“Official statements of the First Presidency that have not been submitted to the membership of the church for its approval are matters of temporary policy only. Under present conditions, for example, the First Presidency may say, ‘We recommend this or that.’ But conditions may subsequently change, and when they do the First Presidency may wish to make a statement which may not be in complete harmony with a former statement. We have to keep our theology up to date by submitting everything that is intended to become a permanent part of the gospel to those whose right and privilege it is to so interpret and then by having it sustained by the people as a definite rule of the church so that all things may be done by common consent“ (Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin B. Firmage [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999], 124-125).
The doctrine of common consent has a long history and is rooted in LDS scripture.
At the same time, can anyone who reads this blog remember a meaningful example of common consent in their lifetime?
Why do you think the change has occurred?
Does the lack of meaningful common consent mean that there have been no meaningful or real doctrinal statements or changes?
How would you expect to see true common consent initiated?
Or is it just a meaninglessness vestige?
Wheat & Tares 
There is no confidential forum or channel to question either policy statements or doctrine. The social and cultural penalties for expressing concern/disagreement are real. I was swiftly released from a High Council in December 2015 for questioning the LGBT policy announcement. No rational discussion of the issues – just quick retribution and social isolation. LDS culture penalizes critical thinking. After all, only evil intellectuals dare question the brethren.
The church has sent me surveys through email I think qualtrics is the company being paid to conduct the surveys . I have never b by even given a ballot or say to consent to anything , rather I hold up my right hand and approve the brethren.
I hear what they say via news reports – that children of Gay people cannot be baptized until 18 and they disavow their parent. So o teach a lesson supporting this in YW’s. I back then up. The they change the policy and blame God.
Was it doctrine? It was enforced for a few years .
I was young when the blacks received the Priesthood . I’m sure no common consent was given .
Recently the 11 year old boys are allowed to receive the Aaronic (Levitcal) priesthood. That’s a significant change . No one asked me how I felt about it. God has changed the original priesthood of Aaron from a man between the ages of 30-50 and a Levite by blood . The changes in our day are night and day .
We are told to obey, not ask questions .
I personally think Hugh B. Brown’s statement and the law of common consent are now OBE. If pressed, I think the leadership would say that that law is fulfilled each time we sustain the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and the general authorities and general officers of the Church. By doing so, they have taken any veto power left out of the hands of the membership (if indeed we ever really had that power). As to what replaces it, I think most of those leaders would point to unanimous pronouncements released by the Q15 as “doctrine” though I’m sure a large swath of the active membership would include a lot more statements by individual leaders in that definition (which quickly becomes messy – thanks, Mormon Doctrine!). Regardless, while unanimous statements like The Family, The Living Christ, and The Restoration proclamations aren’t properly canon since they have never been put up for a vote, I don’t think there is any big dispute as to whether they constitute doctrine, and I’m not sure that distinguishing between canon and doctrine is really meaningful within the Church (at least not anymore). On top of all that, statements like those by President Oaks that he doesn’t really distinguish between doctrine and policy really muddy the waters when it comes to what is or is not doctrine. I honestly question whether big doctrinal steps (should they happen) like the ordination of women or allowing married same sex couples into full faith and fellowship will even come with a vote of the membership. There certainly was a vote held for Official Declaration 2 and the restoration of priesthood and temple rights for Black members, but will such a vote ever happen again for other landmark changes? I honestly don’t know.
I’m no longer a TBM but I defend the Church to move forward without common consent. The Church is not a representative democracy. Either you believe in the truth claims or you don’t. I for one don’t expect the Church to change just to meet the members’ ongoing expectations. That’s one reason I quit trying to change the Church from within. Why should it? If RMN receives revelation from God how to direct this organization, who cares what Josh H or any other member thinks?
@De Novo – so you were sitting in a HC meeting, raised a question about the recent LGBT policy, and a day or two later the SP called you into his office and released you? That sounds a little bizarre.
I can see where Common Consent became unwieldy (if it truly ever existed) as the Church grew but we now have the technological capacity to give every member an opportunity to “vote” or comment on a change. The only reason for not doing so is because the FP doesn’t want to.
