We are not doing our business by the voice of the people

See The voice of the people signifies a majority for background on this post.

Consider this: When we say we are 13 million members strong, we are lumping together both active and inactive LDS, including those inactives who no longer even consider themselves LDS.  According to the Law of the Harvest activity numbers, about 35% of the LDS membership is active worldwide (between 4 and 5 million).

What this means is that when we sit in sacrament meeting and raise our hands in a(n often unanimous) sustaining vote, we active LDS, representing the lesser part of the people, in other words, the minority, are doing the business, while the majority remains silent.

There are a few scriptural lessons to be learned here, taught by Mosiah:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.  And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.  (Mosiah 29: 26-27)

First, we, the active minority, are breaking the laws of God.  We are doing the business, not the majority.

Second, the scriptural principle is that it is common for us, the voting, active, LDS minority, to desire that which is not right.  That is a sobering thought that we might be kept in mind the next time we feel to criticize our inactive brethren.

Third, if the non-voting, inactive, LDS majority are choosing iniquity, as they are counted as the people of the Lord, still listed on the records and numbered by us, then the judgments of God must come upon us.

Should the inactives’ votes be counted?

We count inactive LDS as members of record by saying we have 13 million members, not 4 million members, so, if we see them as full members, shouldn’t we count their votes, too?

When someone is going to be called, should we send the Aaronic Priesthood around to the inactive members’ homes and ask them whether they approve or disapprove?  Maybe they could write down on a card their voting preference?  Or would this violate some scriptural principle that states they must go to a meeting to cast a vote?  By sending messengers to inquire as to how they vote, the church would then be doing its business by the voice of the people, complying with scriptural mandate.  Something to consider…

Votes of no-confidence

Or, perhaps the no-shows should be counted as no-confidence votes.  Before you say that there are no such things in the church, consider that you have three options when voting.  You can raise your hand for, you can raise your hand against, or you can leave your hand down.  What does leaving your hand down mean?  I think it can only mean a vote of no confidence. Likewise, if you intentionally do not attend a meeting in which a vote is taking place, that can also be construed as a vote of no-confidence.

Now, counting all the inactives who intentionally do not show up for church, and thus intentionally do not vote, as no-confidence votes, poses quite the problem.  A majority of no-confidence votes defeats a measure, calling or appointment, doesn’t it?  Can you imagine sitting in church when a sustaining vote is called for and you and 34 other people raise hands in approbation while the other 65 people keep their hands down?  Do you think such an appointment would go through?

Leaving the status quo as it is

Maybe there is no ideologic problem with leaving the inactives alone, not consulting them for votes, not counting their lack of participation as no-confidence votes, yet counting them as full-fledged members.  But I wonder if maybe our current practice is going to eventually get us into trouble with the Lord.

Previous Common Consent article: The voice of the people signifies a majority

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The voice of the people signifies a majority

Because concerns about my use of “51%” in regard to the law of common consent have come up on this blog before, I wanted to address them with this post:

Excerpt of Post

Although the quorum of the twelve vote for the new President of the High Priesthood, the majority of the body of the saints (51%) must sustain the calling by vote, using the law of common consent. If 51% or more raise their hands in approval, the appointment goes through. If, however, 51% or more raise their hands in disapproval, the appointment does not go through and the apostles need to choose another man for the office, which then requires another sustaining vote from the members.  (LDS Anarchist on January 30, 2008, in Poll: Who is the most prophetic?)

Excerpt of Comment on Post

Members can not nominate a candidate and hypothetically the Presiding officer, or body, can also over ride (ignore) the “will of the people”. Incidently the law of Common Consent specifies no percentage. I’d love to know where you got this 51% figure. Having said that any presiding officer conducting business in the Church would hold off setting apart someone or cannonising a revelation even if 5% or even 1% didn’t sustain the decision.  (Comment #609 by Steve on January 30, 2008, in Poll: Who is the most prophetic?, emphasis mine.)

