Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Spoken by someone who apparently views a temple recommend as an entitlement rather than a privilege. 

The temple recommend makes it clear - common consent has become a virtue signaling exercise, nothing more.

[Gray]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

But in a sense, I think you may be correct.  Not being able to go to the temple is a form of discipline/punishment.  Being deprived of those blessings is an adverse consequence.  But since I know ahead of time what disqualifies me for temple attendance, I cannot in good faith claim surprise or dismay when I - through my own conduct - lose this privilege.

I admit that I don't really understand the overweening sense of entitlement I see in some members of the Church. 

Your post is too long for me to be able to respond to everything, so I'll just quickly respond to this. Maybe the sense of "entitlement" comes from members who read their scriptures and learn that Joseph Smith received a revelation that everything in the church was to operate by common consent. When it dawns on us that there is no more meaningful common consent, contrary to Joseph's revelations, there is a sense of bemusement. If you're punished for voting the "wrong" way, then common consent no longer exists. Who decided to overturn common consent? Everything is done unilaterally these days. The revealed order has been subverted.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Why??  They are just men.  You are able ..according to mormon doctrine to receive your own personal revelation that gives you a core and a moral compass that belongs to you.  What that is..is your integrity and it is everything.

Because I believe that's what God has asked of us.  

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.

You're absolutely right in that I have a right to personal revelation and God has given me the ability to know the difference between real prophets and false prophets.  But once I have found a real prophet--when God has revealed that to me--then He requires that I follow that prophet.  Following a prophet does not require anyone to give up their integrity, though it often requires us to give up our pride and self-righteousness (and I'm speaking about myself and not anyone else).

 

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your post is too long for me to be able to respond to everything, so I'll just quickly respond to this. Maybe the sense of "entitlement" comes from members who read their scriptures and learn that Joseph Smith received a revelation that everything in the church was to operate by common consent. When it dawns on us that there is no more meaningful common consent, contrary to Joseph's revelations, there is a sense of bemusement. If you're punished for voting the "wrong" way, then common consent no longer exists. Who decided to overturn common consent? Everything is done unilaterally these days. The revealed order has been subverted.

Jospeh Fielding Smith also taught-

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only on the grounds that he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold.”

If someone is refusing to sustain a leader and it's not because that leader is guilty of significant sinful behavior, then that person is voting in the wrong way.  The revealed order has not been subverted, but some people definitely misunderstand it.

Edited September 20, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Your post is too long for me to be able to respond to everything, so I'll just quickly respond to this. Maybe the sense of "entitlement" comes from members who read their scriptures and learn that Joseph Smith received a revelation that everything in the church was to operate by common consent.

Yes, I can see that.  But another ingredient is differences in interpretation and meaning of "common consent."  I think some folks think there is a requirement for a "direct democracy"-style approach to matters of Church governance.  I think that's largely impractical in a worldwide church with millions of members.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

When it dawns on us that there is no more meaningful common consent, contrary to Joseph's revelations, there is a sense of bemusement.

I think this is incorrect.  Common consent is alive and well in the Church.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you're punished for voting the "wrong" way, then common consent no longer exists.

I don't think this is correct, either.  There are plenty of ways a person can cast a dissenting vote and still get a temple recommend.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who decided to overturn common consent?

You question presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated.

Common Consent continues to function in the Church.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

Everything is done unilaterally these days.

No, it's not.

The sustaining vote every six months has meaning.

The votes to canonize new scripture have meaning.

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

The revealed order has been subverted.

I think the revealed order is doing quite well.

That is not to say the Church is perfect, or that it has no room to improve.  It certainly does.  But Common Consent is up and running.

Thanks,

-Smac

[YJacket]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

JS also taught-

“I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only on the grounds that he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold.”

If someone is refusing to sustain a leader and it's not because that leader is guilty of significant sinful behavior, then that person is voting in the wrong way.  The revealed order has not been subverted, but some people definitely misunderstand it.

