Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Nor will it mean that we did.

That claim is contrary to the position of the Church.

Every single time we exercise our common consent to sustain a new apostle, we are, by that fact and in that moment, sustaining him to hold all Priesthood keys presently entrusted to men on the earth. We are also prospectively sustaining him to become the President of the Church, should he live long enough to become the longest-serving apostle. Therefore, when the Quorum of the Twelve act to reconstitute the First Presidency after the death of the President, they are only doing what we have already granted them the authority to do - by common consent.

I think we need to end this as a rather unproductive derail of the thread. Elder Uchtdorf sustains the new First Presidency, so he does not sympathise with this particular bit of "progressive" thought, either.

Elder Uchtdorf does likely sustain the new First Presidency but I’ll note that you are also making an argument from silence since none of us have heard him speak to that.

There is no such thing as prospectively sustaining a man to one day become prophet.  The procedure for who becomes prophet has changed several times over the short history of our church.  And it could change again.

The law of common consent has been violated with regard to President Nelson’s ordination.  From LDS.org (note - BEFORE the officers may serve, they must receive a sustaining vote):

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

D&C 26:2. Could a Person Hold an Office in the Church without the Consent of the People?

“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Wrong.  I have said nothing that “is accusing them of cowardice or lacking Integrity.”

I’ve simply pointed out that only one of them have spoken about the policy and I’m sure he’s been truthful about his perspective.  But we still only have this single one.

You and others are the ones here who keep applying meaning to why the others who were there have so far been silent about it, not I.

But unless you (or someone else) can provide any statements, it is the truth there are none.   I don’t know why they haven’t spoken publicly about it and I have definitely not accused anyone of “cowardice” or “lacking integrity” (I for sure don’t think that).  It’s wrong of anyone to apply reasons for their silence, IMO.

All of what you state here is true.  Only those who were there know why they have not addressed the policy or the meeting where they discussed it (or even if there was only one meeting or just one discussion before the new policy was added to the handbook).

One can claim that if any of the 15 disagreed with the one statement we have regarding what took place in the meeting, they would definitely speak out and express their disagreement.

And,

One can claim that if any of the 15 agreed with the one statement we have regarding what took place in the meeting, they would definitely speak out and express their agreement.

But neither of them can actually know that they were speaking the truth.   There could be different reasons for different ones who were in the meeting.  I'd imagine only they know why they haven't addressed this topic and maybe they still will in the future.

We don't even know that all 15 were present for the meeting, do we?  (It seems there was some question at the time regarding whether some were out of town at the time.)

Edited February 10, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Time to drop it, I think.

Yes, you should.  Julie has been accurate about what has taken place thus far in regard to any statements from the 15 on the policy and the meeting involved.  Only you and Scott continue to mind read or assign reasons as to why this is the case (that we've only heard from then Elder Nelson).   

Read rongo's excellent post again as it really does give a realistic and honest view:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70185-elder-uchtdorf-progressive/?do=findComment&comment=1209794699

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm a little troubled by the insistence by some of the TBMs in this thread (I'm one, too) that the Brethren are unanimous in their feelings at all times. I think you have been treated unfairly in this regard, because you aren't arguing that they haven't been unanimous in their voting, but rather, that "you can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it." The pushback you have gotten over this surprises me, because it isn't a controversial point, and there are many examples. I gave one earlier: President Packer was on record multiple times (once in my hearing) stating that he disagreed with the concept of singles wards --- but, he didn't oppose their creation or existence. I lot of things in Church governance (including in the upper levels of the Church) operate this way.

Another example I've shared before: I once voted as a counselor in a disciplinary council for disfellowshipment, but the bishop's decision was formal probation. I still disagree with this decision to this day, but I sustained the bishop's decision and haven't been critical of it. Votes in the Q12 are this same way: consensus is reached, but they do not become the Borg --- and, sometimes assenting "votes" are nothing more than refusal to stand in the way of the council's decision. This constitutes sustaining the decision.

