Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 So I was reading a blog post about common consent. The author linked to this page: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng This section caught my eye: Quote 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). We often talk about new scripture needing to be presented for a sustaining vote (a rare occurrence), but according to this, even policies and major decisions should be presented as well. Has this ever been done? It's certainly not done now.
CV75 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, Gray said: So I was reading a blog post about common consent. The author linked to this page: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng This section caught my eye: We often talk about new scripture needing to be presented for a sustaining vote (a rare occurrence), but according to this, even policies and major decisions should be presented as well. Has this ever been done? It's certainly not done now. Note that the article doesn't say "should." It says the principle operates in various ways. as indicated in how it is used in actions taken that are recorded in the D&C, it is up to the presiding authority as to when it should be used. For example, our stake president recently asked for a sustaining vote on a particular course of action he was presenting at stake conference.
Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Author Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, CV75 said: Note that the article doesn't say "should." It says the principle operates in various ways. as indicated in how it is used in actions taken that are recorded in the D&C, it is up to the presiding authority as to when it should be used. For example, our stake president recently asked for a sustaining vote on a particular course of action he was presenting at stake conference. You're right, the verb isn't "should" - the verb is, essentially, "are". But the problem is that's not true. But was it ever true? ETA, actually, I guess that's an adverb, in this case. Edited November 2, 2016 by Gray
hope_for_things Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 30 minutes ago, Gray said: So I was reading a blog post about common consent. The author linked to this page: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng This section caught my eye: We often talk about new scripture needing to be presented for a sustaining vote (a rare occurrence), but according to this, even policies and major decisions should be presented as well. Has this ever been done? It's certainly not done now. Seems like lip service to the original principle. I don't see this in practice at all. Also, it would be nice if common consent were required for the de-canonization of scripture or changes to scripture as well. Honestly, I love the principle of common consent, but unfortunately in practice this doesn't happen in the church at all. The current voting process isn't a real voting process it's become a ritual to express loyalty, not an opportunity to consent or oppose. 1
CV75 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Gray said: You're right, the verb isn't "should" - the verb is, essentially, "are". But the problem is that's not true. But was it ever true? No, the verb is "operates." The D&C has three examples of how it operates. In 26, Joseph is told to preside over a conference where he is to administer common consent on some unspecified matters (it was yet to be made known what he was to do). In 28, Hiram Page was out of order because he was not sustained by common consent to do what he was doing. In 104, those in the United Order practiced it within their group under their respective authority. See the example I gave where I was part of how it operates with regards to a course of action to be taken apart from sustaining callings. Don't you read the posts you reply to? Or your own references?
stemelbow Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 56 minutes ago, Gray said: So I was reading a blog post about common consent. The author linked to this page: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng This section caught my eye: We often talk about new scripture needing to be presented for a sustaining vote (a rare occurrence), but according to this, even policies and major decisions should be presented as well. Has this ever been done? It's certainly not done now. I've never seen it done. Would be interesting though.
Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Author Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, CV75 said: No, the verb is "operates." The D&C has three examples of how it operates. In 26, Joseph is told to preside over a conference where he is to administer common consent on some unspecified matters (it was yet to be made known what he was to do). In 28, Hiram Page was out of order because he was not sustained by common consent to do what he was doing. In 104, those in the United Order practiced it within their group under their respective authority. See the example I gave where I was part of how it operates with regards to a course of action to be taken apart from sustaining callings. Don't you read the posts you reply to? Or your own references? Here is the quote again from the manual: "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)." Church officers ARE SUSTAINED (not should be) "The same principle operates." What is that principle? From the referent phrase, it would be "Policies and major decisions ARE SUSTAINED." There is nothing in the grammar of that sentence that says that this procedure is optional. Edited November 2, 2016 by Gray 3
