Verse 29 seems to indicate that the only appeal to the decisions of the first presidency is by an assembly of the entire body of the three presidents, the twelve, and perhaps the Seventy. There is no recognition of any authority residing in the body of the Saints.

Verse 33 is the clincher. Note my capitalization.

D&C 107. 33 The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, TO OFFICIATE in the name of the Lord, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, AND REGULATE ALL THE AFFAIRS OF THE SAME IN ALL NATIONS, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews.

Finally, as a legal identity in the eyes of the US Government, the Church is a corporation in which the President of the Church is Trustee in Trust. As such he has complete control of the disposition of all church property. In this regard the President is more powerful than the Pope of Rome. The Pope is actually subordinate to the Bishops in several ways.

If the the D&C had the power of a constitution, then verses 21 and 22 could be cited as evidence that the current mechanism of appointing the President is irregular. Verse 22 could be interpreted to mean that the President of the Church must be elected (“chosen by the body”) of the Melchizidik(sic) priesthood. The pivotal word above is BODY. Is that the body of the twelve, the body of the presidency, or the body of the Melchizedek priesthood?

However, the only body in the church which has authority to interpret scripture or do anything else in a sovereign way, is the First Presidency. They seem to have interpreted this passage to mean that the President or the twelve or the presidents and the twelve appoint new apostles and upon the death of the President the most senior apostle inherits the office. The twelve and the first presidency are thus constituted as a self perpetuating gerontocracy.

D&C 107 21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods. 22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, CHOSEN BY THE BODY, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

Catch 22 is a great book, you made me want to read it again.

I see your point about the seeming disloyalty of challenging anything presented by our leaders, but do you think there is any added significance to something that has been presented to the Church for acceptance as compared to a letter signed by the first presidency, or a random statement of a prophet or apostle?

By the way, which verses in D&C 107 lead you to your conclusion?

Church doctrine is whatever the apostles and first presidency decide it is, because, having already confirmed their appointment, it seems it is an act of disloyalty to challenge anything presented.

In any case, it seems to me that SECTION 107 of the D&C gives all authority for establishing doctrine to the “brethren.” No consent is required.

The most ugly example of this in practice was the policy of denying ordination to men of color. This was apparently adopted by Brigham Young. There was never any attempt to bring this policy for confirmation but it was everywhere treated as a doctrine for more than a hundred years.

Several justifications for the policy circulated throughout the church. The most odious being the “Mark of Cane” theory and the usually conjoined “lack of valiance in the war of heaven” theory. Some of the brethren were at pains to say that none of those justifications were endorsed by the church. Never the less, the policy endured. It was right out of Catch 22. There is no reason, it’s just our policy.

As to the last question, I think the answer is a definite yes.

However, as a technical matter, it makes no formal difference whether some minority of quorum members has a problem with prior unanimous statements.

It takes the unanimous consent of least one of the three presiding quorums of the church to make any authoritative change to church doctrine or practice. See D&C 107:27-32.

Common consent of the body of the church is not required to establish doctrine, but is required to ratify changes or additions to the canon (cf. D&C 28:12-13).

I have decided that in the future if I am every dismissed by the notion that some statement I have put forth not being accepted by common consent, I will probably simply ask where it has been denounced by common consent as well.

I think your response only makes sense depending on what point someone is making. If someone says, “the Ensign is not accepted by common consent so it is worthless and why are you bringing it up”, then your response will make sense. However, if someone says “yes, an article in the Ensign did say such and such, but I disagree with that position and feel free to do so because said position is not the official position of the church,” then your response above will not make much sense.

Kim (#45),

There are lots of doctrines out there, sure. How do you propose that we differentiate between the ones that are official positions of the Church and those that are only of private interpretation?

Jacob: (44)Aaron’s main strike against Mormonism is that LDS people believe we are saved by works. It is my typical understanding that LDS view their works(righteous acts and ordinances) as signs of their faith. I have seen this attack as typical of Evangelicals. Is this due to the fact that LDS perform works for the dead, which implies a need by all for the ordinances (ie- works) and not whether you are actually a good guy or not? Do vicarious ordinances for the dead imply salvation by works? What else in our faith might imply this? Personally the Faith v. Works argument has always seemed undeveloped and poorly executed to me.

Kim: (45) I think you are right on this, however, all other aspects of Mormon Doctrine are much more susceptible to change. Of course, even Scripture is susceptible to change, as can be seen in the JST and changes to D & C and POGP. Perhaps an interesting exercise would be to whittle Mormonism down to those aspects which are theoretically not susceptible to change. Perhaps we would be left with only what is primarily presented in the missionary lessons?