Joseph Smith didn't teach that.  That is a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith.  Big difference, it's from Doctrines of Salvation, 3:124.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/02/i-have-a-question/should-i-vote-to-sustain-someone-to-an-office-in-the-church-if-i-think-that-he-would-not-make-a-good-leader?lang=eng

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Is there any chance your old friends felt disrespected by your new stance? I recall an old quotation from somewhere "Sometimes a person can be mistaken for being mad when they are only sad." No offense intended, HJW.  When two family members left the Church, we tried to express our love for them.  But every extension was met with incredulousness, ridicule and what seemed to be intentional rudeness resulting in many tears shed.  They would say respect and friendship disappeared overnight from our side.  That would not be accurate.  Sadness, yes.  New boundaries to protect tender feelings, yes.  Continued possible misunderstandings on both sides? Yes.  Shall we blame each other? Or shall we pray for peace? It's frustrating to want to support them in whatever direction they want to pursue while being criticized for the direction we want to go with our lives.  What is the solution?

I wasn't trying to blame, just explain. And of course it's from my POV. Could some of it been my fault? Of course. My point was to explain how many of the relationships I had, and therefore much of the influence I had, was conditional on my fitting neatly within the comfortable box of orthodoxy. I think it's very natural. When I became less orthodox, many became less comfortable with me as a person because I no longer fit. Again, perhaps I'm to blame for that, but it is a reality nevertheless. I came to realize that many of the friendships I enjoyed were tied less to a personal connection than they were to fitting in to the church community. IMO they have been shown to be shallow relationships, even though I once thought of them as deep. It was a huge surprise, and yes, it does cause some sadness.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Joseph Smith didn't teach that.  That is a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith.  Big difference, it's from Doctrines of Salvation, 3:124.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/02/i-have-a-question/should-i-vote-to-sustain-someone-to-an-office-in-the-church-if-i-think-that-he-would-not-make-a-good-leader?lang=eng

You're right!  Thank you!

It doesn't change my conclusions any but I'm a big fan of accuracy.

[YJacket]

Common consent exists in functionality but not in any real sense (and I say this as an extremely conservative member), it's more perfunctory than anything else now.  IMO casting a sustaining vote is extremely serous business and should be done with great consideration and prayer-yet b/c of the way we currently do sustainings that's very difficult to do now.

I completely agree that we should not have anything resembling "elections", it should be as the scriptures state the leadership presents members to the congregation (ward, stake, general body) and the membership then votes to say yes we agree with your choice or no we don't agree with your choice.  The problem being in today's church (and maybe it has always been this way), but by presenting the sustaining immediately as the name is announced it does not give membership time at all to seriously study, ponder and pray about that sustaining.

A name is presented and the congregation is supposed to make an immediate decision yeah or nay-well IMO that's a crappy way of doing things. Unless you expect every member to immediately feel the Spirit and to confirm in that moment (which maybe they expect that), there is just no possible way to actually take it to prayer, ponder, study, etc. immediately.  And because of that, the sustaining vote basically becomes perfunctory-i.e. pretty much meaningless. The only way someone is going to say no is if they know of some deep dark secret . . .

If Sister Smith is called as Primary President, you may barely know her and the moment she is called you are asked sustain.  You've been given no opportunity to converse with her-at least have even a 5 min conversation about her thoughts/feelings/intents about Primary (maybe she is called into Primary and HATES kids but is only taking the calling b/c she never turns down a calling), do I really want a Primary President to teach my little children who hates kids and thinks they are horrible?  But b/c of the way we doing sustaining, I'm given absolutely no opportunity to actually do what the scriptures suggest which is to investigate and study it out in my mind and then pray if my decision is correct. And b/c I've been given no opportunity to do that (and the general membership hasn't been given that ability) you have two options, either don't vote or vote sustain-well you don't want to look like a fool not voting when everyone else is voting sustain and b/c you don't have any reason to not sustain you vote sustain.  Then you find out 6 months later she's a horrible PP can't stand kids and asks to be released . . and then the membership just thinks well it was God's will!  I'm convinced a significant amount of leadership problems we do have with things like Sam Young brings up (and I think amazingly enough there isn't many of them-God certainly has His hand in that!) would become much smaller if the membership actually took the time to do their due diligence before just blindly sustaining whoever is called in the moment b/c they don't have an opportunity to actually do their due diligence.