ALarson Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Gray said: Here is the quote again from the manual: "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)." Church officers ARE SUSTAINED (not should be) "The same principle operates." What is that principle? From the referent phrase, it would be "Policies and major decisions ARE SUSTAINED." There is nothing in the grammar of that sentence that says that this procedure is optional. And here is the scripture reference for it: Quote And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen. "Shall be done" does not mean that it's optional . Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: You're right, the verb isn't "should" - the verb is, essentially, "are". But the problem is that's not true. But was it ever true? I haven't examined all possible instances of Scripture being presented for approval as an addition to the Canon. But Official Declaration 2 was presented Sept 30, 1978, for approval at General Conference as an addition to the D&C, and received unanimous approval. So it does appear to be operative at present. Back in Joseph's day, the Law of Common Consent was even used against him. In the Far West Record, for example, the congregation voted for Sidney Rigdon when Joseph didn't want him approved. If a majority of General Conference rejected someone put forward for a sustaining vote, he would not be able to take his calling. 3
cdowis Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: We often talk about new scripture needing to be presented for a sustaining vote (a rare occurrence), but according to this, even policies and major decisions should be presented as well. Has this ever been done? It's certainly not done now. Currently the decision to present an issue to the church for a vote is decided by the holder of the keys of the presidency. Today that individual is Pres. Thomas S. Monson. Hope that helps. Edited November 2, 2016 by cdowis
smac97 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: So I was reading a blog post about common consent. The author linked to this page: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-26-the-law-of-common-consent?lang=eng This section caught my eye: We often talk about new scripture needing to be presented for a sustaining vote (a rare occurrence), but according to this, even policies and major decisions should be presented as well. Has this ever been done? It's certainly not done now. I think what you have in mind is "policies and major decisions," right? More specifically, you may have in mind a question about whether the November 2015 policy changes (being in a SSM = apostasy and requiring children being raised in same-sex parent households to wait until 18 to be baptized) fall within the parameters of things that should be presented for a sustaining vote. Is that correct? If so, I am likewise curious about that. I have some thoughts about that, but I would first like to hear from others. Thanks, -Smac
Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Author Posted November 2, 2016 43 minutes ago, cdowis said: Currently the decision to present an issue to the church for a vote is decided by the holder of the keys of the presidency. Today that individual is Pres. Thomas S. Monson. Hope that helps. Is this someone you came up with on your own?
Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Author Posted November 2, 2016 38 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think what you have in mind is "policies and major decisions," right? More specifically, you may have in mind a question about whether the November 2015 policy changes (being in a SSM = apostasy and requiring children being raised in same-sex parent households to wait until 18 to be baptized) fall within the parameters of things that should be presented for a sustaining vote. Is that correct? If so, I am likewise curious about that. I have some thoughts about that, but I would first like to hear from others. Thanks, -Smac Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks Smac. 1
CV75 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: "The same principle operates." What is that principle? From the referent phrase, it would be "Policies and major decisions ARE SUSTAINED." There is nothing in the grammar of that sentence that says that this procedure is optional. The principle of common consent is that same principle which operates, and it operates only under the keys of presidency. Those with the keys operate it and the members apply it. "Policies and major decisions ARE SUSTAINED" is not a principle. Do you have questions about the references and example I provided, which outline this principle's operation as I said it does? 1 hour ago, ALarson said: And here is the scripture reference for it: "Shall be done" does not mean that it's optional In this case (D&C 26), common consent is the principle by which Joseph acts in behalf of the Church, or in his calling in the Church. according to verse 1, he is to study, preach, confirm, perform his labors on the land, and hold conference, and await further instruction. This is why verse 2 says, "And all things [that you do as instructed in verse 1 and thereafter] shall be done by common consent in the church [by virtue of his being sustained in his calling], by much prayer and faith [on the part of Joseph], for [i.e. because] all things you [Joseph] shall receive by faith."
CV75 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, Gray said: Is this someone you came up with on your own? I think President Monson is a real person. Common consent, as all things in the Church, is ultimately directed by him, as he has the keys and uses them directly of by delegation. Common consent in teh Church is not a grassroots kind of principle.
