The LDS Church is run by common consent?
Posted: October 4th, 2023, 11:42 am
Is the LDS church currently run on the basis of common consent?
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
InfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:27 pm It's all pomp and circumstance.
They do what they want because they can. They use member's testimony in the Book of Mormon as the means to plow through false doctrines as truth.
"If the Book of Mormon is true, everything I do and say is of God. Fruits be damned."
So I guess my question has been if the church is ignoring the d&c what should the members do about it? Is it better to wait or to leave or say something to a bishop? I’m not really one for approaching the leaders personally because I’ve never got a straight answer in the past.Telavian wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:09 pm We have an "opportunity" to sustain the leaders, but it ultimately doesn't matter at all.
This is very similar to D&C 102:12-19 which states that during a disciplinary council any member of the council can veto the decision and call for a rehearing. Today however it is so comical because the handbook, 32.10.3.9 says that after the decision the leader "asks the high council to sustain it". Meaning it doesn't matter what they think.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e_number66
If your bishop is like the one I went to with some of my concerns, he will tell you you're entering apostasy for questioning these things. It will be of no benefit. The church has made it extremely difficult for regular people to affect meaningful change. But maybe I'm wrong in your case, I don't know.fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:00 pmSo I guess my question has been if the church is ignoring the d&c what should the members do about it? Is it better to wait or to leave or say something to a bishop? I’m not really one for approaching the leaders personally because I’ve never got a straight answer in the past.Telavian wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:09 pm We have an "opportunity" to sustain the leaders, but it ultimately doesn't matter at all.
This is very similar to D&C 102:12-19 which states that during a disciplinary council any member of the council can veto the decision and call for a rehearing. Today however it is so comical because the handbook, 32.10.3.9 says that after the decision the leader "asks the high council to sustain it". Meaning it doesn't matter what they think.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e_number66
This has also been my experience in the past. The bishops always seems to have nothing in mind but pushing the church’s agenda. If the bishops are not common judges in Israel to judge this issue by the spirit and give real advice to the flock why are they there then? Just to make sure the teenagers aren’t necking or whatever??4Joshua8 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:11 pmIf your bishop is like the one I went to with some of my concerns, he will tell you you're entering apostasy for questioning these things. It will be of no benefit. The church has made it extremely difficult for regular people to affect meaningful change. But maybe I'm wrong in your case, I don't know.fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:00 pmSo I guess my question has been if the church is ignoring the d&c what should the members do about it? Is it better to wait or to leave or say something to a bishop? I’m not really one for approaching the leaders personally because I’ve never got a straight answer in the past.Telavian wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:09 pm We have an "opportunity" to sustain the leaders, but it ultimately doesn't matter at all.
This is very similar to D&C 102:12-19 which states that during a disciplinary council any member of the council can veto the decision and call for a rehearing. Today however it is so comical because the handbook, 32.10.3.9 says that after the decision the leader "asks the high council to sustain it". Meaning it doesn't matter what they think.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e_number66
fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:00 pmSo I guess my question has been if the church is ignoring the d&c what should the members do about it? Is it better to wait or to leave or say something to a bishop? I’m not really one for approaching the leaders personally because I’ve never got a straight answer in the past.Telavian wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:09 pm We have an "opportunity" to sustain the leaders, but it ultimately doesn't matter at all.
This is very similar to D&C 102:12-19 which states that during a disciplinary council any member of the council can veto the decision and call for a rehearing. Today however it is so comical because the handbook, 32.10.3.9 says that after the decision the leader "asks the high council to sustain it". Meaning it doesn't matter what they think.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e_number66
Most people just stop attending or formally remove their records. However I think this is the cowards way out. If you think something is wrong then it is your duty to say so.fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:00 pm So I guess my question has been if the church is ignoring the d&c what should the members do about it? Is it better to wait or to leave or say something to a bishop? I’m not really one for approaching the leaders personally because I’ve never got a straight answer in the past.
This is very true. After I was disfellowshipped, I met with my SP monthly and always had a bunch of things is discuss. He would either completely ignore everything I said or say something similar to, "I am your leader so you have to listen to me". We never once had an actual discussion.IsaiahVision wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:29 pm I've learned that SP and Bishops are not scriptorians; they are simply tax-collecting administrators following the Talmud-handbook.
I have been trying to take the good from the church though I have struggled at times. I started by going back and looking at old church talks and discourses. But there were so many I decided to focus on the scriptures more instead. Then I got really into nephi and some of the new testament because it seemed to answer some of my questions. Then mormon and Moroni but this just made me more on edge honestly because I realized the church during Mormon’s time also went into apostasy. But he never said what to do about the ordinances or to help your family that I could see?IsaiahVision wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:29 pmfractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 4:00 pmSo I guess my question has been if the church is ignoring the d&c what should the members do about it? Is it better to wait or to leave or say something to a bishop? I’m not really one for approaching the leaders personally because I’ve never got a straight answer in the past.Telavian wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:09 pm We have an "opportunity" to sustain the leaders, but it ultimately doesn't matter at all.