And in general I am okay with the way things have been done for the past 50-60+ years b/c in general simply being a member of the Church you generally knew that most people thought very much the same way on things. But that's no longer the case, culture, ideas, etc. have changed dramatically where you can be in the same religion with the person sitting next to you but have absolutely nothing in common as far as ideology and belief systems go except for the extreme basics (JS, BoM, Christ, God, etc.).  We are getting to a point where the actual teachings of leaders will dramatically  diverge based upon their philosophy of left/right liberal/conservative.

For example you could easily get in a ward a YW president now who is a feminist and encourages the youth to go to PRIDE parades, make PRIDE bracelets, young women to go out and be in the workforce etc., etc.  She could be temple worthy and all that- yet I'll be darned if I want a feminist teaching my young daughters in the Church-I'd vote opposed.  By the same token you could just as easily get a very traditional YW president who is all about stay-at-home, very traditional based roles for YW.  If I'm a modernist-I'd vote no to her b/c I wouldn't want her teaching my daughters either!

I believe, the perfunctory mechanism of sustaining is covering up a lot of underlying discord within the Church.  Instead of this discord being made manifest inside the actual chapels-that discord is evident in an area where it can be made manifest which is on the internet, in facebook, youtube, here, etc.

Why do we do sustainings immediately after the name is submitted?  How hard would it be to simply announce the individuals a week ahead of time, ask the membership to go home pray, ponder study and then come back ready to sustain or not sustain the next week?  There is nothing doctrinal about submitting a name and sustaining that very minute.

Edited September 20, 2018 by YJacket

[YJacket]

And I know this type of stuff, b/c I've been involved in political meetings where people vote open like we do in the Church and let me tell you . . .you get some very, very interesting dynamics that go on b/c of a vote in public, especially when those who are voting haven't been given time to think about the vote.  People will look to a friend they respect and see how they vote, they will think about how will this look if I vote this way or that way to others.  They may be opposed to the person personally but in order to save face (b/c they think that person may win) they will vote for them.  They will start to raise their hand for something, realize only 3 people are with them and immediately drop their hand to save face.

You get some very, very weird dynamics that go on.

Thankfully none of that goes on inside the Church and I would never want any of that inside the Church, but I do believe common consent is just a procedural, perfunctory mechanism in today's church that doesn't serve any real purpose (it should serve a real purpose-but I don't think the membership really understands it).

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Common consent exists in functionality but not in any real sense (and I say this as an extremely conservative member), it's more perfunctory than anything else now. 

I disagree.  Common consent exists in practical reality.  In pretty much every "real sense."

But I'm willing to listen.  Let's look at the last 25 years.  What actions have the leaders of the Church taken which, in your view, violated the principle of Common Consent?

Quote

IMO casting a sustaining vote is extremely serous business and should be done with great consideration and prayer-yet b/c of the way we currently do sustainings that's very difficult to do now.

I'm not sure I follow.  What is preventing members from preparing themselves through "great consideration and prayer?"  

Quote

I completely agree that we should not have anything resembling "elections", it should be as the scriptures state the leadership presents members to the congregation (ward, stake, general body) and the membership then votes to say yes we agree with your choice or no we don't agree with your choice.  The problem being in today's church (and maybe it has always been this way), but by presenting the sustaining immediately as the name is announced it does not give membership time at all to seriously study, ponder and pray about that sustaining.

Perhaps the names of people to be called as General Authorities should be given in advance of General Conference, so members can have time to consider their names?

