From Fox 13 in Salt Lake City, UT:
A group of people advocating for women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be ordained to the priesthood officially launched their movement on Saturday in Salt Lake City.
I've read a comment on Facebook from someone that said "[the] church is not, has not ever been, nor ever will be a democracy." I assume that comment is meant to suggest that the people from the above story are wrong to voice their opinion on a subject they feel is closed. Personally, I don't have a problem with people sharing opinions and discussing topics, even topics such as this. People are free to advocate for whatever they want. There certainly is precedent for revelation coming after sincere questions or thoughts were posed by people. Section 89 of the Doctrine & Covenants, aka the Word of Wisdom, comes to mind.
Another person commented that, if the church is not a democracy, why do we have a sustaining vote for leaders of the church? That answer is just a bit longer.
The church utilizes what is known as "Common Consent". It does bear certain similarities to democracy, but I maintain it falls short of what we think of as democracy by purpose and design. In a purely democratic system, a choice is offered, people may have an opportunity to debate, and a vote is taken. One side or the other wins. People are entitled to their opinions, but can't be condemned for failure to support the majority.
Via common consent, people are given the right to sustain or oppose. If they oppose, they are to be questioned privately as to why. The authorities then in place must decide if the reasons for opposition are legitimate or not and whether or not to proceed with the original course of action. In such a situation, a single objecting person with compelling information could overrule the majority will of the people (who might very well have objected themselves had they been privy to whatever information the single person objecting knew).
Alternatively, the number of people objecting could be larger than the number of people sustaining and if it were determined they were all objecting for invalid reasons, the sustaining could still be seen as having been carried out.
Some theological organizations provide for a means whereby a group can formally bring forth an issue and force a vote by a governing body. The LDS church does not. Sustaining of members called to positions within the church require common consent. New doctrine is subject to common consent before being accepted as part of the standard works of the church. Otherwise, authorities are sustained periodically and entrusted with the running of the church. They might choose to publicly act on issues brought to their attention, or they might not. And depending on how far people go in trying to push for change, they risk church disciplinary action, up to and including excommunication.
Yes, common consent has certain democratic similarities, but it is a long way from true democracy.
Go Top