This is very similar to D&C 102:12-19 which states that during a disciplinary council any member of the council can veto the decision and call for a rehearing. Today however it is so comical because the handbook, 32.10.3.9 says that after the decision the leader "asks the high council to sustain it". Meaning it doesn't matter what they think.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e_number66
I've learned that SP and Bishops are not scriptorians; they are simply tax-collecting administrators following the Talmud-handbook.
When I have mini-gun'd (or fire-hosed) them with scriptures, they either 'freak out' or don't respond to my emails. If I went 'nuclear' on them like my 14 GGF Martin Luther, I'm sure they would 'hunt me down'.
IMO, there is not much members can do; the Lord will have to correct. But, all this is prophesied in the scriptures and especially Isaiah. I teach TBMs one-on-one as the Spirit directs. I have one foot in and (probably) one foot out. But, I have my life-preserver on.
Take the good from the Church and reject what is not right or the false teachings.
What is the oil ‘in the lamp’?
D&C 45:56-57
56. And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.
57. For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.
Pray for all these; I do.
Joseph tried to release Sidney as his counsellor and the Church chose to keep him in office. They defied Joseph — because that was their right — at least in that situation. There were obviously situations where they would have no right to dictate to him.TheDuke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:07 pm what is common consent? You mean to sustain the leaders or accept new doctrines?
I don't seen any common consent of any type any more. But, I look back and never saw it, in Joseph's day it was always councils, if you mean they voted, then ok, but not members. In Jesus day it was Peter or Paul or maybe James laying down the law and people accepting it. Jesus never asked for a vote on anything. Moses didn't either, don't recall any consent with Adam or Abraham. Nephi didn't ask, he commanded "in the name of god with a sith lord to back him up (angel with an electric wand as I recall.).
Better clarify where you think common consent was supposed to be, for this church, starting in Joseph's day?
Perhaps in picking the council members? In the council members voting? Congregations accepting scripture to become canon (that I know of is the only thing all members did that was consequential and I don't know of a single hold out?)
who was the church in this case? Melchizedek PH holders? one quorum? High council? It surely wasn't all the members, in those days, for sure women never got a vote, nor many others. Not saying it was correct but it was that time in America.Luke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:11 pmJoseph tried to release Sidney as his counsellor and the Church chose to keep him in office. They defied Joseph — because that was their right — at least in that situation. There were obviously situations where they would have no right to dictate to him.TheDuke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:07 pm what is common consent? You mean to sustain the leaders or accept new doctrines?
I don't seen any common consent of any type any more. But, I look back and never saw it, in Joseph's day it was always councils, if you mean they voted, then ok, but not members. In Jesus day it was Peter or Paul or maybe James laying down the law and people accepting it. Jesus never asked for a vote on anything. Moses didn't either, don't recall any consent with Adam or Abraham. Nephi didn't ask, he commanded "in the name of god with a sith lord to back him up (angel with an electric wand as I recall.).
Better clarify where you think common consent was supposed to be, for this church, starting in Joseph's day?
Perhaps in picking the council members? In the council members voting? Congregations accepting scripture to become canon (that I know of is the only thing all members did that was consequential and I don't know of a single hold out?)
The membersTheDuke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:13 pmwho was the church in this case? Melchizedek PH holders? one quorum? High council? It surely wasn't all the members, in those days, for sure women never got a vote, nor many others. Not saying it was correct but it was that time in America.Luke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:11 pmJoseph tried to release Sidney as his counsellor and the Church chose to keep him in office. They defied Joseph — because that was their right — at least in that situation. There were obviously situations where they would have no right to dictate to him.TheDuke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:07 pm what is common consent? You mean to sustain the leaders or accept new doctrines?
I don't seen any common consent of any type any more. But, I look back and never saw it, in Joseph's day it was always councils, if you mean they voted, then ok, but not members. In Jesus day it was Peter or Paul or maybe James laying down the law and people accepting it. Jesus never asked for a vote on anything. Moses didn't either, don't recall any consent with Adam or Abraham. Nephi didn't ask, he commanded "in the name of god with a sith lord to back him up (angel with an electric wand as I recall.).
Better clarify where you think common consent was supposed to be, for this church, starting in Joseph's day?
Perhaps in picking the council members? In the council members voting? Congregations accepting scripture to become canon (that I know of is the only thing all members did that was consequential and I don't know of a single hold out?)
