Conference tecrus::mormonism

Hi Tamara,

The principle of Common Consent was revealed by the Lord to Joseph Smith.

    And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by
    much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith.
    Amen.  (D & C 26:2)

    The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote
    of the church [ward] to which they belong, or from the conferences.

    No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where 
    there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the
    vote of that church; (D & C 20:63,65)

    And now, I give unto the church in these parts a commandment, that
    certain men among them shall be appointed, and they shall be appointed
    by the voice of the church; (D & C 38:34)

There are a few other references given in the Index to the D & C.

You expressed concerns about the necessity of this principle.  I would like
to address that point for a moment.  I think, Tamara, that the principle of
Common Consent is based on the principle of free agency.  The Lord has given
us freedom of choice, and He will not violate that principle.  He commands us,
but He does not force us to follow those commandments; we have our freedom to
choose to do so or not.  Similarly, He calls leaders to be Stewards over us,
but He does not force us to accept them as our leaders; we have our freedom to
accept them or not.  When I raise my hand to vote on something that is presented
from the pulpit, I am not voting whether or not that something is from God.
I am only indicating whether I will agree to abide by it or not.

Allen

Hi Tamara,

You have presented an interesting example for us to discuss.
    
You have hypothesized a situation in which a General Authority felt 
inspired of God to call an adulterer as a Church leader, and you have
asked several questions.  

>    	o Did God call Joe to this position with the knowledge of his
>          immoral character?
>    
>          It's obvious that the Church leaders were not aware of it.

I think, Tamara, that you and I will agree that it is very unlikely that God
would call such a man to be Stake President (I said very unlikely rather
than impossible because I don't want to be guilty of saying in an
absolute sense what God would do--He could call such a man if He wanted
to, but I don't think it is likely to happen).


>    	o Now that the Church leaders know, do they stick with the
>          *inspired* calling - allowing an immoral man to lead the people?
>    
>    	o Or do they say, "Well, we didn't have all the facts.  Let's
>          reevaluate this."
    
Not being a General Authority and never having served in a Stake Presidency,
I can only guess as to what the General Authority would do.  I think he would
withdraw the call to the man.  

>    	  With this approach, if they decide that it's not in the best
>          interests of the Church, they will call a new person to the
>          position, thus ignoring the call made by God.
    
I'm concerned, Tamara, because of two things you said.  You spoke of the
calling of Joe as being an inspired calling, and you spoke of the General
Authority ignoring the call made by God.  I'm concerned, Tamara, because
you have assumed in your thinking that the call was inspired and the GA
ignored God.  I've gotten the impression that you assumed those two points
in order to create a situation in which the LDS church looks bad.  I don't
know if you did that intentionally or not, but that is the way it came
across to me.

General Authorities are humble and spiritual men, and I'm sure they try and
be in tune with God and follow His will as they make decisions.  However,
they have cautioned us (even in this last conference) that they are not
infallible.  Please understand, Tamara, that General Authorities, Stake
Presidents, Bishops, Quorum Presidents, Relief Society Presidents, and
other church officials can and do make mistakes.  Only Jesus Christ was
perfect, and all Church leaders make mistakes!  If the situation you
described did happen, I would conclude in my mind that the General Authority
had erred, and I would be thankful that God had instituted the principle
of Common Consent as a check-and-balance on the lay ministry of imperfect
people that He has established in His church.

>    I realize that this may be an extreme example - but I know of several
>    instances where similar situations have happened.  It's just that
>    it occurred at a 'lower' level - 'lesser' sin, 'lesser' calling,
>    'lesser' impact to the Church, etc.
    
Yes, your example is extreme, but that is OK, because the idea is the
same whether Church officials error in serious or minor decisions.  I'm
not saying the likelihood is the same, but the principle of imperfect men
making mistakes is the same.  Tamara, you seem to have adopted the attitude
that is common with non-LDS, that Apostles and prophets can not error, i.e.
they have to be perfect in performing their callings.  I think that is a
very unrealistic attitude, because only Jesus was perfect, and we can be
assured that all other people have sinned.  I expect my Church leaders to
make mistakes, and when they do I'm not bothered by it at all, because I
recognize it as a sign of their mortality.  I've served in Bishoprics and
Priesthood quorums, and I certainly know that I made many mistakes while
performing my priesthood duties.  If you would like to diverge off on a
discussion of whether LDS Apostles and prophets can make mistakes and if
so what does that mean, you are invited to either create a new note or
use note 286 or 211.  Mistakes made by Jeremiah is being discussed in
note 100.

