2) the testimony of Jesus, neither 3) the prophets sent to warn them and the message given to them, neither 4) the everlasting covenant offered to them.

Will you?

Isaiah 53:6

Isaiah 53: 6:

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

The Savior referred to those who would follow Him as His “sheep.”  (John 10: 27.)  However, Isaiah’s use of “sheep” here is not about those who would follow Him, but rather those who would scatter, find other shepherds, or lose their way altogether. Isaiah’s “sheep” are disorderly and have gone “astray.”
The bookends of these two messages – Isaiah’s sheep, who are astray, and Christ’s, who “hear His voice” – are two sides of the same coin.  Until “ALL” of us have been, or to some degree, have gone “astray,” we are unprepared to “hear His voice” and be gathered by Him.
We have turned away from the True Shepherd and gone into our “own way.”  That errant “way” is appealing to the ego, the mind, the imagination, or the traditions we need to control us because they are safe, tested or handed to us by those whom we trust.  Whatever the reason for choosing our own way, it is nevertheless ours.  We must leave it, respond to the True Shepherd’s “voice” and gather again to Him.  
It is His “voice” whenever He sends a true messenger, empowered with a message from Him.  It is not His “voice” when the messenger has not been sent or empowered with a message from Him.
The “iniquity of us all” in finding ourselves in these strange paths has been laid upon Him.  He has found His way back from every error man can make.  He has solved every dilemma, confronted every error, overcome every false and tempting doctrine the devil has thrown at you.  He can solve your imponderable problems.  He knows the answers.  He has overcome the iniquities of every false, evil or prideful teaching ever given to any man or woman.
He can lead you back to the light, because He has remained true to the light throughout.  Therefore look to Him.

