“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?