Quote

A name is presented and the congregation is supposed to make an immediate decision yeah or nay-well IMO that's a crappy way of doing things.

Okay.  How much time do you think would be appropriate?

Quote

Unless you expect every member to immediately feel the Spirit and to confirm in that moment (which maybe they expect that), there is just no possible way to actually take it to prayer, ponder, study, etc. immediately.  And because of that, the sustaining vote basically becomes perfunctory-i.e. pretty much meaningless.

I'm not sure about that.  Preparation for General Conference can and should be happening.

Quote

The only way someone is going to say no is if they know of some deep dark secret . . .

That's sort of understandable.  There's going to be some level of trust that the people receiving callings have been considered, vetted, prayed over, etc.

But again, what amount of lead time do you think would be appropriate for notifying the members about a person being called as a general authority or officer?  A week?  A month?

Quote

And in general I am okay with that for the past 50-60+ years b/c in general simply being a member of the Church you generally knew that most people thought very much the same way on things. But that's no longer the case, culture, ideas, etc. have changed dramatically where you can be in the same religion with the person sitting next to you but have absolutely nothing in common as far as ideology and belief systems go except for the extreme basics (JS, BoM, Christ, God, etc.).  We are getting to a point where the actual teachings of leaders will dramatically  diverge based upon their philosophy of left/right liberal/conservative.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  What evidence do you have a forthcoming dramatic divergence in doctrinal teachings by the leaders of the Church?

Quote

For example you could easily get in a ward a YW president now who is a feminist and encourages the youth to go to PRIDE parades, make PRIDE bracelets, young women to go out and be in the workforce etc., etc.  She could be temple worthy and all that- yet I'll be darned if I want a feminist teaching my young daughters in the Church-I'd vote opposed. 

Is this a widespread problem?

Quote

I believe, the perfunctory mechanism of sustaining is covering up a lot of underlying discord within the Church.  Instead of this discord being made manifest inside the actual chapels-that discord is evident in an area where it can be made manifest which is on the internet, in facebook, youtube, here, etc.

Hmm.

Quote

Why do we do sustainings immediately after the name is submitted?  How hard would it be to simply announce the individuals a week ahead of time, ask the membership to go home pray, ponder study and then come back ready to sustain or not sustain the next week?  There is nothing doctrinal about submitting a name and sustaining that very minute.

You raise a fair point.  But there is also nothing preventing a person from changing their mind and registering a dissenting vote, or else register a dissenting vote at the next general conference.

Common Consent is basically a mechanism for individuals to voice their opinion as to matters of Church governance, administration, doctrine, etc.  You are saying that there is "a lot" of discord within the Church that is being expressed online "instead ... [of] inside the actual chapels."  But why?  Nothing seems to prevent any individual from scheduling an appointment with a bishop or stake president to voice any concerns.  How is that not Common Consent?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 20, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Why do we do sustainings immediately after the name is submitted?  How hard would it be to simply announce the individuals a week ahead of time, ask the membership to go home pray, ponder study and then come back ready to sustain or not sustain the next week?  There is nothing doctrinal about submitting a name and sustaining that very minute.

You never know, this could be one of the changes announced at general conference!

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You never know, this could be one of the changes announced at general conference!

"Common Consent," or more to the point, concerns about Common Consent, seem to have very little to do with the calling of general authorities and officers.

I think the concerns pertain more to matters of Church doctrine and governance.  The parameters of the Law of Chastity, for example.  Some people want to make that a matter of debate.  The compatibility of same-sex marriage with membership in the Church.  The 2015 policy changes.  What other issues should be evaluated retrospectively?

And what of prospective matters?  By what metrics do we measure a "Common Consent" requirement (over and above the sustaining vote during General Conference)?

I'm asking these questions of everyone.  This thread is becoming interesting again!

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Common Consent," or more to the point, concerns about Common Consent, seem to have very little to do with the calling of general authorities and officers.