Comment on Post

You are right, there is no specification of 51% in the scriptures. I borrowed the term “51%” from what4anarchy, who uses it all the time. However, I think what4anarchy is right in that the scriptures seem to imply that “the voice of the people” is a majority, or 51%. For example, if you look at the pre-mortal experience, two-thirds (66%) sustained Jesus as the Savior, while one third (33%) didn’t. In this case, “the voice of the people” went with Jesus. The 33% number is far above your 1% or even 5%, yet it wasn’t high enough to stop the election of Jesus. Common sense would indicate, therefore, that the law of common consent works on the majority principle. It does not require a unanimous vote to sustain an appointment, nor can a minority (49% or less) stop an appointment.

You also bring up a fallacy that LDS routinely believe, namely that “the Presiding officer…can…over ride (ignore) the will of the people.” In reality, the presiding officer can only ignore the will of the minority of the people, but if a majority says left, while he says right, it is to be left, as the scriptures indicate that we are “to do [our] business by the voice of the people.” (Mosiah 29: 26.) If the Presiding officer attempts to ignore the will of the majority, he becomes a usurper and a tyrant because in the kingdom of God the governors must govern with the consent of the governed. Any attempt to govern without that consent draws Satan into the picture, as governing without consent is satanic.

As long as LDS hold these views about the law of common consent, it will never function as a means to check tyranny and error, which is its purpose.  (Comment #610 by LDS Anarchist on January 30, 2008, in Poll: Who is the most prophetic?,)

I thought that put an end to the question about the scriptural need for a majority, but then the following was written:

Excerpt of Post

Satan understood that if the vote went his way, if 51% of us voted for him (Lucifer), that the plan of the Father would have been frustrated.  (LDS Anarchist on October 31, 2007 in Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?)

Excerpt of Comment on Post

I have a quick comment to the initial question as to the “ramifications of a winning vote by Lucifer”, or “What would have happened had Lucifer won the vote?”

This is what I think would have happened if Lucifer had drawn 51% of us to his side: The scriptures would have said something like, “… and just over half of the hosts of heaven followed Lucifer’s plan.” The plan of salvation would not have been altered, compromised, or destroyed. God would not have ceased to be God. Lucifer would not have “won”.

My point is… why is a “majority” relevant in this situation? I don’t believe it is. Two-thirds of the hosts of heaven could have followed Lucifer and God would still have chosen Jesus and His plan would not have been compromised. I don’t believe this was a “vote”, but rather, a choice.  (Comment #1160 by Jgtrs on June 15, 2008 in Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?, emphasis mine.)

Excerpt of Comment on Post

The 51% number has come up before on this blog. See here and here. Also, the heavens splitting into thirds sounds like what4anarchy’s idea of following the leader.  (1/3 under Lucifer, 1/3 under Jehovah and 1/3 under Michael, for example.)

My understanding is “as above, so below” and so what happened in the heavens has its counterpart here on Earth, namely, the law of common consent. So, the following common consent articles may apply to this discussion about percentages: Power of the Law of Common Consent and Is our procedure for sustaining a rubber stamp? and also, perhaps, this one on free agency: The role of free agency in political systems. As God cannot govern without the consent of the governed, I’m not sure what the difference is between a “vote” and a “choice.” There are many ways of voting, not just in raising one’s hand, and each manifestation of a vote is a demonstration of what you are choosing or not choosing.

It doesn’t make sense to me that the principle of “the voice of the people” applies on Earth but not in heaven, as these principles are revealed to us as heavenly principles so that we can pattern our lives according to that standard found in heaven and be empowered to establish Zion, or the kingdom of heaven on Earth.  (Comment #1230 by LDS Anarchist on June 17, 2008, in Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?)

The purpose of this post is solely to show that the “voice of the people” means “majority vote.”

Voice of the people defined

Mosiah is the one who defined the expression for us, in the following verse:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.  (Mosiah 29: 26)

Mosiah explains that  “the voice of the people” is not the “lesser part of the people.”  The “lesser part of the people” is otherwise known as a minority. Therefore, as the “voice of the people” is not the minority, it must be the majority. The expression “the voice of the people” is synonymous with “the majority vote of the people.”

Thus, the latter part of the above verse means, “This shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the [majority vote] of the people.”

