Yakie

What about D&C 28:10 "...my servant Joseph shall be appointed to preside over the conference by the voice of it, ..." Yes there is a slightly different wording here but clearly the same meaning and the procedure requirment is made. To preside requires the consent (vote) of the body he would preside over in this case the conference - "by the voice of it". If the Lord said all things and here specifically he states that even presiding over the conference requires it, even by the prophet, and then we take your statements (quoted above) that the "voice of the conference" was used regarding duties of a bishop and then also the "continuance of missionaries". We see a broad range of activities, offices, and their specific duties are convered by and require the voice of the people, that they require the common consent of the body. I is not that what Bruce R McConkie and B. H. Roberts also taught. Common Consent as it appears in scripture, continues to be observed. Are you sure it does it? Look at the very scriptures you quote. Do we still do what those scripture say is required to be determined by voice of the conference? That the duties of a bishop (Newel K. Whitney) were being defined and the "voice of the conference" was involoved in that mandated process establish by the Lord. But when where you in a conference or other body in which duties of a bishop or other officer was subject to the "voice of the conference". We haven't done that and don't do that, in fact the duties of any officer are even detialed in conference let alone voted upon and what about the "continuance of missionaries". So here are two items that are specifically identified in scripture and by the Lord that should be placed before the conference for their vote. So do we did we do that or anthing like that at the last conference? No not at all, So to that degree we do obey the scriptual instruction of the Lord and put thier duties to a conference vote - do we? Yet the Lord did command it, didn't he? I don't see how we can get around this fact. The Lord and they did but -------- we don't. And we give no justifacation for it. Absolutly it more important that the Church teach true doctrine. I believe Common Consent and all of it's commanded applications is true doctrine the Church should both teach and practice it (or justify why and help poor fools like me understand why). But I will say IF democracy was not a part of the gosple and is not a requirment by the Lord in the operation of his Church then I would answer your question yes. True doctrine come first (the is no savaltion in believing any false doctrine) I wouldn't like it but I would have to agree. But it was and it is! and I would also add that it should be. How could it be the perfect law of liberty without it or something even more empowering to the individual. You are also making an assumption in your question, how do we know that McConkie and Roberts didn't dispute it or take any actions to correct the Church behind closed doors on this point. I have already established that they taught and publish openly that common consent was commanded by the Lord, that it was necessay and they used a wide range of examples of it's scriptually commanded aplications to prove it it's necessity. If they did disagreed with todays limited application of common consent that the Church has gradually adopted; if they did disagree with their head, the president(s) of the Church who continued to be over them. What more could they have done, what would you consider the right course of action when a Church practice is not exactly in line with what you consider is the Lord's clear commandment on that point or any point? To me they did what they could, they expressed thier own personal beliefs and understanding, elaborated on the evidence and made a case for their beliefs and they stayed respectful and then took no other action. Leaving it to the head to consider if e was willing but otherswise wait for it to be corrected at some future date. What else could they do, we all have limits of what we can and should do and they held the keys they have an even greater obligation to address such issues but they did not preside. What else would you have them do if that was their's or anyones' situation? And certainly this is not the only possible situation where there has been a difference of belief and opinon between one of the key holders and the President or from what has come to be taught and practiced by the church. So your claim that they knew the Church was very much a top-down organization, and that they were aware of and did not dispute this pratice - doesn't establish their position because we don't know if what they did behind closed doors. So is not a fair argument to them. I think if we are trying to determin any of their personal beliefs that it is more honest and more fair to look a what they actually did say or write on a subject or practice of the Church rather to assume that because they didn't cause a seen in public that they must of been ok with it. Do you disagree? "and I do have a right to make my objections to the choice of any Church leader known." Have you ever done it? If you haven't how do you know you still can. If you do, you will have to justify your opposing vote to a leader. The pressure will be on you. None of those who voted in favor will be under that scrutiny. "Moreover, even if those concerns are not heeded, no religious leader can control my behavior. I am free to act as I please..." actually you will be informed that you have made sacred covants to sustain and follow those who the Lord calls and you will be asked why you are not willing to do so. You could quickly find yourself before a high council court for your opposing vote. I personally know of a man in my Stake who raised his hand many years ago in a opposing vote, he was honest and sincere and voted as he felt. The Stake President was so mad he held a court on the man and disfellowshiped him, The court lasted 21 hours and by the end the Stake President had dragged everyone the man knew in and dragged them over the coals to impress upon them that they had no right to ever vote in opposition to a prosposal of their leaders unless they knew of some serious sin. By the end the poor man had been beat up pretty good and felt betrayed the by Church he loved. But he and his friend and the rest of the Stake got the message. So it does and can happen and it can happen to you too and it's no minor thing. When your fellow members are conditioned to never vote oppossed and then when some one acctually does, a leader can feel justifed in claiming they are out of line and have no right to cast a disenting vote. That leader can very negatively effect your life in many serious ways. In such a conditioned enviormnt how free are you really, what liberty do you still have. "I am free to act as I please; I am free to teach as I please (so long as I don't invoke the imprimatur of the Church with my ideas); .." I wish that were true and it should be but teaching personal views that are contray to offical positions of the church or leaders can still get you in big serious trouble even if you don't claim it's position of the church. "I am free to live the Gospel (or not) as I please; I am free to stop giving my support (whether time, activity, or financial) to the Church." Free -- you will be informed of your covenats and ask why you are breaking them and you will not be treated the same. Free, not with out consequences, not without a price. And there are proper limits too. And that is as it should be but not on your beliefs, your respectfull teachings and your exersizing of your personal right and liberty in voting in the Church as you honestly fell and allowing all the samerights and privelages. But today there does not exisit a enviorment in our general or local conference where an opposing vote is even acceptable (you can only cast an opposing vote for reasons that are agreeable to the leader). It use to be an opposing vote was as good and honorable as any other vote and the people were at total liberty to understand and consider the issues for themselves and come to their own opinions and vote as they personally see fit. But we certainly don't have that today. Vote no on someone or on something and you will find out the truth one way or another. I agree, no one does, be they high or low in the Church. But your right to vote differently than you file leader should be protected and it is not. We also have no right to trample upon another rights, all right should be respected and protected by all and by the Church especially. Other wise our voting and other outward actions that are many times pointed to show the saints have rights and liberties is sadly a mear fasud ..... signifing nothing. :-((