I think the concerns pertain more to matters of Church doctrine and governance.  The parameters of the Law of Chastity, for example.  Some people want to make that a matter of debate.  The compatibility of same-sex marriage with membership in the Church.  The 2015 policy changes.  What other issues should be evaluated retrospectively?

And what of prospective matters?  By what metrics do we measure a "Common Consent" requirement (over and above the sustaining vote during General Conference)?

I'm asking these questions of everyone.  This thread is becoming interesting again!

Thanks,

-Smac

They could send out the 2019 budget now and ask for it to be sustained through common consent on the 6th. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

They could send out the 2019 budget now and ask for it to be sustained through common consent on the 6th. 

That's an interesting request.  And not an unreasonable one.  I don't think they'll go for it.  And it's not a dealbreaker for me.

What else?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Think of the truth claims that aren’t mentioned in these questions:

The one and only true church. 

Historicity of the Book of Mormon. 

The First Vision. 

Prophet can’t lead the Church astray. 

That doesn’t help me understand how the questions I highlighted can be truthfully answered. One and only true church....implicit in 3 and 4. BoM....3. First Vision.....3. Prophet leading Church astray....3 and 4.

[YJacket]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  Common consent exists in practical reality.  In pretty much every "real sense."

But I'm willing to listen.  Let's look at the last 25 years.  What actions have the leaders of the Church taken which, in your view, violated the principle of Common Consent?

Sure it exists in practical reality, but in effect it is a dead letter.  Just like the temple recommend question about "do you support or affiliate with any groups...." in the temple recommend interview.  It's there and if someone said Yes to that question they could be denied a TR, but in effect it is a dead letter.  No Bishop is going to say, hey you support or a affiliate with a group known to advocate for homosexual marriage (which is against the doctrine of the Church) and take away their recommend.  The mechanism is still there for it to happen so it is there in practical reality, yet in effect it is dead b/c it isn't enforced.  Very similar thing with laws that are written.  There are plenty of laws that are on the books that are there in practical reality and could be enforced-but they aren't.

Common consent exists in practical reality but in effect it is a rubber-stamp that has no practical effect-it could be used for that, but it's not.  For example Stake callings.  Every other Sunday or so, I'm asked to sustain Brother or Sister so-and-so who is on the Stake Leadership.  I have absolutely 0 clue as to who these people are, nothing about their background, nothing about their testimony, absolutely nothing-I know absolutely 0 about them yet I'm asked to sustain them.  Why??  If the answer is that I should just have faith that the leadership prayed about it, why are you asking me to sustain someone who I don't even know and have had no opportunity to figure out if I should or should not sustain.

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I follow.  What is preventing members from preparing themselves through "great consideration and prayer?"  

Simple, the vote is asked for immediately.  There is a man in a Stake Leadership position in Florida (Executive Stake Secretary), he write a blog, he is OPENLY homosexual-by open I mean totally open-he openly brags about going on SS dates-he give firesides to the youth.  There is absolutely no way the membership of the entire Stake would sustain him if they actually did their homework, or maybe they would b/c the SP called him, right?  But the membership don't do their homework b/c it's not asked of them-it's "Bro. X has been called please sustain him."  The thought is "well I don't know Bro. X, but I trust the Bishop, SP, etc. and so sure I'll sustain him".

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps the names of people to be called as General Authorities should be given in advance of General Conference, so members can have time to consider their names?

Okay.  How much time do you think would be appropriate?

  GAs and for all callings-Bishop, SP, etc.  I'd think a week should be sufficient so that if someone wanted to give the person a call and talk to them, dig a little bit, ponder, etc.  It's not an election, it's a sustaining.  If you really want to find out about the person before sustaining I think a week is good.

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's sort of understandable.  There's going to be some level of trust that the people receiving callings have been considered, vetted, prayed over, etc.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  What evidence do you have a forthcoming dramatic divergence in doctrinal teachings by the leaders of the Church?

Is this a widespread problem?

