Posted on 06/22/2008 10:13:34 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Common consent is a fundamental principle of decision making at all levels in THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action. This process provides for direction of the Church by revelation, while protecting the agency of the members to verify in their own minds whether decisions have been proper and made according to the will of God.
The principle of common consent has functioned in the Church since its inception, though the actual practices incorporating this principle have evolved significantly. The revelation on LDS Church government, received when it was organized in April 1830, states: "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its "business by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).
Evidence from accounts of some early meetings and conferences indicates that many of the New England leaders of the Church felt that the membership should be directly involved in decision-making meetings, including making motions on policy issues, following standard parliamentary procedure for public meetings, and voting to finalize decisions. Individual members sometimes exercised the prerogative to call a meeting, and once it was in session, anyone had the right to address the group. The conduct of their meetings followed the congregational model that was familiar to them. However, before long early Latter-day Saints began to realize that having a prophet as their leader was a reality that must be recognized in decision making, and that they could not follow the traditional congregational model without denying the authority and revelations that God had bestowed on Joseph Smith, these being the essential features of the Restoration that brought them together in the Church.
An incident in September 1830, wherein Hiram Page claimed to have received revelations for the direction of the Church, brought the issue into focus. The confusion of Oliver Cowdery and other Church members that was caused by Page's claim to be a second revelator provided the occasion for a revelation through Joseph Smith clarifying the distinctive role of Joseph as the prophet. This revelation also indicated that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church" (D&C 28:13). As the authority of Joseph Smith and his successors in the office of President of the Church was clarified over the following years by subsequent revelations (D&C 107:65-67, 91-92), the principle that the sustaining voice of the members of the Church should be sought was also repeatedly reaffirmed (D&C 38:34; 42:11; 102:9; 124:144). As priesthood councils and priesthood quorums were introduced into the Church organization, general discussion of policy issues and decision making became more their responsibility in council meetings, and less an agenda item for conferences, which in turn focused more on preaching the gospel.
Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.
In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval. At the local level a bishop will ordinarily discuss decisions with his counselors in the bishopric before presenting a matter to the ward membership for a sustaining vote. On many policy and program decisions the bishopric will consult with the ward council and work for consensus in that group before taking action. Following the same pattern, the stake president consults with his counselors in the stake presidency and then with the high council. The First Presidency consults in this same way on matters of general Church policy and action in regular meetings with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
Unanimity is the ideal for all these decision processes because of the importance of unity in the Church: "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27). The three presiding quorums over the whole Church are of equal authority within their own spheres (D&C 107:22-26), but their decisions are of "the same power or validity" only when made "by the unanimous voice" of the quorum (D&C 107:27). Many important decisions take shape over what seem like long periods because achieving unanimity is highly valued by the quorums.
Because of the emphasis on divine and prophetic leadership and because of well-established norms and values in decision-making procedures, public dissent on a proposed calling or policy is unusual. There are, however, mechanisms for accommodating dissent. Normally, if one or more members find the proposed action objectionable, the dissenting member or members are asked to meet with the presiding officer privately to make known the reason for the question or objection. After considering the objections, presiding officers are free to pursue whatever decision they believe to be right.
Bibliography
Cannon, Donald Q., and Lyndon W. Cook, eds. Far West Record: Minutes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844. Salt Lake City, 1983.
Quinn, D. Michael. "The Evolution of the Presiding Quorums of the LDS Church." Journal of Mormon History 1 (1974):21-38.
Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 269-75. Salt Lake City, 1960.
Zuckerman, Michael. Peaceable Kingdoms. New York, 1970.
In selecting new officers and making administrative decisions, Church leaders are instructed to seek the will of God. Once the Lord makes his will known and a decision is reached, the matter is brought before the appropriate quorum or body of Church members, who are asked to sustain or oppose the action.
Ping
I’ve always noticed that whenever these decisions are brought before the Mormons they vote like Iraqis in the Hussein days. I have never witnessed as single dissenting vote among the congregations.
You are comparing my outstanding and perfectly **WONDERFUL** Mormon neighbors Sadam Hussein's Iraqis???!!!
Unbelieable!
I have a theory about why Jews don't vote Republican. They see posts like yours and they decide that they really don't want to associate themselves with the Christians in the Republican Party.
Geeze! Jews **correctly** reason that if these Christian Republicans can direct such bilious bile ( as seen here on these FR boards) at Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientologists, and other unpopular religions, that Christian Republicans will soon be taking aim at Jews! Why? Because their religion isn't perfect enough!
No, I am not Mormon.
Logically that just means it is a dictatorship.. who is going to oppose a divine revelation?
Logically that just means it is a dictatorship.. who is going to oppose a divine revelation?
I find a certain incongruity in actually taking "the will of God" to a vote!
If you are offended by rough religious debate, then you can find safe harbor on "ecumenic" "caucus" "prayer" or "devotional" threads.
Click on my profile page for guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
Thanks for this post.
