Common Consent?

[Maidservant]

I read in another thread that we have the principle of common consent, and I honestly wonder, having never delved into it myself, whether or not this can be properly applied to the Church and its processes. Is that what we are doing when we raise our hand? Is this how it has been characterized? I don't really see this as anything necessary or even desirable or even accurate to how people who become 'one' ought to go about their agreements and their projects? I'm curious to hear insights from anyone who has more knowledge on it than myself.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think it's one of the most important principles of the Gospel, personally. The idea that power only "works" with the conscious cooperation of all involved, and that coercion and unrighteous dominion (exemplified most starkly in freewill-denying violence) are the ultimate sins. That it is only through persuasion that any lasting community can be built.

[Sky]

Well, in my entire life of being a member of the Church, I can honestly say that I've never seen anybody raise their hand when the guys in suits say over the pulpit "and any opposed by the same sign"? If someone in the audience were to do that, I hightly doubt that in most cases it would change the outcome.

When a decision is made in the Church, it is better to go along with it, and if you don't, well then, too bad so sad.

The decision to build City Creek, for example, was not one that the Church members were asked to sustain with the raising of their right hand. Or the lowering of the missionary age, or any given policy change. But we were asked to sustain the fifteen men who lead the Church, and those who work under their direction.

[Maidservant]

I think it's one of the most important principles of the Gospel, personally. The idea that power only "works" with the conscious cooperation of all involved, and that coercion and unrighteous dominion (exemplified most starkly in freewill-denying violence) are the ultimate sins. That it is only through persuasion that any lasting community can be built.

Okay, cool. But here is a question . . . is "coercion and unrighteous dominion" the only alternative to "common consent" (whatever that is, not sure, hence the thread). Obviously I advocate for personal choice, agency, and self-direction (and etc etc). But is "common consent" the only or best expression of these fundamental principles? And you mention power as well . . . hmmm, not even sure what to ask here. Is power the crux of the situation?

I agree that through persuasion that any lasting community can be built. Bingo, for me. But is "common consent" = persuasion?

Well, in my entire life of being a member of the Church, I can honestly say that I've never seen anybody raise their hand when the guys in suits say over the pulpit "and any opposed by the same sign"? If someone in the audience were to do that, I hightly doubt that in most cases it would change the outcome.

I have. Over a bishop that had been called and was presented. The call was completed after people were heard. I was young, so I didn't understand everything going on. But I have also from the time I was young wondered if in the case of young men I knew or believed I had facts contrary to their worthiness, if I should raise my hand to their advancement in the priesthood, and it caused much thought in me. I have not ever raised my hand opposing (too chicken), but there have been times that I have left my hand unraised (probably a total of two times in my life). These days I actually worry less about things, because when I was younger I thought I was a good person. Since then I found out differently and have been confronted with my own weaknesses, so I give a wider berth to other people and when I raise my hand, I mean that I will help that person be the best *insert calling* they can be. I don't worry about total worthiness, that's between them and the Lord. If I thought there was a crime involved, I would talk to someone afterwards privately (stake president or something), but otherwise, I'm not really voting. I don't consider the process even as it is, to be a vote, and don't think it is ever meant to be a consent or vote or assent or agreement. How can it be?

I think it's more like when Mowgli was taken to Akela at council rock and he was spoken for by some who said they would help him become a wolf and a member of the pack. And that's what I'm doing when I raise my hand; it means I'll go the distance with them to the best of my abilities, which might actually include some honest disagreement. (I most recently when I was called in to the bishop's office to make a change in my call, I felt horrible about it, that it was NOT the right thing; so I expressed myself and talked about all the ins and outs; and it came to pass that they agreed with my assessment, which was I think was all about appropriate because it HAD been my stewardship and I had been under revelation on it for a while, and I could counsel them properly in that spirit, having been intimate with my stewardship, which in turn was supportive to them in THEIR calling, because they can't know all details).

When a decision is made in the Church, it is better to go along with it, and if you don't, well then, too bad so sad.

Well, I suppose if this is your reconciliation, I can't say anything. But this against every way that I conduct my life. I don't "go along" with anything and I never have. Or at least when I was younger I did it more often to my complete misery and now that I have lived a few more decades there is very little that find more valuable than complete integrity to myself and what I think is right and best for myself--no "going along".