Totally agree, there must be some level of trust that callings have been vetted, etc.  However, the saying "trust but verify" is applicable here-it is the duty of each member to verify-that's the point of a sustaining.

Evidence . . .reading the tea leaves. I have a couple of anecdotal stories but no facts as of yet (hard to gain facts on this).  It just makes sense, there is an openly bi-sexual RS president in Utah, this guy in florida, and just logic-the Church membership is becoming more and more diverse in its thinking which means it is going to bleed over into teachings . . .it's just natural.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You raise a fair point.  But there is also nothing preventing a person from changing their mind and registering a dissenting vote, or else register a dissenting vote at the next general conference.

Common Consent is basically a mechanism for individuals to voice their opinion as to matters of Church governance, administration, doctrine, etc.  You are saying that there is "a lot" of discord within the Church that is being expressed online "instead ... [of] inside the actual chapels."  But why?  Nothing seems to prevent any individual from scheduling an appointment with a bishop or stake president to voice any concerns.  How is that not Common Consent?

Thanks,

-Smac

Scheduling an appointment with a Bishop or SP?  Big deal, that's just voicing a concern, maybe he takes it into consideration maybe he doesn't. That's not "common consent", that's simply voicing an opinion.  You can voice a disagreement and still sustain so a Bishop or SP has no clue as to how big of a deal you concern really is. The rubber meets the road at a sustaining-THAT is common consent. Register an no vote and express valid reasons why to leadership and that WILL get someone's attention.

You can't change your mind and register a dissenting vote; it doesn't work like that.  You next opportunity is at the next ward/stake/general conference.  

Now, I'm NOT suggesting people willy-nilly vote opposed.  Simply that it is a big deal and it should be taken very seriously.  It puts a good amount of actual responsibility of the Church on the individual.  You have a Bishop who goes off the rails (IMO off the rails) and invites a bunch of LGBT people in Sunday School (including ex'd members to speak), instead of just claiming it's God's will, maybe take some personal responsibility that you either did or did not do your due diligence and sustained a man who (IMO) goes off the rails, now if you sustain that action go ahead and sustain the Bishop, if you don't then make yourself heard and don't sustain him!  Don't want some creepy Bishop leering at your kids-well don't sustain a man if you get a creepy feeling around him.  

In pretty much all cases of a leader going off the rails, someone knew, or someones knew, they felt uncomfortable, uneasy, something-yet in a way to abrogate themselves from any responsibility they say "no one would have ever known!". Yet they membership sustained them-the vetting process includes the membership.

You get the leadership you deserve.

[provoman]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Common Consent," or more to the point, concerns about Common Consent, seem to have very little to do with the calling of general authorities and officers.

I think the concerns pertain more to matters of Church doctrine and governance.  The parameters of the Law of Chastity, for example.  Some people want to make that a matter of debate.  The compatibility of same-sex marriage with membership in the Church.  The 2015 policy changes.  What other issues should be evaluated retrospectively?

And what of prospective matters?  By what metrics do we measure a "Common Consent" requirement (over and above the sustaining vote during General Conference)?

I'm asking these questions of everyone.  This thread is becoming interesting again!

Thanks,

 

Sam's main first complaint about how a violation of Common Consent occurred, as I understand his writtings, was the announcement that children of a persons living in samesex relationship could not be baptized until 18 years of age. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by provoman

[rockpond]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

That doesn’t help me understand how the questions I highlighted can be truthfully answered. One and only true church....implicit in 3 and 4. BoM....3. First Vision.....3. Prophet leading Church astray....3 and 4.

I don't see those implications.  So I think those questions can be truthfully answered without believing in the one and only true church or that the prophet can't lead the church astray.

First Vision and Book of Mormon aren't even referenced.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Sam's starting complaint and violation of Common Consent, as I understand his writtings, was the announcement that children of a persons living in samesex relationship could not be baptized until 18 years of age. 

Sam has never "violated common consent".  And "persons living in samesex relationships" can't be baptized even at 18.

