Law of Consent: Doctrine

[ElectofGod]

Where does the law of consent come from for doctrine? Why must it be voted in as doctrine? What if the church voted in false doctrine? Because the Lord states, he gives us what WE want. Even if its contrary to what HE wants. Things are adapted to the weakest of the saints and those that harden their hearts get taken away even that which they have.

President Joseph F. Smith:

"[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.”

I thought it was doctrine when just revealed by the president?

[Anddenex]

Where does the law of consent come from for doctrine? Why must it be voted in as doctrine? What if the church voted in false doctrine? Because the Lord states, he gives us what WE want. Even if its contrary to what HE wants. Things are adapted to the weakest of the saints and those that harden their hearts get taken away even that which they have.

President Joseph F. Smith:

"[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.”

I thought it was doctrine when just revealed by the president?

This is my current understanding of the receiving revelation for the body of the Church -- consent.

If the Church considered doctrine solely "any doctrine as revealed by the president" then we would be believing in a lot of different doctrines as spoken by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc...

However, when you mention the word "revealed" what do you mean by revealed? Brigham Young "revealed" the "adam-God theory" yet we all know this is not doctrine.

If my understanding is correct, this is the law of consent. The prophet receives revelation. The prophet then speaks with his counselors. If they are in agreement, then they propose the idea, revelation, to the body of the twelve. If the body of the twelve accepts the revelation as sure and true, then the doctrine is revealed -- as doctrine -- to the saints.

[MrShorty]

I could be wrong, but I've always taken this as a reference to what we might call the process of canonization of scripture. I'm not familiar with all of the historical details for every "revelation", but the basic process seems to be something like what is described in the Gospel Doctrine manual for section 138 https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-31-the-redemption-of-the-dead?lang=eng see the first bullet point of part B under "Ideas for Teaching". In short, I think the idea here is that a revelation cannot become scripture and completely binding on us as church members until we as a body have accepted into our canon.

[selek]

It is my understanding that the Law of Consent operates as it does for two reasons:

First, doctrine is not merely "truth" (things as they really are), but it is also a covenant between God and his people.

By definition, covenants require the consent (or at least assent) of both parties involved.

When we lift our hands (and presumably our hearts) to sustain our leaders and their revealed teachings, we are covenanting to be bound to those teachings and standards.

A good example of this is the Word of Wisdom.

Latter-day Saints (most of them, anyway) accept Doctrine and Covenants 89 (and its current application) to be "doctrine".

Modern medical science, by contrast, has gone back and forth several times over the presumed medical benefits of alcohol, coffee, and tea.

We, as Latter-day Sants, covenant to avoid alcohol not simply because it is "bad for us" (which may or may not be objectively "true"), but because we have covenanted to do so.

That's the same reason why a non-LDS who drinks coffee, tea, or alcohol is under no condemnation for "violating" the doctrine.

The second principle, IMO, is one of "safety in numbers" as the Scriptures cited in the "Who is...?" thread specify, one man may err, may sin, or may be just plain dumb wrong- but the odds of the majority of our leaders and the Saints being out of tune with the Spirit are much, much slimmer.

The presumption is that the majority of the Saints will choose wisdom (and harmony with the Spirit of God) over sin and iniquity; therefore, a doctrine embraced by the majority of our people- and the whole of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve- will better reflect the promptings of the Spirit than a decision dictated by a minority.

Of course, by engaging in common consent, we are playing with fire on two counts: first, we are pledging ourselves to a certain standard of behavior- and we **** ourselves if/when we fail to adhere to that standard.

Second, we invite condemnation if we fail to choose wisely and prayerfully- Mosiah 29 is replete with warnings about what happens if the voice of the people should choose iniquity.

[ElectofGod]

That answered my question. Still is it in the D&C to do this? Don't care for the reference just wondering if its in there?

Never thought of it as a covenant in that way before. Also makes sense about the voice of the people. It was actually 138 that sparked this question in my mind so thanks for that reference to it.

[rameumptom]

The term "doctrine" is used in various ways. 1 - as a word equating to teaching. 2 - as a teaching that is binding upon the church.

Often, we'll see the term "core doctrine" to help us separate out those things that have been fully accepted by the Church from those teachings which are still in the wild.

