The Heterodox Need to Speak Up

[Sullyute]

I am stirring it up:

I am trying to persuade the Bishop to announce accepted callings a week before they are put to a sustaining vote. Ward members will have a week to discuss any concerns they have with the Bishop.

Has it been an issue in the past with people complaining after the fact or are you simply trying to make the idea of common consent more valid?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Has it been an issue in the past with people complaining after the fact or are you simply trying to make the idea of common consent more valid?

The Bishop is frustrated with Scouts. His last two calls have met with complaints after the fact. I see this as an opening to make a case for common consent more broadly.

[Moliere]

The Bishop is frustrated with Scouts. His last two calls have met with complaints after the fact. I see this as an opening to make a case for common consent more broadly.

He should just call the complainers into Scouts.

[Sleeping in EQ]

He should just call the complainers into Scouts.

I think criticism has its place, but that it is more effective and appropriate before a sustaining.

[jay santos]

I am stirring it up:

I am trying to persuade the Bishop to announce accepted callings a week before they are put to a sustaining vote. Ward members will have a week to discuss any concerns they have with the Bishop.

Hey SIEQ, I mentioned this in another thread but you might have missed it. Or I might have forgotten that you replied. I am curious what your take on it is though.

My perception of this common consent issue:

This seems to be important to the ProgMo's. The ProgMo logic on this is that the common consent doctrine/practice used to be more important/binding than it is in today's church, and we need to go back to the original practice. (tangent: this logic is also used on WoW and the beer issue, but it's not used on other doctrines/practices like polygamy, Blood Atonement, garments covering your whole body, etc. So I'm a little skeptical of the ProgMo's using this logic, which actually is a more fundamental view, ie not allowing change and wanting to restore an original state.)

I understand a little about the original common consent doctrine/practice, and I know they used to put things to vote, and it did appear to be a more prominent practice than it is today. But when I study and read church history, I get the feeling that it was Joseph's church, and that he ran it pretty much exactly the way he wanted to. He produced the revelations. He made the rules. Joseph's enemies got dealt with quickly and forcefully. I never get a sense that all the saints were part of a collaborative team, creating and managing the church together. I don't recall Joseph ever being veto'ed. So was common consent ever really anything more than the lip service that it is today?

Now, common consent is a pretty cool concept, and I'm not saying I'm against it. I just don't see the same level of precedent the ProgMo's seem to find with it.

SIEQ, do you see it differently?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Hey SIEQ, I mentioned this in another thread but you might have missed it. Or I might have forgotten that you replied. I am curious what your take on it is though.

My perception of this common consent issue:

This seems to be important to the ProgMo's. The ProgMo logic on this is that the common consent doctrine/practice used to be more important/binding than it is in today's church, and we need to go back to the original practice. (tangent: this logic is also used on WoW and the beer issue, but it's not used on other doctrines/practices like polygamy, Blood Atonement, garments covering your whole body, etc. So I'm a little skeptical of the ProgMo's using this logic, which actually is a more fundamental view, ie not allowing change and wanting to restore an original state.)

I understand a little about the original common consent doctrine/practice, and I know they used to put things to vote, and it did appear to be a more prominent practice than it is today. But when I study and read church history, I get the feeling that it was Joseph's church, and that he ran it pretty much exactly the way he wanted to. He produced the revelations. He made the rules. Joseph's enemies got dealt with quickly and forcefully. I never get a sense that all the saints were part of a collaborative team, creating and managing the church together. I don't recall Joseph ever being veto'ed. So was common consent ever really anything more than the lip service that it is today?

Now, common consent is a pretty cool concept, and I'm not saying I'm against it. I just don't see the same level of precedent the ProgMo's seem to find with it.

SIEQ, do you see it differently?

Great question, J.S.

My reasons for supporting common consent do not include going back to "the original practice" or to the way things were done in "Joseph's church." Unless those arguments are nuanced, they are just examples of the provisionalism fallacy. They shouldn't convince anyone.

The fact that common consent is affirmed in the D&C (and arguably, in other scriptures) and that corporate structure, bureaucratic missives, traditions, and the unwritten order of things have supplanted it is a better argument than is the provisionalism fallacy, but it's still not where I'm coming from.

My argument is ontological: people's nature entitles them to common consent.

I could cite scripture and philosophers and so forth, but that's my proposition.

[jay santos]

Great question, J.S.

My reasons for supporting common consent do not include going back to "the original practice" or to the way things were done in "Joseph's church." Unless those arguments are nuanced, they are just examples of the provisionalism fallacy. They shouldn't convince anyone.

The fact that common consent is affirmed in the D&C (and arguably, in other scriptures) and that corporate structure, bureaucratic missives, traditions, and the unwritten order of things have supplanted it is a better argument than is the provisionalism fallacy, but it's still not where I'm coming from.

My argument is ontological: people's nature entitles them to common consent.

I could cite scripture and philosophers and so forth, but that's my proposition.

I think that argument is sound. "We want common consent because we deserve it." And I would like to see a little more of it.

I think appealing to the authority of Joseph's church or the D&C or other scripture is shaky, because I don't agree it was ever fully implemented in the LDS church or clearly described in other scripture.

[wuapinmon]

My argument is ontological: people's nature entitles them to common consent.

Interesting. Would you consider this entitlement to equate with right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? You're making a distinction between a right because 'one is' and right because 'one's nature is." How much of that nature is cultural? I wonder only because communism and confucianism seem to have found a mycorrhizae in China in the last 30 years, and I see communism adopting confucian ethics and the remnants of Han legalism in Chinese culture in order to use the prevailing culture to keep common consent from crossing people's minds. If the nature is such that we always, as humans, would develop democracy, if placed in a vacuum, then I just don't know.

[pellegrino]

I think that argument is sound. "We want common consent because we deserve it." And I would like to see a little more of it.

I think appealing to the authority of Joseph's church or the D&C or other scripture is shaky, because I don't agree it was ever fully implemented in the LDS church or clearly described in other scripture.

The reason progmos appeal to the early history of the church (and do so selectively) is because that's the only way they know how to engage orthodox Mormons on issues of change. You feel like in order to even be heard, you have to cite some sort of authority, because that's the way Mormons engage each other in discourse. You make a point and cite an authority to give your point the validity you feel it deserves. While I like SIEQ's approach, I do wonder how effective either are.

[Pheidippides]

The reason progmos appeal to the early history of the church (and do so selectively) is because that's the only way they know how to engage orthodox Mormons on issues of change. You feel like in order to even be heard, you have to cite some sort of authority, because that's the way Mormons engage each other in discourse. You make a point and cite an authority to give your point the validity you feel it deserves. While I like SIEQ's approach, I do wonder how effective either are.

Bingo. We cherry pick as much as anybody, but it's the only avenue for credibility we have.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The reason progmos appeal to the early history of the church (and do so selectively) is because that's the only way they know how to engage orthodox Mormons on issues of change. You feel like in order to even be heard, you have to cite some sort of authority, because that's the way Mormons engage each other in discourse. You make a point and cite an authority to give your point the validity you feel it deserves. While I like SIEQ's approach, I do wonder how effective either are.

Rhetorically, citing the D&C and the HOI (which doesn't treat sustaining like a communist party vote, even if the Church itself does) is the way to go.