Here is an idea of how fellowships can nominate a representative of good character for cross-fellowship decisions.
This is the original document that the moiety doc that is circulating is based on, but the moiety doc has added on a lot more from the Iroquois ideas than I think are necessary. Representatives can be male or female, and can be sustained by their fellowship. Sure, they could be chosen by lots in the fellowships as well. These are modifiable concepts.
The default idea is the most open: even non-baptized people who support others who believe in the doctrine of Christ can participate in votes if the cross-fellowship decision warrants including them. It is similar to Joseph Smith’s idea that non-members be included in the kingdom of God to represent their interests. It makes sense that these should be non-members who support believers and do not persecute others.
However, certainly this can be modified so that if a decision relates to covenant holders only, for instance, then fellowships can pick covenant holders to nominate for that particular decision.
After this nomination process, when all representatives of the fellowships get together, they can implement a decision-making framework like the one presented in Denver’s podcast about “Dances with Wolves”
With this delegate nomination process, once the delegates of the fellowships get together, they can initially choose a decision making framework. That can change each time: For instance, they can choose “Dances with Wolves” method, majority vote method, or unanimous vote method, depending upon the seriousness of the decision to be made and how the group decides to do the vote. You can make this initial decision of what voting framework to adopt for each council item be a unanimous choice by default. Meaning, the group should be unanimous in deciding how the voting will proceed (for example, they unanimously decide the council item is a medium-level decision so they should use a majority rules voting framework to resolve it).
You can ignore the introduction and title. When I initially wrote this, I was toying with the idea that the thoughts on how fellowships could make decisions together could be the Guide and Standard itself. I considered this document a work in progress, but since it got leaked and partially absorbed by another effort, I wanted to post it as it was originally written. It makes better sense that this is just a nomination procedure. Maybe some parts are useful for the G&S, but that would be for the whole group to decide when they hash out the G&S decision.
The idea on what a “voting fellowship” is needs some clarification. It struck me that in order for a fellowship to implement all of the functions a fellowship could perform, i.e. priesthood ordination and sustaining, baptism, sacrament, etc, they would need 7 women and at least 1 man. That is the reason for choosing what a “voting fellowship” is in order to avoid a single person or a couple nominating a representative to join a confederacy of fellowships. Even though only two or three gathered together are needed to have fellowship in Christ, two or three can also collude to send a person who would persecute the larger group in their decisions and wreak havoc. Once two or people grow to a fully functioning fellowship of 8 people, maybe like Isaiah foretold, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by your name, to take away our reproach” (Isaiah 1:12 OC), then they could send a representative to cross-fellowship councils for decision making.
CALLING FOR A VOTE
Since we don’t have any central leadership, and similar to how anyone can call for a conference, anyone can also call for a vote.
Here is one example of how this can happen.
If every fellowship registers on http://www.fellowshiplocator.info/ , then someone calling for a vote can ask to send an email to all fellowships. The only tool you have is persuasion. If you can persuade the fellowships to send a representative for your voting item, when you get together you either accomplish something or you don’t. When you accomplish something, report what you have done. If you get 100 out of 300 fellowships represented, it may not be that persuasive of a decision. We’re all on our own to decide together, and see what light and truth raises from the ground up and completes in a persuasive manner to touch the hearts of the most people.
You can state in your email to all the fellowships that you are asking for representatives to be picked, or that you want all people involved to vote. If you can administer a mechanism to get a vote included for all people, more power to you. Just publish your method, your decision item (e.g. The item for discussion will be: to decide on a Guide and Standard), meeting places, etc., and publish your results.
Maybe someone somewhere will be successful in getting a large representation of fellowships in a fair manner to select a Guide and Standard that is full of light and resonates across the movement or is at least acceptable. The Scripture Committee pulled this off for the larger scripture project. Their efforts are persuasive. Not everyone is convinced, but they succeeded and proved a case example.