All such doctrines that are to becoe core doctrines are given by the prophet, but must be sustained by the membership, so that it becomes binding upon the membership. We have a lot of doctrines that fall under teachings, but very few core doctrines. Why? Because the Church is set up to allow members the room to discover most things via personal revelation - which becomes binding on the individual, and not on the Church. So, most revelation given by the Church to become binding doctrine comes infrequently, and always be common consent, so the members are bound to it.

[selek]

That answered my question. Still is it in the D&C to do this? Don't care for the reference just wondering if its in there?

Never thought of it as a covenant in that way before. Also makes sense about the voice of the people. It was actually 138 that sparked this question in my mind so thanks for that reference to it.

A quick search of the phrase "Common Consent" at LDS.org returned the following page:

Common Consent

That page, in turn, refers to these scriptures in the D&C:

• No person is to be ordained without the vote of the Church:D&C 20:65–66;
• All things are to be done by common consent:D&C 26:2; ( D&C 28:13; )
• Let all things be done by united consent:D&C 104:21;

[Traveler]

We are all governed by G-d according to covenant. The law of common consent is a covenant by which we are both governed and participate in governing. The simple understanding is that those that are Celestial will consent to Celestial law and so on.

Beyond this we can make the concepts as complex or as simple as we like but in the end we will only receive what we will receive. Some time ago on this site I posted what I believe that there are 5 great pillars that define the relationship between G-d and man. #5 was that G-d will not provide to any man without their consent. As I recall there were some quite unsettled by this thought but I believe it is an eternal principle that governs how G-d deals with his children.

The Traveler

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Does the Law of Consent mean that if the president receives a revelation that homosexual unions shall be known as a binding marriage and can be sealed in the Temple, the Quorum votes yes on it and the majority of the faithful agree, then homosexual marriages are recognized by the LDS church?

[Anddenex]

To ponder this type of question would be unprofitable because this type of revelation wouldn't be received.

The spirit of revelation and prophecy speaks truth: things are they were, things as they really are now, and things as they will always be.

Homosexual marriage is a contradiction to God's laws and love; thus, the LDS Church wouldn't need to worry about this being recognized.

We also have promise that the Church will not be removed from this earth anymore, nor will the Lord allow it to fall into any form of apostasy. Groups may splinter off, but the main root and branch will remain true to God's laws.

The key to the revelation received is truth, if the Church could receive any type of revelation, then promote it, the Church would not be true.

[selek]

With respect, Anddenex, I believe that what you just offered is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

In point of fact, God will not step on our agency. We, as Latter-day Saints, are every bit as free to embrace sin and iniquity as any other group of sinners.

While we would automagically forfeit our birthright, our heritage, and our eternal potential in doing so, we do have that option.

While you are correct that no such revelation would be forthcoming from God, we are also warned explicity that unless we are vigilant, even the elect can be deceived.

Thus, it is possible that the voice of the LDS people could embrace sin as per DeusCaritasEst's rather implausible hypothetical.

As you point out, such an endorsement would not change God's law and would represent a blatant disobedience and apostacy, but it does remain possible.

That the Church shall not be taken from the Earth, and that the "root and branch" shall remain strong does not automagically mean that the majority of Saints shall remain true to their covenants.

As witnessed on this board and many others, self-professing Latter-day Saints already embrace all sorts of politically correct- and politically expedient notions that fly in the face revealed truth and the teachings of the Church.

As a result, we must be watchful, and guard the truth jealously.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Anddenex: To ponder this type of question would be unprofitable because this type of revelation wouldn't be received.

How do you know?

The spirit of revelation and prophecy speaks truth: things are they were, things as they really are now, and things as they will always be.

According to Anatess, this type of revelation would only be opening marriage to those worthy and not a removal of a past restriction.

Homosexual marriage is a contradiction to God's laws and love; thus, the LDS Church wouldn't need to worry about this being recognized.

I agree that this type of union is a contradiction to God's definition of marriag, disagree that the LDS don't need to worry about the LDS Church recognizing homosexual unions as marriage.

We also have promise that the Church will not be removed from this earth anymore, nor will the Lord allow it to fall into any form of apostasy. Groups may splinter off, but the main root and branch will remain true to God's laws.

Christ already made that promise, didn't seem to stop the "Great Apostacy". Who promised it this time?

[Anddenex]

With respect, Anddenex, I believe that what you just offered is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

That the Church shall not be taken from the Earth, and that the "root and branch" shall remain strong does not automagically mean that the majority of Saints shall remain true to their covenants.