But I guess that's easy for me to say, because I don't have any deep or great criticisms to lay at the feet of the Church or its leaders. Don't know how it would be if I did (not saying you do, just saying in general due to the topic of my OP).

Edited January 26, 2013 by Maidservant

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Is "common consent" = persuasion?

I'd say so, ultimately.

[Sky]

Well, I suppose if this is your reconciliation, I can't say anything. But this against every way that I conduct my life. I don't "go along" with anything and I never have. Or at least when I was younger I did it more often to my complete misery and now that I have lived a few more decades there is very little that find more valuable than complete integrity to myself and what I think is right and best for myself--no "going along".

Maybe it would have been better if I would have said, "when a decision is made in the Church, it is better to fully sustain it with all of your heart." My original statement may have been too brazen. But we are under covenant to sustain the leaders of the Church. I know this is harder to do when there is a deep disagreement with them.

If a person has an honest concern about something, then a system is set up to be able to express that. But I still have my doubts that in most cases it would change the outcome, unless it is something very serious. And if I knew about a transgression that another person committed, and they were being called to a particular calling, I would still probably sustain them. I would assume that they have repented. But even if they didn't, it's none of my business and it's between them and the Lord, as you said. I know that if I were called to do something, I wouldn't want other people in the ward judging me that way.

When I raise my hand to sustain somebody, I see it as less of a "yes" vote, but rather a "ratification" or show of support for a decision that my Priesthood leaders have already made and prayed about.

[Garden Girl]

When I raise my hand to sustain somebody, I see it as less of a "yes" vote, but rather a "ratification" or show of support for a decision that my Priesthood leaders have already made and prayed about.

Me too, Sky... When they have stake callings for sustaining in the wards, I don't know the person involved, but I raise my hand to "sustain" them vs to "vote" for them, and do have to have a certain trust that the local and stake leaders have prayed about such callings. I've never viewed our raising of our hands as a vote, but an agreement to sustain and help the person when and if necessary. One time during a sustaining I was looking for something in my purse and was late raising my hand... my bishop, sitting on the stand, noticed and after the meeting came to me and asked if I had reservations about sustaining the individual. I explained, and thanked him for inquiring...

GG

[Duncan]

Well, in my entire life of being a member of the Church, I can honestly say that I've never seen anybody raise their hand when the guys in suits say over the pulpit "and any opposed by the same sign"? If someone in the audience were to do that, I hightly doubt that in most cases it would change the outcome.

When a decision is made in the Church, it is better to go along with it, and if you don't, well then, too bad so sad.

The decision to build City Creek, for example, was not one that the Church members were asked to sustain with the raising of their right hand. Or the lowering of the missionary age, or any given policy change. But we were asked to sustain the fifteen men who lead the Church, and those who work under their direction.

i've seen it done, that is any opposed-at stake conference no less

[mfbukowski]

I read in another thread that we have the principle of common consent, and I honestly wonder, having never delved into it myself, whether or not this can be properly applied to the Church and its processes. Is that what we are doing when we raise our hand? Is this how it has been characterized? I don't really see this as anything necessary or even desirable or even accurate to how people who become 'one' ought to go about their agreements and their projects? I'm curious to hear insights from anyone who has more knowledge on it than myself.

You have every right to sustain who has been called or not. If you do not sustain them, you don't have to. And yes, 99% of the time, all are "one" in sustaining leaders.

[mfbukowski]

When someone is sustained, no one says "Everybody who wants to vote for Bob raise their hands"

That's not what it is about.

Typical wording is "Bob Jones has been called to be a Sunday School teacher, and we propose he be sustained. All in favor, please manifest.

Any opposed, by the same sign".

That is not a vote, it is a pat on the back for Bob and a demonstration that all sustain him, and will help him do what he has agreed to do. Big difference.

Edit: And one of the reasons is to ask if anyone knows any reason that the person should NOT be called. When that happens, we should oppose the sustaining, and talk to the leader later

Edited January 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Maidservant]

A telling thing for me is that we don't raise our hands on issues. We raise our hands on people into their calling, the place they will take in the body of Christ.

So I don't even really want to talk about sustaining people, although we can continue that too as people desire or have thoughts, but if this sitting and raising our hands is the sole example of common consent, then I don't see common consent as necessarily a thread running through the entire gospel. Which I am NOT saying that our agency isn't intact, just that is "common consent" a scriptural, gospel idea?