Book of Mormon scriptures

The expression “the voice of the people” occurs a lot in the scriptures, and in each instance, it means the same thing.  So, here are some examples, with the meaning of the expression rendered in plainer English :

And it came to pass that the [majority vote] of the people came, saying: We are desirous that Aaron thy son should be our king and our ruler.  Therefore, choose you by the [majority vote] of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.  Now it is not common that the [majority vote] of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the [majority vote] of the people.  And if the time comes that the [majority vote] of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.  If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the [majority vote] of the people.  (Mosiah 29: 2, 25-27, 29)

Yea, well did Mosiah say, who was our last king, when he was about to deliver up the kingdom, having no one to confer it upon, causing that this people should be governed by their own voices—yea, well did he say that if the time should come that the [majority vote] of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for destruction. (Alma 10: 19)

Nevertheless, it came to pass that Pahoran was appointed by the [majority vote] of the people to be chief judge and a governor over the people of Nephi.  And it came to pass that Pacumeni, when he saw that he could not obtain the judgment-seat, he did unite with the [majority vote] of the people.  And it came to pass as he [Paanchi] was about to do this, behold, he was taken, and was tried according to the [majority vote] of the people, and condemned unto death; for he had raised up in rebellion and sought to destroy the liberty of the people.  And now behold, Pacumeni was appointed, according to the [majority vote] of the people, to be a chief judge and a governor over the people, to reign in the stead of his brother Pahoran; and it was according to his right. And all this was done in the fortieth year of the reign of the judges; and it had an end.  (Hel. 1: 5-6, 8, 13)

See also the following Book of Mormon scriptures that use this expression: Mosiah 7: 9; Mosiah 22: 1; Alma 2: 3-4, 7; Alma 4: 16; Alma 27: 21-22; Alma 46: 34; Alma 51: 7, 15-16; Hel. 2: 2; and Hel. 5: 2.

Bible scriptures

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.  But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.  And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the [majority vote] of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.  According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.  Now therefore hearken unto their [majority vote]: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.  And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.  And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.  And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.  And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.  And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.  And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.  And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.  He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.  And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.  Nevertheless the people refused to ^aobey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.  And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their [majority vote], and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.  (1 Sam. 8: 4-22)

This scripture, in particular, is interesting because Samuel was the prophet of the Lord and the majority vote* was asking for something contrary to the will of the Lord (they were asking to change the tribal anarchy into a monarchical State like the nations around them), yet the Lord told his prophet to listen to and obey the majority vote of the people.  This is otherwise known as the law of common consent.

*Notice verse four where it says “all the elders of Israel.”  This seems to indicate that this wasn’t just a bare majority, but a unanimous majority.

Doctrine and Covenants scriptures

And let all things be done according to the counsel of the order, and united consent or [majority vote] of the order, which dwell in the land of Kirtland.  And it is my will that he should sell the lots that are laid off for the building up of the city of my saints, inasmuch as it shall be made known to him by the voice of the Spirit, and according to the counsel of the order, and by the [majority vote] of the order.  Therefore, you are dissolved as a united order with your brethren, that you are not bound only up to this hour unto them, only on this wise, as I said, by loan as shall be agreed by this order in council, as your circumstances will admit and the [majority vote] of the council direct.  And the avails of the sacred things shall be had in the treasury, and a seal shall be upon it; and it shall not be used or taken out of the treasury by any one, neither shall the seal be loosed which shall be placed upon it, only by the [majority vote] of the order, or by commandment.  And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the [majority vote] and common consent of the order.  And this shall be the [majority vote] and common consent of the order—that any man among you say to the treasurer: I have need of this to help me in my stewardship—but in case of transgression, the treasurer shall be subject unto the council and [majority vote] of the order.  And in case the treasurer is found an unfaithful and an unwise steward, he shall be subject to the council and [majority vote] of the order, and shall be removed out of his place, and another shall be appointed in his stead.  (D&C 104: 21, 36, 53, 64, 71-72, 76-77)

Joseph Smith, Jun., Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams were acknowledged presidents by the [majority vote] of the council; and Joseph Smith, Sen., John Smith, Joseph Coe, John Johnson, Martin Harris, John S. Carter, Jared Carter, Oliver Cowdery, Samuel H. Smith, Orson Hyde, Sylvester Smith, and Luke Johnson, high priests, were chosen to be a standing council for the church, by the unanimous [majority vote] of the council.  Voted: that whenever any vacancy shall occur by the death, removal from office for transgression, or removal from the bounds of this church government, of any one of the above-named councilors, it shall be filled by the nomination of the president or presidents, and sanctioned by the [majority vote] of a general council of high priests, convened for that purpose, to act in the name of the church.  The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the [majority vote] of the church.  (D&C 102: 3, 8-9)