Agreed. I don't believe my post mentioned anything different. The point I was seeking to make is exactly the point you mentioned, the root and branch will remain strong and will not teach any doctrine contrary to God's will.

This does not mean that individuals will be immune to individual apostasy. The Church itself, the prophet will not lead us astray. As the Lord says, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, otherwise we may not earn the prize.

[Anddenex]

How do you know?

The same way Peter new Jesus was the Christ. The Father has revealed it to me through the power of his Holy Spirit.

I know the same way Jesus is the Christ, by the power of his Holy Spirit.

According to Anatess, this type of revelation would only be opening marriage to those worthy and not a removal of a past restriction.

I am pretty sure you are wresting Anatess's words. This would be better said, according to your interpretation of Anatess's words would this be so.

Are you able to provide any scripture regarding Homosexual marriage to back up your claim regarding Anatess's feelings and thoughts?

I would encourage you to read Anatess's words again, and you will easily notice -- if you have ears to hear and eyes to see, the example she provides and the interpretation you give to Anatess's words are not the same; however, Anatess is usually pretty quick to correct other people when they have misinterpreted her meaning.

I agree that this type of union is a contradiction to God's definition of marriag, disagree that the LDS don't need to worry about the LDS Church recognizing homosexual unions as marriage.

You are welcome to disagree; albeit short sighted, but you are welcome to disagree.

Christ already made that promise, didn't seem to stop the "Great Apostacy". Who promised it this time?

Christ through every prophet in this last dispensation, beginning with Joseph Smith on down to President Thomas S. Monson.

I understand you believe Christ made this promise, however we respectfully disagree with your understanding of scriptures.

Either the 'Great Apostasy" occurred or it did not. Truth in the end will reveal itself.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

The same way Peter new Jesus was the Christ. The Father has revealed it to me through the power of his Holy Spirit.

I know the same way Jesus is the Christ, by the power of his Holy Spirit.

So you know for certain what early second and third century Christians were unable to defend and believe? What happened that the Church did not survive then that it could survive now?

[selek]

DCE, you need to put the "quote" tags around other people's comments rather than your own, otherwise they do not carry over correctly, and makes it harder to respond to you.

How do you know?

As has been pointed out already, homosexual marriage is contrary to God's law. That bedrock principle is not only eternal, but has stood up to several thousand years of human corruption.

It is only in the last decade or two that any "mainstream" organization has begun pretending that God is "okay" with this particular abomination.

According to Anatess, this type of revelation would only be opening marriage to those worthy and not a removal of a past restriction.

I doubt Anatess would agree with this misrepresentation of her words.

As she pointed out, there is ample historical, doctrinal, and scriptural precedent for the Lord dispensing or withholding the Priesthood as he sees fit.

There is NO historical, doctrinal, and scriptural precedent endorsing sodomite unions. They are explicitly condemned in Scripture.

Whereas extending the priesthood as God sees fit is well within his established precedent and character, embracing Sodomite unions would require that God alter his fundamental moral law and embrace that which he has explicitly condemned as immorality.

As the Scriptures are replete with admonitions that God cannot tolerate or "redefine" sin, this is a logical impossibility.

I agree that this type of union is a contradiction to God's definition of marriag, disagree that the LDS don't need to worry about the LDS Church recognizing homosexual unions as marriage.

As with so much else in our lives, this is a matter of faith, as Anddenex and I sorted out above.

Christ already made that promise, didn't seem to stop the "Great Apostacy". Who promised it this time?

Call For References, please.

I recall scripture that promises that the armies of Hell will not prevail against the Church, but I don't recall anything explicitly stating that a general apostacy was not possible.

[Anddenex]

So you know for certain what early second and third century Christians were unable to defend and believe? What happened that the Church did not survive then that it could survive now?

Indeed. This is the last dispensation of the fullness of times. The Church will remain until Christ returns.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Indeed. This is the last dispensation of the fullness of times. The Church will remain until Christ returns.

Gal 4:4-5

4)But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

5)to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.

Which 'fullness of times' are you referring to?

[selek]

So you know for certain what early second and third century Christians were unable to defend and believe?

Could you be a bit more specific here? What is it that you expect us to defend, exactly?

What happened that the Church did not survive then that it could survive now?

Without engaging in any presentism fallacies, let's consider just the basics:

1) Widespread illiteracy. Few people in the ancient world could read or write and thus had to rely on a small cadre of scholars or upon oral traditions to "tell them" what was in the recorded Scripture.

