Within the corpus of J. Golden Kimball folklore, there is a story of Elder Kimball getting bored during a long process of sustaining officers at a stake conference somewhere south of Provo, Utah. \u00a0Noticing that most of the congregation was nodding off or had fallen asleep while mechanically raising their hands for every name read, he continued in his usual voice, stating: \u201cIt is proposed that Mount Nebo be moved into Utah Lake, all in favor manifest by the usual sign.\u201d \u00a0The majority of the people raised their hands. \u00a0Then, Elder Kimball paused, looked around, and screeched in his magpie voice: \u201cJust how in the hell do you people propose we get Mount Nebo into Utah Lake?\u201d<\/p>\n
I enjoy the story because it does highlight some interesting things about the nature of sustaining votes in Latter-day Saint culture.\u00a0 By raising our hands to sustain officers or policies in conferences in the Church, we fulfil the instructions found in the July 1830 revelation (now Section 26) that \u201call things shall be done by common consent in the Church by much prayer & faith.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 At this point in our history, however, these sustaining votes are largely perfunctory and a manner of routine rather than truly seeking common consent among Church members, hence the boredom and subsequent trickery during the stake conference with Elder Kimball.\u00a0 In a way, that seems to have to do with a shift in the way we understand the phrase and process.<\/p>\n In the context of the Church in 1830, the indications are that saying that \u201call things shall be done by common consent in the Church\u201d meant that Church leaders had to seek and have the agreement of Church membership in order to enact policies.\u00a0 As the Joseph Smith Papers website indicates in the footnote for the passage in the revelation: \u201cThe term \u2018common consent\u2019 likely referred to seeking the agreement of church members for a particular course of action.\u201d\u00a0 For example, in recalling the day the Church of Christ was organized, Joseph Smith recorded that: \u201cWe proceeded, (according to previous commandment) to call on our brethren to know\u00a0whether they accepted us as their teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God, and\u00a0whether they were satisfied that we should proceed and be organized as a Church\u00a0according to said commandment which we had received. To these they consented by an unanimous vote.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 The same process was followed in 1835 to accept the Doctrine and Covenants\u2014a group of Church leaders gathered to examine the Doctrine and Covenants and concluded that it was \u201cnecessary to call the general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authoroties of the church, that it may, if approved, become a law unto the church, and a rule of faith and a practice unto the same.\u201d\u00a0 At a conference on 17 August 1835, the book was presented by Oliver Cowdery to the general assembly of the Church, then voting proceeded by quorums and groups, followed by the entire Church membership present.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 In both of these cases, voting was required to accept individuals as leaders or scriptures as canon by the Church.<\/p>\n It appears that the same understanding existed at the turn of the twentieth century and played a role in the Reed Smoot hearings.\u00a0 During those proceedings, President Joseph F. Smith stated that: \u201cNo revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.\u201d[4]<\/a>\u00a0 President Francis Lyman likewise affirmed that:<\/p>\n The Lord has directed that in all our transactions of business everything must be done by common consent; that the president or the prophet or the apostles can not take matters in their own hands, even if it comes from the Lord, and carry it in spite of the people.\u00a0 They have their rights and their rights are respected, and their agency is respected.[5]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n These affirmations do seem to follow the understanding of doing things by \u201ccommon consent\u201d as looking to Church membership and only acting with their approval.<\/p>\n Yet, there is some conflict here between this democratic approach to governing the Church and the realities of being led by prophets, seers, and revelators.\u00a0 On the one hand, requiring common consent in this way seems to indicate that the phrase vox populi, vox dei <\/em>(\u201cthe voice of the people is the voice of God\u201d) rules in the Church.\u00a0 And, to some extent, there is truth to that idea\u2014if that common consent is achieved by \u201cby much prayer & faith,\u201d as the revelation suggests, then the collective membership of the Church should be able to arrive at an understanding of God\u2019s will and prevent one man (or 15 men) from taking the Church in a direction that is contrary to God\u2019s will.