Close Topic Options

[question] The Law Of Common Consent

What is your understanding of the Law of Common Consent? How does it work in regard to callings? in regard to new revelations? new doctrine? new interpretations? new scripture? Does this law have jurisdiction over every aspect of the church or are there limitations? Just how much power and authority does this law grant the Latter-day Saints?

Consent Common Law question

There is another principle in connection with this, laid down in the revelations of God, namely: that all things shall be done by common consent. And therefore, where there is a regularly organized branch of the church, ordination to the priesthood shall not be made without a vote of approval of said church.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.182 - p.187, Erastus Snow, April 6, 1879

But there is one feature connected with this Church that is glorious, and it is this: that so far as the laws of this Church are concerned, there are none who are exempt from them, they are applicable to all, from those who hold the highest positions in this Church to the humblest member therein; all must subscribe to them. There is, however, an organization-an order in this Church which we recognize and which we sustain. This feature extends to this beautiful principle in the Church-which is the highest form of what might be termed the democratic principle-that all the main measures pertaining to this work, in order to be valid in the sight of heaven, and to be in accordance with the strict law of this Church, must have the consent of the people before it becomes binding upon the people, from whatsoever source it may emanate. In order to show you that this is the case, I will refer the congregation to what we esteem as the law and the testimony. We have a book here which is called the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing the revelations of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, who was raised up specially by the Almighty, according to our faith, to organize the Church of Jesus Christ according to the will of heaven, by revelation and commandment from the Most High. In order to show you that that which I have spoken is according to the law of our Church, I will read a small portion of instructions which emanated from him whom we esteem a great Prophet. Talking of the government of the Church and the people in July, 1830, these instructions came through that medium: "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." That is a law of this Church that the affairs of the Church shall be done by common consent of the body religious, and therefore there is no despotism here; there is no one-man power in the sense in which it is accepted regarding us in the world, because when measures that are deemed for the advancement of this work are brought up, they have to be received by the people, and their consent obtained, in order to make them in accordance with the law which God has revealed for the government of the organization that He has established this day. And there exists among this people a reverence for law, a regard for that which is legal and proper, that I have not seen exist to the same extent in any other community with which I have mingled.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.22, p.184 - p.185 - p.186, John Nicholson, June 26, 1881

[question] The Law Of Common Consent Studies Doctrine Mormon

It is my understanding that in the early days, and throughout the 19th Century, the Law of Common Consent truly was a "democratic" process. When new scripture was presented, when callings were extended, and when changes were made, people were expected to vote according to their consciences. So, when these things occured, there was lively debate, at all levels. Even when Joseph Smith presented name of someone to be ordained a deacon, people would speak up and express their opinions of said person, prompting a real discussion of the merits of that calling.

Another example is when Brigham Young presented the Word of Wisdom to be binding as a commandment upon the church. Not everyone voted yes. There was discussion, that in some ways, continues today.

As time has progressed, we have reached the point where if someone disagrees with a calling, a policy, or the canonization of scripture, they had better keep their mouths shut. The most one can do is to refuse to raise their hands in support. It is not a pretty thing to oppose a calling.

But that isn't the way things should be. By suppressing the opinions and objections of the members, we just bury the dissatisfaction. Issues don't get resolved, they become sources of contention and the cause of apostacy. Discussion isn't only discouraged, it is effectively forbidden. This certainly doesn't help the spiritual growth of any person.

Consent Common Law question

The general thinking is (as far as callings go)... you should only oppose if you know the person being called is living a life that would cause their membership to be in jeopardy. Callings for me seem to be given these days to anyone that is baptized and accepts the calling. The 'thinking' is, everyone needs a calling, I agree, but not everyone needs to have certain callings, but you know, if you were to oppose you would seem like the black sheep of the congregation. Have you opposed before for some reason other than the worthiness of the member?

Consent Common Law question

My question is always this one: where is that written?. Many times, I felt that certain brother or sister have some 'issues' to deal with or I felt the person was not right for the calling and yes I didn't not raise my hand in opposition because of the same issue (the persons have not done really anything to jeopardize its membership) but it doesn't mean they were the greatest. Now, everybody has issues I know but I'm talking about serious issues that not necessarily will make somebody to be excommunicated from the Church. I am not a hypocrite, what I usually do is abstain from vote....can we do that?. Also I notice sometimes the leaders when they're sustaining the person when is time for them to say "Those in opposition please raise the hand" or they forget to say that part or they don't even look at the congregation because they assume everybody is going to vote in support. I don't like that. I think they should take things seriously and also I personally think if a member feels that somebody cannot hold a certain calling should have all the right to vote in opposition without getting any kind of bad 'looks' from the other members.

[question] The Law Of Common Consent

It is not written for the general membership, it is in the CHI that if a member were to give a dissenting vote then it would be up to the presiding officer to assertain wether the reason for the dissenting vote was based on the knowledge that the person being sustained was guilty of conduct that would disqualify them from receiving a calling. Hopefully these things can be taught, as in the reason someone should raise their hand in opposition to a call, during a talk on sustaing, etc.

[question] Law Common Consent

No, I haven't. But then I can't really say that I have ever had an objection to anyone's calling. However, while growing up, I remember attending firesides where it was carefully explained to the youth that the only reason to justify questioning a calling was for worthiness issues. Yet I now read about how during the early days, a calling frequently brought forth a lot of discussion about the relative abilities of the person receiving the calling.

I agree, completely.

My problem is that I would take it a step further. I am not so worried about callings. Let's look at policies and other actions.

About 20 years ago, we were members of a Branch in England, just outside a US Air Base. The Branch was made up almost entirely of US service members and their families. I think there were four or five British or US civilian families in the Branch.

Someone decided it was time for the Branch to become a Ward. There were definitely enough people there, and we were very crowded, and didn't have our own building.

When the issue was brought up to the members of the branch, my father-in-law raised his hand in opposition. My mother-in-law was mortified that he did, but he had some serious reservations. The member of the State Presidency who was conducting the proceedings acknowledged the opposition, but that was the extent of it. Apparently they had discussed it a bit before the meeting, and just disregarded his reservations. Of course, they never considered discussing these very valid concerns with the members of the branch, as it was more important that we have an appearance of complete unity.

His concerns were that, if the US reduced or eliminated the presence at that base, there would not be enough local people to keep the ward going. Guess what? A few years later, after he had died, the US DID pull almost all the people out of the base. I don't even know if the ward still exists.

I am not saying it was wrong for them to make the ward. I just feel that the branch members were pushed into accepting it without the chance to consider the possible consequences.

[question] Law Common Consent Mormon Doctrine Studies

Nighthawk, having served in England and Wales I know what you are talking about.

The only concern I would have if opposition were common place is with a place like Trinidad you would be getting hands raised all the time for dissenting votes, so what most do is not raise their hands at all and then complain amongst the members and leadership after the event.