Thus it would take only a tiny handful of "bad actors", (well-intentioned or not) to corrupt or simply "lose" the pure teachings of Christ.

2) Priesthood authority concentrated in the hands of only a few. This is problematic on a number of levels. First and foremost is the fact that with the exception of Matthias (and Stephen?), the apostolic organization failed to sustain itself, turning instead to Bishops to serve as Church leaders.

According to LDS understanding, the true Priesthood authority was lost with the Apostles, and men were left to wrest for the truth without the priesthood keys- a recipe for error, opinion, and pride to creep into the organization.

Unlike the earlier organization, the apostolic organization in the current dispensation is explicitly and lawfully (authorized by Christ himself to be) self-sustaining.

Second, the apostles in question were widely separated and thus isolated in their ministries. This, too, made "error-checking" and correction problematic, at best.

With the advent of "modern" communications available even in the Church's first century, coupled with near-universal literacy, and the near-universal access to the Scriptures they afford, it is much easier to lay hands on the "pure fruit" than it would have been in the First through Fourth centuries (which is where most folks seem to believe the trouble began).

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

DCE, you need to put the "quote" tags around other people's comments rather than your own, otherwise they do not carry over correctly, and makes it harder to respond to you.

Thanks, been working on it.

I doubt Anatess would agree with this misrepresentation of her words.

As she pointed out, there is ample historical, doctrinal, and scriptural precedent for the Lord dispensing or withholding the Priesthood as he sees fit.

There is NO historical, doctrinal, and scriptural precedent endorsing sodomite unions. They are explicitly condemned in Scripture.

Whereas extending the priesthood as God sees fit is well within his established precedent and character, embracing Sodomite unions would require that God alter his fundamental moral law and embrace that which he has explicitly condemned as immorality.

As the Scriptures are replete with admonitions that God cannot tolerate or "redefine" sin, this is a logical impossibility.

What about divorce? Moses allowed it, Jesus condemned it, most churches allow it...

Call For References, please.

I recall scripture that promises that the armies of Hell will not prevail against the Church, but I don't recall anything explicitly stating that a general apostacy was not possible.

And what would the armies of Hell prevailing over the Church entail?

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Could you be a bit more specific here? What is it that you expect us to defend, exactly?

Without engaging in any presentism fallacies, let's consider just the basics:

1) Widespread illiteracy. Few people in the ancient world could read or write and thus had to rely on a small cadre of scholars or upon oral traditions to "tell them" what was in the recorded Scripture.

Thus it would take only a tiny handful of "bad actors", (well-intentioned or not) to corrupt or simply "lose" the pure teachings of Christ.

2) Priesthood authority concentrated in the hands of only a few. This is problematic on a number of levels. First and foremost is the fact that with the exception of Matthias (and Stephen?), the apostolic organization failed to sustain itself, turning instead to Bishops to serve as Church leaders.

According to LDS understanding, the true Priesthood authority was lost with the Apostles, and men were left to wrest for the truth without the priesthood keys- a recipe for error, opinion, and pride to creep into the organization.

Unlike the earlier organization, the apostolic organization in the current dispensation is explicitly and lawfully (authorized by Christ himself to be) self-sustaining.

Were not the Apostles commissioned by Christ with the keys of the kingdom and to make disciples? The Apostle Thomas is credited with spreading the Church to India, were none of the other Apostles capable of spreading the Gospel and ordaining faithful people to whom they could leave in charge of small groups of people while they themselves went elsewhere to spread the Faith. Does not St. Paul write to these faithful groups commending them for their faith?

Second, the apostles in question were widely separated and thus isolated in their ministries. This, too, made "error-checking" and correction problematic, at best.

With the advent of "modern" communications available even in the Church's first century, coupled with near-universal literacy, and the near-universal access to the Scriptures they afford, it is much easier to lay hands on the "pure fruit" than it would have been in the First through Fourth centuries (which is where most folks seem to believe the trouble began).

Are you saying that because early Christians did not have the printing press nor the Internet, God's Word could not be accurately communicated? I find this hard to believe considering that Jews at the time of Christ had the entire Psalms memmorized and taught their children through "oral-tradition". Plus, wouldn't that discredit the whole of Scripture since it was transmitted orally before it was first written into individual books or letters and then finally in the 4th century compiled into one collection?