\u00a0 Yet, functionally, being led by a prophet speaking for God is more akin to a divine right monarchy than a democracy. \u00a0It raises the question\u2014how can we reject the actions of someone we see as God\u2019s mouthpiece without that rejection being seen as a rejection of God Himself? \u00a0We see some of the tension from trying to incorporate both aspects in our religion in the fact that in a revelation received not long before the one cited at the outset of this discussion and canonized as Section 24, we read that Joseph Smith is commanded to \u201cgo speedily unto the Church which is in Colesvill Fayette & Manchester & they shall support thee,\u201d with an accompanying threat that if they do not, \u201cI will send upon them a cursing instead of a blessing.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0 This creates a tension of requiring the voice of the people to affirm that the course the Church leaders are taking is appropriate while also setting up the expectation that the decisions of Church leaders are guided by God and that Church members are going against God\u2019s will if they reject those decisions.<\/p>\n This tension was highlighted during the proceedings of the Reed Smoot hearings.\u00a0 When President Lyman made his statement about being governed by common consent, as cited above, the senator that was interrogating him asked: \u201cOne of the articles of the Mormon faith is, is it, that the Lord is a being of limited power and in some respects of less power than the Mormon conference.\u00a0 Is that true?\u201d\u00a0 He highlighted that if someone were called by God and rejected by the people of the Church, \u201cthen you would regard it, would you not, to be your duty in that particular case to obey the voice of the people in opposition to the expressed revealed will of the Lord?\u201d\u00a0 While President Lyman stated that the voting was done because \u201cthe Lord has so ordered\u201d and that he believed that the people of the Church will not \u201creject any that the Lord presents,\u201d the senator quipped in return that this still meant that the people had \u201ca sort of veto power over the Lord.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n The quip caught on in Utah, and so, Elder B. H. Roberts felt the need to respond to the senator\u2019s representation of our faith\u2019s system of common consent.\u00a0 He said:<\/p>\n We may well marvel at such condescension of God; and yet when we come to analyze this, we learn that in this God only recognizes a great truth, and the dignity of his children, and acknowledges their rights and liberties. When he selected his prophet, to whom he first revealed himself, he chose whom he would and gave him the power of the apostleship; but when he was to effect an organization and exercise that authority upon others, then it must be with the consent of the others concerned, not otherwise. This is the principle of common consent, which the Lord respected at the organization of his Church, and which he still recognizes in its government.<\/p>\n The very title of our Church\u2014the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints\u2014indicates that it is not only \u201cthe Church of Jesus Christ,\u201d but also of the \u201cLatter-day Saints.\u201d It is Christ\u2019s because he made it possible by his sacrifice, because it is the depository of his truth, because he has called it into existence, because he has given it a mission to proclaim the truth, and to perfect the lives of those who accept that truth; it is ours because we accept it of our own volition. God has conferred upon his Church and our Church the right of being governed by common consent of the members thereof. It is not a tyranny, nor an ecclesiastical hierarchy dominating the people and destroying individual liberty, as our friends the opposition have frequently declared. But now they are confronted with the fact that, so far from being a tyrannical institution, not only the officers but the very revelations of God are submitted to the people for their acceptance!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n His direct response to the idea of a \u201cveto power over the Lord\u201d was that voting didn\u2019t determine the truth or the Lord\u2019s will, only the \u201crelationship of the members to that truth,\u201d[8]<\/a> but that God wanted it to be that way to respect the agency of Church members.<\/p>\n As mentioned above, I don\u2019t think the raising of hands in conferences was intended as a function of deciding whether we assent to the truth by accepting the will of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve or not, but collectively determining whether they are truly revealing the will of God.\u00a0 President Brigham Young taught something along these lines when he said: \u201cI\u00a0do not wish any Latter?day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves. \u2026 Every man and woman in this kingdom ought to be satisfied with what we do, but they never should be satisfied without asking the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, whether what we do is right.\u201d[9]<\/a>\u00a0 The expectation here is that we are to take the sustaining of officers, policies, and revelation as being in line with God\u2019s will seriously and seek to know for ourselves if they are indeed in line with God\u2019s will.