Allen

    I think the Holy Bible also speaks to the issue of common consent. For
    example, consider the following passage:
         
         And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and
         all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and
         said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. (Exodus
         24:3)
    
    This corresponds to what I understand the LDS view of the principal
    of common consent.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

I've been in a situation where a person was called and found later to be
unworthy.  The spiritual confirmation was there that the calling should be
made.  What were the results?  The results were that this person was released
and continued on a path to recovery from long-dormant difficulties.  Had the
calling not been made, the recovery process may have been delayed at a 
critical time in this person's life.

When I prepared for my mission, I got all kinds of spiritual confirmation that
I should prepare for a mission.  I did *not* get confirmation that I would
actually serve that mission or that I would even return alive.  I think we
often confuse the confirmation that a call should be made with the confirmation
that a calling will be successful or even accepted.  Sometimes leaders get
some confirmation that someone is unworthy, but not always.  They are also
required to do their homework, including study, prayer, fasting and so forth.
Likewise, those who are interviewed for callings need to be honest with 
themselves as well as others.  Sometimes it seems to me that a calling is one
way for the Lord to help us flush out our inadequacies.

Steve

    Re: Note 290.4 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN

    Hi Steve,
    
>Sometimes it seems to me that a calling is one
>way for the Lord to help us flush out our inadequacies.

    This brings to mind a favorite verse of mine:
         
         And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I
         give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is
         sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me for if
         they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will
         I make weak things become strong unto them. (Ether 12:27)
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich 

    Hello again . . .
    
    Tonight is the first time I've had a chance to read the conference
    since Saturday.  I have been in the process of moving to another
    part of town . . . fun, fun!
    
    I am going from memory on what some of the replies to this note
    say.  I apologize (in advance) for any misinterpretations on my part. 
    
    Regarding replies 1 and 2 by Allen:
    
    	o The Law of Common Consent is a latter-day law - a law revealed
    	  to the Church in latter-day scriptures, i.e. the D&C.  So
   	  a person's acceptance of this Law is based upon their acceptance
    	  of latter-day scripture (I know--that's another topic ;^) ).
    
    	o My example was extreme and the hypothetical situation proposed
    	  was strictly hypothetical.  My intent was to create one example
    	  that addressed my various concerns.  I sincerely apologize
    	  if it sounded like I was trying to trap the LDS folks.
    
    	o I can appreciate the practice of the Law as a form of checks
    	  and balances.                                  
    
    	o Allen, you clarified for me what the raising of the hand
    	  signified.  You agree to abide by the law/doctrine/principle
    	  being presented.  
    
    	  I guess my underlying concern is the *source* of the
    	  law/doctrine/principle and the *source* of the calling.
    	  If the source is God, is this Law of Common Consent practiced
    	  to give the LDS folks an opportunity to make a public
    	  commitment to whatever is being presented?  	
    
    Rich, your Biblical reference is an example of this "law" in practice
    during Moses' time.  However,  why did these people behave like
    this?  Were they obeying one of God's laws (like the Law of Common
    Consent) or was this a one-time incident?  The answer to this 
    question is probably not important.  Please note that one of the 
    intents of my initial note was to find out if this Law was 
    Biblically-based.  From what I've gathered, it is not.
    
    Regards,
    Tamara

Actually, if I understand correctly, the concept of a vote to select Church
leadership has some precedence in the Bible, if I understand Acts 1:21-26.
The use of lots seemed to be a way to add another factor in the choice, though
it is not clear that this practice was regarded as inspired (Proverbs 16:33).
To me, it seems that here the practice was done to help select between two
good choices.  What is critical is that they arrived at a consensus that the 
next apostle was to be one of two men.  Further indication of a selection 
process and the practice of common consent in the Church is implied in 
Acts 15:22-25.  

Steve

Re:  .7  by MIZZOU::SHERMAN 

>Actually, if I understand correctly, the concept of a vote to select Church
>leadership has some precedence in the Bible, if I understand Acts 1:21-26.
                                                   
>What is critical is that they arrived at a consensus that the 
>next apostle was to be one of two men.  Further indication of a selection 
>process and the practice of common consent in the Church is implied in 
>Acts 15:22-25.  

I read the noted passages.  And yes, the practice outlined
in Acts is similar to the practice used in the LDS Church today.  However,
just because this process was used in this incident - did that make it a
law?  If so, was this practice a result of a previously established law
or did a law result from this practice?  

I still do not believe that this law is Biblically-supported.  Perhaps
this is one of those "we'll just have to agree to disagree" issues.  Therefore,
unless a specific response is requested from me, I will refrain from pursuing 
this issue further.

