Doctrine and Covenants 28

The section heading for this explains that a member of the Church, Hiram Page, claimed to receive revelations through a magic stone (as Joseph Smith had), but that these revelations had deceived several members. Verses 1-7 explain that only Joseph was allow to provide revelation for the whole Church.

Verses 8,9,14 speak of Oliver Cowdery preaching to the Lamanites and Zion being built on the borders by the Lamanites. This is supposed to be a direct revelation from God, and “Lamanites” means “Native Americans.” The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual confirms this saying, “By ‘Lamanites’ Joseph Smith had reference to the Indians, and to go out to the ‘borders by the Lamanites’ meant to go to the frontier.”

This was the consensus among the prophets and apostles ... until it wasn’t, in recent decades. Though God was quite clear in the Doctrine and Covenants who the Lamanites were, though the prophets and apostles were unambiguous in teaching that by “Lamanites” the scriptures mean “Native Americans,” the current leaders of the Church do not seem to know who the Lamanites are, even though the Book of Mormon was “Written to the Lamanites” (Book of Mormon Introduction) and the Book of Mormon has many references to how its writings are to be preserved for the Lamanites.

(See also, “Who is Moroni writing to? ”)

But, how would Joseph know that he himself was not deceived by Satan or his own irrational thinking? For example,

“Inhabitants of the Moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the Earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker Style & are quite general in Style, or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; comeing [sic] generally, near a thousand years.’ This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could ‘See’ whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see."
(Joseph Smith, from Stuff You Missed in Sunday School)

“[A]ll things must be done ... by common consent in the church.”

This appears very democratic on the surface. It even involves what the Church called a vote (see D&C 20:63,65-66). In reality, this consent is a formality. A member of the congregation is expected to “vote” for the ordination or calling of a person placed in authority over them or for a decision made that may affect them. If they “vote” against the calling or decision, it is typically observed as odd and even rebellious. This being the case, almost all such “votes” are unanimous or nearly so. It is more similar to a “vote” in the former Soviet Union than a democratic process.

The Church admits that they view these votes as persons showing their support for a decision that has already been made through revelation by priesthood holders in authority to make the decision in question.

“Sustaining, however, should not be confused with voting into office.

“Joseph Smith made it clear how a person is called to a position in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the fifth Article of Faith he says: “We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

“When we sustain officers, we are given the opportunity of sustaining those whom the Lord has already called by revelation” (President Loren C. Dunn of the First Council of the Seventy , We Are Called of God , July 1972 Ensign).

Therefore, the vote is not used in a democratic process to choose or decide, it is rather a process of consenting to uphold the decision already made.

(For more information, see D&C 26:2 and “The Law of Common Consent”)