And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the [majority vote] of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.  And this shall be done through the bishop or the agent, which shall be appointed by the [majority vote] of the church.  (D&C 51: 4, 12)

And now, I give unto the church in these parts a commandment, that certain men among them shall be appointed, and they shall be appointed by the [majority vote] of the church; and they shall look to the poor and the needy, and administer to their relief that they shall not suffer; and send them forth to the place which I have commanded them; and this shall be their work, to govern the affairs of the property of this church.  (D&C 38: 34-36)

And again, I have called my servant Edward Partridge; and I give a commandment, that he should be appointed by the [majority vote] of the church, and ordained a bishop unto the church, to leave his merchandise and to spend all his time in the labors of the church; to see to all things as it shall be appointed unto him in my laws in the day that I shall give them. (D&C 41: 9-10)

And let there be an agent appointed by the [majority vote] of the church, unto the church in Ohio, to receive moneys to purchase lands in Zion.  (D&C 58: 49)

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the [majority vote] of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.  (D&C 134: 3)

It becomes plain, then, from these scriptures, that the church functions on the principle of majority vote.

The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences.  No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church; but the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.  (D&C 20: 63, 65-66)

No need for unanimity unless specified

Unless the voice is specified as having to be “unanimous,” such as in the following scripture, all majority votes (51% or more) are sufficient to decide all issues in the church.

And every decision made by either of these quorums [the First Presidency, the Twelve and the Seventy] must be by the unanimous [majority vote] of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—a majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.  (D&C 107: 27-29)

Next Common Consent article: We are not doing our business by the voice of the people

Previous Common Consent article: Apathy is not a problem, it’s a symptom and a solution

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Apathy is not a problem, it’s a symptom and a solution

Almost all of my posts are directed to LDS who are not in leadership positions.  But with this one post, I want to talk about, and perhaps even to, the leaders.

Apathy is not a result of bad members,
it’s a result of uninspired leadership

Apathy in the church is a manifestation of a problem with the leadership, not the members.  Inspired leaders do not preside over apathic congregations.  Take Ammon and his brethren:

And as sure as the Lord liveth, so sure as many as believed, or as many as were brought to the knowledge of the truth, through the preaching of Ammon and his brethren, according to the spirit of revelation and of prophecy, and the power of God working miracles in them—yea, I say unto you, as the Lord liveth, as many of the Lamanites as believed in their preaching, and were converted unto the Lord, never did fall away.  (Alma 23: 6)

The converts of Ammon (and his brethren) remained 100% active throughout the rest of their lives.  Apathy never became an issue.  Why?

Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?  To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforter which was sent forth to teach the truth.  And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified?  Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong.  Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?  And if it be by some other way it is not of God.  And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?  If it be some other way it is not of God.  Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?  Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.  And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.  (D&C 50: 13-23)

Ammon preached to the Lamanites by the Spirit of truth, which resulted in the edification of both parties.  In other words, he preached by the gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost and the (non-member) Lamanites who eventually converted received the word he preached also by the gifts (see D&C 46: 14) and powers of the Holy Ghost. They continued this same process and no one became apathetic.  But no one can receive the word by the Spirit of truth unless it is preached by the same Spirit.  Therefore, uninspired leadership alone is to blame for apathy in the church.

Ah, but surely the receivers carry some of the blame, too, right?

Wrong.  We are talking of members of the church, not non-members, so these are people who have already received the word and who are already willing to receive more of the word.  They believe in the word, they believe the word will be at church and they go to church to receive it.  They expect and believe their leaders will give them the word in the Spirit of truth, meaning that it will be dispersed “according to the spirit of revelation and of prophecy,” by the gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost, “the power of God working miracles in them”, just as Ammon spread the word.  If, though, after they go and listen to their leaders, they remain apathetic, it is entirely their leaders’ fault.  The leaders are uninspired.  Period.

