Wednesday, November 22, 2017

A Guide and Standard Chosen by Lots-UPDATE (11/22/17)

Brothers and sisters,

We cannot express enough appreciation to enough people. Thank you first and foremost to all those who labored so diligently before: we hope that you will see your hard work, efforts, and influence all throughout this document. One of the desires of our heart was to use your work and give you all of the credit – you provided us the design and material, we simply picked up a needle and sewed it all together.  

Thank you to those who offered such helpful suggestions the last few days, and took the time to reach out to us. We were very pleased to incorporate the majority of suggestions. Thank you to those who united in fasting and prayer with us. Our prayers were answered. All glory and praise be to God and the Lamb, forever and ever.

We seven (plus our brother Doug) stand united together. We proclaim with boldness and in humility that God has been with us in this work, He has led us, guided us, influenced us, and shown us the path wherein to walk, according to His will and the righteous desires of our hearts. This is not to invalidate all other work, or previous work – rather it affirms His approval on so much labor that has gone before and been done by so many others - all of which inspired us in weaving this tapestry. Our goal was to find unity. He has given us charity, for each other and for this people. We express our love for you, and our desires for peace and understanding to be with us all.

We prayed and asked God if He accepted our work. We state, in absolute certainty, that God has spoken to us and declared to us from the Heavens His answer. You will read those words in a moment, as given during a prayer from the seven of us voiced by Shalyce Woodard. We seven stand as witnesses that He spoke and made manifest to us His acceptance of this Guide and Standard. I, Jonathan Dippold, also testify that during this prayer and in answer to my question - if He approved this document and the words therein - that He spoke clearly to me in my mind and heart and said: It is enough.

Though our offering is meagre – and that so many of you could and would do so much better - we know that God in His mercy accepts it in our weakness, and therefore, our work is done. We invite you to read it, pray over it, and understand our desire not to supplant any other efforts, but rather acknowledge them and tell you of our love and desires for peace with all.

We now will relate to you the words He told us, through Shalyce. To be clear, this is a prayer, and an answer to a prayer. We share both. We don’t claim it to be anything more or less than that. We share it simply for your consideration, we have no other pretense or motivation. We sign our seven names at the end to state our witness and acceptance of His words (italics added for clarification):

Shalyce: Heavenly Father, we love thee so very much. This has been such a powerful experience for all of us. We’re grateful for the opportunity, and I don’t think any of us expected it, but many of us were prompted and knew it was coming. And that’s because we choose you, and we choose to serve, and we’re doing everything in our power to obey thy wishes and to keep thy commands. Father, we have worked diligently in an effort to unify and to bring thy people together. It has been labor. It has been hard. But it hasn’t been without reward. We are so grateful for thy help, for thy blessing, and for thy hand in all of it. We have seen it, we have felt it, and we have discussed it. Thank you for being with us. Thank you for helping, for the many, many months that it took to compile all the documents that we used in order for this to even come about. Thank you for all of those that worked so hard for so many hours researching and laboring and doing all of that. All of this would not be possible without all of them, and without you. We are so grateful. Father in Heaven at this time, we present this document to you, with our love and our support and our deepest desire that Thou would accept and help us if need be, to correct anything that is amiss, or something that’s missing. If it be thy will, we pray that thou would give us thy words and answer in response to this document. Is it sufficient to fill the need of a statement of principles intended to be a guide and standard for thy people, thy covenant people?

The Lord to Shalyce: Shalyce, I am here. And I can hear you. I know you’re scared, and it’s ok. But I love you, and I’m grateful for your effort.

The Lord to all those who read this: I am grateful for all of your effort. What I ask of you is not always easy, and sometimes it’s quite a sacrifice. But I will labor with you through all of it, so long as you come unto me, and listen for my words. This document that you’ve presented is sufficient for my needs. You have filled the measure in which I have called you. Your work has been valiant. You are correct in saying that there are many ways in which it could have come about, and there are many ways that it did come about. And I am grateful for all of them. At this point, you have a unity with the body. They agree with these words, and this document will suffice. Heed the words contained in them, heed the words contained and referenced in the footnotes. All of those words were mine. I want you to come to me. I will come to you, and we together can be one.