That was a question that I was asking (see ? mark at end of sentence), I was not stating you said that. I just want to know if you believed the voice of the conference was/is binding on the Church and it's officers. That is my point, the Lord may call them by revelation to serve in a position high or low in the Church but to do so and/or preside in any position they must have the consent of the people they will serve. And it is scriptural D&C 28:10 "Thou shalt not leave this place until after the conference; and my servant Joseph shall be appointed to preside over the conference by the voice of it, ..." It was required even for Joseph to preside over the conference. Bruce R. McConkie Common Consent Page 12 3. ...Even the Prophet Joseph Smith could not be imposed upon the people of the Church by divine fiat. He presided over the conference for instance by the voice of the conference. ..." In regard to section 124 you wrote: ..."may render that practice extraneous because the individuals listed were, in many cases, specifically designated to "preside". The Lord commands the vote of the conference to approve or disapprove of the very presiding officers you referred to. Verse 144 states ." And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference". That looks like to me that these individuals were called by the Lord for many of them to fill presiding positions and they too needed to be voted on by the body before they could preside or take office. There is no exceptions - all in the church high or low are subject to a vote of they body they will serve. Bruce R. McConkie http://www.bhporter.com/McConkie/Common%20Consent.pdf also covers this in pages 9-11 and quotes D&C 124:144 on the top of page 11 and explains that it is mandated by the Lord that the voice of the conference is also required even for individuals who are to preside - even for the president of the church, his councilors - he make no exceptions. I call your attention to 9. on page 14 Brother McConkie say that there are 2 conditions that must be met: "...He must be appointed by the Lord. Then he must be acknowledged as Church President by the voice of the Church. They must vote to sustain him in his position. EVEN AFTER THE LORD NAMES HIM HE CANNOT BE ORDAINED TO HIS HIGH CALLING Without the vote of the conference (and then Brother McCokie adds an exception which I see no scriptural basis for) EXCEPT BY THE DIRECTION of a high council or general conference I can only find Scripture(s) that say conference, perhaps someone knows of authorization for this exception of "high council" that he added. If you do, please share it. My first reaction to this is that common consent is required only from the governed body. That is a vote on the nominated officers only from the group of individuals who he will be serving or is over. General conference for someone who will be serving everyone and the high council if you were to preside and or serve just the high council and not govern other bodies. A bishop only from the ward and so on. It was because in your earlier post you gave examples of an extreme of every time (not just all things) with nothing being covered by a previous vote (no organization on the planets operates that way or would they think of doing so) Voting of course would done on policies. actions, and procedures and then those would be used and followed each time rather that calling a conference and voting again and again on each repeating issues or each event: All things and every time are two different things and a vote take on a subject can cover more than one event. But that vote or decision would be limited to what the decision and is actually relevant. As I read you quote (see below) you use the word "every" repeatedly. These individual events can be be grouped in to common issues and then a decision or the best procedure could be developed and then vote upon. The General Handbook of Instruction we have to day accomplishes that function but it's parts or it as a whole have never been voted on, yet the church runs by it. The first book was only 17 pages and only covered instruction for music, now we have two very detailed volumes. Sorry but to me that is not reasonable, nor is it a house of order - that would just be silly and unnecessary. Where voting once on a policy that cover a reasonable range of related issues is reasonable, and orderly and is a common practice outside the church. With revisiting the issue and re-voting changes as wisdom and need dictates is necessary. Then why did the Lord command it and give the people the liberty to vote for or against the proposals set before them? All very good questions, I acknowledge there were problems then with the leader and yes with Joseph too always following the instructions of the Lord to the church.But that is one of the points I make - if there were problems then and the correct procedures were not always followed. Why is it a crime for someone to point out that the same case can be made for today? And neither appear to have been scripturally authorized by the Lord to depart from his commandment for all things to be done by common consent. Is this so surprising, is not that the natural human course of things through out all dispensations - an unintentional gradual drifting away from some of the Lord's instructions for various reasons, excuses and expediencies. Not so much that the Lord might dis-own the Church but still the human tendency of imperfection existed and exists and will exist. Brigham taught that it is much easier to lead and teach a people that don't ask questions and don't think for themselves. I would add that sadly it is the natural tendency of almost all leader to consolidate power and miss use it by gradually and in some case very quickly start to fail to respectfully and righteously involve the people under them in the decision making processes that effect them and as set forth and commanded by the Lord. It take more time, it take more energy, more teaching and listening and there are more difficulties that arise and more of everything is required to accomplish anything involving the people rather than just make the decision and the sending out marching orders to everyone. But yet the Lord commanded it, is it possible he has his reasons and they are good reasons. It does takes more, and so it is that we have seen by sad experience that it is true of almost all men. At least so says D&C 121 Yes then! Yes yes, was it not the taking of the vote that made it official, and greatly ended the crisis, that made decision made by the body of saints as a whole ended the question for the Church. Those who could live with that decision apostatized and left. But Yes, it was the vote - common consent that worked and made it possible for the church to move on. As a body the became unity behind that decision. Now who is mis-representing who - they are apostates of that I have not doubt. I don't know what else you or I could call them. But that is not the question at hand, that is not at issue and it does not justify us in departing or minimizing the commandment of the Lord to the Church. And it doesn't white wash our own history and modern actions. Their apostasy does not make ours impossible, we can do it a little or in parts gradually or throw out all of the Lords commandments at once. There has been room for correction in the church in all dispensations that have been. My question and comments were honest and frank, I think for myself, when I study I find what I find, not what any apostate tries to supply me with. My question and conclusion are mine and not the source of anyone else. I am LDS, I am a return missionary, I got back from a fireside just a while ago and have spent the last few hours addressing your questions (I type slowly and with two fingers). I study and I study and I have questions and ask those questions because I want answers, the real answers, not some worthless answer given to pacify me or to be insulted or accused. I have never belong to or do I now in any way shape or form have any association or affiliation formally, informally or otherwise at any level or anything else with any group, church or whatever; other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. I was born in the Church and have lived in the valley my whole life (except for a 2 year mission). I have to take that back - I do have one questionable affiliation - my ward is pretty apostate and they couldn't care less about what the scripture actually teach.