Without the manifestations of the Spirit, boredom sets in

Anyone who has experienced manifestations of the Spirit knows that any “religious” experience in which the Spirit is not manifesting itself is not really a religious experience.  It is just going through the motions.  When the Spirit is present, a religious gathering can last all day long and one still can’t get enough.  Without the Spirit, boredom quickly sets in and ten minutes becomes an eternity.  Many will say that it is up to the members to bring the Spirit to a meeting, in other words, that you get what you put into it.  This, though, is a cop-out to try to remove the responsibility of the leaders from ministering the gospel as the scriptures direct: in the Spirit of truth.

In other religious denominations, in which pastors are paid, the members do not simply suffer through boredom-filled meetings.  If the pastor does not bring the Spirit, they either fire him or the members go elsewhere, to a pastor that they feel does possess the Spirit. Not so with the LDS.  We do like the Puritans and consider it saintly to suffer through week after week of boredom.  (See The Title of Insufferable, Self-Righteous Prigs.)

Motivation is not the issue

The typical tactic used by uninspired leaders is to try to motivate the members to do their duty, as if motivation were the problem.  For example, not a single Sunday will go by without an elder’s quorum president striving to remind, encourage and motivate his quorum to do home teaching.  Success stories will be drawn from talks of GA’s and such, showing that home teaching is important and effective.  Week after week the elders’ ears will grow more and more weary with hearing the broken “home teaching” record play.  In one ward that I was a part of, one of the elders got so tired of hearing it that when the bishop sent one of his counselors to deliver a special bishopric message to our quorum of elders, and it turned out to be about home teaching, this elder stormed off in anger and didn’t return again to the quorum until he was finally coaxed gently back.

Member missionary work is another area that is treated like a motivation problem.  Members generally are excited about the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ and do not need motivation.  They do, however, need inspired leadership.  Bringing a non-member friend to a boring meeting is not something everyone is willing to do.  If the leadership is inspired and the gathering of the saints are occasions in which the Spirit is poured out and manifestations are regular, members naturally spread the word.  This is true of all cultures and religions.  For example, in the Catholic religion and regions of the world, when someone has witnessed a virgin appear somewhere, word spreads like wildfire and everyone goes to see what Spiritual manifestation is occurring.  The miraculous is widely held as a sign of the divine working, or as the Savior puts it, “the works of the Father.”  If you remove the works of the Father from any church, even one that carries the name of Christ, you are left with a church of man.  So, “the power of God working miracles in” leaders is very important.

Uninspired leaders are not sanctified

The Lord has made it plain that all leaders are to be sanctified.  If they are not sanctified, they are not to be leaders, or “teachers” of the word.  (See Scriptural Discussion #5: Teachers—Must Be Sanctified.)  Sanctified leaders possess the spirit of prophecy and revelation, yet, how many leaders have actually prophesied in the church?  How many leaders have actually received a revelation, not just inspiration, but the type that can be written down?  Go and ask your leader if he or she has ever prophesied or ever received a revelation from the Lord and see for yourself.

Unsanctified leaders are more like managers than leaders.  No one wants to be “managed.”  Heck, no one wants to be led, either, unless the Holy Ghost is doing the leading, then everyone wants to be led.  Unless a leader is sanctified and thus possesses the guidance, gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost, those who follow his leadership are being led by just a man.

Apathy is a good thing

If you touch a hot iron, you feel pain.  That pain may seem like a bad thing, but it really is a good thing as it alerts you to the danger of the hot iron so that you can remove your hand and avoid further damage to your body.  All symptoms of illness, then, although they don’t feel good, are but signals to us that there is a problem.

Leadership will often see apathy not as a signal that there is a problem, but as the problem itself. The apathy itself is then addressed, not its cause.  The members will be preached to and made to feel guilty for not doing their duty.  They will be encouraged and motivated and every other trick in the book to get them to do something that they would naturally do anyway, without any external influence, if only they heard the word preached to them in the Spirit of truth.

