hope_for_things Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. Yes, technically it was presented for approval, but practically the church has no mechanism in place to see if common consent is given for things like that. For one, only a fraction of the membership attends conference sessions in person, so there is no practical mechanism in place for counting votes for or against. Secondly, the membership wasn't given time to consider whether they approve of the new scripture or not. Its like if a bill were presented to congress with no time to read the bill before they have to vote yes or no on it. If the church leaders cared about a true common consent they could present the proposed new scripture months ahead of time and then have a vote on it later. 2
hope_for_things Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. On my mission, I remember talking to a person that we had just baptized about Declaration 2. In the text it says: Quote Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign. The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative. His question was why do we do this, if the change was a revelation from God, certainly we shouldn't have to vote on it to acknowledge it was from God. I didn't have a good answer for him, I just told him that this was the tradition of the church, and that yes it was a revelation from God and that our voting was not so much to accept it as a revelation, it was more to show our personal commitment to sustain the prophet and follow the revelation. I find it interesting that my newly baptized member was picking up on a kind of disconnect between how we talk about revelation in the church, and how we have these vestiges of an old practice like common consent which practically doesn't work at all. 1
Gray Posted November 2, 2016 Author Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, CV75 said: 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. 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. So "are" is an adverb now? LOL Okay, okay, so I shouldn't post while on cough medicine. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. ............................. Sounds like false doctrine to me, HappyJack. Where do you get that it is both irrelevant and that it is a democratic process? Do you even know what a democracy is? The LDS Church is more like a theocracy in which the congregation can approve or disapprove, same as in ancient Israel.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, technically it was presented for approval, but practically the church has no mechanism in place to see if common consent is given for things like that. For one, only a fraction of the membership attends conference sessions in person, so there is no practical mechanism in place for counting votes for or against. Secondly, the membership wasn't given time to consider whether they approve of the new scripture or not. Its like if a bill were presented to congress with no time to read the bill before they have to vote yes or no on it. If the church leaders cared about a true common consent they could present the proposed new scripture months ahead of time and then have a vote on it later. But that has always been true. There has always been the practical reality that all members of record are not present, which was also true in ancient Israel (Joshua 24:14-24, Nehemiah 10:29, Mosiah 5:5). The congregation which is present always has the right to accept or reject, but this is theocracy, not democracy. There is a difference, hope.
cdowis Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Gray said: Is this someone you came up with on your own? Is this a joke? Edited November 2, 2016 by cdowis
HappyJackWagon Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Sounds like false doctrine to me, HappyJack. Where do you get that it is both irrelevant and that it is a democratic process? Do you even know what a democracy is? The LDS Church is more like a theocracy in which the congregation can approve or disapprove, same as in ancient Israel. It is my opinion that common consent is irrelevant to the church and frankly you make my point very well with your attitude. Why vote to sustain or oppose at all if the theocracy has already made a decision. For the record, I never said the church was a democracy. I stated that the law of common consent is a democratic process which is defined as... Quote A democratic process is a practice that allows democracy to exist. Democracy is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and be allowed to participate in making important decisions. We may not choose leaders but the law of common consent includes the membership in making important decision about whether or not to accept a leader. That is a democratic process, not democracy.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 17 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, technically it was presented for approval, but practically the church has no mechanism in place to see if common consent is given for things like that. For one, only a fraction of the membership attends conference sessions in person, so there is no practical mechanism in place for counting votes for or against. Secondly, the membership wasn't given time to consider whether they approve of the new scripture or not. Its like if a bill were presented to congress with no time to read the bill before they have to vote yes or no on it. If the church leaders cared about a true common consent they could present the proposed new scripture months ahead of time and then have a vote on it later. With modern technology the church has access to processes that could truly implement common consent if they desired. The church could utilize surveys (we know they already do for many purposes). They could utilize push button voting in the conference center that would record sustaining and opposing votes (would remove the necessity for people to stand up and shout just to be noticed). They could easily have each stake/ward record sustaining/opposing votes and report them up to top leadership (I'm not aware of any system of passing opposing votes to top leadership). Frankly, I view it as an impossibility that in a church with millions of members there would ever be a unanimous vote. Claims that votes are unanimous show that the law of common consent isn't really taken seriously by members or leadership. 2
Gray Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 14 hours ago, cdowis said: Is this a joke? No, I'm asking if you have a source for your claim, or if you came up with this explanation on your own. I suspect it's the latter.