The traditions of men, part 2

Originally, the view of personal revelation or any visionary experiences was quite different than what many believe today.  In fact there are those who claim that ANY vision, visitation or revelation not received by the Prophet (meaning the president of the church alone) should be viewed as false.  God speaks to the Prophet, and only to the Prophet, and we are to wait to hear what God wants us to know from the Prophet. This is an extension of the adoption of the term “Prophet” and the resulting cult of personality.
During Joseph Smith’s time, he welcomed the revelatory experiences of others.  He neither discouraged them nor felt threatened by them.  His enthusiasm for what others told him of their revelations, and the acceptance of others’ revelations is readily apparent in the first volume of the Joseph Smith Papers.  Today the tradition is quite the contrary.  Today, if anyone has a revelation they are advised to keep it to themselves. When others hear about them the cautionary attitude adopted is – ‘if it were something important then the Prophet of God would have told you about it.’
The effect of the adoption of the term “Prophet” for the living church president has been far ranging and dramatic.  There has been a dramatic change in people’s expectation of personal revelation, as a result of this title shift. The result is, of course, if you do not expect revelation you are not going to receive it.  The expected charismatic gifts of the Spirit during the early church is now replaced by the assumption that charismatic gifts are driven by office and position.  Bishops get revelation for wards (and by extension no one else does or can).  Stake presidents get revelation for stakes (and by extension no one else does or can).  Mission presidents get revelation for missions (and by extension no one else can or does—except in the notable case of the recent earthquake in Chile, as I mentioned before).  What has always been true is that presiding authorities alone are the final say on revelation or guidance for their calling.  What is not true is that no-one else can, has or does get revelation.  Revelation comes to those who are prepared.  It comes in response to seeking, asking, knocking, and not automatically as a result of a new office or position.  Now someone called to office may humble themselves, begin seeking, asking and knocking and then get revelation.  But the revelation was always available, and the same information is available to all, “even the least of the Saints” as Joseph Smith put it.  The proposition that there is a control over available revelation is one of the results of the post-1955 development of the cult of personality centered on the President as the Living Prophet of God.
Another change now firmly in place is the administration of temporal affairs within the church.  For example, the Presiding Bishop’s office controlled the operations involving all the church’s construction projects until the David O. McKay presidency.  As a result of some problems (beyond the scope of this), the First Presidency decided to take construction over as part of their duties.  One of the members of the First Presidency got involved in some difficulties (again beyond the scope of this), and to placate the Quorum of the Twelve, the responsibilities were shared.  The result was that the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve now have budgetary involvement with the church’s building program.  This is a massive undertaking.  It involves worldwide construction of church facilities.  It is a major duty devolving upon these men.  However, it was one time an Aaronic Priesthood assignment, and the duty of the Presiding Bishop’s office.  Temporal concerns are associated with that order of Priesthood.  On the other hand, the higher Priesthood is involved primarily with the spiritual concerns of the church.  It’s all in the D&C.  But the shift of Aaronic/temporal concerns onto the shoulders of the Melchizedek Priesthood leaders has its effect.  The extent of that effect has been reflected in comments made by those who serve in the Twelve or First Presidency.  They hardly have time to do more than move from one meeting to another.  One said he never had time to reflect or meditate.
The original Twelve Apostles of this dispensation were given a charge by Oliver Cowdrey that their ordination was not complete until they had received an audience with Christ.  That audience was what would entitle them to be a witness of the resurrection.  The charge was given to newly ordained Apostles from the time of the first called Twelve until 1911, when the charge was discontinued.  It was discontinued because so few of them had ever received an audience with Christ.  Since then the Apostles have been encouraged to bear a witness of Christ based upon their spiritual conviction that He lived, died and rose from the dead.  The manner in which this is done is to suggest an actual witness of His resurrection.  But the words are carefully chosen.
When he was put under oath by the Senate Confirmation Committee, President Joseph F. Smith was asked directly if he was a “prophet of God.”  His response was, “my people sustain me as such.”  The senator asking the question didn’t understand the answer, and asked again.  After some back and forth, President Joseph F. Smith was asked directly if he had ever had a revelation; to which he responded that he had not.  He added a bit later that he, like all other members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a testimony that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and Jesus Christ had appeared to him.
[Now as an aside, this testimony was in 1905.  Later, in 1918 President Joseph F. Smith received the vision now published as Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants; the Vision of the Redemption of the Dead.]
The church holds the tradition that the First Presidency and Twelve are sustained as “Prophets, Seers and Revelators” and as a result of that sustaining vote they must necessarily have all seen Christ.  This idea/tradition is so widespread that even when the brethren clarify what their testimony consists of most members of the church won’t listen to, or accept what they say.  I’ve posted about President Packer’s talk on his own testimony a little while ago in another post.  There are those who don’t believe him, and insist he is holding back because such things are just “too sacred to be revealed.”  However, the calling of an Apostle, as set out in Section 107, is to bear witness of Jesus Christ.  There isn’t anything “too sacred” about bearing testimony of Him that would prevent an Apostle from stating without equivocation they are a witness by having seen the Risen Lord.  President Packer has been truthful, forthcoming and honest.  I accept what he says at face value and I respect and sustain him all the more because of it.  He is indeed an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  And he is also an honest witness of Him.  However, he has essentially explained what his testimony consists of honestly, truthfully and fully in General Conference.  People continue to ignore his words and substitute the myth for the reality.
