[All-American]

I applaud your application of less commonly known latin phrases. I also submit that along with Carthage and Individualism, poor logic delenda est.

To say that any group of twelve is ALWAYS more correct than any individual is taking things too far. A simple examination of Joseph Smith v. World shows the fallacy of that assumption.

Were the majority always correct, there would be no need for the assurances of individual rights in a Democratic society. However, they aren't, and there is. The fear of majority rule was one of the guiding ideas that shaped the constitution of the country-- avoid placing too much power in any one person or group, but also avoid placing too much power in the people and creating a tyranny of the majority.

A group will GENERALLY make better decisions than one "bright" individualistic 30 year old, it is true, but there is nevertheless sense in safeguards. One of the more important safeguards is, of course, personal revelation. Brigham Young said one of his greatest fears was that the saints would stop questioning what he said, rather than seek the spirit in interpreting his words. I think that has less to do with screening for errors than it does with understanding the intent and the doctrine behind the policy, but is nevertheless noteworthy.

At any rate, I will still argue that somebody who follows the counsel of the brethren when he does not understand it, or when they are wrong, will still be blessed for it. Examples include the Martin Handcart company-- nobody can argue that it was not a mistake to send a company out in August, yet we've all heard the story of the guy who protested that the suffering was a price he felt privelaged to pay.

Juggling acknowledgement of fallacy with belief of inspiration is a tricky proposition. Ultimately, the best thing to do may be to follow their admonition while trying to understand it. One may disagree, but I don't believe it is appropriate to publicly oppose the direction coming from the leaders of the church.