Regards,
Tamara

Re:  .7  by MIZZOU::SHERMAN 

>Actually, if I understand correctly, the concept of a vote to select Church
>leadership has some precedence in the Bible, if I understand Acts 1:21-26.
                                                   
>What is critical is that they arrived at a consensus that the 
>next apostle was to be one of two men.  Further indication of a selection 
>process and the practice of common consent in the Church is implied in 
>Acts 15:22-25.  

    Tamara has made a good point. I would like to add that in the instance
    of the selection of a new apostle, they actually actually left the 
    final decision up to God (by casting lots) and not to a vote. In Acts
    15, the suggestion that common consent was used to decide to send two
    men to help out another group of believers is certainly valid, but that
    does not add any weight to the idea of using "common consent" to
    determine new revelation for the entire church.
    
    That's all,
    
    Ed

The reason that I provide the references is to indicate that the practice was
probably not uncommon in the original Church as described in the Bible.  It is 
not itself the commandment or guideline that the original Church used.  If 
anything, this indicates that they were operating under guidelines that are not
found in the Bible.  This would, of course, substantiate the claim that some
information about the original Church was lost over the centuries.


Steve

re: .9

I don't personally feel that the casting of lots was leaving the final decision
up to God, but maybe the felt it was.  I don't know.  My point was that common
consent played a role at least to the reduction of the decision to two final
choices.

Steve

    Re: Note 290.9 by CASPRO::PRESTON

>   but that
>   does not add any weight to the idea of using "common consent" to
>   determine new revelation for the entire church.
    
    The notion that common consent is used to "determine new revelation" is
    not quite right. New revelation is not determined this way. It is
    determined by revelation from the Lord to his prophets. Common consent
    is merely the Lord's way of asking the people if they agree to be bound
    by such a revelation. If they do agree, and then do not abide by it,
    they they have God to account to for their failure to abide by their
    agreement. If they don't agree to be bound by it, then they are
    rejecting the word of God, which they have their free agency to do, but
    which, if they do, they cannot expect to receive the blessings that
    come from accepting the word of God. 
    
    In the case of sustaining a new leader by common consent, it is the
    Lord's way of asking the people if they will support and sustain the
    leader that He has called through revelation. It is not used to "elect"
    leaders. There no such concept of electing leaders in the LDS church.
    They are called by revelation, then the people are asked if they will
    sustain the leader. 
    
    Though I will agree that the Bible alone is not definitive on this
    practice as a law unto the church, I do believe there are precedents of
    the practice in the Holy Bible. Latter-day revelation certainly does
    make it a law unto the LDS church. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

Paul made some comments in note 236 about ward members not accepting a decision
of their Stake President.  I've been thinking about that and want to comment
on it, but I've moved to this note because my comments concern the principle
of common consent more than pent up feelings as discussed in note 236.

================================================================================
Note 236.19                 Mormon Culture & Heritage                   19 of 22
RHODES::RONDINA                                      40 lines  27-MAR-1991 09:28
                       -< Here are some more examples. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Years ago we met in a building with another ward.  We were the new
    ward, having split from them.  For years the old ward got the first
    choice on meetings times and always chose a morning schedule.  WE
    "got stuck" for years with meeting for 3 hours in the afternoon.
     Finally they agreed they would swap with us in the new year.  Came
    the new year, they did not want to swap.  Again, we were asked/told
    by the Stake President we would meet in the afternoon.
    
    We said  "No Way!"  

================================================================================
    
I really wonder sometimes if our Priesthood leaders comprehend the impact
their decisions have on our lives.  They are sincere men who are trying to
learn the will of the Lord and to do it.  They have great love for us and
are concerned about our welfare.  I don't question their sincerity and concern
and love for us.  But the fact remains that they are human, we are human,
neither they nor us are fully in tune with the Lord (I'm speaking in general
terms not in judgment of anyone).  Their decisions have great impact in our
lives, and I wonder how well they comprehend this.  For example, the decision
Paul spoke of to have one ward have to be on an afternoon schedule for several
years.  An afternoon schedule is difficult for young children, because it
interrupts their nap schedule that they have during the week.  I wonder why
a Stake President would force one ward to stick with an afternoon schedule
for several years rather than have the two wards share the burden.