The terms “prophet, seer and revelator” come from scripture where the president of the church is to “be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God.”  (D&C 107: 92.)  The way this is read in the church today is that any person who holds the office of President of the High Priesthood is ipso facto a “seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet.”  Meaning the office defines the gifts.  What if that is not the intent of the scripture?  What if the scripture means, instead, that a person who is these things is the only one to be called to the office?  That is, unless the person “be” such a person possessing these gifts, he is not and cannot be the President?  Such questions are not even possible to be asked today.  They are, according to the current reading of that verse, evidence of weak faith and evidence someone is headed for apostasy.  Therefore a discussion about this verse’s meaning and possible differences of meaning are excluded and no other view is possible to be discussed.
President David O. McKay did not get a testimony of the church until sometime after he had been called as an Apostle.  President Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked about revelation, said “I don’t know that we need much revelation anymore.”  President Packer has defined revelation as when the presiding authorities reach an agreement.  President Nibley (a counselor in the First Presidency and Hugh Nibley’s grandfather) said if an angel were to appear to him he would jump out the window.  There are other examples, but the point is that there are many statements which have been made by the highest authorities in the church which contradict the popular myth that the Lord has and does regularly appear to, meet with, and speak face to face with the presiding authorities.  Despite this, there are people who presume the Lord is in the weekly meeting in the Temple, every Thursday, telling them how to run His church.  In contrast, President Young said when he asks the Lord for guidance and then he receives nothing, he will make his best judgment and proceed.  And the Lord is bound to sustain him in his decision, since he asked for guidance.  That approach is healthy, and allowed President Young and others to move forward.  However, it is one thing for men of good faith and decency, who are making honest and worthwhile efforts to manage the church to have our prayers, faith and confidence; and quite another to assume these men quote the Lord with their every breath.  As a church this subject is just not discussed.  As a result those who suspect that the brethren are making great efforts and are good men, but who may not have had an audience with the Lord are kept from asking the question.  When a Gentile reporter has the impertinence to ask such a question, they are rebuked and told things like that are sacred. 
A Prophet of God is not required to have seen Him.  A prophet can and has been inspired to speak for the Lord by the inspiration of the Spirit.  But when the scriptures use this phrase “and the word of the Lord came unto me, saying…”  This formula assures the listener that the words which follow originate from the Lord and not a good and honest man’s best advice.  All this has happened in the past and therefore you cannot discount a prophet’s calling because the word of the Lord comes by the Spirit, rather than from a personal visitation.  Visitations are rare.  However, the calling of a prophet in scripture was not institutional.  The Lord was directly, personally and individually involved.  Moses was told by the Lord, directly, as the Lord stood in a pillar-cloud at the door of the tabernacle: “Hear now my words:  If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.”  (Numbers 12: 5-6.)
When the Church was led by a president (from the death of Joseph Smith until 1955) there was no cult of personality around the church president.  He was the presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood.  When the title shifted, things began to change.  Today a discussion about this process is not possible because the subject matter is too charged. 
The difference between good men doing good things in good faith, who are entitled to our support in their calling and efforts on the one hand, and a prophet of God whose words are questioned at the peril of eternal damnation on the other hand is the overwhelming difference which now plagues the church.  We cannot have a discussion that questions the wisdom of church policies, procedures or decisions.  When even obvious mistakes are made, people who notice are not to speak of it, and if they do they are told that they are weak in the faith and on the road to apostasy.  Criticism is essential to a healthy mental state.  Without feedback and criticism you cannot raise a normal, healthy child. Try raising a child to whom you lavish only praise, and to whom you say, without regard to how bad, poorly or evil an act they commit: “You are inspired!  You are right!  It was good of you to have done that!  God Himself inspired that act!”  What you would raise up would be a monster.  Without criticism and challenges to decisions made, no-one can ultimately become anything worthwhile.
We have a church in which those who love it the most, and whose perceptions may be the keenest, are required to take a host of questions, suggestions or criticisms and never give them voice.  The only negative feed-back must originate from either outside the church, or if inside they are cast out because they are weak in the faith and on the road to apostasy.  This was the inevitable evolution from the cult of personality.  It is still unfolding.  It will progress in a funnel which narrows over time until, at last, when the work has been fully completed, we will have a Pope who is infallible.  Not because he is always inspired, but instead because he holds the keys to bind on earth and in heaven, and as a result God is bound by whatever he does.  History assures us this will be the case.  UNLESS, of course, we open things up to a more healthy way of going about our Father’s business.
Well, this is too long.  I’m not done.  But I’ll add more later.