An argument could be made that uninspired leadership should not be encouraged by acting on it.  Only inspired leadership should be acted upon.  After all, if the membership acted upon uninspired leadership and brought their friends to boring church meetings in droves, what would be the result?  However, such an argument is not necessary because man, by nature, negates uninspired leadership with the solution of apathy.  Apathy, therefore, is not a problem, but a solution to uninspired leadership. It is an apathetic membership which should inspire the leaders to sanctify themselves and obtain the powers, gifts and fruits of the Spirit with which to minister in righteousness among the Lord’s people.  Only the Spirit can cure apathy, or enliven a sleepy body.

How to encourage leadership to repent: inspired, intentional apathy

If your ward or stake leaders are uninspired and you notice that your ward or stake is full of apathetic members, the answer is not to fight them or call them to repentance.  The Lord will take care of His leaders and will chastise them in His own due time.  It is not the duty of the membership to steady the ark.  We members did not call them, although we did sustain them through our vote. And that (sustaining) is the key.

Sustain inspired leaders and withdraw support from uninspired leaders

The proper, scriptural way that the Lord has set up whereby membership can “modify the misbehavior of the leadership” is by withdrawing a sustaining vote.  Most people feel that once a vote is cast, it must remain cast until the end of the term of office.  The election of California Governor Schwarzenegger should have put an end to that line of thinking.  Just as the Lord giveth and taketh away, so the membership has the power to sustain and withdraw support.

I might suggest a couple of important things to keep in mind when withdrawing support from an uninspired leader.  First, this is not a way to punish him, but to encourage him to sanctify himself so that he may again have your support.  And second, keep firmly in mind the difference between what are the commandments of God and the counsels or petitions of an uninspired man.  As long as you continue to keep the commandments of God, you will remain on safe ground.

For example, having entered baptism and made a covenant with God, we are to partake of the sacrament each week.  So, not attending a ward that has an uninspired bishop is not an option.  However, just attending the portion in which the sacrament is passed, partaking and then skipping the rest of the meeting, might be.  On my mission, many baptized members did just that, as they had covenanted to partake of the sacrament each week, not listen to every talk given in that meeting.

During sustaining votes, especial care might be taken as to who you vote for, or even if you vote at all.  (See Is our procedure for sustaining a rubberstamp?)  Just as there are many ways to sustain a leader, there are probably as many ways to withhold support.

Inspired apathy is a solution

Inspired apathy can be a great tool in the hands of those who wield it with a proper understanding of its effect on leadership.  Although apathy is often seen as a thing to be avoided, a bad thing, it can be a means of generating humble leaders who are guided by the Holy Ghost and not just by their egos.

Next Common Consent article: The voice of the people signifies a majority

Previous Common Consent article: Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Anarchy in action: congregational nullification

Jury Nullification

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words “the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her.”

Jury nullification is more specifically any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, acquitting a criminal defendant despite the defendant’s violation of the letter of the law. This verdict need not disagree with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, but may disagree with an instruction, if given by the judge, that the jury is required to apply the law to the defendant if certain facts are found.

Although a jury’s refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of the statute. “Jury nullification” is thus a means for the people to express opposition to an unpopular legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one’s peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

(Taken from the Jury Nullification entry of the Wikipedia. See the entire entry for more information.)

Jury nullification occurs when a jury judges both the facts of a case and the law it is based upon. In modern times it doesn’t occur very often, perhaps because juries are not aware that they have this common law right or power due to modern judges not informing them of the entire jurisdiction of a jury. In fact, judges often do the opposite and give them instructions that they must apply the law. However, the truth is that juries do have this power regardless of what a corrupt judge may say.

Congregational Juries

Our system of church government consists of judges, courts and councils, with witnesses and advocacy, but apparently without juries. However, as all appointments/callings must be approved by the congregation through common consent vote before an appointment/calling is solidified, in reality and practice the congregational members are the juries of the church.

Again, any calling in the church needs to be ratified by the congregational jury. A name is read and a call to ratify is made to the members, who raise their hands in approbation or in opposition, or who do not raise their hands, at all. A count is made and if the voice of the people (the majority) is for the appointment, it goes through. If the voice of the people is against it, it does not go through. In this way the congregational jury renders a verdict of their approval or disapproval of the various appointments/callings. We call this vote sustaining. Nothing in the church happens, nor can happen, without a sustaining vote of the members of the congregation, as that would be tyranny and a usurpation of powers, because all things must be done with the consent of the congregation.