Or? Where else shall I find it other than at the sustainings? I guess I should use that key word at lds.org. Hmmmm.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"All things" in the Church are to be done by common consent. Quite a few examples in the D&C. Even under the 'vote' section it says 'see common consent'.

[williamsmith]

Well, in my entire life of being a member of the Church, I can honestly say that I've never seen anybody raise their hand when the guys in suits say over the pulpit "and any opposed by the same sign"? If someone in the audience were to do that, I hightly doubt that in most cases it would change the outcome.

And in the opposite direction have you known of anyone that was called that "should" have been opposed, that some great moral sin needed to be revealed which made the person unworthy? Maybe that is the actual reason why no one raised their hands?

When a decision is made in the Church, it is better to go along with it, and if you don't, well then, too bad so sad.

So, we are to "go along with" sins in the Church? What is there to oppose save sin?

The decision to build City Creek, for example, was not one that the Church members were asked to sustain with the raising of their right hand.

And what did this have to do with the Church? Church owned businesses made that decision, not "The Church", the spiritual side and operations of the Church. Thus, why would you need to raise your hand and sustain it? Business decisions belong to the business operator's and owners, not the members of the Church.

Or the lowering of the missionary age, or any given policy change. But we were asked to sustain the fifteen men who lead the Church, and those who work under their direction.

And are these things and people you "really" need to not sustain? If so, feel free. But, I suspect those things aren't really "sins" enough to need to.

[teddyaware]

I think it's one of the most important principles of the Gospel, personally. The idea that power only "works" with the conscious cooperation of all involved, and that coercion and unrighteous dominion (exemplified most starkly in freewill-denying violence) are the ultimate sins. That it is only through persuasion that any lasting community can be built.

Well done; couldn't agree more.

[Senator]

But we are under covenant to sustain the leaders of the Church.

Wherein have we covenanted to sustain the leaders of the church?

[CV75]

I read in another thread that we have the principle of common consent, and I honestly wonder, having never delved into it myself, whether or not this can be properly applied to the Church and its processes. Is that what we are doing when we raise our hand? Is this how it has been characterized? I don't really see this as anything necessary or even desirable or even accurate to how people who become 'one' ought to go about their agreements and their projects? I'm curious to hear insights from anyone who has more knowledge on it than myself.

I've taken this to mean a few things on a few levels:

- A command to every member to be of one heart and one mind as far as seeking the welfare of Zion--there are many ways for them to to express this.

- A command to the governing councils of the Church to approve decisions and courses of action with unanimity, and not so so until unanimity is reached.

- An invitation to be so united so as to speak with one voice as we recognize the voice of God through His servants (Mosiah 4:2; 5:2); as we worship God (we do this in the temple and in the set sacrament and ordinance prayers, making the same covenants, etc.); and to both hear and speak in sustaining God's callings and assignment to His chidlren.

- That agency is paramount--consent is voluntary, and being of one accord is voluntary. We are commanded to want God to be our God, and to accept the oath and covenant of the priesthood, but we are not forced to.

[DH]

Without consent, unity is (IMO) less likely.

Think of marriages, are the people in an arranged marriage more likely or less likely to be "of one heart" than a couple who chose to be together of their own free will?

Edited January 26, 2013 by DH

[rongo]

I think common consent (aka “sustaining votes”) is a very important and much neglected topic. Most people (good people) don’t give it much thought. I think all of us find ourselves in the boat of the people at the stake conference that J. Golden Kimball was presiding over. As he conducted the sustainings, he noticed that everyone was mechanically raising their hands in sync with everyone else, without considering and thinking about them. Keeping his voice the same, he said, “It is proposed that we take Mt. Nebo and place it in the Great Salt Lake. All in favor of this, please raise your right hands. Anyone opposed? Please raise your hands.” The people sustained this action as unanimously as the others. He seriously scanned the congregation for dissenting votes, and then said, “Well, now that we’ve got it there, what in the [world] are we going to do with it?”

I struggled with this thought when I learned that a neighbor of ours had been put into the bishopric in the part of rural Idaho we had moved from when I was ten. They were a family of 14, and he was an incompetent farmer (mainly due to laziness). They were also a mean, conniving family, and they lived down the hill from us. What drove us nuts when we lived there was that everybody always talked about what a sweet family they were ---- sweet, but so unfortunate in their circumstances. We didn’t dispel anyone’s mistaken notions, and just stayed silent, but if only people knew them like we knew them.