hope_for_things Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: But that has always been true. There has always been the practical reality that all members of record are not present, which was also true in ancient Israel (Joshua 24:14-24, Nehemiah 10:29, Mosiah 5:5). The congregation which is present always has the right to accept or reject, but this is theocracy, not democracy. There is a difference, hope. Ancient Israel didn't have access to the modern technology that we have today for gathering votes. If we're going to use computers to do genealogy and many other functions in the church, then surely we could use computers to effectively gather common consent votes. The principle of common consent is a democratic one as I read the D&C, its not a theocratic one. 1
Gray Posted November 3, 2016 Author Posted November 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ancient Israel didn't have access to the modern technology that we have today for gathering votes. If we're going to use computers to do genealogy and many other functions in the church, then surely we could use computers to effectively gather common consent votes. The principle of common consent is a democratic one as I read the D&C, its not a theocratic one. Not totally democratic, as we don't have the option of voting for any "candidate" we want. The leaders choose who is called, and then we choose to vote yes or no.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It is my opinion that common consent is irrelevant to the church and frankly you make my point very well with your attitude. Why vote to sustain or oppose at all if the theocracy has already made a decision. For the record, I never said the church was a democracy. I stated that the law of common consent is a democratic process which is defined as... We may not choose leaders but the law of common consent includes the membership in making important decision about whether or not to accept a leader. That is a democratic process, not democracy. I suppose then that you would call voting in the old Soviet Union a "democratic process." Well, if it makes you happy, I further suppose that you can use that as a polemic device. Same for your definition of democracy, which means "rule by the people." A theocracy is rule by God. In any theocracy, people have traditionally been able to either accept or reject covenantal obligations of their own free will an choice. You reject that distinction and substitute a straw man version of the Law of Common Consent in order to advance your polemic. Let's just ignore the Bible and Book of Mormon? Right? Edited November 3, 2016 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ancient Israel didn't have access to the modern technology that we have today for gathering votes. If we're going to use computers to do genealogy and many other functions in the church, then surely we could use computers to effectively gather common consent votes. The principle of common consent is a democratic one as I read the D&C, its not a theocratic one. So ancient Israel was a practicing democracy, not a theocracy. Interesting revisionism, hope. However, your take on the potential use of technology in applying the Law of Common Consent might be worth something -- if we could just prevent hacking the system.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I suppose then that you would call voting in the old Soviet Union a "democratic process." Well, if it makes you happy, I further suppose that you can use that as a polemic device. Same for your definition of democracy, which means "rule by the people." A theocracy is rule by God. In any theocracy, people have traditionally been able to either accept or reject covenantal obligations of their own free will an choice. You reject that distinction and substitute a straw man version of the Law of Common Consent in order to advance your polemic. Let's just ignore the Bible and Book of Mormon? Right? Of course it was a democratic process. That doesn't mean it was good or effective. I have to chuckle a little bit that you are comparing the church's use of common consent with soviet democracy. You're not wrong
hope_for_things Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 38 minutes ago, Gray said: Not totally democratic, as we don't have the option of voting for any "candidate" we want. The leaders choose who is called, and then we choose to vote yes or no. For sure. Thinking about the three most recently called apostles, I personally was quite disappointed that there weren't people from different countries, race and culture called this last time around, and I was hopeful that we would get some more diversity in the quorum. Perhaps they could use technology more effectively in this effort as well. I would be open to members submitting names through some kind of process for consideration. We need to get more creative and quit just doing things the same old way.