Your correct, my error it does say "vote" in 63 not voice. And yes I agree this is still done today in a manner, but the people are conditioned that they should only vote yes and have no righteous justification in voting opposed unless they know of something "that if brought to the knowledge of the presiding authorities would disqualify the individual" from the calling if they knew about it. That statement is in the general handbook of instruction. As near as I can find this idea was taken from Joseph F. Smith and his worlds use. I can find no statement in earlier day that would dismiss the right of the individual to express here person opinion and judgment in the voting and several stating that it was the member's right and prerogative and they are perfectly free to vote as they see fit. In earlier days no one was taken out and asked to justify why they voted opposed. They had the liberty of voting as they felt and thought and opposing votes were common and totally acceptable. That is not the case now.The story that follows, I have no good written reference for. It comes from a tape about his life; but J Gordan Kimball was reported to have been at Stake conference in Utah and was conduction the voting and was going through the many proposals of officers and actions and looking over those in attendance voting in favor with apparently with little or no thought said: "it is proposed we move mount Nebo (which is a large mountain located at the south end of Utah Lake) to the Utah Idaho border: all in favor (and the hands went up as before), all opposed? And then he stopped and waited and their began to be a gradual recognition in the audience of what they just did. He then is reported to have said: "your not paying attention" and chastised them for not paying attention and failing to vote with their person feeling, wisdom and good personal judgment. If anyone has a reference for this I would appreciate it. "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" D&C 26.2 So the vote of the conference is has no scriptural authority, no validity, no voice in governing the affairs of the Lord's church? In section 124 the Lord gives to Joseph a long list of people to fill various offices that the Lord had selected and at the end D&C 124:144 he tells Joseph "and a commandment I give unto you, that should fill all these offices and approve of these names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my conference." Here we have the Lord revealing the actual names and the office he was calling them to - the Lord mind you was picking them , and then He commands Joseph that that was not enough but to approve or disapprove of them with the use of general conference. Joseph held the keys, the Lord did too but still the conference need to be asked, the will of the people was needed, and their approval or disapproval was commanded. Even the Prophet Joseph could not be imposed upon the people by divine fiat to even preside over a conference without the approving voice of the conference. That doesn't happen today, we are just told who will preside.And I will again point out that the Lord command "all things shall be done by common consent" not just all leaders. Even the Prophet, the First Presidency and the Twelve get their authority first from God and secondly from the people. And I am of the opinion that if authority has not been give by the Lord AND the people both that the office is limited to just what has been authorized by both of them. And in D&C 20:62 conferences are the place to conduct church business, how? By the voice of the conference of course, by common consent of the people. Not just by announced. This is how the Church as an entity, as groups, as church is to come united about in it's secessions and choosing leaders and approving or disapproving and proposal. The Church and Joseph were commanded to do all things by Common Consent in the Church back then and we are to, they didn't complain or try to excuse themselves or their leaders with the claim they didn't have enough canonized detailed instructions to obey that commandment. So how can we rightfully in our day dismiss it's practice or curtail it's use now! 'All things" Wasn't Joseph being with them, teaching them and establishing the example count for something then and today? Ya, right that guaranteed they would have the guidance from the spirit. I agree in part but I would add that it wasn't a bastardizing leader, a member or outsider that said "all things" by the "Voice of the conference" was needed in addition to the voice of the Lord. It was the Lord himself who made this a requirement to the church that they would have the own agency in the matter of deciding these proposals - it takes both. Do you at least agree with that? If the church is to obey God's command to Common Consent as he personally commanded and revealed to Joseph - must be complied with we can not go anther way about making our decision even if we feel we are being more righteous by doing so. The Lord has good reasons for doing his way and not some other. It of course doesn't make any difference what these groups believe if they are wrong, nor does it make it right because they believe it. Right is right and wrong is wrong and what the Lord had spoken he has spoken and that does not become altered by the teaching of the true Church or a false one. But the fact that these apostate groups (as you say) claim the church is failing to live up to that ideal of common consent and they can agree on not much else - the question is only fair to ask and consider - is there perhaps some basis in fact for their united claim. Of course that doesn't make them right, but how did they possibly get that united idea if it has no basis in fact. Could it be that they (these early period people) all experience the same example that Joseph set, taught and established, they lived for years in the church experiencing it before "bastardized" into their own self serving belief as you claim? But I will ask you specifically: was there or was there not a more democratic spirit in the use of Common Consent in Joseph's day than we see today in the Church? Were opposing votes common? Did members have to justify their opposing votes to leader? Was it a simple majority vote in Joseph's day or not? B. H. Roberts of course knew early Church history very well, but also lived to see the church grow and function without Joseph. The material below I have copied and pasted faithfully. It come from SUCCESSION IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS . I in no way am trying to misrepresent B. H. Roberts views by not pasting the whole thing or any addition part there of, it is available here Succession in the Presidency - B.H. Roberts - SHIELDS for all to ready in full. "...This disposed of Sidney Rigdon. He had full opportunity to present his case before the church. The saints had full opportunity and liberty to vote for him had they wanted him for their leader; but they rejected him and sustained the Twelve. I have been careful to deal with this case of Sidney Rigdon’s in so great detail, for the reason that it exhibits in operation a very important principle, viz., that of "common consent" or the "voice of the people" in electing their leaders. I use the word "elect" advisedly, for though the manner of electing the officers of the church is by indirect means—by popular acceptance—the elective principle is nevertheless operative, since men proposed for office cannot act unless the people vote to sustain them. The law of the church in this matter is: No person is to be ordained to any office in this Church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, with out the vote of that Church. This law applies to the First Presidency as well as to the humblest officer in the church: Of the Melchisedek Priesthood, three presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith and prayer of the Church, from a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. It is not enough that the men constituting the First Presidency of the church be "appointed and ordained to that office;" they must also be "chosen by the body" and "up held by the confidence, faith and prayer of the church." President Brigham Young on this subject says: Joseph presided over the Church by the voice of the people. …Does a man’s being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no. A man may be a prophet, seer and revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being President of the Church. Suffice it to say that Joseph was the President of the Church, so long as he lived. The people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people. … The keys of the priesthood were committed to Joseph to build up the kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people, though he held the keys of the priesthood independent of their voice. But, mark you, he did not hold the power to preside over them contrary to their voices, that is, contrary to their consent. President Taylor says: It is by the voice of God and the voice of the people that our present President [brigham Young] obtained his authority. He obtained his authority first from God, and secondly from the people; and if a man possesses five grains of common sense, when he has the privilege of voting for or against a man, he will not vote for a man who will, oppress the people; he will vote according to the dictates of his conscience; for this is the right and duty of this people in the choice of their President and other leading officers of the kingdom of God. Thus in ecclesiastical as in civil government it is true that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed...."

