We Owe the Brethren Politeness

[Hippophibia]

I think you are erecting a structure between yourself and God. That structure is made out of the general authorities. Some might call such a structure a dam. We damn ourselves when we block God out or erect any barriers between him and us. That is why it is called damnation.

Sure the most important thing is to have a member of the Godhead (HG) with you to guide your actions from day to day as all things that you need to do are taught by the spirit, and it is the Spirit that gives understanding.

It is also true that we will be judged on how we obey the voice of the Prophets and it is not given to us to be their judge. That is the only point I am trying to make. See my previous post on Numbers 12.

[Amonhi]

We follow the truths that the brethren teach....we are NOT following the person.

What if its not "truth"?

I could see a person being willing to follow truth and being convinced that something is true even when it wasn't. But when they are shown a better way or shown that the belief is false, they would let go of the lie and happily move or to accept the greater truth.

Also, I think one of the ways we know if we are open eyed verses blind following is if we can see the flaws of our leaders and their teachings and still accept the true parts of the message. We don not need to be critical of them, just able to see clearly truth from error, even from their lips.

I will use myself as an example here. I have plenty of flaws, and if a person cannot see my flaws and false teachings, or they are not searching to find the truth from the error in what I say, then I am worried that they are setting me up as a standard and leaning on me rather than on God. This has happened from time to time due to the nature of my calling and at times I have had to address it and even tell people to, "stop it or I cannot continue our association."

I know that I am not blind following when I can say, "I agree with this point, but disagree with this point." I know that I AM blindly following when I use a persons position in the church as evidence that what they are saying is true. OR when someone says they agree with everything that comes out of a man's mouth then I know they are blindly following.

As much as ego might want to be right all the time, no man of God will claim such infallibility and encourage others to make him the standard of truth unless he himself believes in the lie. I would NEVER say to someone that I could not lead them astray. The very act of doing so would be leading people astray by making yourself a rock and asking men to build on you. Teaching that they can rely on and trust man implicitly. Taking them away from the true rock and from God. This would completely void the need for the Holy Ghost to teach us ALL things. It would destroy the gospel and enslave the mind and souls of mankind.

Good question Jeremy!

[Jeremy]

We should have the spirit with us always if we take the sacrament worthily.

Whose spirit? Is Christs spirit the same as the Holy Ghost?

Because I don't want to derail this topic I have started a new thread for these questions HERE.

[Amonhi]

You say we should follow God only - but we hear the voice of the Lord through his servants.

D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

So, follow the voice of the Lord, and not the servant. Even simple missionaries speak with the voice of the Lord when they speak as inspired by the Holy Ghost, but we wouldn't do everything they say just because sometimes they speak with the voice of the Lord.

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—
3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. - D&C 68:2-4

ONLY when they speak when moved on by the Holy Ghost and we know when they speak when moved on by the Holy Ghost ONLY when we are moved on by the Holy Ghost. In this way, we are following the voice of the Lord and not the people.

One places ones trust in the voice of the Lords/Anointed not in the individual. We have 50 hours of General conference twice a year that is a lot of the voice of the Lord we receive, not to mention revelation to local leaders.

In that 50 hours, only a portion is the voice of the Lord. Not everything said in GC is the voice of the Lord. Much of it is personal opinion.

The rock of the church is based on revelation to the leaders of the church.

The church is NOT the rock on which if we build we cannot fall. Look how many people have built on that rock and then found out how the church or leaders did something or other and fell because of it.

Without that there is no Church, if every man receives his own interpretation of the scriptures relating to the salvation of man there is no need for a church.

Wouldn't that be glorious!


Amonhi

[Hippophibia]

The church is NOT the rock on which if we build we cannot fall. Look how many people have built on that rock and then found out how the church or leaders did something or other and fell because of it.

The church is based on the rock of revelation to the leaders of the church, that is different to the rock on which we build as individuals.

We should look past the minor failings of the individual - it is not good enogh to leave the church just because the Prophet spelled your name wrong!!!!!

D&C 1:30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have apower to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

[log]

The church is NOT the rock on which if we build we cannot fall. Look how many people have built on that rock and then found out how the church or leaders did something or other and fell because of it.

The church is based on the rock of revelation to the leaders of the church, that is different to the rock on which we build as individuals.

Doctrine and Covenants 10
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

This is to be understood along with the doctrine of Christ.

3 Nephi 11
31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

[Hippophibia]

Log - thanks for the scriptures -
10:68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

Good to see the conversation starting to move away from openly condemning the leader of His Church “with which I, the Lord, am well pleased”.

[Jeremy]

...His Church “with which I, the Lord, am well pleased”.

Oh boy.

[log]

Good to see the conversation starting to move away from openly condemning the leader of His Church “with which I, the Lord, am well pleased”.

It is interesting that after the Lord was well pleased with the Church on November 1, 1831, he said this on September 22, 1832.

D&C 84
49 And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin.

50 And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me.

51 For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin.

52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.

53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.

59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.

One wonders if a church which the Lord has condemned is a church with which he is still "well pleased", remembering this condemnation was repeated by the president of the Church in 1985. One wonders if a condemned church is still "true and living." One wonders if being under condemnation is why the Lord no longer speaks to the body of the Church in his own voice, and has not since January 14, 1847. (D&C 136)

Anyways, who, in this thread, condemned the president of the Church?

[KCCraft]

Will someone please define what evil speaking of the brethren is?

I think this is the clearest possible definition.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:16
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.

Embedded within that definition is the assumption that the claim made against the anointed is false.

I think this is a good definition, but it should be remembered that even if someone were to claim that one of the brethren sinned, that would not fit the definition unless that claim was false. If the brethren in question truly did sin and not do that which was meet in the Lord's eyes, then the Lord is not cursing them in this passage.

And how can we know for sure which is the case? We could cite quotations about apostolic infallibility or whatnot, but I suggest that this passage should be used for our own retrospection, and not for mote-seeking in one another's eyes.

[BrentL]

Many years ago there lived an emperor who loved beautiful new clothes so much that he spent all his money on being finely dressed. His only interest was in going to the theater or in riding about in his carriage where he could show off his new clothes. He had a different costume for every hour of the day. Indeed, where it was said of other kings that they were at court, it could only be said of him that he was in his dressing room!

One day two swindlers came to the emperor's city. They said that they were weavers, claiming that they knew how to make the finest cloth imaginable. Not only were the colors and the patterns extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing property that it was to be invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid.

"It would be wonderful to have clothes made from that cloth," thought the emperor. "Then I would know which of my men are unfit for their positions, and I'd also be able to tell clever people from stupid ones." So he immediately gave the two swindlers a great sum of money to weave their cloth for him.

They set up their looms and pretended to go to work, although there was nothing at all on the looms. They asked for the finest silk and the purest gold, all of which they hid away, continuing to work on the empty looms, often late into the night.

"I would really like to know how they are coming with the cloth!" thought the emperor, but he was a bit uneasy when he recalled that anyone who was unfit for his position or stupid would not be able to see the material. Of course, he himself had nothing to fear, but still he decided to send someone else to see how the work was progressing.

"I'll send my honest old minister to the weavers," thought the emperor. He's the best one to see how the material is coming. He is very sensible, and no one is more worthy of his position than he.

So the good old minister went into the hall where the two swindlers sat working at their empty looms. "Goodness!" thought the old minister, opening his eyes wide. "I cannot see a thing!" But he did not say so.

The two swindlers invited him to step closer, asking him if it wasn't a beautiful design and if the colors weren't magnificent. They pointed to the empty loom, and the poor old minister opened his eyes wider and wider. He still could see nothing, for nothing was there. "Gracious" he thought. "Is it possible that I am stupid? I have never thought so. Am I unfit for my position? No one must know this. No, it will never do for me to say that I was unable to see the material."

"You aren't saying anything!" said one of the weavers.

"Oh, it is magnificent! The very best!" said the old minister, peering through his glasses. "This pattern and these colors! Yes, I'll tell the emperor that I am very satisfied with it!"

"That makes us happy!" said the two weavers, and they called the colors and the unusual pattern by name. The old minister listened closely so that he would be able say the same things when he reported back to the emperor, and that is exactly what he did.

The swindlers now asked for more money, more silk, and more gold, all of which they hid away. Then they continued to weave away as before on the empty looms.

The emperor sent other officials as well to observe the weavers' progress. They too were startled when they saw nothing, and they too reported back to him how wonderful the material was, advising him to have it made into clothes that he could wear in a grand procession. The entire city was alive in praise of the cloth. "Magnifique! Nysseligt! Excellent!" they said, in all languages. The emperor awarded the swindlers with medals of honor, bestowing on each of them the title Lord Weaver.

The swindlers stayed up the entire night before the procession was to take place, burning more than sixteen candles. Everyone could see that they were in a great rush to finish the emperor's new clothes. They pretended to take the material from the looms. They cut in the air with large scissors. They sewed with needles but without any thread. Finally they announced, "Behold! The clothes are finished!"

The emperor came to them with his most distinguished cavaliers. The two swindlers raised their arms as though they were holding something and said, "Just look at these trousers! Here is the jacket! This is the cloak!" and so forth. "They are as light as spider webs! You might think that you didn't have a thing on, but that is the good thing about them."

"Yes," said the cavaliers, but they couldn't see a thing, for nothing was there.

"Would his imperial majesty, if it please his grace, kindly remove his clothes." said the swindlers. "Then we will fit you with the new ones, here in front of the large mirror."

The emperor took off all his clothes, and the swindlers pretended to dress him, piece by piece, with the new ones that were to be fitted. They took hold of his waist and pretended to tie something about him. It was the train. Then the emperor turned and looked into the mirror.

"Goodness, they suit you well! What a wonderful fit!" they all said. "What a pattern! What colors! Such luxurious clothes!"

"The canopy to be carried above your majesty awaits outside," said the grandmaster of ceremonies.

"Yes, I am ready!" said the emperor. "Don't they fit well?" He turned once again toward the mirror, because it had to appear as though he were admiring himself in all his glory.

The chamberlains who were to carry the train held their hands just above the floor as if they were picking up the train. As they walked they pretended to hold the train high, for they could not let anyone notice that they could see nothing.

The emperor walked beneath the beautiful canopy in the procession, and all the people in the street and in their windows said, "Goodness, the emperor's new clothes are incomparable! What a beautiful train on his jacket. What a perfect fit!" No one wanted it to be noticed that he could see nothing, for then it would be said that he was unfit for his position or that he was stupid. None of the emperor's clothes had ever before received such praise.

"But he doesn't have anything on!" said a small child.

"Good Lord, let us hear the voice of an innocent child!" said the father, and whispered to another what the child had said.

"A small child said that he doesn't have anything on!"

Finally everyone was saying, "He doesn't have anything on!"

The emperor shuddered, for he knew that they were right, but he thought, "The procession must go on!" He carried himself even more proudly, and the chamberlains walked along behind carrying the mantle that wasn't there.

[log]

Will someone please define what evil speaking of the brethren is?

I think this is the clearest possible definition.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:16
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.

Embedded within that definition is the assumption that the claim made against the anointed is false.

I think this is a good definition, but it should be remembered that even if someone were to claim that one of the brethren sinned, that would not fit the definition unless that claim was false. If the brethren in question truly did sin and not do that which was meet in the Lord's eyes, then the Lord is not cursing them in this passage.

And how can we know for sure which is the case? We could cite quotations about apostolic infallibility or whatnot, but I suggest that this passage should be used for our own retrospection, and not for mote-seeking in one another's eyes.

There was a conversation elsewhere as to how these principles get applied in practice.

In short: if you don't know from God the Brethren have sinned, you don't know it, period.

[Brother of Matt]

The only one we owe anything to and that is worth any praise, adoration, is God our father and then his son Jesus Christ . No one else. Why is it that we teach the song "Follow the prophet" to children and take away the truth, that there is ONLY ONE who is the way, the truth, and the life.
We can here the voice of the Lord in our own lives and receive personal revelation. James 1:5 . A true servant does not put themselves in between you and God. Anyone that puts themselves in between you and god is following a different path than the Lord's.

[Simon]

The church is based on the rock of revelation to the leaders of the church, that is different to the rock on which we build as individuals.

We should look past the minor failings of the individual - it is not good enogh to leave the church just because the Prophet spelled your name wrong!!!!!

I totally agree with you here.. Too many are leaving the church because "leaders spell their names wrong".. And why do they leave the church ? Because in that moment their "rock" is the "prophet", and once that "prophetrock" falls into pieces, their tesimonys fall too.

What is his church?

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh UNTO ME , the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

HIS church is to come unto HIM. This is the duty of each individual member. If we build on or leaders, and they fall, we will fall aswel. But if we build on Christ, we can never fall, because he will not fall.

Those that mourn most about the leaders, are those that take them as their rock and foundation. Those that know that they must build on Christ, will not stumble because of weaknesses the leaders may have. They will simply know better.

[InfoWarrior82]

Log, these are great points, and I think we really need to think about this a little deeper.

I believe that if the bretheren, theoreticaly, would loose their connection to heaven and teach doctrine that is false, then God may in deed call other prophets to call them unto repentance. He has often called prophets that warned for years, and he has done so often within the scriptures. The thing is, if God would call such prophets, they would have a sure commandment from the Lord directly to do so, and they would have to do it, wether they like it or not.

The main problem I see is that once such a prophet would stand up and call the bretheren unto repentance, there would arise many "followers" of that new prophet that would start teaching against the bretheren without being called of God to do so. And this is where the difference is. These "prophets" would fulfill their calling, and their "followers" would mostly only fulfill their own agenda, they would accuse their bretheren without any authority and bring condemnation upon themselves.

We are to work on our own salvation, and not to work on the salvation of our leaders. We need to be wise to see and understand what OUR calling, right and duty is in this great work.

When has that ever happened?

[Simon]

The best example I can think of is Christ himselfe. When he was born, there were scirptures, priests, prophets and even temples. The Jews were te chosen people of God, and so they saw themselves. They were convinced they made everything right before God. Christ came to them as a stranger, and told them the truth. He called them unto repentance. But they rejected him.

Similarely it was with Lehi... He also preached to the Jews, they also were convinced of doing everything right. But at that time the Lord called many prophets that called them unto repentance...

We also have the example of Samuel the Lamanite, who had to call the Nephites unto repentance.. but they would not harken..

As soon as a people, beliefsystem or religion departs from the right way, the Lord will call them unto repentance first. So, if our leaders WOULD depart from the rigt way, we would find somewhere true messangers speaking out warnings..

But this is just my personal view of this...

[InfoWarrior82]

The best example I can think of is Christ himselfe. When he was born, there were scirptures, priests, prophets and even temples. The Jews were te chosen people of God, and so they saw themselves. They were convinced they made everything right before God. Christ came to them as a stranger, and told them the truth. He called them unto repentance. But they rejected him.

Similarely it was with Lehi... He also preached to the Jews, they also were convinced of doing everything right. But at that time the Lord called many prophets that called them unto repentance...

We also have the example of Samuel the Lamanite, who had to call the Nephites unto repentance.. but they would not harken..

As soon as a people, beliefsystem or religion departs from the right way, the Lord will call them unto repentance first. So, if our leaders WOULD depart from the rigt way, we would find somewhere true messangers speaking out warnings..

But this is just my personal view of this...

The Jews were without a prophet during the time of Christ. Before Christ, they were cast out of their midst and stoned.

I guess my point is: In every instance, the Lord's chosen prophets have always been dealt with through the Lord Himself. Can you think of an example where a prophet departed from the right way and needed to be called to repentance from someone other than the Lord?

[log]

The best example I can think of is Christ himselfe. When he was born, there were scirptures, priests, prophets and even temples. The Jews were te chosen people of God, and so they saw themselves. They were convinced they made everything right before God. Christ came to them as a stranger, and told them the truth. He called them unto repentance. But they rejected him.

Similarely it was with Lehi... He also preached to the Jews, they also were convinced of doing everything right. But at that time the Lord called many prophets that called them unto repentance...

We also have the example of Samuel the Lamanite, who had to call the Nephites unto repentance.. but they would not harken..