Shalyce & the Lord in unison: I am so grateful for you.

Shalyce: I love you Lord. Is there anything more, or what would you have us do next? Thy will be done Lord.

The Lord: Present it to the people. Present it to my servant David, and you will know what you are to do.

Shalyce: We close this prayer with Jesus’ support and authority. I say these words in His Name, Amen.

The following was shared with us from Jeff Reber. He relates the following thoughts occurred the night before the answer from the Lord was given. We share it with his permission:

While reading through our working draft of the Guide and Standard, I pondered over the priesthood requirement of seven women sustaining one man. The thought came into my mind of how the lots chosen almost represented the inverse of this process (six men and one woman). Immediately my mind was opened: by the Lord’s will (and not by our design), the names selected actually ended up as seven men and one woman. Although the work was completed by six men and one woman, seven men had participated in some way. An alternate was needed to step in for our brother Doug very early on, this was Kirk, and he was the seventh man to be selected. My mind continued down the path to understand that perhaps men should be more willing to support and sustain the woman as she provides other inspired services or speaks on His behalf; because such would please the Lord. I wasn’t certain these ideas came from the Spirit until Shalyce indicated she had been directed to be the one to pray, and then proceeded to receive the answer from the Lord. Right after ending our meeting for the night, I prayed privately for the Lord to confirm all that had taken place. Immediately my mind was taken back to what I had been taught the night before, and that this prompting of thoughts was intended to be a sign and witness that the answer had come from the Lord.  

         Click here for the Revised Guide and Standard or click on the link to the right in the PAGES box.

Your friends,
Jack Hinkle, St. George, Utah
Jason Carlson, Dallas, Texas
John Webster, Cedar City, Utah
Jeff Reber, Beaver Creek, Oregon
Jonathan Dippold, Bury st. Edmunds, England
Shalyce Woodard, Clinton, Utah
Kirk Strong, Orem, Utah


  1. I do not recieve your revelation and I dissent from this proposal.

    Jared Livesey

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. From the beginning, the Lord gave the people what they desired, an opportunity to become of one heart and mind, with the Guide and Standards as a stepping stone.
      I straightway prayed on the matter and the Holy Spirit testified to me that "they should be nothing more or less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ... Then let the Holy Spirit guide each group (or individual I might add) to what they shall be led of God to do."

      When I saw the G&S become many many pages, thrown about here and there, disagreements, etc, it did not sit well with me. I believe that it should simply be what God has already given us to follow, that we support the Truth found in scripture that had already been given us, then allow God to guide us on the group and individual paths He presents before us.
      God, through His servant Denver Snuffer, Jr. received answer that this document should "to bless, benefit and inform", and this offering of "The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles" that has been offered by Jared Livesley does just that.

      All that will be, will be, thus in all things, praise be to God for Truth restored and preserved upon the Earth this day and may His glorious works ever come to pass for His glory!

    4. Jared, one question: have you reached out to the 7 lotsters? They want to communicate with you.

      Jared said this previously, "I hereby formally dissent from each and every G&S proposal pursuant to the A&C both past, present, and future, save one: The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles."

      Is this the attitude of one seeking to be of one mind?

      Jared states clearly that he utterly refuses to listen to anything else than what he himself proposes and that he controls things by his veto power that he believes he holds in his arm.

      It seems to me that he's doing his level best to hinder progress. If his desire is to halt progress, I can't help but think of this quote:

      What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.

      As for me, having accepted the self-evident reality that the heavens are opened again, and that God is working again among the children of men, I have no opposition to using the Lord's words as carefully compiled and woven into the G&S.

      And to be honest, I do have a problem with anybody declaring their blanket opposition to any proposal past, current, or future, and doggedly insisting their idea be adopted.

      Puny arms of unrighteous dominion cannot thwart the work of God, and so I am at peace with the process as it currently stands. May God's will be done.