Sorry, that is the way it came across to me. Let us not over look verse 63 "voice of the church" and again in verse 65 and then in 66 "that a vote may be called" all reaffirming Common Consent and it's necessity in the operation of the Church. The delegation of work outside of conferences as Bruce R. McConkie indicated had to comply with the directions given by the conference (or other body) which engaged in common consent and made that authorization and gave those directions. Individuals who received them were to make sure that they stayed with-in the limits of the directions and authority given them. Please elaborate, in the operation of Church affairs, actions and decisions when and how did he "move away" from using Common Consent in the Church? They did/do have their troubles, of course without the help of the spirit, without the guidance and correction from Joseph they naturally drifted away from the laws simple truths, complicating it and corrupting it. But since you brought it up - even they still recognized the commandment to operate their church by common consent as necessary and to do all things by common consent. Just because apostates can't get it right and receive the Lord's blessings and the lord's guidance in their actions as an apostate church is no reason to blame the Lord's principle (as revealed through and practiced by Joseph) and the true Church as false. Right? Now, now, your getting very silly here. What makes you think that because Lord said "all things" that he was also saying every time also? Or that you have wait for things to happen. Did he not also say his house was house of order and did he not also say prepare every needful thing. Could not such issues be easily forseen and considered by an organization and that organization come up with reasonable course of actions and authorization to properly deal with them in advance and then vote on the final draft by Common Consent and those pre-authorizations and instructions be ready and able to deal with such issues and if there was a situation not fully addressed could not another conference (which occurred frequently) make whatever modifications and additions that might be necessary and then propose it to the body and then the Church members vote upon that? Could they not vote on who should be en-charge of putting out a fire before it starts and what resource should be made available for that purpose long before a fire occurs? How hard is that, how simple; and those authorizations and directions remain valid for use in such day to day affairs. That wouldn't prevent new or unusual issues from coming up before the Church for it's consideration and vote on how to deal with them. You seem to be looking for ways to make it not work, when the way it did and can work is obvious and right before your eyes. Is this a Camel or a nat for you? Why are you chocking - just relax a little, you may be able to see more clearly then. I agree with you the Tract goes to great length about the First Presidency, he also talked about elders, the Twelve, secession, the restoration of all things and a few other things and how Common Consent is required and to be used in relation to them all. You accuse me of misrepresenting Elder McConkie's position in his Tract. I was trying stick to the subject which was and is that Common Consent was revealed by the Lord, it was his method for church and he commanded it use. I am glade the tract is available on line, it is good read and I hope all will read it. http://www.bhporter.com/McConkie/Common%20Consent.pdf But as you accuse me, how exactly did I miss represent his position in this Tract. How does any of the material I quoted or did not include "grossly misrepresent Elder McConkie's position". The First Presidency and the Twelve are all subject to Common Consent and without it they can not hold their position. So please show us my gross misrepresentation of this Tract and please make it clear for all to see and understand!

As you stated we have only a few revelations that talk about that Common Consent to be used by the Church but those few really say it all. Are implying that common Consent is less valid or that it is less important because the Lord didn't detail his instructions to the Church or expound on it further or repeatedly? How much instruction do we have to have on a subject from the Lord for it be valid and important? I say ONCE is enough! I do not and I would not think Joseph or the Lord thought Joseph an apostate because he didn't live the exact and full spirit of the law in this one case with with Sidney Rigdon for a limited period of time. To dismiss Joseph and/or his successors because of one side stepping infraction is a standard I don't want to be judged by. To insist that a man must be perfect and obey the command of the Lord perfectly to be or to continue to be the Lord's anointed is to ignore numerous scriptural examples. Thank God for grace! In my searching I try to remember to also look for the term "voice of", vote, raised hands of, decided, council, Church, order, people, saints, members and vote. Joseph may of asked about Common Consent very early, while translating the book of Mormon and or at some other time. We have so few records of the many angelic visits and revelations Joseph received prior to the organization of the Church when he was receiving the foundations of his understandings. When was Joseph first instructed on it and how it was to operate? I don't know when he first was or how many times he was instructed on it or to what extent and detail. I know of no record of those revelations but section 20 of course does supply us a great deal of instruction on how the Church was to be organized and function and Common Consent was establish as core principle. Perhaps because it was establish so early and used so regularly and is actually a simple method that addition revelations on the point would have been unnecessary. They did have Joseph with them and he did established the pattern for them to follow and was their to supply corrections if needed. What questions were not answered that were not covered in the initial establishment of Common Consent in the Church and the example and pattern Joseph followed from day one in the Church? To the early Church it probably seamed reasonable, simple, nice and it's use and function obvious and the same everywhere - "all things shall be done by Common Consent" and once established and seen in operation almost all of the detail questions were answered by that example Joseph gave them. I should also point out that many other churches and other organizations used and still use a voting of the people to make their decisions. One person one vote. So the basic concept and practice would not of been something totally foreign to Joseph or the members. in Various form the basic concept was all arround them. It is not that complicated if it you accept that the Lord actually meant what he said "all things shall be done by Common Consent in the church" and you look at the operational example Joseph establish. Complication arise when alteration occur to it or people