That you have at times been unable to achieve unity with local leaders with whom you have served and silent acquiescence was the best you could muster is no justification for projecting that behavior onto the prophets and apostles. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Uchtdorf does likely sustain the new First Presidency but I’ll note that you are also making an argument from silence since none of us have heard him speak to that.

There is no such thing as prospectively sustaining a man to one day become prophet.  The procedure for who becomes prophet has changed several times over the short history of our church.  And it could change again.

The law of common consent has been violated with regard to President Nelson’s ordination.  From LDS.org (note - BEFORE the officers may serve, they must receive a sustaining vote):

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

D&C 26:2. Could a Person Hold an Office in the Church without the Consent of the People?

“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)

The argument from silence is on your part, as the default assumption is that presumably he would refuse to serve with them if he didn’t sustain them. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The argument from silence is on your part, as the default assumption is that presumably he would refuse to serve with them if he didn’t sustain them. 

Ha.  Default assumption is also an argument from silence.  Do you think about these things before you respond or just anxious to disagree with me?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That you have at times been unable to achieve unity with local leaders with whom you have served and silent acquiescence was the best you could muster is no justification for projecting that behavior onto the prophets and apostles. 

Have you Scott?  In all your dealings, callings or whatever...did you never disagree with anyone..?  I would find that hard to believe in the way your responses deal with disagreements here.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Have you Scott?  In all your dealings, callings or whatever...did you never disagree with anyone..?  I would find that hard to believe in the way your responses deal with disagreements here.

Many here seem anxious to impose their vision of how the apostles must operate despite both historic apostolic examples and lived experiences in other councils standing in contradiction. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Uchtdorf does likely sustain the new First Presidency but I’ll note that you are also making an argument from silence since none of us have heard him speak to that.

There is no such thing as prospectively sustaining a man to one day become prophet.  The procedure for who becomes prophet has changed several times over the short history of our church.  And it could change again.

The law of common consent has been violated with regard to President Nelson’s ordination.  From LDS.org (note - BEFORE the officers may serve, they must receive a sustaining vote):

---

before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

---

No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)

Violated? LOL

President of the Twelve Nelson directly presided over the quorum of other prophets, seers and revelators upon the death of President Monson. Are you saying there was no sustaining vote among them before he was set apart as President of the Church (much as a ward quorum president is sustained by his quorum peers before being set apart)? Are you saying that because he was sustained by his quorum only, that should have been the extent and scope of his authority, and not the entire Church, until General Conference, where every single member of the Church obviously votes whether in person or by proxy? INTERESTING!

From https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-3?lang=eng

“We knew that the senior Apostle was the President of the Church. And in that sacred meeting, Thomas Spencer Monson was sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the President of the Church.” (in Conference Report, Apr. 2008, 81; or Ensign, May 2008, 83).” Read the stuff prior to that, too.

“At the President’s death there is no First Presidency over the Twelve. Following the principles taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the President of the Church dies, the quorum of the First Presidency is automatically dissolved and the counselors, if they previously had been in the Quorum of the Twelve, return to their respective places of seniority in that quorum. The senior Apostle, as President of the Twelve, automatically, by virtue of that seniority, becomes the ‘Presiding High Priest’ of the Church and, as such, actively holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom and ‘preside over the whole church’ (see D&C 107:65–66, 91). ‘Equal in authority’ to the First Presidency, this presiding quorum of Twelve Apostles is as much a Presidency of the Church as the First Presidency is when it is fully organized and operative (see D&C 107:23–24). Likewise, the President of the Twelve at that time is as much the President of the Church in function and authority as when he becomes sustained as such in a newly organized First Presidency.”

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you saying that because he was sustained by his quorum only, that should have been the extent and scope of his authority, and not the entire Church, until General Conference, where every single member of the Church obviously votes whether in person or by proxy?