I think my concern is more on how Priesthood leaders implement their decisions
than on whether they are inspired in making them.  If the Stake President had
a good reason for keeping one ward on the afternoon schedule, it would have
been nice if he would have called a ward conference, explained the situation,
and asked the members if they would support him in his decision (yea, common
consent is still part of the Gospel...).  He apparently didn't do that, and
the ward members probably felt they were being discriminated against, and
eventually their frustration exploded.

A few years ago, the two wards in my building were meeting at 9 am and 1 pm.
Then a change was made to meet at 9 am and 11:30 am.  This change really
complicated things because it overlapped the two wards.  This meant that
the first ward no longer had empty rooms available after it was finished
(before there was 1 hour between the two schedules, a great time for empty
rooms for meetings).  It meant that the second ward no longer had empty
rooms before its schedule.  The only place I could find as Scoutmaster to
meet with a scout was in the custodians closet (with the door open of course
so nobody would think I was abusing the boy).  I don't remember any attempt
of my Bishop to sample the feelings of my ward members about a proposed
change.  The two Bishops made their decision and gave it to us, take it or
leave it.  Both Bishops are humble, sweet men, and I believe they were
inspired in their decision, but I wish they hadn't been so autocratic in
implementing it.  We members have feelings and need to be part of the decision
making process.  

I guess I'm getting cranky in my old age, but it seems to me the Church is
becoming "institutionalized" as the years go by.  Priesthood leaders seem to
act as if they were corporate managers in a highly centralized organization.
They make decisions and pass them down to subordinates for implementation.
In doing this, it seems to be they are bypassing the spirit of the of common
consent.  Rather than doing all things by common consent, as the D&C states,
they are doing things by virtue of their office and expect us to obediently
follow.  Maybe I'm different than most LDS, but I think the law of common
consent requires that they take their decisions to us to see if we agree to
be bound by those decisions, and if we don't agree then they go back to the
drawing board so to speak.  As Rich Kotter pointed out in the previous reply,
if we don't agree then we are responsible to the Lord for that, but the 
Priesthood Leader still needs to lead with kindness and love rather than by
authority of his office--either persuading us to change our decision or
by changing his decision to be something we will accept.  There is a scriptural
pattern in this in that there were times when Israel refused to follow the
Lord and he gave them a substitute, lower, law.


I think that all major decisions made in the ward should be taken to the
members for acceptance, but I don't see this happening very often, and when
it does the Priesthood leaders usually want an immediate vote rather than
giving us a week or so to go home and discuss it in our families.  The
Priesthood leaders seem to think that our yearly sustaining of them is
sufficient use of our common consent.

Allen

    An interesting note, Allen.  What I think you are saying is that
    the Law of Common Consent is not being fully used.  By that I mean
    that since the "culture" does not tolerate criticism, dissent, or
    negative feedback of or to our leaders, then Common Consent is really
    an empty practice.  Is that what you mean?  
    
    I like your idea of having leaders present their decisions to us,
    then allowing a week for us to discuss, mull it over.  Then ask
    for the vote.  Interesting.
                      
    I have been in wards where some one(s) have not agreed with the
    decisions proposals.
    
    Here's one for you.  How about our "voting" on the 3 hour block?
    This schedule was instituted in 1975 as a result of the "oil crisis",
    Now it is almost sacro-sanct, almost a tradition not to be tampered
    with.
    
    I guess I am like you.  Maybe it's just my age/stage of development
    in which I am looking to the Church with different expectations.
    
    Paul 

>    An interesting note, Allen.  What I think you are saying is that
>    the Law of Common Consent is not being fully used.  By that I mean
>    that since the "culture" does not tolerate criticism, dissent, or
>    negative feedback of or to our leaders, then Common Consent is really
>    an empty practice.  Is that what you mean?  
    
The Lord said that all things should be done by common consent, but he didn't
elaborate on the details.  Thus, there is a lot of room for interpretation
and implementation.  We have to consider the fact that different leaders have
different personalities; some are more authoritative than others; some are
more open to feedback from their members.

I wouldn't say the law of common consent is an empty practice, because we
do exercise it with a yearly sustaining of our leaders, and we do exercise
it for changes in callings, priesthood ordinations, etc.  I think that what
I'm saying is that it isn't being used to the extent that I think it should
be.  Since the Lord gave a general law, its up to each leader to decide 
exactly how it will be implemented, and that opens the way for variations
to exist across the church.  Since I'm a person who doesn't like central
organizations telling me what to do, I favor as much local involvement as
possible.  I do strongly believe, human nature being what it is, that those
Priesthood leaders who choose to make autocratic decisions will reap a harvest
of unhappy members, regardless of the fact that the members sustained the
leaders in a yearly meeting.  In a way, its "not what I say but what I do".
The yearly sustaining doesn't have much meaning if the leaders ignore the
feelings of the members and make autocratic decisions.  As Rich pointed out
three replies back, common consent gives us the opportunity to publicly
declare our willingness or not to follow our leaders.  We humans need that
opportunity to commit ourselves, and I think we need it on all important
decisions not just on a yearly sustaining of our leaders.