try to expound excessively on it and get wrapped up in details that they loose sight of the fundamental concept and practice as establish. In a 30 page Tract that I have that was published by the Church in 1971, entitled COMMON CONSENT by Bruce R. McConkie some remarks worth sharing. "For those who are honestly and sincerely seeking to live the laws of god as they have been revealed in modern times, so that they may thereby gain salvation in his kingdom, it become a MATTER OF SURPASSING IMPORTANCE TO LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LAW OF COMMON CONSENT. Now what is this law and how does it operate?... ...The law of common consent has been operative in every dispensation and some examples of it's ancient operation have been preserved for our enlightenment in the scriptures... ...So that the restored kingdom would be perfect and operate in precisely the same manner as had been the case as in all former dispensations, the Lord revealed the specific procedural details governing all vital phases of it's establishment and operation. As to the law of common consent, he said:..." (D&C 20:60-67 is then quoted and then D&C 26:2) [page 2-5] ....2. All the acts of the true church must conform to the revealed pattern. No procedures may be followed, no principle espoused, which are not recorded in the revelations or directed by the Spirit. Nothing is to be done by the Church contrary to the covenants the Lord has given. 3. All of the organizational things which the Church does - that is, the procedures which it follows and the officers which it appoints ---must be done by common consent and by much faith and prayer. Even the Prophet Joseph Smith could not be imposed upon the people of the Church by divine fiat. He presided over the conference, for instance by the voice of the conference.... 4.General Church business cannot be transacted in secret. No man, for instance, could be appointed in secret to head the Church or to carry on some supposed great program for the salvation of man. The Lord has decreed otherwise. Conferences are to transact the business of the Church. ... 7.... Conference are empowered to approve or disapprove... 8. .. Church officers have no power to proceed according to their private notions either in their teachings or in their directions of those over whom they preside. They must conform to the Lord's pattern for those so called. Their duties are given them by revelation in the commandments, and also by the voice of the conference...{page 12-13)

Great comments Vort, thank you, With Common Consent their may be a great diversity of opinions when you start, leaders layout the issue and teach and perhaps persuade many to their way of thinking and a vote is taken but of course there is still to some degree a diversity of opinion and levels of understanding. But if the members and leaders then respect the decision made by the body as a whole and get behind the decision then unity occurs. But you are right in that everyone needs to to be united in agreeing that the voting will be the method of make the decision and the body will unitedly stand by it after wards. Common Consent does not mean the leader or each member always gets their way. In this case Joseph had to live with the decision of the majority and he didn't get his way. The decision for the organization had been made by that body as a whole being involved and not by some small part of it or by someone outside of that organization. But any such decision could be right, wrong, wise, foolish, righteous or evil to what ever degree. But the Book of Mormon teach us that a decision by the majority is usually righteous. The reason is that it is the commanded method for how decisions are to made in the Church. I will agree with you on this point that even if God gives a standing Law unto the Church and or/to it's leaders he can change it. I do not think that you or I or anyone high or low in the Church can righteously change a Law or Commandment except that God who gave it. Revelation through a Prophet established it and I believe it would require revelation through a Prophet to resend or change it. You stated: "I don't see why that might not be the case here" I have not read or head of that being the case. Every time God has resented something in the passed it was announced to the Church so they could make the necessary adjustments. If it occurred but is not announced that would create great confusion and the Lords house a house of order. I fully agree but it is the Lord's prescribe method to the Church and appears a better method than any other to come to a decision by the Church. Joseph taught that if the Twelve can not come to a unanimous decision as a quorum they must turn a decision over to the Church and Common Consent of the body. I agree with you, but what I was trying to point out is - that the process works, it works with good leader or bad, it works with good members or bad. And if the proposal is rejected it is probably because it should because the leader or the people aren't ready for it and/or willing to do it or that the proposal was flawed in some way. And based on that the proposal should not pass but rejected until the appropriate improvements are achieved. Sadly it is. But I would quick respond (before I am tared and feather) that as you point out that the Church is not perfect and has failed to keep all the commandment of God to Church, Leaders and members. Through out all history each dispensation was to some degree and frequently in several ways and degrees in apostasy. That didn't mean the Lord for sake them or they him but with the first small departure from his instruction and commandments. And there is no reason to assume so know with this dispensation. No more that any other departure from the Lord's prescribed ways. But I am sure he is not crying any tears over it. Also it does fit his pattern so I would have to say - maybe, could be, I don't see why he wouldn't have help that to occur. But that doesn't make the Church Satanic. If done properly yes! But anyone can make the choice to follow. And they can do it with their brain off or on. The eye open or closed. There are many who don't think, who don't ask questions and consider the issues. They follow blindly trusting in the arm of flesh. Brigham condemned them and the teachers who encourage it. What dispensation has been totally free of it? Do you think they/we are totally immune and protected from all of his influences in the world and/or are infallible? Joseph taught: If the Church know all the commandments, half they would condemn through prejudice and ignorance" he also warned of the natural tendency of leaders and of any organization and of the Church thinking it self, self righteous. If it can happen in earlier days of the Church why would 2012 be any different? And if it can happen a little than it can happen a little more but that does not mean all is lost, not at all, or that the Church or you or I are in full apostasy. In some ways we are probably moving to wards God and in others away, when has it ever been other wise. Do you believe all is well in Zion?