I don’t currently give any credence to whether or not something is “doctrine” or “policy” or a “statement” – those are just terms that get thrown around when you want to say something can’t change (doctrine) or you want to justify a change (policy). If the Church body voted, I actually might be more inclined to accept things as “doctrine” in the sense that it represents the collective will of the community, and all of their individual experiences with divinity, than I currently am where doctrine seems just to represent the whims of the FP. Not in the sense that I would have to “agree” that something is the will of God just because people voted on it, but in the sense that I would accept that as the norm of my community.
I’d actually love to know that. I’d be very interested to see what would happen if we put some things to a vote. I don’t imagine it would come out my way but that would be useful information.
I agree with Elisa that the difference between doctrine and policy is really irrelevant. The reality is, we elevate doctrine, but it’s policy that actually impacts (and for many, harms) the day to day lives of our community. So to pretend like policy doesn’t matter is not cool.
@bwbarnett: Do you have reason to not believe De Novo’s lived experience?
To the OP’s question “How would you expect to see true common consent initiated?” I would argue that the members need days/weeks to pray/ponder these things. To show up to church one day and have 10 seconds notice about a new Bishop that has the potential to impact your family’s church experience is not common consent. To have a boundary change that catches you off guard and completely disrupts your kids lives to where they resent the church is not common consent (my Christian neighbors were beyond confused that grown adults can’t choose for themselves where to attend services). The Nov 15 policy would probably never have happened under this model.
Yes, this model is tons of work. And will still cause problems. But I fail to see how transparency isn’t a better way, sunlight being the best disinfectant and whatnot.
Was my previous post deleted or is it in moderation for some reason?
I wish ceasing to use the term “Mormon” had been introduced by common consent. I love that term, not as the name of the church but to use otherwise such as “Mormon people”, “study of Mormonism”, “Mormon Tabernacle Choir”, etc . I wish the prohibition of its use would have been limited to “Mormon Church” which I never liked. For some reason, this really bothers me. I guess because Sis. Nelson said that her husband never liked the term & was finally able to do something about it. It just rubbed me wrong & I am a TBM & actually believe that Pres. Nelson is God’s prophet. I wish it could have gone through a similar vetting process as did the 1978 revelation. BTW, on a funny note, someone the other day asked me what “temple baptized Mormon” meant thinking that’s what “TBM” stood for. 🙂
@Chadwick No I’m not doubting that it happened, and now that I read back through it, I can see how I came across that way, sorry about that. I was actually wanting to hear more of the details of what happened. I realize SP’s vary quite a bit in how they run their stakes, but none of the ones I’ve known and served with would have handled the situation as cut-and-dry or immediate as De Novo described, so I was curious if there were more details he cared to share.
It strikes me initially that so long as the LDS Church is asserted as the only true and living church, having exclusive priesthood authority and ordinances, then implementing ACTUAL common consent only makes sense as to purely administrative items, church spending, building initiatives, etc. And even then at a local level only? To have member influence or voice on fundamental doctrinal issues renders the church without need for prophets, seers, and revelators at the head.
As with other statements in the D&C, the scriptural mandate for “common” or “united” consent appears to be something that sounds good but maybe rarely implemented. Is it meaningless? At best is it an ideal?
LIGHT BULB MOMENT: Doctrinally, perhaps the church was never meant to be ruled by 15 men? Could it be that common consent would have prevented the ridiculous rules/obedience-based system that determines worthiness of members and their access to God? What would common consent do to the law of tithing? The Word of Wisdom? Worthiness interviews? Temple construction? Church spending? Church curriculum and worship services? Discriminatory, racist, misogynist, etc. policies?
It used to be in some pioneer wards that you might end up with over half the ward not sustaining a new bishop. Then the leaders would have to learn about the reasons and either propose another person or resolve the issue.
The context of Joseph Smith’s common consent is for consecration, and common governance of production and consumption. Common consent does not mean democracy. A kingdom, a republic, and a corporation may each manifest its own formula of common consent. The idea that “common consent” means ruled-by-the-people may lead some folks to confuse common consent with majority rule.