<\/p>\n Yet, realistically, Church leaders govern the Church without waiting for votes by the general membership. For example, the policy announced in Official Declaration #2 came into effect when it was announced by Church leaders rather than after sustaining action during general conference\u2014the first ordinations of black men after the press release on 9 June 1978 took place on 11 June, while the official acceptance of the declaration by the Church took place months later, on 30 September 1978.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Likewise, many of the revelations accepted as authoritative when the Doctrine and Covenants was voted upon in 1835 were put into action and practice long before the 1835 vote to accept the Doctrine and Covenants as canon was taken (sending people on missions, organizing the Church\u2019s structure and systems, etc.). \u201cThe Family: A Proclamation to the World\u201d has likewise been, as President Dallin H. Oaks stated, \u201cthe basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future\u201d without any noticeable efforts to seek approval from the general membership of the Church on the subject.[11]<\/a> \u00a0Even when a vote for common consent is sought, the expectation has, historically, been that everyone will unanimously support it.\u00a0 For example, one 19th<\/sup> century poem by a Latter-day Saint contrasted the strife of a \u201ca gentile election\u201d with the \u201cThe United Uplift of the Hand\u201d found among the saints, who \u201chail the glad truths with delight\u201d whenever \u201cthe servants of God to our judgments appeal.\u201d[12]<\/a>\u00a0 Most of the time, it seems that Church leaders move forward with decisions without waiting to do all things by common consent beforehand, likely expecting the majority of Church members to accept their decisions.<\/p>\n Perhaps this is part of the reasoning for the subtle shift in rhetoric over the years that is represented in how the \u201cCome, Follow Me\u201d manual handles the statement in the 1830 revelation.\u00a0 In the manual\u2019s commentary on D&C 26:2, we read:<\/p>\n When members receive callings or priesthood ordinations in the Church, we have the opportunity to formally sustain them by raising our hands as a show of support. The principle of demonstrating public support and agreement is called\u00a0common consent.<\/em>\u00a0As President Gordon\u00a0B. Hinckley taught, \u201cThe procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n While the basic action and way it is discussed is still rooted in terms of seeking to know if members agree with decisions, the common consent discussed here seems to be more about members pledging to support and agree with decisions of Church leaders rather than putting the decisions of Church leaders to a test by vote to see if they will be supported.\u00a0 The burden, it could be said, has shifted from the brethren needing to lead in a way that the people in the Church are willing to support, to the members of the Church being required to support Church leaders by the raise of hands and in their subsequent actions.<\/p>\n In any case, it\u2019s a difficult tension to balance in our religion, given that many active members believe that the leaders of the Church are often inspired and directed by God.\u00a0 These days it would also be difficult to truly gain unanimous common consent in a worldwide church\u2014both for being able to count the vote (as large as the Conference Center in Salt Lake City is, it can only hold a small fraction of the Church\u2019s total membership) and for the diversity of views held by members of the Church.\u00a0 Thus, the shift from seeing the raising of hands as a way to check for support among Church members to a way for Church members to pledge their loyalty is, perhaps, a logical approach to resolving the dilemma posed by trying to combine democratic approaches to government with a theocratic system.\u00a0 To some degree, however, I suspect we will see both approaches to the phrase \u201ccommon consent\u201d being held by Church members and that expressing common consent will be exercised at times as a way to express both support or opposition to propositions by Church leaders when given the opportunity to do so \u201cby much prayer & faith.\u201d\u00a0 My hope would be that doing so would prevent any Saturday mountain-moving\/lake-filling activities suggested by general authorities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Further Reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n Book of Mormon Central<\/em>, “Come Follow Me 2021 Doctrine and Covenants 23-26”<\/a><\/p>\n Kent Larsen, “Lit Come Follow Me: D&C 23-26,”\u00a0Times and Seasons<\/em> 9 March 2021<\/a><\/p>\n Emma Smith, “We are Going to Do Something Extraordinary,” in\u00a0At the Pulpit<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> “Revelation, July 1830\u2013B [D&C 26],” p. 34, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 10, 2021, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-july-1830-b-dc-26\/1<\/a>.