So we do not get in trouble, here is the credits from the bottom of the page that you missed.
“Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, Common Consent
Copyright © 1992 by Macmillan Publishing Company”
You are welcome, Fred.
Does your "thank you" mean that you agree that the practice of taking a vote from men on obeying the "directive from God" is warranted?
>> They see posts like yours and they decide that they really don’t want to associate themselves with the Christians in the Republican Party.
I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative. And a Christian, first and foremost.
Just wanted you to know that not every Christian on FR is a rabid mormon hater.
In my humble opinion, the kind of mormon bashing that goes on right here on FR is quite UN-like the teachings of Jesus.
I think the FR mormon bashers are to Christians what the worst of the zionists are to the Jewish faith — they have thrown the religious aspects under the bus in favor of politics and holier-than-thou bar-room brawling.
FRegards
+++++++
I would not put it that way.
Please remember, the article indicates two important functions for common consent.
1. I will follow the guidance of the Lord as in, “Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way.”
2. We decide what we should do before going to the Lord for conformation, “In a much less visible but equally important practice, decision makers at all levels present policy decisions and callings to priesthood councils for their comment and approval.”
All the women in late 19th Century Utah voted lock step also..
Brigham Young told his “wives” how to vote..
BTW Would the burning in the bosum over the book of mormon be considered a lock step thingy ???
Everyone has to get a yes from “god” or there’s something wrong with the person not the bom..
Lock step mentality in voting and religion..
++++++++++
It is rare, but I have seen a negative vote from time to time, and have read about others.
In my humble opinion, the kind of mormon bashing that goes on right here on FR is quite UN-like the teachings of Jesus.
really - so we let lousy doctrine slide, so MORE get snared ?
Sorry, I dont want that on my ticket when I punch
read the anything Paul wrote - youll find the basis
the path is narrow - guard your faith
they have thrown the religious aspects under the bus
_______________________________________
Oh, I wouldnt say that...
I’m a Christian, and a life long conservative and pro-lifer..
Because of these attributes, I could not vote for Romney who is a life long abortion pusher and a gay rights avocate..
And many other people felt the same..
I am glad that you agree with my stand..
But it is unnecessary..
I believe in one man or woman, one vote..
And I am a secret ballot fan..
After all I was born in the first country to give women the vote..
Not dictated by their husbands, or a “prophet” but their own secret ballot..
My great great grandmother voted..
I never saw a negative vote, but I have read of some on “anti” sites..is that where you get your info, too, Fred?
Now you are insulting me by mail
Please stop
the rules are quite clear, ye the path is narrow
#24 makes it personal as well
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2013341/posts
Time to rethink our suppositions
Leave the thread.
Thanks, RM...please remove my post 31.
Although that is a positive statement, it is in fact a personal one and thus not part of a logical discussion.
First of all, nobody is saying that they are not good people, so it's not relevant.
2nd: Your opinion seems to be that because they are good people, their statements about X,Y, or Z, therefore must be true. That is not logical.
Why don't you save the "Mormons are good people" routine for threads where people are discussing whether or not Mormons are good people?
Huh? Was there a common consent vote taken to elect you spokes-schmuck for the Holier-than-thou wing at FR?
Nervous tick has been told to leave the thread, so we are not to post to him. Thanks.
+++++++++++++++
As I said, I have personally seen some,
And it has been 15 or 20 years since I read about some others. They were accounts of the General Authorities, but I cannot remember who they were.
Most posts have been removed ...
I saw a member vote no on buying a stake farm. I allso note that he was there on every work assignment. he may have thought it was a bad idea but he tried his best to make it work.
I no of few mormon that vote lock step. I that were true there would be many more mormons holding puplic office.
Isn’t it interesting that you have not attended all meetings. I have not only witnessed it, I have dissented.
So what?
Well... of... COURSE!
To do so would PROVE that we are LIVING wrong and not hearing the Words of GOD!!
--MormonDude(Aye!!)
Uh oh!
"Mormons comprised a quarter of those attending Nevada's GOP caucuses, and more than nine in 10 were voting for Romney, according to early results from the survey conducted for The Associated Press and television networks."
Utah's vote was 90% Romney
Lock step.
He raised his had on abstention, and was called on, so he stood up, and corrected the Stake President right there on the spot with Elder Eyring instead of Elder Faust.
I guess it was pretty funny, to those who were present. BTW, what happened to the vicarious baptism thread. Was someone being naughty?
As planned...the "disruption-to-get-the-thread-pulled" tactic by a mormon operative worked yet again. Surprise, surprise.
Funny you should ask.
Sorry I missed all the fun. I wonder how much the “disruption-to-get-the-thread-pulled” tactic by a ANTI-mormon operative worked into it?
Facts are what they are.......
Compare home-schooler voters...do they tend to vote one way?
Compare mormons..do they tend to vote one way?
Compare unitarians..do they tend to vote one way?
Compare secular jews...do they tend to vote one way?
Am I wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.