>    I like your idea of having leaders present their decisions to us,
>    then allowing a week for us to discuss, mull it over.  Then ask
>    for the vote.  Interesting.
                      
While living in Phoenix, our Stake President proposed the building of a new
Stake Center.  Details were given as to why a new building was given, and then
it was put to a vote via common consent.  We had no time to think it over,
look at the impact on our budget, etc.  Most importantly, we didn't have time
to go home and fast and pray about our willingness to support our Stake
President.  It was if the Stake President expected an automatic acceptance of
his idea and automatic obedience and loyalty.  I guess the residents of
the City of Enoch are that much in tune with the Lord and that faithful, but
we mortals still have a long way to go....

    
>    Here's one for you.  How about our "voting" on the 3 hour block?
>    This schedule was instituted in 1975 as a result of the "oil crisis",
>    Now it is almost sacro-sanct, almost a tradition not to be tampered
>    with.
    
Hmmmm....  My memory isn't the greatest, but I don't remember the change to
the 3-hour block being presented as a way to save fuel.  I remember it being
a way to give more time back to the families.  Maybe it was both....
I also don't remember if we were asked to sustain the change, and if so 
whether we were given time between the announcement and the vote.  If the
announcement came out via the Church magazines or Church News, then there
would have been time before we assembled in a meeting to vote our willingness
to live the new schedule.  Anyone remember that change in more detail?

Allen

	While I don't remember the details, I know th change to the
	three-hour meeting schedule happened after I joined the church
	in 1979.  I do recall some talk of helping ease financial and
	time constraints of members living some distance from the ward
	meetinghouse.  For example, one family in our ward lives almost
	50 miles away from the building.  If we had the split schedule
	they would be on the road for 200 miles each Sunday (if they came).
	Considering it would be mostly back roads, it would be nearly
	4 hours on the road each Sunday.

	From the March 1980 issue of the Ensign, pages 73-78


		The Church consolidated meeting schedule started as a
	Churchwide program on 2 March 1980 in the United States and 
	Canada, and 4 May 1980 outside the United States and Canada.


	The purpose of the consolidated meeting schedule is to -

	1.  Reemphasize personal and family responsibility for learning,
	    living, and teaching the gospel.

	2.  Allow Church members more time for performing gospel study, 
	    for service to others, and for meaningful activities.  


	The major objectives of the new schedule are to -

	1. Help every Latter-day Saint home become a place where family 
	   members love to be, where they can enrich their lives and find
	   mutual love, support, appreciation, and encouragement.

	2. Emphasize home-centered Sabbath activities.

	3. Make more flexible a weekday activity program for all members.

	4. Reduce the amount of travel by Church members and provide
	   opportunities for family members to travel together and 
	   participate in Church activities.

	5. Conserve energy resources and reduce the nonessential costs
	   required for members to participate in Church activities."


	"Local leaders should also use their own initiative to solve specific
	local problems.  Leaders have the responsibility to follow the 
	guidelines for consolidated meeting provided, but they should rely
	on inspiration to find ways of making the schedule work successfully
	in their areas."

	***********************************************************************

	Common consent is given to the Church leaders of Prophet and Council
	of the Twelve to act as seers, prophets, and revelators.  The D&C
	specifically states that these leaders, i.e. the president of the 
	Church, are to give direction for the whole Church.  That is their
	stewardship.  As an individual member, there is no issue, at least
	to me, of common consent.  The direction the Lord wishes His Church
	to take on murder, abortion, homosexuality, ERA, etc. is given through
	His chosen prophet.  My agency and consent is through my testimony
	of that prophet.  If I reject that prophet, I reject God.

	I do NOT propose blind obedience in all things, but I do draw the 
	line as to where the *direction* comes from.  I feel no qualms about 
	questioning my bishop or stake president, but I must always consider 
	*why* I do so.  Is it my problem?  I can always confirm their council 
	through prayer, and it is my responsibility to this.  It is amazing
	how much better we can follow the brethren when we know the direction
	the Lord is going.