I see that I neglected to address a very key point you (Vort) made in your comment: Common Consent does NOT require unity to be practiced - just the opposite. It it through Common Consent that true and real unity is started, grown, developed and achieved. Thee is no indication that the saints couldn't live Common Consent, they did live it, they were living it from day one with the handful of people at the organization of the Church who understood so little then, through the Kirtland days with it's many difficulties, changes and blessings. Through the gathering, growth and development of the Church and Nauvoo. Through the good, the bad and the ugly, through glorious revelations, the changes, the mistakes, the betrayals, the mobs, the death of the Prophet through the exodus to Utah, through it all it's leaders and it members survived and thrived with Common Consent - I believed also it was because of it! Look at all they went through, imperfect leaders and members, problem after problem but still they managed to stay unified and not destroy themselves and the Church. Common Consent is the great unifier. It is the Perfect Law of Liberty and Unity. It works for 6 members of 60 million, it works in all times and places and for all issues. If any single leader or the leaders by themselves (without the members participation) made a decision and the thing turned out badly (which happened over and over again) [and add to that the never ending heavy sacrifices and hardships the individuals were asked to bear] would not any people eventually turn on that leadership that was making the decisions. If any other method of decision making would have been employed their would have eventually and inevitably been so much finger pointing and a lost of trust respect support for the leaders that the Church certainly would have turned on it's self and been destroyed. It was because of Common Consent - that is God, the leaders and the members - making the final decisions together, that the members become united in and by those decisions and trying to support them that when things went bad that they all felt responsible for it or at least had no one else to blame. Unity is achieved through the proper use of Common Consent and it will work with any group of people, mixture of people or different levels of understanding and issues. It is universal and through it's wise and proper use TRUE unity is possible. Under Common Consent each and every member and leader is obligated to unite behind the (majority) vote and decision of the body unless it violate their personal ethics and conscious. I have to ask you Vort, when you said "..the people proved unable to be unified enough to live by common consent" what did you mean? When was this the case? In my previous comments I pointed out it was Joseph who had a problem fully abiding by the spirit and letter of the Vote and decision of the Church not the people. I don't see where Common Consent failed God, the people, the leaders or the Church. Nor do I see where they failed Common Consent. The lived it and continued to live it as revealed for many years. Of course there were problems, miss conduct and some hurt feelings from time to time but that was to be expected and valuable; they too were opportunities for growth. Would it be reasonable to eliminate Common Consent because it was to difficult or it had problems? If you use that as rule than life it self should be eliminated it is full of difficulties and problems. Many of the programs of the Church would also be eliminated. Here is one wonderful thing about Common Consent - if a leader proposes an action and the body rejects it or accepts it - both are good. If the leader has done his/her job and properly considered all the issues and possibilities and that leader has properly taught the people so that they can see what the leader can see, and then majority approve it - great! But lets say they leader is not so diligent and his/her proposal is only half baked, creates conflicts and is just a bad proposal and/or it not presented so as to teach and persuade the people and they oppose it - that is a good thing too! No proposal should or ought to be accepted just because a leader makes it. If the people don't have the understanding, motivation and or resources to support it they shouldn't. No power of influence can or ought to be maintained just because a leader proposed something; only by persuasion, by teaching, long suffering, by kindness and mutual respect and gradually bringing the people up to the understand level of the leader who hopefully has got facts and understand correct - that is "pure knowledge which shall greatly enlarge thy soul" and the persuades and teaches the people so they can see the wisdom of it. But if the leader's thinking and facts are not sound, are not based on pure knowledge but is full of errors - the last thing the people should do is vote for and engage in a mistake. Common Consent can save the Church from making mistakes and problems if properly used Joseph taught that there is no salvation if believing any false idea. If the people do not have the resources, the understanding, the time or energy to support a proposal the last thing the leader should want is to see them vote in favor of it. Just because it was voted for doesn't mean it is going to get done or that all will work out well. The Savior taught to count the cost before to decide to build and make sure you have what is needed to complete the job or it will all be a waste and a disaster and you would of been better off never starting. By the proper use of Common Consent and allowing the people their God given right to vote in favor or opposed as they see fit and for their own reasons and with their own judgment. Then the leaders can see the strengths, weakness, needs and level of the people. Also through the proper use of Common Consent they can help the people grow in both knowledge and wisdom. Experience in making decisions, particularly with the help of a mentor, teacher leader is a high grow experience for the individual and valuable for the individual member and not just for the leaders. I recall the story of one man, a strong capable man of great leadership ability who was well know for his great decision making abilities. He had 4 sons who were active in all his doings but when they finally came of age to go out and do something on their own so he sent them out to establish a farm and engage their leadership abilities and self reliance but there was a serious problem. After 3 months they were total failures. When the Father came to see how they were doing he was horrified to see their terrible condition. Almost nothing had be done and what was done was done poorly, instead of the farm full of crops the field a terrible sight and the boys starving and barley clothes on their bodies. They couldn't get organized, get started or see things through. When there was a problem everything stopped and they were helpless and incapable of dealing with it effectively. The Fathers strong leadership did not make his sons leaders or strong capable self reliant individuals - it made them dependent on him and weak. In fact because he was always there making the decisions and dominating and never stepping back and letting one of his sons take the bull by the horns they never needed to or had the opportunity to make decisions, make errors and learn from them. This great leader found to his great surprise he was a horrible failure as a father and his strength had been unwisely used (despite his good intentions) to become a terrible determent to his family. He became greatly concerns that his boys would never be able to survive if he would pass away some day. In his strength and zeal he failed those he led because failed to teach and train them but more importantly he failed to step back and respect his boys and mentor them, guide and assist them in them learning process and let them figure out and decide things for themselves. Howard W. Hunter in "Counseling the Councils" made some powerful observations, that even in the Grand Council in heaven God the Father, the wisest of us all used Common Consent and asked for input from the multitude present. Are we greater that he that we can set aside or dilute Common Consent into something it was never intended to be? Certainly our Father in Heaven had sufficient wisdom and knowledge to just make the decisions on his own in the Grand Council and just announce his decisions to everyone, but he didn't Why? The fundamental need for men to be agents unto themselves. He wanted and knew the great value of having everyone involved in the decision making process and issues that effect and not just in the end vote! But from start to finish. If it was good enough for God why is that not Good enough for so many leaders? There is real wisdom there if we study it. This is also a good spot to point out that real unity comes at a cost - silence is not unity, unity can only come after their is discussion. Another cost is the lose of those who can not become united - which is a good thing, a natural weeding out process. The goats and the sheep end up dividing themselves. The wheat and the tares grown up together until they reach a certain point that they are distinguishable from each other and by themselves. Why because through the process the questions put into their hands, through Common Consent they are personally asked to consider the issues that can disturb the easy of the people but it doesn't do allot of good to have the members avoid the issues and bury their head in the sand. Through Common Consent the unworthy and corrupt will prove to themselves and to the Church they don't belong - a good thing, and leave; again a good thing. In all of this lets not forget the commandments which are rather limited in number but are all encompassing in range, giving us clear limits and proper perspective but not deciding every detail for us - It is not meant that man should be commanded in all things but should do many good things of their own freewill. Why? Why didn't God make a commandment about everything. Why didn't he reveal the solutions to all our problems and the problems the Church might encounter. Because there is growth, skills and strength that can not come from just obeying and following instruction or some else solutions. God did not become God without having to make many decision for him self in his mortal life. Also God the Father did not stop the "third part" from their decisions and actions, he did not prevent them from having their say in the Grand Council or from their actions after-wards. We can not dismiss, abandon or alter Common Consent because we want to save everyone, have unity or the appears of such at the cost of all else. We can not supply such strong leadership that those under us develop little or none of their own. At the heart of it all is personal agency. At the the core of the Government of God and his form of