It’s not what I am saying.  It’s what the law of common consent requires. 

The church could have functioned just fine under the direction of the Q12 (as it has done in the past) until a sustaining of the church could have taken place. 

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It’s not what I am saying.  It’s what the law of common consent requires. 

The church could have functioned just fine under the direction of the Q12 (as it has done in the past) until a sustaining of the church could have taken place. 

It is consistent and not a VIOLATION! (and would that be progressive or retrenching?) with your references and mine that Church Presidents are sustained and set apart by the remaining quorum after the death of the former President prior to being sustained by common consent during General Conference. Why pick on the current leaders as being out of order?

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is consistent and not a VIOLATION! (and would that be progressive or retrenching?) with your references and mine that Church Presidents are sustained and set apart by the remaining quorum after the death of the former President prior to being sustained by common consent during General Conference. Why pick on the current leaders as being out of order?

Pick on?  How am I picking on them?

I agree that current leaders are doing it the way it has been done for a number of decades now.  I just pointed out that they are not following the D&C. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Pick on?  How am I picking on them?

I agree that current leaders are doing it the way it has been done for a number of decades now.  I just pointed out that they are not following the D&C. 

With this sentiment,  you are pointed down a path pursued by Snuffer and Waterman. I hope for your sake you don't join them.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Have you Scott?  In all your dealings, callings or whatever...did you never disagree with anyone..?  I would find that hard to believe in the way your responses deal with disagreements here.

I'm not interested in making myself the subject of this thread and, in any event, I do believe board rules forbid it.

I can't resist mentioning however, apropos of the subject of this thread, that I have never in my memory disagreed with a single utterance Elder Uchtdorf has ever made in public discourse. I wonder how many here or elsewhere who are bemoaning his fate in not being appointed to the latest First Presidency can say that.

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With this sentiment,  you are pointed down a path pursued by Snuffer and Waterman. I hope for your sake you don't join them.

Don’t worry, I won’t. 

But I see your position as being the opposite end of the spectrum... just as extreme and incorrect.

[kiwi57]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wrong.  I have said nothing that “is accusing them of cowardice or lacking Integrity.”

I’ve simply pointed out that only one of them have spoken about the policy and I’m sure he’s been truthful about his perspective.  But we still only have this single one.

You and others are the ones here who keep applying meaning to why the others who were there have so far been silent about it, not I.

But unless you (or someone else) can provide any statements, it is the truth there are none.   I don’t know why they haven’t spoken publicly about it and I have definitely not accused anyone of “cowardice” or “lacking integrity” (I for sure don’t think that).  It’s wrong of anyone to apply reasons for their silence, IMO.

For some strange reason, you keep missing this, despite(?) the fact that it directly addresses your argument.

So here it is again, again, again:

Who has contradicted or corrected what President Nelson said?

Arguments from silence - heavily relied upon in this thread - are uniformly weak. But there is one that is formally valid, namely: Qui tacet consentire, "Silence gives consent." If fifteen men agree on something, and then one of them says something about the process which none of the other participants denies, then the default position is that the one who spoke said nothing with which the others materially disagree.

You should know, Julie, that I can keep right on copying and pasting that for as long as you keep shying away from it and refusing to engage it.

You have not a single shred of evidence that any of the Twelve dissents from the November policy, from the Proclamation on the Family, from the reconstituting of the First Presidency, or anything else. Your attempt to shove the burden of proof back onto us suggests to me that you know this. It is fatal to your argument.

Time to drop it, I think.

 

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Pick on?  How am I picking on them?

I agree that current leaders are doing it the way it has been done for a number of decades now.  I just pointed out that they are not following the D&C. 

"Pointed out" means that you are drawing our attention to something non-controversial.

But it is not.

It is not the case "that they are not following the D&C." It is the case that they interpret and apply the particular provisions differently than you do.

And the body of the Church has been sustaining that particular interpretation and application since at least the time of President Lorenzo Snow.