CV75 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think what you have in mind is "policies and major decisions," right? More specifically, you may have in mind a question about whether the November 2015 policy changes (being in a SSM = apostasy and requiring children being raised in same-sex parent households to wait until 18 to be baptized) fall within the parameters of things that should be presented for a sustaining vote. Is that correct? If so, I am likewise curious about that. I have some thoughts about that, but I would first like to hear from others. Thanks, -Smac I think it is as simple a matter as those who hold the keys determine the application and scope for common consent. The principle can thus operate within a quorum (or quorums in the case of the First Presidency and the Twelve approving policy; quorums sustaining new presidencies and members), Church-wide (as in sustaining leaders and new canon), or a Church unit (in my example of what our stake president called for). D&C 26 indicates it is a must for the sustaining of the prophet; D&C 28 indicates it is a must for people to function with authority in the Church; and D&C 104 indicates it is used in various "orders" as deemed appropriate by the presiding authority under the direction of the Lord. The principle in this case I presume was applied by the quorums involved in adopting the policy, and by members in sustaining them to function in that capacity at the time the President, Counselors, and Apostles were called. Edited November 2, 2016 by CV75
Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Author Posted November 2, 2016 16 minutes ago, CV75 said: The principle of common consent is that same principle which operates, and it operates only under the keys of presidency. Those with the keys operate it and the members apply it. "Policies and major decisions ARE SUSTAINED" is not a principle. Do you have questions about the references and example I provided, which outline this principle's operation as I said it does? In this case (D&C 26), common consent is the principle by which Joseph acts in behalf of the Church, or in his calling in the Church. according to verse 1, he is to study, preach, confirm, perform his labors on the land, and hold conference, and await further instruction. This is why verse 2 says, "And all things [that you do as instructed in verse 1 and thereafter] shall be done by common consent in the church [by virtue of his being sustained in his calling], by much prayer and faith [on the part of Joseph], for [i.e. because] all things you [Joseph] shall receive by faith." Common consent operates under the keys of the presidency? Where did you get that? How could it, given that it is not the presidency that gives or withholds consent?
ALarson Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: In this case (D&C 26), common consent is the principle by which Joseph acts in behalf of the Church, or in his calling in the Church. according to verse 1, he is to study, preach, confirm, perform his labors on the land, and hold conference, and await further instruction. This is why verse 2 says, "And all things [that you do as instructed in verse 1 and thereafter] shall be done by common consent in the church [by virtue of his being sustained in his calling], by much prayer and faith [on the part of Joseph], for [i.e. because] all things you [Joseph] shall receive by faith." Yes, I knew that. And your point? Do you think the principle of common consent only applied to Joseph?
Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Author Posted November 2, 2016 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think President Monson is a real person. Common consent, as all things in the Church, is ultimately directed by him, as he has the keys and uses them directly of by delegation. Common consent in teh Church is not a grassroots kind of principle. Where can I find this written? Again, did you come up with this on your own? Are church leaders exempt from following the laws of the church?
ALarson Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, CV75 said: The principle of common consent is that same principle which operates, and it operates only under the keys of presidency. I really think you just make things up. Do you have statements by church leaders to back up what you're posting here or is it just your opinion? ETA: Ha! Gray beat me to it Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson
HappyJackWagon Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 The law of common consent is irrelevant to the modern church. Common consent is an inherently democratic process that is in opposition to the modern narrative about prophetic leadership; namely that the prophet will never lead us astray. If the prophet's words and actions are always in line with God's so that he will never lead the church astray, why vote to sustain or oppose anything he does? It's a meaningless action. God sustains him so why would it matter if a person sustains or opposes? I think the church recognizes this conflict, which is why they really don't exercise the law. Sure, we sustain callings, but that's it. Once a person is sustained in a calling I think that sustaining is extrapolated to include just about anything that person does.
CV75 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Gray said: Common consent operates under the keys of the presidency? Where did you get that? How could it, given that it is not the presidency that gives or withholds consent? Only the presiding officer, who has already been sustained by common consent, can call for common consent. It's not something just any group of saints can carry out at will. 51 minutes ago, ALarson said: I really think you just make things up. Do you have statements by church leaders to back up what you're posting here or is it just your opinion? ETA: Ha! Gray beat me to it If you have seen common consent operate without a presiding authority conducting it, let me know! All the references in D&C refer back to Joseph being sustained by common consent, and calling for common consent in his duties. 3 hours ago, Gray said: You're right, the verb isn't "should" - the verb is, essentially, "are". But the problem is that's not true. But was it ever true? ETA, actually, I guess that's an adverb, in this case. So "are" is an adverb now? LOL Edited November 2, 2016 by CV75
ALarson Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, CV75 said: So "are" is an adverb now? LOL You already said that
CV75 Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Common consent is an inherently democratic process Set up for the Church by none other than the Lord through Joseph Smith! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_consent_(Latter_Day_Saints) It would be good to review the OP link as well, and these; https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/common-consent?lang=eng http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Common_Consent There are some possible secular principles (see Wikipedia) that appear to be similar in concept to LDS common consent, but no priesthood keys are required to initiate them as required in the Church.
Recommended Posts