      Thank you,

      Joe A.

  2. I believe I am on public record as dissenting from this proposal from the beginning, as well. Therefore, you never had unity with the body, for I am part of the body and you did not have unity with me.

    Jared Livesey

    1. I think it's worth considering how the Lord defines "the body." If the words in the Guide and Standard are, in fact, the words of Christ, would it be correct to consider one who opposes them, part of "the body of Christ?"

      Or to put a finer point on it, can someone be part of the body of Christ while rejecting and fighting against Christ's words?

      When He requires the statement to be adopted by the mutual agreement of His people, is he referring to all people, everywhere, or specifically to those whom He claims as "His?"

      According to scripture, His sheep hear His voice. Those who will not hear His voice are not His sheep.

      I think these are all ideas we should ponder carefully.

      Everything in the Guide and Standard clearly comes from Christ, and has been exhaustively documented in His word. Some of us may not like the process by which it was created. Some may not like the topics chosen. Some may think the flow is bad. Some may prefer another document.

      But those aren't the real questions before us. The real question is two-fold.

      Are these Christ's words?
      Has he accepted this Guide and Standard?

      If so, that settles it--at least for me.

      No matter what, there will always be those who reject and oppose. That's a given. In fact, it's even a requirement. And yet the Lord commands it to be adopted by mutual agreement. The contradiction is resolved by the Lord's own limitation--it will be accepted by, and adopted by the mutual agreement of those He considers "His people."

    2. We shall see if the Lord agrees with you that when he said “mutual agreement” he really meant “majority rules,” with the additional provision absent from the A&C but made explicit by yourself that the minority who do not agree to be subject to the will of the majority are, unbeknownst to them and without the Lord’s say-so in the A&C, severed from his covenant.

      “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” indeed.

    3. I did not state, nor do I agree that mutual agreement simply means "majority rules." I have written ardently and at length on both of these topics in contradiction of the opinion you claim I hold.

      My point is simply this:

      IF these are the Lord's words, we oppose them at our peril.

      It has nothing to do with majority or minority.

    4. I guess the important question now is, who gets to decide what the words of Christ are? Is any amalgamation of scriptural words equivalent to "the words of Christ" that should be adopted as our guide and standard to follow?

    5. Adrian,

      I commend to your review JST 1 Kings 13.

      Jared Livesey

  3. I'm All In. Thanks for your efforts, and Glory to God!

  4. I too have approached our God. He has expressed to me that the words of the seven are His words. I am a witness of these things. Our God has accepted our meager offering. Praise be to His Holy Name. All glory and honor be to Him. Amen.

  5. "The Lord: Present it to the people. Present it to my servant David, and you will know what you are to do."

    Also the Lord: "I forbade my servant David from participating, and again forbid him."

    In other words: Not David's circus, not David's clowns.

    1. To quote in context:

      "You are not excused from writing a statement of principles that I have required at your hands. I forbade my servant David from participating, and again forbid him. But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands."

      What, exactly, is David forbidden from participating in? What verbs exist in the Lord's command? Write and adopt.

      It would be reasonable, therefore, to conclude David is forbidden from participating in writing or adopting the statement. Does that mean he can't read it? Now that the Lord has accepted it, is it ok to show it to David?

      I believe you are manufacturing a contradiction where none exists.

    2. I do not see where Denver Snuffer’s approval is either permitted or required for the G&S proposal to be adopted by the mutual agreement of the covenant participants. If he is forbidden to participate at all in the production and adoption of the G&S, then it seems the appearance of a contradiction remains.

      I grant opinions may differ, so we’ll have to see whether Denver puts his stamp of approval upon this proposal, which proposal is not mutually agreed upon.

    3. Wait, what? Who brought up any need for Denver's approval? The command is to present it to the people and to David. The Lord didn't say "Present it to David to see if he approves." He simply said to present it. Let's not put words in the Lord's mouth.