[kiwi57]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, you should.  Julie has been accurate about what has taken place thus far in regard to any statements from the 15 on the policy and the meeting involved.

"Accurate" only in that she says that there are apostles who haven't mentioned the subject. The conclusions she draws therefrom are sheer conjecture, as you know.

Silence gives consent.

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

Only you and Scott continue to mind read or assign reasons as to why this is the case (that we've only heard from then Elder Nelson).

No, I'm not suggesting that any conclusions need to be drawn; and neither, as far as I can tell, has Scott.

I'm perfectly happy with President Nelson's statement as it stands, and see no need to introduce meaningless arguments from silence into the discussion.

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

Read rongo's excellent post again as it really does give a realistic and honest view:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70185-elder-uchtdorf-progressive/?do=findComment&comment=1209794699

IOW, you agree with it.

 

[kiwi57]

On 2/10/2018 at 10:40 AM, rongo said:

I'm a little troubled by the insistence by some of the TBMs in this thread (I'm one, too) that the Brethren are unanimous in their feelings at all times. I think you have been treated unfairly in this regard, because you aren't arguing that they haven't been unanimous in their voting, but rather, that "you can vote for something while privately disagreeing with it." The pushback you have gotten over this surprises me, because it isn't a controversial point, and there are many examples. I gave one earlier: President Packer was on record multiple times (once in my hearing) stating that he disagreed with the concept of singles wards --- but, he didn't oppose their creation or existence. I lot of things in Church governance (including in the upper levels of the Church) operate this way.

Another example I've shared before: I once voted as a counselor in a disciplinary council for disfellowshipment, but the bishop's decision was formal probation. I still disagree with this decision to this day, but I sustained the bishop's decision and haven't been critical of it. Votes in the Q12 are this same way: consensus is reached, but they do not become the Borg --- and, sometimes assenting "votes" are nothing more than refusal to stand in the way of the council's decision. This constitutes sustaining the decision.

All of which is true, but it's entirely beside the point at issue. It doesn't matter whether someone can support something while having private reservations about it. What matters is that speculations about possible private reservations, in the absence of any actual evidence for the existence of such, are meaningless and have no probative value. Some posters try to make a big deal about the fact that only President Nelson said there was any revelatory process involved in formulating the much-maligned November policy. In so doing, they very carefully gloss over the inconvenient fact that President Nelson happens to be the only one who has said anything at all about the process involved in formulating that policy, and thus his testimony stands unrefuted by anyone else.

[kiwi57]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Uchtdorf does likely sustain the new First Presidency but I’ll note that you are also making an argument from silence since none of us have heard him speak to that.

Haven't you? I have:

"It was a joy to participate in this morning's announcement of the new First Presidency. I love and sustain President @NelsonRussellM, President @OaksDallinH, and President @EyringHB. I can assure you, the Lord Himself is at the head of His Church." (Elder Uchtdorf via Twitter, Jan 16th.)

No arguments from silence from me.

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

There is no such thing as prospectively sustaining a man to one day become prophet.

Not formally, no. But you know and I know that when we sustained Elders Stevensen, Rasband and Renlund to the Quorum of the Twelve, we were knowingly placing them in the direct line of succession to become President of the Church.

And we will do it again; most probably on Saturday, March 31 coming up. Believing, as I do, that "whom the Lord calls, He qualifies," I will sustain whomever is called to fill the vacancies; even if one of them does have a name similar to "Elder Rock L. Pond."

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

 The procedure for who becomes prophet has changed several times over the short history of our church.  And it could change again.

"Several" times? What does "several" mean to you?

Remind me, Rockpond: when has a deceased President of the Church ever not been succeeded by the longest continuously serving member of the Quorum of the Twelve?

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

The law of common consent has been violated with regard to President Nelson’s ordination.  From LDS.org (note - BEFORE the officers may serve, they must receive a sustaining vote):

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

D&C 26:2. Could a Person Hold an Office in the Church without the Consent of the People?