	The biggest problem I have with criticism at the lower levels is that
	it starts to pollute the soul and that contention starts to be
	directed toward the upper levels, and the next thing a person knows
	is that they are fighting God and wondering how they got there.
	If the March 1980 Ensign issue is available, look on page 79 about 
	the excommunication of Sonia Johnson.  Think about the statements
	attributed to Elder Lee and his excommunication.  Here we have the
	confrontation at the highest level of the Church.  Either this is
	the Lord's Church or it is not.  If it is, Jesus Christ himself is
	at the head and HE directs Church affairs through His *chosen*
	prophet.  The same can be said about bishops and stake presidents.
	Our task is to live so as to have the Holy Ghost as our companion
	to witness to us those things which are from God.  I like the idea
	of having some time to consider new directions from our leadership,
	but if they have already prayed and considered their actions, and
	through the inspiration of the keys they hold their position by,
	who am I to reject their stewardship.  Since not all is done under
	the direction from God as it should, we have common consent to insure
	that no person is put in a place of responsibility who has not
	successfully tried to reconcile all their past sins.  Otherwise, we
	should support those whom the Lord has called.

	Charles

    Charles, 
    
    You prompted another thought.  As an ex-Catholic, I fear that we,
    LDS, sometimes get very close to the doctrine of infallibility that
    Catholics practice.  Are our leaders infallible?  To answer this
    question, one has to distinquish between a practice and a principle.
    
    For instance, the 3 hour Sunday block is a practice, while the worship
    of the Lord, partaking of sacrament, etc., are principles.  The
    former is very open to change; the latter not because it has been asked
    of by the Lord.
    
    Our leaders are humans and, from time to time, speak from that humanity
    and make mistakes.  Detractors like to point to Brigham Young's
    statements all the time as examples of the fallibility of our leaders.
    
    Thus, it is a fine line between dissent and blind obedience.  I
    am ever grateful for the practice of having a presidency with
    counsellors at the head of our Church organizations so that all
    ideas receive proper scrutiny by more than one mind.  We have even
    extended that practice by having ward and stake councils to further
    review ideas before full implementation.
    
    The Law of Common Consent is an awesome responsibility for it also
    gives us the right to dissent, and have that dissenting opinion
    heard out.  I know for I myself have dissented in the past
    and have had my reasons receive a full hearing.  
    
    I think that the respect that is given to the principle of Free
    Agency is one of the things I love about the Church.  I always chuckle
    and bristle at those critics of the Church who say we are coerced
    by the Church to do things.  Statements like these show me how naive
    such critics are of the real situation in the Church.
    
    Paul
                                                              

FYI: In case anyone would like to discuss in a general way the differences
between practices and principles, I thought I'd mention that that is being
discussed in note 88.  If you would like to discuss practices/principles 
within the context of common concent, please continue to use this note.

	Paul,
		Yes, those are very good thoughts.  I got another one in
	reading your note.  We know our leaders are human and have faults.
	They do not always make the right decisions, and some are very
	hard headed if they do not follow all the council of God in fulfilling
	their callings.  My thought is going to an ultimate in stewardship
	thinking, but I wonder who benefits and who loses.

		If leader "A" with stewardship over others ("B-Z") comes to a 
	decision on a subject, what responsibilities do the two parties have.
	"A" has to present the decision for common consent and a sustaining
	vote.  If "D" does not think it the correct decision, then "D" can
	vote in dissent and present his views on the subject.  When heard
	out, "D" has no other responsibility.  "A" can either go with the
	original decision or change according to the information "D" presented.

		So far no one is hurt or otherwise in the "wrong."  ("wrong"
	could mean sinning or whatever term anyone wants to put on it.  My
	definition would be a situation which causes the person to fall away
	from the Lord, no matter how little it is.  Attitude of the person is
	more important than anything else because this is what is contained
	in the spirit and goes on to the next life.)  If "A" does not want to, 
	for whatever reason, change the original decision, then "D" is in the
	wrong if he continues to reject the decision.  If the decision "A" 
	goes with is really wrong, then "A" is wrong.

		The whole point I am trying to make is that obedience is more
	important than right or wrong.  The Lord has established an order to
	his kingdom, and we are expected to follow that order.  An example 
	would be a bishop.  I remember one conference talk that President 
	Kimble stated that if a bishop did not carry out his duties and 
	excommunicate people who should be excommunicated, then that bishop
	would bear the sins of the person.  Back to my example, if "A" is
	wrong, then "A" will be judged on that, but "D" will also be judged
	on whether "A" is followed or not.  The Lord has set "A" in that
	position and "D" is expected to follow that council.  Now, let us
	not go off on a tangent as to what length "D" should follow "A".  "D"
	also has the responsibility to know enough about the gospel to know
	what is right.  I remember the story of the leader who had a 
	"revelation" to take a second wife.  He did and was excommunicated.
	In any case, "D" will be more righteous by following, than by not 
	following, the decision from "A" whether the decision is right or
	wrong.

