By Common Consent

The Doctrine and Covenants declares that all things in the church must be done by common consent:

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 26:2)

For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 28:13)

Look in a hard copy of the D&C's index for “common consent”. You'll get more results than if you type it into a computer version of the scriptures.

There is a petition here that says:

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it is our desire to faithfully fulfill our obligation to our church by at least annually giving our “voice and Common Consent” as to the allocation of the funds that have been and are currently being donated by us to our Church.

We believe as President Hinckley stated that the financial information of our church “belongs to those that made the contribution”.

For most of our history our church provided full disclosure of its funds. Even in times of financial difficulties members could share in the joy of knowing that good works were being accomplished with their collective donations. We have confidence that a full annual financial disclosure will vindicate the virtue and integrity of our church’s financial affairs that are consistent with the principles taught by our Lord. Such open transparency will also dispel all mystery that often leads to unverifiable speculation both without and within our church:  “And He doeth nothing, save it be plain.” (2 Ne. 26:33). We seek complete transparency in all our financial affairs by following the Lord’s counsel that monies placed into His treasury shall “not be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by voice and common consent” (Doctrine and Covenants 104:71).

Therefore, we the undersigned members formally request that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once again publish a full annual financial report that provides sufficient details so that we as members can once again give our “voice and Common Consent” as to the allocation of monies expended by our Church.

I would encourage anyone who is concerned about this - or who would like to have this disclosure made - to go and sign this petition. Again, the address is http://bycommonconsent.org/

Most people say where they are from (a few don't). In any case, here are some of the general places people have said they are from. It would appear that this is a worldwide concern.

USA

Queensland

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Sweden

Canada

Scotland

Beijing

Australia

Germany

Norway

Philippines

New Zealand

Thailand

England

Mexico

Japan

United Arab Emirates

Ethiopia & Hillsb [cut off]

Edited June 19, 2012 to add: The "About" on the page says this:

Petition by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to restore full annual financial disclosures. This Petition stands as a public statement of support, and the signatures will be posted here in perpetuity until the stated goal of restoring the practice of full financial disclosure is achieved. No private information will be conveyed to the LDS Church or any other party.

Not to be confused with the blog of the same name, but welcoming a friendly collaboration.

Hymn 259 - rewritten (Hope of Israel)

Much of my life, I liked to play with songs, changing the words to them. At church our opening hymn was “Hope of Israel”. I saw that it was saying people were the “hope of Israel” - I always thought it was Jesus. Anyway, as I read the hymn with new eyes I felt the inspiration to put new words to the tune (you may use them freely):

Verse 1:

Hope of Israel, Je - sus Christ,

Sa - vior of the hum - ble heart,

See, the Spi - rit sig - nals on - ward,

And the hum - ble seek the Lord.

Verse 2:

See our sins, they fall be - hind us

As we view the sac - ri - fice.

Hope of Israel, please be with us,

So the vic - t'ry we will win.

Verse 3:

Live for Zion, Love for - e - ver.

Bring our souls to God a - bove.

Ev - 'ry kind - ness leads to hea - ven

Ev - 'ry step we con - q'ring go.

Verse 4:

Soon the bat - tles will be o - ver,

Where will you, o man, then stand?

On -ward, on - ward, souls re - pent - ing,

Thy re - ward the vic - tor's crown.

Chorus:

Hope of Is -rael, Je - sus Christ

With the sword of truth and light,

Sound the love - cry, “Watch and pray!”

Bring your soul to Christ to - day.

I may see if I can find some lyrics I have written in the past and put them on my other blog. It might be fun to make new lyrics to a song every week and put in on there. (I'm not making any promises.)

Inflection

My daughter and I were discussing italics and inflection. The example she used was, "The cat in the hat."

Examples (in bold italics):

The cat in the hat. Implies a specific cat.

The cat in the hat. Implies the cat, as opposed to a horse or a dog.

The cat in the hat. Implies that it is in the hat not by it or on it.

The cat in the hat. Implies a specific hat.

The cat in the hat. Implies it's in a hat, not in a sweater or a dish.

Joseph Smith and Polygamy

So, as I understand it, Joseph had the sealing power given him by God, a priesthood that cannot be passed down.¹This enabled him to save those who were sealed to him², by the power that he held (which type of sealing cannot be passed down from man to man). Thus, it seems to me³, especially in light of what I have read here, that Joseph was sealed to women, not as a sexual partner but as a power to raise up seed unto the Lord, meaning souls who could be saved through being sealed to Joseph. It was no more sexual than when he had sons sealed to him. Thus, Joseph could honestly say he had only one wife and was not practicing polygamy because he understood others to mean having sexual relations with other women, when that was not the case. But through the years, the doctrine was misunderstood and changed.

This would explain why there are no physical descendents of Joseph except through Emma - a woman sealed to Joseph might consider him the father all of her children, even though her “legal and lawful” husband provided the actual seed. She might even confide in her child/ren that Joseph was their father.

And we cannot really know how many women were sealed to Joseph in his lifetime, with his presence and consent. By the time plural marriages became well-known, there was a stake in “proving” that Joseph had practiced plural marriage. Those who testified that they had been Joseph's wives, may have been sealed to him (in a nonsexual relationship), or they may have been “lying for the Lord”.

There were also people sealed to him as his children. I have a great-grandfather back some generations who was sealed to Joseph as his son (but the sealing wasn't done until the pioneers were in Utah - unless it was redone then). But Joseph didn't treat them as children, I expect. For example, they didn't have to worry about a whipping if they did wrong (the common punishment of children in those days).

Anyway, this is my latest understanding of the idea of Joseph and plural marriage.

1 JST 14 27. And thus, having been approved of God, he [Melchizedek] was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,

28. It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

29. And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto us many as believed on his name.

2 I cannot find the exact words I seek, but I understand it to be what Joseph preached. Here is an example of something he said that may refer to that: I will walk through the gate of heaven and Claim what I seal & those that follow me & my Council - Wilford Woodruff Diary 10 March 1844 (Sunday). At Temple. (Words of Joseph Smith)

3 “Joseph's practices were carefully guarded, hidden from public view, and so discrete that still today there are those who think he never had plural wives. If this were something for public display and advocacy, then Joseph would have done so. He did not. To the contrary, he also delighted in the chastity of women and condemned adultery and fornication.

...

“It is my view that the question of taking plural wives arises with Joseph Smith, and was through a revelation to him when he inquired about the topic. He treated it as a limited, carefully curtailed, private matter. His implementation of the practice was limited to sealing his own plural wives, and one other man to two wives.

“With Brigham Young, however, taking more women became not only public, but it also became a topic used to prove his own v[i]rility.”