rule in heaven and earth in Common Consent. It is not an optional program. God gave us Common Consent as a commandment but not all can appreciate - that is true of many leaders and many members. Of course we a familiar will with the warning that it the natural tendency of man that as soon as they get any authority that they will engage in unrighteous dominion. What is that? That is when they force their will on you. That is when the they say you can't vote in opposition to any proposal it would be a sin unless you know the individual how is being called is guilty of something serious. In short it is when they take your Common Consent, you right to be an agent unto yourself away. There are many people who want and even insist that want the leaders just make the decisions. They don't have to the wisdom to engage in that or want or care to have to deal with the issues. They just want to follow and are content where that leader takes them and attempts to ride into Celestial glory on the coat tails of who ever the Lord send them to catch a ride on. Not all are meant to agree, not all are meant to be saved, not all are capable of real unity of properly handling being an agent unto themselves. Agency is far more that just obey and be saved or disobey and be damned. Agency is freedom and empowerment and without becoming and agent unto yourself (as God decreed) there is no can can not be salvation. Consider this point - Satan wanted to take way the agency of man. In what way and how? No mater what you do to a person (imprison them, torture them, enslave them) the human mind and soul can still resist that - a slave is never a slave until they inwardly agree to it. The agency of man that Satan desired to destroy was not the ability to obey or disobey but to our ability of self determination our right to be agents unto ourselves, to be thinking individuals and people. Certainly one of the first things he would have wanted to eliminate would be Common Consent which honors and empowers the agency of man. Satan is cleaver devil - he is also called the great deceiver and perverter and no doubt thought why not transform Common Consent which promotes agency into something that destroys it that would be far greater victory then jut discontinuing it. Use it to convinces the people that they can only vote for and sustain leaders decisions that they present and that doing anything not fully in-line with that would be rebellious and evil. That all proposals and leaders are from God or have his divine sanction and therefore all individuals must subjugate themselves to the leaders and and leader would gradually no long present proposals for the people to vote on they would present decisions that the people would be ask to sustain. In addition few and fewer things would even be presented for that. If you think that is a stretch I can tell of at least one Stake President who open expressed that at length. To me it makes little difference if the leader is good or bad if the people give up what God has decreed they have to fulfill the purposes of God and become a God ourselves - that is to be agents unto themselves instead letting others decide for us the end result is the same. You can not become what Good is and wants us to become by letting someone else make the decision for you, you must consider and decide the tough questions and difficult issues. As Joseph said you must look into and comprehend the darkest abyss. You must turn you brain and agency fully on, not off. Look at the dictatorships of the world, if the people are allowed to vote it is only for appearance sake because they understand how they better vote (or else). If few (or none) vote in opposition is it or can it be a real voting system? No. Does not the fact that everyone only votes one way, teaches all that they must only vote one way? Of course And so it is with Common Consent, it doesn't matter much if we the people, our leaders, the Church or Satan himself eliminate or transforms Common Consent (in whole or in part) from it's intended purpose Satan win a great victory and one he can use to accomplish other things. Common Consent celebrates, respects and honors the agency of man. The rightful agency of each individual to vote in Common Consent and freely openly and with respect to all others express our opinions as desires on the issues that effect us. Any abandoning, curtailing, transform, modifying, or perverting Common Consent into something else, anything else (regardless of our good intentions) and to any degree violates God command to the Church. The War In Heaven continue here on earth it is not a good time to beat you sword in to plow shears or to sit back and assume ALL IS WELL IN ZION and just leave it to our leaders to deal with. If and to any degree we curtail the scared agency of the individual then Satan wins to that degree. And if he can curtail agency in the Church of God, how great his victory! If the individual accepts or tolerates it Satan wins so much more. The war in heaven was not fought with swords and guns but with perverting true principles and violating rights and freedoms - with slightly twisted words and manipulating peoples thinking and practices, with perverting the way of the Lord. Sometimes a little is all it takes and if you can do that and convenience the people that in doing so they are being more righteous - what a victory for Satan! And I have seen many Stakes and Wards that have become just that - full of more than willing yes men and women raising there children to become the same and humble and cheerful doing it. They raise their hands like machines with out thought, purpose or care - just doing what they have been told - shame on them! And thus the devil carefully leadeth them down to hell. Joseph was asked: How do you govern this people? He responded I do not govern this people. I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves. Note the first line of his response which most people fail to quote I do not govern this people" That is the key if leaders would fully understand it. It is the people who are to govern. Note also he didn't say "and their local leaders govern them". He said they, the individuals govern themselves. But what of the leaders and their role. Yes yes yes! leaders must lead, have a vision, a purpose but how - through teaching and example. Through educating and proposing a courses of action, by persuasion and buy letting the body decide for themselves and encouraging it and respecting and abiding by it and then administering their decisions and letting and helping the people to learn from that process and progress from grace to grace. "they govern themselves" The Gospel: Common Consent - the perfect law of liberty - accept no substitute! All in Favor? .....any opposed if there be any? Can you see just in those words the people are being conditioned how they are expected to vote. I noticed in the last conference that issues that effect us were not even present for a vote. For example the change of when we send our young men and women out on missions was announced and not presented for their vote of the people. The fact the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve voted upon it does not change the fact it is an issue that directly effects the members and as such requires their vote. I hope this is not a sign of things to come and the beginning of the end of Common Consent in the Church and it becomes limited to just voting on the leaders. That would be a an enormous change from how it was practiced in earlier times and as command by God that the Church must do. And yes the Lord did use the world MUST "all things MUST be done by Common Consent in the Church" How be it my Church if you do not what I say? Joseph taught: The fact of the matter is, there must be a equilibrium of power between the people and the bishop. Thus good well and harmony will be preserved among you. Please excuse the long post, and many typos it is a subject of great concern and interest to me and I just get carried away. Thanks for reading particually if your view differ from mine

Interesting position - but was Common Consent ever abandoned or reascended (officially or otherwise) and if so when? I have nothing that would indicate that. I have read numerous references in the Journal of Discourses indicating Common Consent continued as before (to a large degree) in Utah until the Utah War. Brigham made some very power remarks regarding it even though his own leadership style clearly shows he made many decisions on his own and had no problem doing such. With the high tension and threats of the Utah War an over zealous spirit of - if your not 100% for the Lord, Church, leaders your against us was been promoted. A negative vote then or even questioning the leadership would of been considered rare and would likely got you branded a traitor and or a coward. It was a difficult time for everyone. With such a focus of unity at all cost it is no wonder that the more democratic spirit that was promoted in earlier times gave way to more radical mindset that gradually progressed into what we have today were Common Consent is no longer a sacred right of the people to participate in the decision making process and express their views and desires but rather it is taught by some that it is time to show your allegiance and make a Covent that you will obey and sustain the leaders and their decision as presented and set aside your personal issues, feelings and thoughts and just obey and follow. It might be said that we have gone from one extreme "The perfect law of liberty" to some sort or righteous dictatorship (if there is such a thing) in which the member have no say and no agency in Church affairs. To be fair this has been a gradual process of change and other dispensation and leaders changed things far greater than this and most with probably the best of intentions and maybe not even aware they were making any changes. Things change by two strong methods: one slow and gradual (and frequently not even recognized) and one fast and dramatic (always and easily recognized). But back to the key point in your comments - we have revelations and clear indication (just as you said) that some things the saint couldn't live properly and they were taken back. But Common Consent is not some higher law - it was from the beginning, from day one of the Church and command by God. It is was and is a Standing Law unto the Church and a key decision making process in the Church. Every organization needs some established method for their decisions to be arrive at, made official and recognized binding by all. The Lord gave the Church Common Consent as the constitution of the Church, the order of operation, and made no exceptions to it "All things must be done by Common Consent in the Church". Does anyone know of a reference that lawfully changed that in the least or at anytime, or that shows it was even temporarily suspended? I haven't found anything yet.