	Charles
	

>	If "A" does not want to, 
>	for whatever reason, change the original decision, then "D" is in the
>	wrong if he continues to reject the decision.  If the decision "A" 
>	goes with is really wrong, then "A" is wrong.
>
>		The whole point I am trying to make is that obedience is more
>	important than right or wrong.The Lord has established an order to
>	his kingdom

Hmmmm, I don't know Charles.  The Mormon Church is often accused of being a
cult, and I think that if we LDS follow our leaders regardless of their being
right or wrong, then the Church is coming close to being a cult.

>	I remember the story of the leader who had a 
>	"revelation" to take a second wife.  He did and was excommunicated.
>	In any case, "D" will be more righteous by following, than by not 
>	following, the decision from "A" whether the decision is right or
>	wrong.

Suppose, Charles, that that leader had taught those in his stewardship that
they should also take additional lives.  Sure, he is wrong, but does the
Lord really expect the people to follow him?  I don't think so.

I think that we should follow our leaders as long as they are right, but if
they are wrong, then we should not follow them.  The principle of Common
Consent is the key to this, and this is why I believe that principle should
be used with all major decisions in the Church, not just in a yearly
sustaining of our leaders.  Common Consent gives us the opportunity to
evaluate the decisions of our leaders.  If we disagree, then we have the
opportunity to tell them so.  That is, they are not to govern us by force
(putting us on guilt trips by telling us we disobey God if we disobey them is
one way of exercising force).  They are to govern us only by obtaining our
consent to be governed.  I think the Lord has set up Common Consent as a
check-and-balance on his leaders.  They govern us through prayer, faith,
humility, etc.  We are governed by giving our consent to be governed.  If we
feel that we can not be governed in a particular situation, then we withdraw
our consent, and the leaders no longer govern.  This requires that we come
together in dialog and counsel and solve the problem.  If we are willing to
give our consent even though we disagree with the leaders--fine.  If they
are willing to change their position such that they obtain our consent--fine.
But, if those one of those two conditions can't be met, then the problem
hasn't been solved, and the danger is that the leader will force his or her
position on us without our consent, and I think that leaders who do that
are guilty of exercising their stewardship in unrighteous dominion as
D&C 121 states.

Allen

>Hmmmm, I don't know Charles.  The Mormon Church is often accused of being a
>cult, and I think that if we LDS follow our leaders regardless of their being
>right or wrong, then the Church is coming close to being a cult.
>
>Suppose, Charles, that that leader had taught those in his stewardship that
>they should also take additional lives.  Sure, he is wrong, but does the
>Lord really expect the people to follow him?  I don't think so.
>
>I think that we should follow our leaders as long as they are right, but if
>they are wrong, then we should not follow them.  

	Let me reiterate :

	"Now, let us not go off on a tangent as to what length "D" should 
	follow "A".  "D" also has the responsibility to know enough about 
	the gospel to know what is right."

	I am sorry if I did not expand that statement enough for you Allen.

	**********************************************************************

	I think that your premise on what "common consent" consists of can
	lead one to think that if they do not agree with a leader then it is
	OK to withdraw support of that leader.

	Your statement that "we should follow our leaders as long as they are 
	right, but if they are wrong, then we should not follow them" is
	fraught with the snares of the devil (IMHO).  It is true ONLY as far
	as scriptural doctrine goes.  Just because we disagree with a decision
	does not mean we should follow your council.  It leads to rebellion
	against local leaders and progresses to church general authorities.

	I have no problems with your ideas on how leaders should present
	their ideas,i.e. not use force or coercion, but my whole premise
	is on how and what the "follower" attitude is toward the "leader."

	Even Joseph Smith had to be "coerced" by the Lord to present
	D&C 132 and it's concepts to the Church.  Joseph knew he was wrong
	and repented, but that was his stewardship problem.  Our problem
	down here at the "lower" levels is to accept the order the Lord has
	established in his Church.  That is our test.  We have to be able to
	follow before we can lead.  To be good followers, we have to know 
	and understand the gospel doctrine because that is how we can measure
	everything we are asked to do.