    4. If Dave isn't involved, why mention presenting it to him at all, if not for his approval, or opinion? Why not say "present it to Rock Waterman" or "present it to Adrian"? Or "Present it to the scripture committee so we can put something in the scriptures and get this clown fiesta over with"?

    5. Adrian,

      I like your idea of not putting words in the Lord’s mouth. That’s a great reason to exclude anything Denver has ever said which isn’t a direct quote from the Lord from the G&S.

      Including any mortal’s words as the Lord’s words when the Lord is not being quoted is to put words in the Lord’s mouth.

      I think we should also exclude any words from the Lord which are addressed to Denver Snuffer and are not addressed to anyone else, because they aren’t the Lord’s words to anyone else.

      To do otherwise would also seem to be, if not putting words in his mouth, intentionally misleading others into thinking that when the Lord was speaking to Denver, he was really speaking to, well, anyone other than Denver.

      We wouldn’t wish to lead anyone astray by holding Denver up as a surrogate for the Lord, would we?

      Jared Livesey

    6. And, since the A&C is already had by all the covenant participants, and since the Lord in the A&C is only talking to the covenant participants, and since all covenant participants of necessity already have agreed to the covenant, there is no reason to put forth any of the A&C language in the G&S to those who aren’t covenant participants: the Lord isn’t talking to them.

      Jared Livesey

  6. Log - God Bless you brother. As I recall, immediately after coming back from Boise you posted something about how you thought that you had made a mistake in standing and making a covenant and that you "take it back" for lack of a better term. You praised an individual that you knew who had the courage to NOT stand along with everyone else and make the covenant because that individual didn't feel that they "knew" without a doubt that the words of Denver Snuffer were from the Lord. Even though later that same weekend that individual received a blessing and did end up receiving the covenant. So, therefore, I'm perplexed about where it is that you actually stand. This new Guide and Standard says that we follow the Lord's law in the Sermon on the Mount. However, we recognized our belief that God has called servants in the last days - namely Joseph Smith and Denver Snuffer. There will be others. Do you honestly believe that there is anything in this document that the Lord would be displeased with? Do you honestly believe it would persuade anyone to do less than live the teachings of the Savior on the Sermon on the Mount? Is it not better to agree than to be right? Having to "be right" always excludes love.

    1. We do not share beliefs in the role of Denver Snuffer. Denver as prophet, priest, and king unto the people ends any hope of Zion for us, for you don’t get Zion when we aren’t equal, both temporally and spiritually.

      If this document were only going to be a matter of inward observation - that is, if it only applied to the covenant participants, and if the covenant were not going to be proselyted into - then I would be willing to subject myself to whatever got passed, without participating in the discussion. It would die with us.

      The Golden Rule - the law of the Celestial Kingdom - demands that I not put forth that which will lead astray or cause to stumble from the right way. I do not have anything against those outside “the movement” that I should wish to do them harm.

      Therefore, not for our sakes, but for those unfortunate souls we may yet infect with our idolatry of men and our disbelief in the law and commandments of Jesus Christ I shall not agree with anything other than the gospel of Jesus Christ as the G&S save it be that the Lord commands me to. I don’t have authority to do otherwise.

      Let every man judge for himself, but I will remind you of the following passage:

      Mosiah 23:12-14
      12 And now I say unto you, ye have been oppressed by king Noah, and have been in bondage to him and his priests, and have been brought into iniquity by them; therefore ye were bound with the bands of iniquity.

      13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.

      14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

      I will have no king but Jesus; I will not agree to any G&S which places Denver above any of us or gives cause for men to seek to Denver for light. I will put forth no guide and standard, nor principles, except those which Jesus taught by his own mouth, save he shall command me otherwise.

    2. It is my impression that Denver really doesn't want this to be the church of Denver Snuffer, LDS 2.0. He doesn't want to be our strongman. He doesn't want to be our leader. He doesn't want us to canonize his non-revelatory statements. What if he meant it when he said

      "The “Strongman” model with only one prophetic figure will not work if you seek Zion."

      What if Denver doesn't want to be our Ezekiel 14 idol?