Congregational Nullification

There is, however, another way that the congregational jury renders a verdict. Sometimes policies or instructions are handed out to the members from their leaders without taking a vote. For example, recent First Presidency letters read in sacrament meeting contained instructions to the members concerning the passage of a constitutional amendment on marriage (for California saints) and sacrament meeting behavior, specifically, not using visual aids or asking the congregation to turn to a scripture while giving a talk. These instructions are similar to those received by trial juries from the presiding judge concerning how they are to apply the law to the case. In both instances, neither jury is instructed that they can pass judgment upon the judge’s instructions and discard them if wisdom so dictates.

Many saints get offended when instructions they feel are overbearing or tyrannical come down from their leaders. To prove their point, they’ll sometimes take actions that end up pitting the church against them, such as taking a public stand against the church. This is not the wisest course to take and may lead to their being disfellowshipped, excommunicated or even them just leaving on their own.

The Lord has given us the means to nip all tyranny in His church in the bud via the law of common consent. Just as trial jury nullification exists as a common law right, it also exists as a right of the congregational juries. Simply ignoring all instructions deemed to be unjust, unwise, overbearing, tyrannical or humiliating nullifies the instructions. End of story.

Most instructions given today by leaders are called “counsel.” When members are asked to do something, usually that is the very word used: ask. Anybody can ask anything they want of you. Asking you to do or not to do something does not rob you of your agency. It also does not obligate you to do the thing asked. Like trial juries, congregational juries have the choice to obey instructions received by them from the leaders without another thought, or they can render the instructions null and void by ignoring them.

Anarchy in Action

Both congregational nullification and the raising of the hands in approval/disapproval during a sustaining vote is anarchy in action. Ultimately, always, the people decide all matters of the church. The leaders can do nothing without the consent of the people.

Taking the two examples given above, for those saints who agree with the First Presidency letter on the marriage bill, they can sustain the letter’s instructions by donating time, means and effort to that cause. For those saints who disagree with the letter’s instructions, they can ignore the petition entirely and donate no time, means or effort to it. Just as during sustaining votes, members do not campaign other members to sway votes in favor of or against particular church callings, campaigning need not occur for non-voting uses of the law of common consent. Everything remains peaceful, ordered and anarchic, each man, woman and child of the church casting a verdict on the instructions by their actions.

In the second instance mentioned above, congregational nullification can also occur, should the people think the instructions are unneccessary or unjust. Or, congregational ratification can occur should the people think the instructions are wise and timely. All that is necessary is that each speaker either obey the instructions and stop using visual aids or asking the audience to open their scriptures, or disregard the instructions and use visual aids and ask the congregation to turn to such-and-such a verse.

The bishop or other leaders may attempt to correct a single person who ignores counsel or instruction, but if that person continues to ignore the counsel, or if more than one person ignores the counsel and it becomes apparent that the congregation has passed a verdict against the counsel, by ignoring it, then congregational nullification has occurred and that counsel is now null and void. There is nothing a leader can do with a group of people who refuse to ratify an instruction by obedience to it.

In my own experience, eventually even the most power-tripping leaders will throw up their hands in frustration because peaceful, ordered, anarchic congregational nullification cannot be stopped. No one can be tried for ignoring counsel or petitions. There is no law against it in the church. There are only laws against sin.

Use of Common Consent Stops Tyranny

Jury nullification drives leaders up the wall with frustration, as it limits their power and control over a congregation, but it is one of the means the Lord has set up to stop tyranny in His church. Used as a proper check to usurpation of power, it properly balances the church and puts all saints, leaders and members alike, on equal ground.

So, the next time you receive instructions from your religious leaders you do not agree with, even after prayer and fasting, instead of publicly fighting them and becoming an apostate, instead of striving to get other members in your camp and pit member against member or member against leader, or instead of trying to win the leader over to your cause (which never works), just apply the principle of congregational nullification and ignore the instructions.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchy in Education

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: The dissolution of the corporate LDS Church via “gay marriage”

Next Common Consent article: Apathy is not a problem, it’s a symptom and a solution

Previous Common Consent article: Power of the Law of Common Consent

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist