Echoing sentiments of When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done and The prophet will never lead the Church astray for the next generation, Elder Ballard spoke at a devotional in 1996 and reasoned that members should keep their “eyes riveted on the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” He said “We will not lead you astray. We cannot.” He then goes to describe the style of meetings that makes decisions in the church. He claims if you could see, you would have a “deep sense of confidence and comfort that the will of the Lord is being taught by the leaders.” He also warns that members should “run away from” anyone who claims to have received any revelation that the church leaders have not. In other words, if someone disagrees with church leaders or disagrees with their positions or policies which are stated as revelations, have nothing to do with them. Stay away like they have the plague. In fact, other leaders have compared doubt and questioning to disease too. They work to inoculate members today from the surprise that the church has been teaching a dominant narrative that is not true.
Ballard Preaches “We Can Not Lead You Astray”
In March 1996, Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard “preached obedience to the LDS Church’s First Presidency …” to more than 10,000 Brigham Young University students and faculty members. He informed them that “‘We will not lead you astray. We cannot …'” (The Salt Lake Tribue, March 16, 1996, C-2)
You keep your eyes riveted on the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We will not lead you astray. We cannot. Let me tell you why. Every week that I am in town, I attend a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve on the fourth floor of the Salt Lake Temple. If you could see the process by which decision and direction comes from that meeting, you would have a deep sense of confidence and comfort that the will of the Lord is being taught by the leaders of the Church. So keep your eyes riveted on the leadership of the Church. While individuals may falter, the body of general Church leadership will remain steadfast and true. If someone tells you that they have received revelation that the First Presidency and the Twelve have not received, run away from them.
When Shall These Things Be? Elder M Russell Ballard, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, March 12, 1996
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/m-russell-ballard/shall-things/
Interesting that he claims church leaders cannot lead the church astray, but we also have examples of this very thing happening. We must combine this sentiment with the sentiment from Ezra Taft Benson’s Fourteen Fundamentals number 3, that the living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. So we can then safely dismiss the previous errors that led the church members astray. Examples? Brigham Young with his affection for the Adam-God doctrine, which he called doctrine. Later church leaders disavowed the teachings and today it is dismissed as a personal theory rather than the core doctrine of the church. The same can be said for the ideas of the blood atonement.
Did these crazy teachings from Brigham Young lead anyone or the church as a whole astray? If they did, then the Lord allowed Brigham Young to lead the church astray. If they did not, then why were they later disavowed and minimized as theories by later church leaders?
This is a statement from a leader telling you the safety of following leaders. What ulterior motives may he have in a statement like this? It’s reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy not to mind the man behind the curtain. He’s looking out for number one here. He doesn’t want anyone to stray from his council and direction. Why is that? That is him working to retain any authority he has!
The only authority any church leader has over us is the authority we give up willingly. Remember this is the same man who made the statement that the church is not hiding anything and that they are transparent. Actually, no, he didn’t say they were transparent, only that they are as transparent as they know how to be. Which interprets to mean, they are not transparent and claim they don’t know how to be.