Relative still in told me this one.

Asked him when were Temple ceremonies and covenants voted on?

Further, Where in LDS Scripture is the ceremony given?

Where in scripture or any revelation is the pattern for Garments given?

He started baring his testimony...

      "It is very common that good mormons, thanks to their strong testimonies, will consent to do whatever is asked of them, unless they can come up with an excuse that allows them to refuse, but still look good on paper..."

      --Judic West, "Confessions to a Lamanite Jesuit"
                            Published in 1977, page 101

It's the professional version of Simon Says.

When did they get common consent to hide money in ensign peak or partner with UN orgs?

UN orgs?? You mean they helped fund a vaccination campaign? Oh, the horror.

They have also partnered with the NAACP. Next thing you know they will be joining the War on Cash™.


Sheesh. Of their many sins, partnering with the UN is way down on the list, like maybe page 7.

Common consent would allow local leaders to circumvent or bend rigid church handbook policies (directives/mandates) such as allowing women auxiliary leaders to preside on the stand during SM.

Some 30 years ago, I was asked which flowers I would like for a flower arrangement for my missionary farewell. A sister in the ward grew amazing exotic flowers in her greenhouse. They cost the church ZERO and she removed them at the end of the service and offered the arrangement to anyone who wanted them. I remember that my mom took home the arrangement and placed them as a centerpiece at the dining room table.

As a missionary very few wards had any type of flowers in the chapel. I was surprised that my ward wasn't displaying any upon my return. The chapel was sterile in my opinion. Mom filled me in. -While you were gone, a visiting high councilor made a remark about how the church didn't need any rogue leaders, but obedient servants. He asked why there were flowers on the stand. Nobody in the bishopric answered. Then he asked which member had placed the flowers to stand up and remove them.

Sister Iris, a very kind person, walked up and removed them. She must have taken them to her car. That was the last time she attended church. She passed away without ever going back.

what to do.

It seems from your post that the high council did not like plants. He must have considered it as a minion of Satan.

Poor plant and Sister Iris! She's laughing and drinking coffee I figure!

She is surrounded by wonderful plants too!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2023 05:15PM by lousyleper.

Male Nurse Ratched, the perfect Mormon.

".......any opposed by the same sign."

Raise your arm if you want to visit with you local ecclesiastical leader!

I would like to know LDS Inc's definition of "common consent." When I googled "common consent," this is what popped up first:

"Common consent is a democratic principle established by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, who taught in 1830 that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith."

It's still unclear by that description what common consent means.

I can't think of a single example in the Mormon church where members are asked to collectively consent to anything. They are told to raise their right hand to show that they "sustain" the prophet who has already been selected. They don't get to select the prophet; they're just asked if they will sustain (support) the pre-selected prophet. That's not exactly a "democratic principle."

LDS Inc. is not a democracy. Members don't have a say in anything. They are powerless to make changes. They can't demand that LDS Inc. restructure/eliminate temple garments, allow same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple, or hire janitors. If they demand changes publicly, they're threatened with excommunication. They're not asked to consent to any of the many ridiculous rules, they're just told to obey them.

Joseph Smith was really sneaky. He asked members to raise their right hand to show their support of the leaders. Maybe some mistook that for the democratic process of voting. They weren't voting though. There was no choice or ballot. There was a lot of pressure for everyone to raise their right arm.

If a TBM told me that "the church" did everything by common consent, I'd ask for an example. I'd also remind them that consent and sustain are two different things.

I was always under the impression that if you voted nay, you were disciplined by the bishop or if in stake conference, the stake presidency.

When one votes to unsustain (as opposed to desustaining...) a prospective office holder, one's name/identity is noted by the lady in charge (just kidding!), and the person "in charge" then must meet with the unsustainer to query him or her regarding the reason for the unsustaining.

It is recognized that the unsustainer may have valuable information!  There is no immediate conclusion that the unsustainer is in the wrong!

As an 11-year-old, I learned that our beloved bishop was going to be released and that so-and-so was likely to replace him.  Well, I'd seen so-and-so kick my dog, so I was going through the process of girding my loins so as to be properly prepared to vote in opposition, but the guy dropped dead of a heart attack, so my planned heroics were unnecessary.

I tried to remain humble, but it was impossible, given that I had just demonstrated that I held the power of life and/or death in my grimy hands!!

There was a time, at least in my area, that common consent on local matters was a big thing.

Several issues were voted down, these were.

A person presented to be bishop. Too many members knew he had a mistress.

Increase in assessment for the ward budget.

Having a ward garden.

There were other matters voted down in priesthood quorums and relief society.

I remember even voting against a high council member because of his shady business deals.

Over time we noticed they announced but didn't vite on a few things, then they just quit asking altogether, it became "as currently constituted".

Can't hear common consent without my brain going to a Monty Python voice saying "Well I didn't vote for you".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx7zI1W_5JI

I solved the common consent issue when I turned 40. After just exiting a tumultuously taxing divorce, I realized that I had not received one moment of emotional support or help in any way from local leadership. I was treated as a leper.

From that day on, I never raised my hand to anything, agreed to anything, or would do or help with anything without full disclosure.

Many times I was reminded that I sustained leadership, of which I would smile and ask them when was the last time I raised my hand. They would then get a blank look and say, "Oh that's right, you never raise your hand." It worked like a charm.

This reminds me of the Quaker Fight Chant - for those unfamiliar with Quakerism, they are pacifistic, trust their inner light for guidance, and practice consensus as a governing ideal. So - as sung at Earlham College:

Fight, fight Inner Light
Kill, Quaker, Kill
Knock them down,
Beat them senseless
Do it 'til we reach consensus!

Don’t be fooled!!!

Doing “everything” by common consent is Impossible in any org as large as ChurchCo.

A nevermo perspective: so many things Smith said that are simply laughable. This is a fine example. He just says it as if it's so. Apparently he figured no one would call him on it. Which for this example has a lot of irony.

Common consent in the LDS church = Whatever Nelson says...goes.

The church leaders consent to his decisions.

The church does everything by top-down leadership, with the input of the occasional survey.

summer Wrote:
--------------------------------
> The church does everything by
> top-down leadership, with the
> input of the occasional survey ...

if leadership likes the survey results.