If you were the President of the Church

[Paperback Writer]

Common consent has been a gospel principle that I've always felt skeptical towards. I've read the accounts of how it was introduced in the early church, and I know many progmo's argue that it was a more important aspect of the church back in the day. But I just don't see how that can really work. You have a prophet who claims to receive direct revelation from God. You have a priesthood authority hierarchy with keys and all that. If you're defining an organizational structure. that's about as top down as you can possibly get. Then you have this common consent principle which never appears to be much more than lip service. I just don't buy it. And I'm not sure how it can fit in as a prominent principle unless you dump the rest of the hierarchy structure which is the foundation of everything.

It would be a significant transition but I'd like to see a shift towards common consent and allow much more autonomy at the local level. Allow members to vote for the bishop based on a number of vetted individuals from the stake. Allow members to attend worship services at the location and time of their choosing. In other words, transition away from the correlation and the hierarchy structure. It can work; it does in the protestant world and Catholics can attend Mass at the time of their choosing.

[Indy Coug]

Common consent has been a gospel principle that I've always felt skeptical towards. I've read the accounts of how it was introduced in the early church, and I know many progmo's argue that it was a more important aspect of the church back in the day. But I just don't see how that can really work. You have a prophet who claims to receive direct revelation from God. You have a priesthood authority hierarchy with keys and all that. If you're defining an organizational structure. that's about as top down as you can possibly get. Then you have this common consent principle which never appears to be much more than lip service. I just don't buy it. And I'm not sure how it can fit in as a prominent principle unless you dump the rest of the hierarchy structure which is the foundation of everything.

Furthermore, what is the added value by making it a "prominent principle"?

[pellegrino]

Common consent has been a gospel principle that I've always felt skeptical towards. I've read the accounts of how it was introduced in the early church, and I know many progmo's argue that it was a more important aspect of the church back in the day. But I just don't see how that can really work. You have a prophet who claims to receive direct revelation from God. You have a priesthood authority hierarchy with keys and all that. If you're defining an organizational structure. that's about as top down as you can possibly get. Then you have this common consent principle which never appears to be much more than lip service. I just don't buy it. And I'm not sure how it can fit in as a prominent principle unless you dump the rest of the hierarchy structure which is the foundation of everything.

You're reading it through correlated eyes where the hierarchy has been consolidated.

[Topper]

It would be a significant transition but I'd like to see a shift towards common consent and allow much more autonomy at the local level. Allow members to vote for the bishop based on a number of vetted individuals from the stake. Allow members to attend worship services at the location and time of their choosing. In other words, transition away from the correlation and the hierarchy structure. It can work; it does in the protestant world and Catholics can attend Mass at the time of their choosing.

I agree with Jay in that I can't see how it could be implemented in the modern correlated Church. The organizational structure has its own culture which would not be able to fit with a democratic principle.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

6- Bring Football back to Ricks.

Bring Ricks back to Ricks.

[pellegrino]

I agree with Jay in that I can't see how it could be implemented in the modern correlated Church. The organizational structure has its own culture which would not be able to fit with a democratic principle.

this is a valid critique of progmos fantasizing about its return. We've moved beyond it and I don't think it will ever come back.

[thesaint258]

One of my old bishops really likes church history, and he thinks that we're not running with the organization that was originally set up. In essence (I'm going to have to do the really quick version), he thinks that the First Presidency, the Twelve, and the other General Authorities should have less of a role in the day-to-day operations of the Church. Instead, they should focus more on preaching the gospel. Then, you'd divide the church into groups of approximately 20,000 people, and these would be the stakes. Rather than the stake president being the head honcho in the stake, he'd be subordinate to the high council. The stake officers would be responsible for the welfare of the individual members in that area. They'd be responsible for tithing, fast offerings, temple maintenance, etc. He thinks that the more centralized form of government was probably necessary during the Church's early days, but he thinks that as the Church gets bigger, most of the functions performed by the higher leadership levels will need to be decentralized.

[Topper]

One of my old bishops really likes church history, and he thinks that we're not running with the organization that was originally set up. In essence (I'm going to have to do the really quick version), he thinks that the First Presidency, the Twelve, and the other General Authorities should have less of a role in the day-to-day operations of the Church. Instead, they should focus more on preaching the gospel. Then, you'd divide the church into groups of approximately 20,000 people, and these would be the stakes. Rather than the stake president being the head honcho in the stake, he'd be subordinate to the high council. The stake officers would be responsible for the welfare of the individual members in that area. They'd be responsible for tithing, fast offerings, temple maintenance, etc. He thinks that the more centralized form of government was probably necessary during the Church's early days, but he thinks that as the Church gets bigger, most of the functions performed by the higher leadership levels will need to be decentralized.

The Church gives lip service to this concept, but where leadership has grown up in a top down business management style, it is asking a lot for organizational management structure to change its culture, becoming a more loosey-goosey organization with local autonomy being the rule, not the exception. It would allow for more local adaptation which could be quite good.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I was once in a stake conference were a small group of people stood up and signified by the same side that they opposed the sustaining of the stake president. They were motioned out into the hall and I never saw them again. So I guess it was unanimous.

Do you think they were killed?

[Indy Coug]

Do you think they were killed?

They were cordially invited to the Pol Potluck dinner afterwards.

[Topper]

They were cordially invited to the Pol Potluck dinner afterwards.

So they were killed slowly over time by inducing them to eat fatty foods and lots of sugar. Slow poisoning. Very clever.

[thesaint258]

The Church gives lip service to this concept, but where leadership has grown up in a top down business management style, it is asking a lot for organizational management structure to change its culture, becoming a more loosey-goosey organization with local autonomy being the rule, not the exception. It would allow for more local adaptation which could be quite good.

Agreed. If something like that were to happen, it would be very slow.

[wuapinmon]

They were cordially invited to the Pol Potluck dinner afterwards.

The other members played Cranium with them later.