Post by LDS Anarchist on May 9, 2004 6:17:32 GMT -5
It seems to me that common consent must be practiced at all times for a United Effort to work properly. And it must be the real common consent that was practiced back when the church was first restored, not the pretended common consent which is currently practiced in our chapels. By that I mean that when the leadership council makes a recommendation or a proposal and calls for a vote of approval or disapproval, we don't just get a show of hands, but we get a real, open discussion by the people, in the very moment of the vote, both for or against, the pros and the cons, so that all are properly informed and educated about the consequences and all can sup from everyone else's wisdom.
Ideally, first members who approve should be asked to speak and they should speak their mind about why support should be given and then, after everyone has spoken and everyone has listened, members who disapprove should be asked to speak. And again, after everyone has spoken their mind and everyone has listened to those who are against the proposal, and their reasons for opposing it, then it should be asked for a show of hands in support of the measure and then a show of hands in opposition, and the majority (or unanimous) vote should decide the issue.
This, in my opinion, is the proper way to enact the law of common consent, not the current practice and tradition of automatically raising one's hands in church, like a mindless drone or robot, with no discussion, and when someone raises a hand in opposition, instead of an open discussion so that all may be informed of their reasons for opposition, to be better aquainted with any facts that might change their mind and make them vote otherwise, they are taken aside in private to discuss the matter with their priesthood leaders. Such a practice, if followed in the united effort, can only lead to tyranny in the leadership council, despite all good intentions.
Ideally, first members who approve should be asked to speak and they should speak their mind about why support should be given and then, after everyone has spoken and everyone has listened, members who disapprove should be asked to speak. And again, after everyone has spoken their mind and everyone has listened to those who are against the proposal, and their reasons for opposing it, then it should be asked for a show of hands in support of the measure and then a show of hands in opposition, and the majority (or unanimous) vote should decide the issue.
This, in my opinion, is the proper way to enact the law of common consent, not the current practice and tradition of automatically raising one's hands in church, like a mindless drone or robot, with no discussion, and when someone raises a hand in opposition, instead of an open discussion so that all may be informed of their reasons for opposition, to be better aquainted with any facts that might change their mind and make them vote otherwise, they are taken aside in private to discuss the matter with their priesthood leaders. Such a practice, if followed in the united effort, can only lead to tyranny in the leadership council, despite all good intentions.