hope_for_things Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: So ancient Israel was a practicing democracy, not a theocracy. Interesting revisionism, hope. However, your take on the potential use of technology in applying the Law of Common Consent might be worth something -- if we could just prevent hacking the system. I didn't mean to imply that ancient Israel followed any democratic processes. I don't see any reasons why we should try to model the specifics of ancient practices. I'm interested in following true principles, the spirit of the law, not the letter. Technology and creativity should be employed liberally. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Of course it was a democratic process. That doesn't mean it was good or effective. I have to chuckle a little bit that you are comparing the church's use of common consent with soviet democracy. You're not wrong Of course you chuckle, since it suits your polemic intent. If, on the other hand, you sought clarity and fairness, you would understand that the old Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship which tightly controlled the voting results and murdered anyone not sharing the party line. In all fairness, you would also then define ancient Israel as no different than the old Soviet Union. Your polemic intent is served by blurring the legitimate distinctions.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course you chuckle, since it suits your polemic intent. If, on the other hand, you sought clarity and fairness, you would understand that the old Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship which tightly controlled the voting results and murdered anyone not sharing the party line. In all fairness, you would also then define ancient Israel as no different than the old Soviet Union. Your polemic intent is served by blurring the legitimate distinctions. No. I chuckle because your comment is ironic. You're the one that drew the comparison between the church and the Soviet Union but I think we can agree that the church is not involved in murder.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 3, 2016 Posted November 3, 2016 6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: No. I chuckle because your comment is ironic. You're the one that drew the comparison between the church and the Soviet Union but I think we can agree that the church is not involved in murder. You draw the false equivalency, not me. I pointed to the stark difference. Those of us who regularly make covenants and take oaths in an LDS temple context, for example, are not coerced into doing so. A distinction which you prefer not to make. For you the LDS Church is the ultimate boogeyman, and you'll say anything to justify that view..
HappyJackWagon Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You draw the false equivalency, not me. I pointed to the stark difference. Those of us who regularly make covenants and take oaths in an LDS temple context, for example, are not coerced into doing so. A distinction which you prefer not to make. For you the LDS Church is the ultimate boogeyman, and you'll say anything to justify that view.. Robert, stop being so hostile. How have I implied that the LDS Church is "the ultimate boogeyman"? Hyperbole is fine on occasion but I don't accept it when you're building a straw man about my position. Please try a little harder to 1- understand my position and 2- not misrepresent my position. BTW- I'm an active, temple recommend carrying member, so stop trying to dismiss me as being less worthy than you. 1
Maestrophil Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Robert, stop being so hostile. How have I implied that the LDS Church is "the ultimate boogeyman"? Hyperbole is fine on occasion but I don't accept it when you're building a straw man about my position. Please try a little harder to 1- understand my position and 2- not misrepresent my position. BTW- I'm an active, temple recommend carrying member, so stop trying to dismiss me as being less worthy than you. Don't mean to derail... but given some of your views expressed here, how do you answer your temple recommend questions, specifically regarding supporting the Prophet and the 12, and local leaders, as well as sympathizing with apostate groups? I am honestly not being snarky at all, I just imagine that if I felt as you have expressed you do about many subjects, I would have difficulty answering these in a straight forward manner without rationalizing or having dissonance. Is that a hard place to be? MP
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2016 Posted November 5, 2016 10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Robert, stop being so hostile. How have I implied that the LDS Church is "the ultimate boogeyman"? Hyperbole is fine on occasion but I don't accept it when you're building a straw man about my position. Please try a little harder to 1- understand my position and 2- not misrepresent my position. BTW- I'm an active, temple recommend carrying member, so stop trying to dismiss me as being less worthy than you. My focus was on the covenant-making and oath-taking being voluntary, not that I am somehow better than you. Interesting that you missed the point. Anyhow, since you have a temple recommend, you must surely realize that your portrayal of Mormons being coerced doesn't make a lick of sense. Or am I wrong?
Recommended Posts