“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)

And President Nelson will receive that consent. In fact, he is already receiving it. For example, a number of stakes have held conferences since January 16th, and where the stake business was conducted, the First Presidency was sustained.

Importantly, the teaching of Brigham Young was that if the members of the Church don't sustain the Twelve, the Lord will give the Twelve the power to bear off the kingdom, and the members can go their own way. IOW, common consent doesn't entail us deciding whether or not we'll let the Lord's servants do the work He has called them to do; it's us deciding whether or not we're going to be part of that work.

Since the time of President Lorenzo Snow, it has been held that the work of the kingdom is too important to be allowed to suffer a hiatus, and that the subsequent ratification of the Saints in Conference satisfies the requirements of the Law of Common Consent. That is the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and faithful Saints sustain it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We had a stake conference this morning, and coincidentally, our stake president focussed his remarks on revelation in the Church. He said that the training in their latest coordinating council meeting had been on this topic. The Area Seventies had used the example of the Twelve to reinforce the need for complete unanimity in Church councils and then instructed the assembled stake and mission presidents that they must guarantee that all decisions enjoy unreserved and unanimous support, something that can only be achieved in the end through the receipt of revelation. For what it's worth.

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

"Accurate" only in that she says that there are apostles who haven't mentioned the subject. The conclusions she draws therefrom are sheer conjecture, as you know.

I've not seen her state any conclusions (nor have I stated any), please post where that's taken place. 

You and others are the ones who are drawing conclusions based on their silence.

Here's what I've stated:

Quote

 

One can claim that if any of the 15 disagreed with the one statement we have regarding what took place in the meeting, they would definitely speak out and express their disagreement.

And,

One can claim that if any of the 15 agreed with the one statement we have regarding what took place in the meeting, they would definitely speak out and express their agreement.

But neither of them can actually know that they were speaking the truth.   There could be different reasons for different ones who were in the meeting.  I'd imagine only they know why they haven't addressed this topic and maybe they still will in the future.

We don't even know that all 15 were present for the meeting, do we?  (It seems there was some question at the time regarding whether some were out of town at the time.)

 

 

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 and then instructed the assembled stake and mission presidents that they must guarantee that all decisions enjoy unreserved and unanimous support, something that can only be achieved in the end through the receipt of revelation. For what it's worth.

That's kind of an idealistic way to look at it.  I suspect that most people in positions to counsel with stake and mission presidents already have a strong belief in their inspiration and are inclined to support them even if they don't have a "revelation" that the decision is correct.  It's probably a more sure sign of "revelation" to have someone go against them, because that would require much more effort and gumption.

 

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We had a stake conference this morning, and coincidentally, our stake president focused his remarks on revelation in the Church. He said that the training in their latest coordinating council meeting had been on this topic. The Area Seventies had used the example of the Twelve to reinforce the need for complete unanimity in Church councils and then instructed the assembled stake and mission presidents that they must guarantee that all decisions enjoy unreserved and unanimous support, something that can only be achieved in the end through the receipt of revelation. For what it's worth.

 Isn't this really a way to promote uniformity with the leader rather than change, if change is called for?  When the leader states that he wants to go a certain direction, in a culture that prizes agreement, who is going to defy him?  I think Cinepro's point is worth looking at more closely.  Dogma seems to be the child of an over abundance of unanimity and that God would inspire revolt every now and then to make sure His church doesn't wallow in dogmatic mire.  

[CV75]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

Pick on?  How am I picking on them?

I agree that current leaders are doing it the way it has been done for a number of decades now.  I just pointed out that they are not following the D&C. 

This is one of those occasions where I will consent to the other replies as representing my views, being in common.

But I will ask, what does the D&C say that the current leadership is not doing? Is there a specific required order for sustaining, setting apart, and obtaining common consent spelled out in there (I can't find it)?