As soon as a people, beliefsystem or religion departs from the right way, the Lord will call them unto repentance first. So, if our leaders WOULD depart from the rigt way, we would find somewhere true messangers speaking out warnings..

But this is just my personal view of this...

The Jews were without a prophet during the time of Christ. Before Christ, they were cast out of their midst and stoned.

I guess my point is: In every instance, the Lord's chosen prophets have always been dealt with through the Lord Himself. Can you think of an example where a prophet departed from the right way and needed to be called to repentance from someone other than the Lord?

Haven't we cited 1 Kings 13 to this effect?

You're making an assumption, by the by, and one that I personally don't make.

[KCCraft]

In short: if you don't know from God the Brethren have sinned, you don't know it, period.

True, but also if if someone says that the Brethren have sinned, if you don't know from God that they are not speaking such under direction from God, then you also don't know it, period. Judgement shouldn't only be reserved in relation to the Brethren, it should be reserved in relation to each other as well.

[InfoWarrior82]

Haven't we cited 1 Kings 13 to this effect?

You're making an assumption, by the by, and one that I personally don't make.

I think you are misunderstanding this chapter.

Who are the players in this chapter?

1. The man of God.

2. The old "prophet".

3. The King.

-----------

1. The man of God is deceived by the "prophet".

2. The man of God is punished by God for not keeping the Lord's commandments.


In this story, there is only one true prophet of God. I think that's why you are confused.

[log]

In short: if you don't know from God the Brethren have sinned, you don't know it, period.

True, but also if if someone says that the Brethren have sinned, if you don't know from God that they are not speaking such under direction from God, then you also don't know it, period. Judgement shouldn't only be reserved in relation to the Brethren, it should be reserved in relation to each other as well.

I ask men directly whether they are appointed of God to cry that the brethren have sinned; thus far, each has carefully avoided saying "yes." When someone steps up to that plate, then your point will become relevant.

Until then,

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

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.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:81
81 Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.

2 Nephi 26:27
27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.

It is only when you are not on the Lord's errand that you take offense at the truth.

[log]

Haven't we cited 1 Kings 13 to this effect?

You're making an assumption, by the by, and one that I personally don't make.

I think you are misunderstanding this chapter.

It's possible - but since I haven't explained my understanding, I'm understandably perplexed at how you have so confidently assessed my defective understanding.

[InfoWarrior82]

Haven't we cited 1 Kings 13 to this effect?

You're making an assumption, by the by, and one that I personally don't make.

I think you are misunderstanding this chapter.

It's possible - but since I haven't explained my understanding, I'm understandably perplexed at how you have so confidently assessed my defective understanding.

It seemed like you disagreed with my statement:

I guess my point is: In every instance, the Lord's chosen prophets have always been dealt with through the Lord Himself. Can you think of an example where a prophet departed from the right way and needed to be called to repentance from someone other than the Lord?

I don't believe your response to this has adequately pointed out any error. Do you still disagree with this?

[log]

I don't believe your response to this has adequately pointed out any error. Do you still disagree with this?

I agree you believe what you believe.

I think 1 Kings 13 complicates your simplistic claim that the Lord deals directly with his wayward prophets. I think the example of King David and Nathan would further complicate your claim, properly understood, but I also already have projected a high degree of probability that your response would be "David wasn't a prophet." While I could then respond that Psalms constitutes a significant portion of the Old Testament, and he certainly was acting as a prophet and his words have been taken as scripture, yet I would have to agree the word "prophet" is not explicitly attached to David anywhere that I know of, yet he stood in the divine council (Psalm 2) indicating that he was a true prophet, whether or not the word got applied to him. However, I have also estimated a high degree of probability that you would disagree with the significance of standing in the divine council, and it's a conversation I don't feel like having, especially since I believe it would drag on and for no purpose.

So it suffices me to say that I think your simplistic assertion is historically false, on the strength of 1 Kings 13.

[Hannant]

We owe these men nothing more than we owe anyone else.
We owe them less than the poor, the suffering and the cold and the hungry.
They are no more anointed than you or I.
THEY owe us politeness.
They also owe us honestly, and financial transparency.
Threads like this belong in web sites like www iamacultmember dotcom