Honestly, it is not a meaningless vestige, it is a deathtrap for those who have a conscience and actually think and may dissent on something. Leaders are gonna do what leaders are gonna do. There is no “consent” built into the system when failing to consent could have serious ramifications for you and your family. It is the 21st century’s version of blood atonement. If you can’t develop the ability prop up your right arm and sustain the neighborhood’s stray dog as the next bishop, then you better just make yourself scarce for leadership changes and ward conferences. When I see a situation arising where I can’t sustain someone, I nudge my wife and whisper to her that we have to run home and check the meat in the smoker.
And yes, we’ve had a bad experience…
The church only has an average activity rate of around 36%. So it is impossible to achieve a majority common consent unless you change the rules to say that only active members count, which would require common consent, which they cant achieve……
@Pat Not necessarily. For most organizations, a certain number of members being present or voting is required for a quorum to be present and then once a quorum is present, if a majority (or supermajority, depending on rules) is in favor, the motion carries.
I do find it odd that we seem to use Robert’s Rules for essentially ceremonial consent. As others have said, real consent would usually require that members are given time to consider what is proposed. In most cases where Robert’s rules are used, there is opportunity to ask questions and make amendments before a final vote is taken.
I think common consent did really happen (for men), in the early Mormon experience. That’s why we can see Joseph being reprimanded, etc… But it clearly isn’t present now. So now the most straightforward way to vote no consent is with your feet or at least stop paying tithing or accepting callings. But it would be nice if there were real discussions and consent as occurs in most Protestant denominations.
The way I see common consent working in the Church is “informal” at best. What I see is something like what happened in the wake of Pres. Kimball’s so-called “oral sex letter.” In the aftermath of Pres Kimball’s “opinion” that oral sex in marriage was inappropriate, many local leaders began to deny/revoke temple recommends based on questions/confessions around whether a couple engage in the practice. Over months, a lot of grass roots feedback made its way to Church headquarters, resulting in a follow up letter implementing a “don’t ask–don’t tell” policy. Statements of neutrality regarding what a couple does in the bedroom continue to be the standard answer to what is appropriate in the bedroom.
Similarly, it seems like the same kind of process was followed with the 2015 LGBT and children policy. As explained by Pres. Nelson in fall of 2019 at BYUP, where he described the brethren continuing to seek the Lord’s guidance in response to their awareness (no details of how they became aware) of “concern, confusion,… and heartache” caused by the policy. He claims that their continued seeking led to the reversal of spring 2018.
It’s not quite the same as “leaving with your feet or refusing to pay tithing” as @10ac mentions, but, in some ways, not all that different. It does seem like voting up front on these kind of things would be more efficient than waiting to see what the backlash is, but we just don’t do common consent that way in the Church. As I’ve thought about common consent, it seems like, properly implemented, it allows the body of the Church to be a “check” against the leadership (consisting mostly of only 15 older men) coming to a faulty consensus among themselves. But, because we never vote up front on things, the only way we can vote is with our voices and our feet after policy gets implemented.
I would also agree with the idea that — at least in some cases — ought to have forewarning about what we are consenting to. Usually I think of this whenever someone starts the rumor that, “maybe this will be the conference where we canonize the Proclamation on the Family.” hoping that the leadership would warn us ahead of time (days, weeks, months, who knows) so that the membership can honestly pray to seek God’s will for the action.
I am skeptical about how effective “common consent” ever was. A whole lot of shady crap made it through whatever the processes were. My understanding of the Word of Wisdom is that it was basically adopted by common consent, meaning the members voted in 1921 to adopt the current standards. I am not sure I have that right, and maybe it wasn’t a true “common consent” event, but that’s my rough understanding.
As to things today, Elisa’s right that there is no way the current crop of leaders (it goes beyond the FP) want anyone opposing them or their personal agenda. What we have today is a patriarchy in the strictest sense. It’s a hierarchy of men, and the top dog rules. Even among the Q12, they have no veto power whatsoever, even when the top guy is doing something deeply unpopular. They know that they have to go along with whatever the top guy says until (and if ever) it’s their turn to turn their own hobby horses loose on the Church. If we’ve learned anything during the Nelson presidency it is that this is their Church, not ours, and if you don’t like it, their priorities and all, even if you’ve been devoted to the gospel your whole life–get out. Quotes from leaders have replaced gospel content across the board, and the only virtue left is fealty to leaders. It’s depressing, but apparently God doesn’t care to fix it, so here we are.