Thank you for your response, the event you refer to is one of the most interesting one I have and continue to study. The exact quote is: "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. You may carry him, but I will not." Strong words from the Prophet and very painful ones for Sidney to hear. Though there is some dispute over the details of the event and records which were recorded by hand (and not all the record have the above statement - the Historic evidence indicate Sidney Rigdon did retain his position in accordance with the majority vote of the people despite the wishes and personal vote of the Prophet and others. But what little I have read seems to indicate Joseph kept Sidney Rigdon busy and away and did not involve him or let him be available to fulfill his duties in the First Presidency as a Councilor. "You may carry him, but I will not." If this is accurate then Joseph was publicly respecting the law of the Church "Common Consent" and the majority vote of the people by acknowledging Sidney position as his councilor in the Fist Presidency but intentionally operated the First Presidency without one of it's councilors - Sidney. On the face of it this seems most improper if the Lord so establishes an office or Quorum in the Church with councilors and establish a law that all 3 must be united in their decisions for them to be valid how could the 1st Presidency operate otherwise. The Prophet could still be A and THE Prophet (in or out of the Church and or any other position of it if the Lord still would speak through him or to him) but could he be the President? - of what - a Quorum that is not a functioning Quorum? It would seem improper to operate that Quorum (the First Presidency) without one of it's essential members. In addition if the people voted that any leader is to have councilors no matter what their reason may be, can that leader after-wards ignore that requirement mandated by the people and in this case also by God and or operate outside of the limits of that mandate. I think I can understand Joseph's feelings but if the situation arose that a leader felt he could not accept a councilor who was forced on him - than that leader should probably indicate that to the people "I can not accept and/or continue my position as President if I am forced to have so-n-so (Sidney Rigdon) as my Councilor". The people would then have to reconsider the issue and vote on a new leader or councilor or both or a whole new First Presidency. The same would be true of a Bishopric or Stake Presidency or any Presidency. I see a lot of good in Common Consent (as it was established and practiced back then) Joseph seems to have been a strong advocate of it and certainly the Lord was but I am uncomfortable with Joseph side stepping it (if that is what actually happened). It is very much like modern times in USA and world governments where those nominated for the office praise Democracy and the established checks and balances in the government and all it values - but - once in office or as soon as difficulties arise they try to side step it for some rationalized greater urgent need or more important issue or goal as they perceive it. If anyone can shied more light on this please I would most interested, this a very interesting event in church history - the people disagreed with the Prophet and it was OK to do so and do so openly in public???? The Prophet was at odds with the majority of the people (and at least some key leaders) who vote opposite what he said was the right thing to do. And the Prophet respected their decision, well at least to a degree???? I see no mention in the records of anyone (except Sidney for his failing to perform his duties and Joseph for his lack of mercy, tolerance and forgiveness) called to repent or suffer some consequence now or in eternity regarding this voting. There is so much to be considered just in this one incredible event in our history. It is truly fascinating!

Hi all you history experts, I am looking for official records and also historical accounts (journals, diaries) of the practice of Common Consent in early Church History. I know there must be more accounts out there than I have found so far. It seems during this time Common Consent was a far more democratic activity compared to what we experience today. Back then in conferences and other meetings - numerous dissenting votes were the norm and personal concerns and opinions were openly expressed prior to the vote. Also some nominating occurred by the members and it was allowed. Any proposal or motion had to be seconded but a simple majority vote (by the Church members) was all that was needed to pass a proposal. (Quorums had greater restrictions to pass a proposal). An unanimous vote in a conference by the members was so uncommon that when it occurred it was always significantly noted. The diaries of people who voted "NOT in favor" or "opposed" and why is of interest. Also how did the leaders, Church organizations and the members treat them after-wards is of interest. How did all that work out for everyone - the leaders and members alike? Did some leaders vote "opposed" on other leaders? I am also looking for additional events and records of "Conventing to Recognize, follow and Sustain" the existing leaders who had be voted upon at a previous conference. I am aware of it occurring only once in Kirkland and once in Nauvoo by Joseph and am I right in thinking it also occurred again with Brigham as the Saints left Nauvoo? I need a reference. (No dissenting votes or objections or opinions were called for at these - or were they called for?) These only occurred at specially called gatherings and not at regular conference were the members freely voted YES or NO and expressed person feelings and opinions regarding the leaders and proposals presented before them for their consideration - which no doubt made things interesting. Any help in this areas would be greatly appreciated, the people must of recorded something in their Journals at these examples of the principle of Common Consent in action? Thanks