	A yearly sustaining of our leaders is all that is necessary to
	initiate common consent.  Each and every ounce of support we give
	those leaders sustains it.  I will not, as in your examples, follow
	any instruction that is against scriptural doctrine.  The concept
	is wrong to the "withdrawing support on those issues I disagree with."
	I can voice my opinions on those issues, but the Lord will hold me
	accountable for withdrawing support (again, the issues must not be
	against scriptural doctrine).

	Charles

>	I think that your premise on what "common consent" consists of can
>	lead one to think that if they do not agree with a leader then it is
>	OK to withdraw support of that leader.
>
>	Your statement that "we should follow our leaders as long as they are 
>	right, but if they are wrong, then we should not follow them" is
>	fraught with the snares of the devil (IMHO).  It is true ONLY as far
>	as scriptural doctrine goes.  Just because we disagree with a decision
>	does not mean we should follow your council.  It leads to rebellion
>	against local leaders and progresses to church general authorities.

Thanks, Charles, for bringing your point out.  My comments in the previous
reply weren't clear.  I was thinking in the context of a leader going against
the scriptures.  I may, for example, disagree with my Bishop's plans for a
welfare project or a youth project, and if given the opportunity, I would
express myself, but then I would be quiet and follow his direction.  That type
of disagreement isn't a big deal.  Its sorta in the realm of squeezing the
tooth paste in the middle, not something to divorce over.

On the other hand, for example, if I felt my Bishop was encroaching on my free
agency by making autocratic decisions, then I would feel that was a
"scriptural problem" and I may not follow him, as the members didn't follow
their Stake President in Paul's example in note 236.19.  This situation is
more serious but is subjective and a "gray" area; members need to do a lot of
fasting and praying before they decide to oppose their leaders in these types
of disagreements.

As you indicated, the Lord will hold us accountable for our decisions to
support or not support our leaders.  However, I'm not sure we will always be
condemned if we withdraw support.  Going back to Paul's example, I doubt the
Lord will condemn those members for not supporting their Stake President, but
I wouldn't be surprised if he did condemn the Stake President for being
autocratic and insensitive to the members.  However, I can only speculate
about this, of course.

One problem in this type of discussion is that the scriptural injunctions to
follow our leaders are given in the context of the leaders being right, and
I don't think those injunctions necessarily apply to cases where the leaders
are wrong (again, I'm think of "scriptural" issues).

Allen

    One factor of supporting the leaders decisions that I believe both
    Charles and Allen are alluding to is Personal Revelation, or
    "Testimony" I believe that in giving our consent to the decisions of
    the leaders we are saying that we agree that their decision is not
    contrary to the scriptures but also we are saying that we feel OK about
    it (using the word feel here to refer to spiritual feelings). If we do
    not feel OK about it then we have an obligation to pray an solicit such
    a feeling. If we still do not feel good about it then we have an
    obligation to approach that person, even if we already raised our hand
    in common consent earlier.  {Remember that in the church, the "Open door
    policy" is very much in effect at the ward and hopefully at the stake
    level. We have been asked to take up our issues at the ward or stake
    level before going to higher levels.}
    
    This idea of personal spiritual confirmation to the correctness of a
    decision is to me the secret to success of the whole concept of
    leadership in the church. Because in asking for that witness we have to
    humble ourselves, and be willing to accept that our way is not the only
    way. Given that we modify our attitude in this manner, then the Lord
    can direct us and we end up with an amazing level of cooperation and
    support of the church leadership with most of it being truly heartfelt
    not just going along for the sake of niceness.
    
    May we all continue to seek this spiritual guidance,
    
    Your brother
    
    Len
     

    Boy, do I feel uncomfortable with the idea that "obedience is more
    important than right or wrong".  I can think of several historical
    examples of whole nations embracing this idea and perptrating the
    most heinous crimes in the name of "just following orders."
    
    Which brings up an interesting discussion of obedience and rebellion.
    By that I mean when is dissent/disagreement labelled rebellion?
    
    Len,  I like what you say about obtaining a personal witness to
    the "correctness" of a decision.  However, most times an idea is
    presented to us without any time allowed for us to get that testimony.
    You have to make a spontaneous decision to support or not the proposed
    calling or decision.  I like a previous suggestion that time be
    allowed for us to ponder, pray and get that testimony.
    
    Paul
        

>    Boy, do I feel uncomfortable with the idea that "obedience is more
>    important than right or wrong".  I can think of several historical
>    examples of whole nations embracing this idea and perptrating the
>    most heinous crimes in the name of "just following orders."
    
	Don't take the statement out of the context in which it was made.

	Mormons do not follow orders, but reference everything to scriptural 
	doctrine.  (At least, they should!)