BTW non-land owners didn't get to vote either.
Yes I think this would be a good example of common consent to me. The members just vote or what have you. I assumed the definition of common consent was obvious?? But if D&C says all things should be done by common consent it seems ominous to me that we’ve abandoned it as far as I see.Luke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:11 pmJoseph tried to release Sidney as his counsellor and the Church chose to keep him in office. They defied Joseph — because that was their right — at least in that situation. There were obviously situations where they would have no right to dictate to him.TheDuke wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:07 pm what is common consent? You mean to sustain the leaders or accept new doctrines?
I don't seen any common consent of any type any more. But, I look back and never saw it, in Joseph's day it was always councils, if you mean they voted, then ok, but not members. In Jesus day it was Peter or Paul or maybe James laying down the law and people accepting it. Jesus never asked for a vote on anything. Moses didn't either, don't recall any consent with Adam or Abraham. Nephi didn't ask, he commanded "in the name of god with a sith lord to back him up (angel with an electric wand as I recall.).
Better clarify where you think common consent was supposed to be, for this church, starting in Joseph's day?
Perhaps in picking the council members? In the council members voting? Congregations accepting scripture to become canon (that I know of is the only thing all members did that was consequential and I don't know of a single hold out?)
This is good I believe if there are times when it happens but if d&c 26 says all things done by common consent idk what to make of it except that I haven’t seen it personally?Serragon wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:21 pm I think common consent in general hasn't been a thing for quite a while, but I think there are pockets where it currently does exist or has recently.
On a local level, I have witnessed a few times where people have chosen not to sustain someone and were then given the opportunity to let the Bishop know what their objection was. In one case, new information was provided that resulted in that calling being rescinded for the person being sustained.
In the recent past, the requirement for unanimity among the Q15 has resulted in some changes not being implemented. One of the main reasons the church waited until 1978 to allow the priesthood to those with African descent was because there were a few holdouts on the Q15 who would not go along with it. Unfortunately, I believe since Nelson took over this is no longer the case. I think we have shifted enough culturally that the members of the Q15 now believe that not supporting what Nelson wants to do is apostasy. I have seen no evidence at all that lends support to the idea that any of the newer Q15 members think they are anything more than cheerleaders and proselytes for Nelson.
So you think that just because the Book of Mormon is likely scripture doesn’t mean the lds leaders are legitimate then? So they are kind of just “borrowing” the truth in the book to make themselves look better? To be clearInfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:27 pm It's all pomp and circumstance.
They do what they want because they can. They use member's testimony in the Book of Mormon as the means to plow through false doctrines as truth.
"If the Book of Mormon is true, everything I do and say is of God. Fruits be damned."
1. Just because a man is ordained with keys, does not necessarily mean the Lord is pleased with him. (D&C121)fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:59 pmSo you think that just because the Book of Mormon is likely scripture doesn’t mean the lds leaders are legitimate then? So they are kind of just “borrowing” the truth in the book to make themselves look better? To be clearInfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:27 pm It's all pomp and circumstance.
They do what they want because they can. They use member's testimony in the Book of Mormon as the means to plow through false doctrines as truth.
"If the Book of Mormon is true, everything I do and say is of God. Fruits be damned."
I believe these are all true. I realized if the church in lehi’s time and under king Noah and in Mormon’s time all went apostate and even after Christ and peter there was no known succession of prophets after peter. So if other groups all went apostate then it could happen again and any group of mortals could go apostate after enough generations it seems. Then it made sense to me why the 3 Nephites and people of Enoch are mentioned. So that is one reason I value the book of mormon.InfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 7:18 pm1. Just because a man is ordained with keys, does not necessarily mean the Lord is pleased with him. (D&C121)fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 5:59 pmSo you think that just because the Book of Mormon is likely scripture doesn’t mean the lds leaders are legitimate then? So they are kind of just “borrowing” the truth in the book to make themselves look better? To be clearInfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 12:27 pm It's all pomp and circumstance.
They do what they want because they can. They use member's testimony in the Book of Mormon as the means to plow through false doctrines as truth.
"If the Book of Mormon is true, everything I do and say is of God. Fruits be damned."
2. "The prophet can never lead the church astray" is false doctrine.
3. "It's impossible for the church to go into another apostasy cycle" is false doctrine. Even at the end of the millennium there will be another apostasy cycle.
Our fixation on keys in this church is interesting. I realize it is necessary in the absence of actual fruits of the Spirit, as there is no other source of authority to use to validate claims to divinely lead God's church. But interesting nonetheless.InfoWarrior82 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2023, 7:18 pm
1. Just because a man is ordained with keys, does not necessarily mean the Lord is pleased with him. (D&C121)