They had bought their farm from my uncle, and about two months after buying it (not having made any payments), they wrote him a letter and told him that they considered their debt paid and were not going to pay him anything. When I asked my parents how that could be if they had a loan, they told me that there was no way in the world they could borrow money from a bank, and that they were reneging on a gentleman’s agreement with my uncle. When I asked my uncle why he allowed that, he said, “What else can we do? Where would they go, and what would they do? They and their twelve kids would be indigent vagabonds.

I was shocked as a young man when I asked my parents if we lived there when he was put into the bishopric, if we would vote not to sustain him. I expected them to say yes. They said, No, we would sustain him, even knowing what we know. It made me mad ---- what good is the process, then? Under what circumstances would one ever vote “no?” Never, really?

My first counselor when I was a bishop is a wealthy, powerful, influential man (dual law degree and MBA, with an influential role with political ramifications (he was instrumental in bringing Dan Peterson to our stake for a fireside). He told me that in another state, a member of the 1^st Quorum of the Seventy sat down with him, told him that they were going to present a certain man to be sustained as the new stake president, and asked him what his thoughts were about the sustaining vote. He told him that he had personal knowledge of dishonest business dealings from the proposed man, and that he couldn’t sustain him with that knowledge. The general authority asked him how he would vote if they presented him anyway, even with what he had told him. He told him that he had shared everything he knew, and if the Church felt to present him anyway, he would sustain him. The man was sustained as stake president, and two weeks later, vanished as his business dealings reached a legal critical mass. He still feels that he did the right thing in sustaining him, because he had shared everything that was needed to make an informed and inspired decision. His skirts were cleared of blood . . .

My only personal experience with dissenting votes was in the Bremen, Germany ward that was ground zero in the “Bremen Apostasy.” I was visiting as a zone leader and about a third of the ward voted no on every calling ---- and they were routine callings, like primary workers. I thought that was very odd at the time, and the aftermath shows that there were serious spiritual problems in that ward. (That’s a completely different and huge topic of its own. My dad and I knew and were close to Dietrich Behl, the main figure in the “Bremen Apostasy,” and the mission president who succeeded my second one was the one that the whole thing blew up on. He has provided me with fascinating and intriguing “fly-on-the-wall” details that happened long after I had returned from my mission). The main thing for purposes of this thread is that I believe that voting no is a very, very serious thing, and should be treated with extreme caution even when people have good, firsthand knowledge of things. They should try to share these things with priesthood leaders before the vote, where possible, but when “blindsided” with a vote they aren’t prepared for, they should be very careful about voting no. When conscience demands that they vote no, they should have no trepidations about it (easy to say, right?), and should expect that priesthood leaders will handle that well. They should also be prepared to sustain if the person is presented, even with the revelations that have been shared.

In short, withholding a sustaining vote is a very serious matter, and can be a “canary in the mineshaft” about other things.

[DH]

The main thing for purposes of this thread is that I believe that voting no is a very, very serious thing, and should be treated with extreme caution even when people have good, firsthand knowledge of things. They should try to share these things with priesthood leaders before the vote, where possible, but when “blindsided” with a vote they aren’t prepared for, they should be very careful about voting no. When conscience demands that they vote no, they should have no trepidations about it (easy to say, right?), and should expect that priesthood leaders will handle that well. They should also be prepared to sustain if the person is presented, even with the revelations that have been shared.

In short, withholding a sustaining vote is a very serious matter, and can be a “canary in the mineshaft” about other things.

I wouldn't want people who have good reason to vote in the negative to be intimidated into voting "yes." If you have good reason to vote "no," then vote "no." It's not the end of the world. You will be asked to explain your vote to a leader after the meeting, and if they didn't already know about the situation, they'll investigate (as they should). If they did already know about it, then they'll tell you. If you still have misgivings, feel free to ask questions--let them reassure you that they've made a good choice, that the person who's been called has repented, or whatever. Remember, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, long suffering," etc. (D&C 121).

[Sky]

And in the opposite direction have you known of anyone that was called that "should" have been opposed, that some great moral sin needed to be revealed which made the person unworthy? Maybe that is the actual reason why no one raised their hands?

So, we are to "go along with" sins in the Church? What is there to oppose save sin?