[selek]

What about divorce? Moses allowed it, Jesus condemned it, most churches allow it...

Divorce

Matthew 19

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a awriting of bdivorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the ahardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your bwives: but from the beginning it was not so.

In other words, because of the disobedience and stubbornness of the people, Moses permitted it, exactly as is done today.

That it is permitted/tolerated does not make it right- exactly as Christ says.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for afornication, and shall marry another, committeth badultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 ¶His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

As I understand (and as the Church teaches), verses 10 and 11 are referring specifically to marriage covenants- and the promises we make upon entering into those covenants.

Divorce within the Church is tolerated- but it is not endorsed, recommended, or sanctioned by any stretch of the imagination.

Except in the most extreme cases of abuse, neglect, or adultery, LDS ecclesiastical leaders counsel people to remain true to their marriage covenants, but the reality is that it is not always possible.

And what would the armies of Hell prevailing over the Church entail?

The destruction of the Church, a universal- and absolute apostacy in which men cease even to search for God and his truth, the thwarting of God's eternal plan, and the damnation of all mankind.

Or prime-time television, take your pick.

[selek]

Were not the Apostles commissioned by Christ with the keys of the kingdom and to make disciples?

The calling of an Apostle is done through revelation. Other than Stephen and Matthias, there is no evidence that any other apostles WERE called.

This strongly suggests (but does not prove) that that authority ended with the appointment of those two men.

The Apostle Thomas is credited with spreading the Church to India, were none of the other Apostles capable of spreading the Gospel and ordaining faithful people to whom they could leave in charge of small groups of people while they themselves went elsewhere to spread the Faith. Does not St. Paul write to these faithful groups commending them for their faith?

Spreading the Gospel, yes. Establishing congregations of the faithful, certainly.

Calling new apostles? The record indicates that this did not happen. Rather than dispute this, the Catholic Church argues that the Apostles were no longer needed, their mission was essentially "done", and that what work remained could be safely handed off to the Bishops.

The problem is that there is no first-hand (or even second-hand) historical or scriptural evidence to support this claim, and moreover, the Bishops and their successors have a vested interest in perpetuating that idea.

Your argument about St. Paul and his epistles cuts both ways: there as just as many letters in the canon condemning the creeping error and false doctrine entering into the Church as there are praising people for their faithfulness.

Are you saying that because early Christians did not have the printing press nor the Internet, God's Word could not be accurately communicated? No- I am saying that it makes errors and ommissions more likely, and deliberate corruption easier to introduce.

I find this hard to believe considering that Jews at the time of Christ had the entire Psalms memmorized and taught their children through "oral-tradition".

You need to study the Jewish canon and the Old Testament in greater detail. There are vast stretches of both the Jewish canon and the Old Testament derived from it that are credibly believed to be acts of historical revision, political propaganda, and even blatant invention.

Plus, wouldn't that discredit the whole of Scripture since it was transmitted orally before it was first written into individual books or letters and then finally in the 4th century compiled into one collection?

As as noted in the other thread, we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

We do not believe in Sola Scriptura or in the infallbility of the current Scriptural canon- and neither idea exists within that canon.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Divorce

Matthew 19

In other words, because of the disobedience and stubbornness of the people, Moses permitted it, exactly as is done today.

That it is permitted/tolerated does not make it right- exactly as Christ says.

This sounds to me that it's okay to do what isn't right as long as you have a good excuse.

The destruction of the Church, a universal- and absolute apostacy in which men cease even to search for God and his truth, the thwarting of God's eternal plan, and the damnation of all mankind.

And the difference between this and the "Great Apostacy" is....? Wouldn't the removal of God's Grace be what is needed for man to stop searching? Is it not God who first searches for us?

Or prime-time television, take your pick.

teehee

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

The calling of an Apostle is done through revelation. Other than Stephen and Matthias, there is no evidence that any other apostles WERE called.

This strongly suggests (but does not prove) that that authority ended with the appointment of those two men.

What about Luke?

The problem is that there is no first-hand (or even second-hand) historical or scriptural evidence to support this claim, and moreover, the Bishops and their successors have a vested interest in perpetuating that idea.

What about Josephus?

Your argument about St. Paul and his epistles cuts both ways: there as just as many letters in the canon condemning the creeping error and false doctrine entering into the Church as there are praising people for their faithfulness.

Condemnation does not necessarily spell apostacy.