\u00a0 See also D&C 28:13.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> “History, 1838\u20131856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805\u201330 August 1834],” p. 37, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 10, 2021, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834\/43<\/a><\/p>\n [3]<\/a> See “Minute Book 1,” p. 98, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 6, 2020, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/minute-book-1\/102<\/a><\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Joseph F. Smith in the Reed Smoot Trial, 1904, cited in Richard S. Van Wagoner, Steven C. Walker, and Allen D. Roberts: \u201cThe \u2018Lectures on Faith\u2019: A Case Study in Decanonization,\u201d Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought<\/em>, v. 20, No. 3, p. 74, https:\/\/dialoguejournal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sbi\/articles\/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Election of the United States Senate: in the matter of the protests against the right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a senator from the state of Utah, to hold his seat [Jan. 16, 1904-April 13, 1906],\u201d https:\/\/archive.org\/stream\/proceedingsbefor01unitrich\/proceedingsbefor01unitrich_djvu.txt<\/a>.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> “Revelation, July 1830\u2013A [D&C 24],” p. 32, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 10, 2021, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-july-1830-a-dc-24\/1<\/a><\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Election of the United States Senate: in the matter of the protests against the right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a senator from the state of Utah, to hold his seat [Jan. 16, 1904-April 13, 1906],\u201d https:\/\/archive.org\/stream\/proceedingsbefor01unitrich\/proceedingsbefor01unitrich_djvu.txt<\/a>.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> B. H. Roberts, \u201cRelation of Inspiration and Revelation to Church Government,\u201d\u00a0Improvement Era<\/em>, March 1905, 361-364.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Journal of Discourses<\/em>, 3:45, Brigham Young, October 6, 1855.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> See Edward L. Kimball, \u201cSpencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,\u201d BYU <\/em>47:2, https:\/\/byustudies.byu.edu\/content\/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood<\/a>.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Dallin H. Oaks, \u201cThe Plan and the Proclamation,\u201d CR October 2017, https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/general-conference\/2017\/10\/the-plan-and-the-proclamation?lang=eng<\/a><\/p>\n [12]<\/a> S.S.J. Provo (1867), \u201cThe United Uplift of Hand,\u201d cited by Ardis E. Parshall, Keepatitchinin<\/em>, 12 June 2012, http:\/\/www.keepapitchinin.org\/2012\/06\/12\/the-united-uplift-of-the-hand\/<\/a>.\u00a0 See also Kent Larsen, “Lit Come Follow Me: D&C 23-26,”\u00a0Times and Seasons<\/em> 9 March 2021<\/a>.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/manual\/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-doctrine-and-covenants-2021\/11?lang=eng<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Within the corpus of J. Golden Kimball folklore, there is a story of Elder Kimball getting bored during a long process of sustaining officers at a stake conference somewhere south of Provo, Utah. \u00a0Noticing that most of the congregation was nodding off or had fallen asleep while mechanically raising their hands for every name read, he continued in his usual voice, stating: \u201cIt is proposed that Mount Nebo be moved into Utah Lake, all in favor manifest by the usual sign.\u201d \u00a0The majority of the people raised their hands. \u00a0Then, Elder Kimball paused, looked around, and screeched in his magpie voice: \u201cJust how in the hell do you people propose we get Mount Nebo into Utah Lake?\u201d I enjoy the story because it does highlight some interesting things about the nature of sustaining votes in Latter-day Saint culture.\u00a0 By raising our hands to sustain officers or policies in conferences in the Church, we fulfil the instructions found in the July 1830 revelation (now Section 26) that \u201call things shall be done by common consent in the Church by much prayer & faith.\u201d[1]\u00a0 At this point in our history, however, these sustaining votes are largely perfunctory and a manner of routine […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10397,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2895,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-come-follow-me-currculum","category-general-doctrine"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10397"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41533"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41533\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41538,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41533\/revisions\/41538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}