And what did this have to do with the Church? Church owned businesses made that decision, not "The Church", the spiritual side and operations of the Church. Thus, why would you need to raise your hand and sustain it? Business decisions belong to the business operator's and owners, not the members of the Church.

And are these things and people you "really" need to not sustain? If so, feel free. But, I suspect those things aren't really "sins" enough to need to.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by what I wrote, if that's what I did. I second what DH said in post #19.

[Sky]

Wherein have we covenanted to sustain the leaders of the church?

See here and here.

[Maidservant]

Without consent, unity is (IMO) less likely.

Think of marriages, are the people in an arranged marriage more likely or less likely to be "of one heart" than a couple who chose to be together of their own free will?

I have enjoyed everyone's comments. I do want to clarify, that I am not wondering about the idea of free will or even of a generalized consent. Obviously I participate in the church, and I am consenting by my participation.

Just this specific phrase and it's meaning spiritually and in application: Common Consent. I even wonder if it is the best way to express free will and consent in an organization. Not to the degree of saying it's wrong. Jeremy pointed out some places in D & C, so I'll start there in my study. I just want to understand that exact phrase (and everyone's comments have been very helpful, thank you; CV75, your explanation made a lot of sense to me).

[rongo]

I wouldn't want people who have good reason to vote in the negative to be intimidated into voting "yes." If you have good reason to vote "no," then vote "no." It's not the end of the world. You will be asked to explain your vote to a leader after the meeting, and if they didn't already know about the situation, they'll investigate (as they should). If they did already know about it, then they'll tell you. If you still have misgivings, feel free to ask questions--let them reassure you that they've made a good choice, that the person who's been called has repented, or whatever. Remember, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, long suffering," etc. (D&C 121).

I agree. The thing is that in almost all cases, with a "no" vote, the person is going to be asked if he or she will sustain the calling, anyway. So, the question people need to ask themselves is, "Can I sustain this person, knowing what I know? If I can't, what does this say about me and my status?" I think in most cases, it is then not necessary to publicly vote "no," and the conflict and issue becomes a private spiritual one.

But, I agree fully that there is nothing wrong with voting no if conscience dictates. That's what the system is there for (by revelation), and priesthood leaders who make someone feel bad for doing his or her best to satisfy conscience are out of line, in my book. With that, I would still be very, very careful about voting no, and make sure that I have spiritual confirmation.

[CV75]

I have enjoyed everyone's comments. I do want to clarify, that I am not wondering about the idea of free will or even of a generalized consent. Obviously I participate in the church, and I am consenting by my participation.

Just this specific phrase and it's meaning spiritually and in application: Common Consent. I even wonder if it is the best way to express free will and consent in an organization. Not to the degree of saying it's wrong. Jeremy pointed out some places in D & C, so I'll start there in my study. I just want to understand that exact phrase (and everyone's comments have been very helpful, thank you; CV75, your explanation made a lot of sense to me).

Where common consent is how the members show public agreement, it is one way to show voluntary support for an authority or action (such as setting apart people into callings and priesthood offices). If they have private reservations and show public support anyway, it is still voluntary—they have decided that a show of public agreement is less painful than a no-vote and perhaps more functional for their participation in the community and in the best interests of the whole.

An individual can take self-denial too far to his own detriment, which is why those who raise their hand in opposition are heard out, and new callings and settings-apart are delayed until the matter is settled. So common consent is a method of running an organization, but how well it works is dependent on how well the members execute public and private covenants with God.

So to me, the best way to express free will and consent is to cultivate the integrity of agreeableness and private agreement with the higher purposes, reflected in one’s actions, demeanor, prayers and intents of the heart. I think the scriptures provide much more guidance about this kind of use of agency and consent, mostly because it is more needful. While this is not the best way to run an organization, it is the best way to benefit the organization.

[rongo]

A radical example that isn't likely to happen today was mentioned by Joseph F. Smith during the Smoot hearings. A stake president was rejected in the sustaining vote by a majority of the stake, prompting the presiding apostle to submit a different stake president. This was given as evidence against Mormons being blind sheep who rubber stamp what their leaders give them. Under questioning, President Smith stated that there was no merit at all to the stake president's rejection, but "the consent of the governed" is an insurmountable obstacle when it presents itself so clearly. The Senate committee was sneering and derisive about that: "So, your people's vote carries veto power over God?"