[YJacket]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Common Consent," or more to the point, concerns about Common Consent, seem to have very little to do with the calling of general authorities and officers.

I think the concerns pertain more to matters of Church doctrine and governance.  The parameters of the Law of Chastity, for example.  Some people want to make that a matter of debate.  The compatibility of same-sex marriage with membership in the Church.  The 2015 policy changes.  What other issues should be evaluated retrospectively?

And what of prospective matters?  By what metrics do we measure a "Common Consent" requirement (over and above the sustaining vote during General Conference)?

I'm asking these questions of everyone.  This thread is becoming interesting again!

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree yes, concerns about "common consent" pertain more to matters of Church doctrine and governance, like you said.  

But let's do a thought experiment.  What if the Leadership had used the proper mechanism to make revelation binding upon the Church-i.e. present text to the Church for a binding vote whether to accept text as doctrine or not.  What if they had done that with the Proclamation on the Family?  Would we be having all the discussions we are currently having over these types of issues?  Nope, not at all.  B/c the Church would have voted by common consent to accept The Proclamation on the Family as binding doctrine-end of story.  People don't like it-go start your own Church.

But we didn't and b/c we didn't we have endless discussions about whether it is or is not revelation whether it is or is not good. And quite frankly b/c it's not binding on the Church, the Church could easily come out and change course 180 degrees in 40 years from now.

We can take evolution as an example, the First Presidency in 1910 came out against it, yet today in Church it's not binding, it's not doctrine to believe or disbelieve in it.  Had it become part of our core (i.e. sustaining vote) then it would be doctrine.

[HappyJackWagon]

52 minutes ago, YJacket said:

And I know this type of stuff, b/c I've been involved in political meetings where people vote open like we do in the Church and let me tell you . . .you get some very, very interesting dynamics that go on b/c of a vote in public, especially when those who are voting haven't been given time to think about the vote.  People will look to a friend they respect and see how they vote, they will think about how will this look if I vote this way or that way to others.  They may be opposed to the person personally but in order to save face (b/c they think that person may win) they will vote for them.  They will start to raise their hand for something, realize only 3 people are with them and immediately drop their hand to save face.

You get some very, very weird dynamics that go on.

Thankfully none of that goes on inside the Church and I would never want any of that inside the Church, but I do believe common consent is just a procedural, perfunctory mechanism in today's church that doesn't serve any real purpose (it should serve a real purpose-but I don't think the membership really understands it).

I think you're right about all of this. However, if the membership doesn't understand it, it's because the Church doesn't teach it and the culture doesn't support it.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I came to realize that many of the friendships I enjoyed were tied less to a personal connection than they were to fitting in to the church community. IMO they have been shown to be shallow relationships, even though I once thought of them as deep. It was a huge surprise, and yes, it does cause some sadness.

But that can be true of any relationship or any group. 

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Sure it exists in practical reality, but in effect it is a dead letter.  Just like the temple recommend question about "do you support or affiliate with any groups...." in the temple recommend interview.  It's there and if someone said Yes to that question they could be denied a TR, but in effect it is a dead letter.  No Bishop is going to say, hey you support or a affiliate with a group known to advocate for homosexual marriage (which is against the doctrine of the Church) and take away their recommend.  The mechanism is still there for it to happen so it is there in practical reality, yet in effect it is dead b/c it isn't enforced.

As i recall someone affliation with honosexual advocay type groups was a basis for recommend denial. I cannot recall much, it was a male, who recorded a interveiw with his priesthood leader and the person affliation with such grouos was an issue.

I just dont think you can claim with across the board assurance as you do. 

[provoman]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sam has never "violated common consent".  And "persons living in samesex relationships" can't be baptized even at 18.

please Do not chop my statements.

 

Yes, I missed left out some words about Common Consent.

Sam complaint about how violation of Common Consent happened, started as a result of what is referred to by critics of the Church as "The November Policy"

Edited September 20, 2018 by provoman