      So if my impression is accurate, how should Dave react when people call him "The Servant" or "The Servant David"? Should he order us to stop making him our idol? If he did, would that be an act of unrighteous dominion on his part?

    3. There's a section in The Second Comforter that addresses a lot of this idolatry, or words of man vs words of God, vs strongman stuff. Excerpt below. Brackets mine. We don't know peoples background or growth chart. I think we ought to be kind and set the correct example as we all attempt to follow the Lord.

      Quote: "The Gospel requires us to proceed carefully, to be sure. We are required to find the voice of the Spirit for ourselves. Every Saint must become, in their own right, a prophet or prophetess. Not to lead others, but themselves (Numbers 11:29). For each must choose for him or herself to find and follow the Master’s voice in his or her life. The only sure rock upon which salvation remains to be found is that same rock of revelation which Christ assured Peter was secure to trust. If you follow [Insert leader] President Hinckley solely because he is the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are following a man. But if you follow President Hinckley because you hear the Master’s voice in his counsel and teaching, then you are following the Lord, and not a man. There is a great difference between the two. One honors the Lord and leads to exaltation. The other misses the mark and makes such followers Telestial (D&C 76: 98-101). This distinction is pivotal to salvation itself. It is not merely rhetorical, but of such substance if you fail to understand it you fail in the test of mortality itself. This is what we signed up for in coming to mortality. We accepted this challenge and expected it. Now it confronts us. So the test is afoot and must be taken with caution and humility."

      There's a phrase that says this distinction ins pivotal to salvation itself. Lets be kind as each of us addresses these distinctions.

    4. Indeed Taylor. When I point a finger at others I'm pointing 3 at myself. I'm as much an idolater as anyone here. I'm no prophet myself, yet Zion needs many prophets.

  7. Every person ought to go to God alone between you and Him. He has either spoken to us as presented by the seven, or He has not. Go ask Him. This is a binary question. Yes or no. If God’s people cannot hear His voice - then He has no people. It is Him we need to hear and hearken to not the contentious voices of men.

    The shrill voices of contentious men, fear, name calling, and insistence on “follow me or else” are perfectly discernible. Do you hear God’s voice in the insistent demands you hear around you? Ask yourself - is this how God sounds? Is this how God speaks? Does He insist you accept His words? Does He resort to name calling? Does He threaten and instill fear to get you to listen and obey? He only ever uses gentle persuasion, love, and kindness, to try to move you to a position.

    Judge the voices even on this thread and simply ask yourself, is this how the Redeemer speaks and communicates and sounds? Does the Master dig in His heels and tell you insistently to either believe Him or else?

    Or, on the other hand, would the one who died for you speak gently and kindly to you? Telling you He accepts your trust and faith in Him? Does He correct you harshly using bitter words? Does He speak in absolutes that He tells you have to be accepted by you Or else?

    Read the announcement from the seven and discern whether the voice of God Speaks to you. His voice is still and small. His voice is gentle and full of peace.

    Judge between the voices on this thread and discern the voice of God. He does speak to you. His voice is peace. Where do you find peace in the words hurled at you here?

    You judge - peace and the voice of God or the voice of contentious men demanding this be this way or that - or else

  8. So, I seem to recall something being said about having Denver take this to the Lord. I felt like that perpetuated our dependence on Denver - which is not a good thing. I was pleased to see that these 8 took it to the Lord themselves, and received their answer. We must all do the same thing. Log is right - we cannot rely on Denver as a Prophet, Priest, and King. However - I'm not sure where that PPK designation came from. He is a servant (as would be any prophet, priest and king). Log - have YOU declared him a PPK? Where did that come from? Are you being rhetorical, illustrating our over-dependence and glorification of Denver? It didn't sound like that.

    There are times, as experience is showing us, when a focal point is needed - a unification that is more easily done by a man, and Denver has performed that service for us, but we MUST wean ourselves from this necessity. This whole GP experience has been an exercise in just that. We MUST learn to function without turning to Denver. Denver's service is to help us get to that point - but WE cannot lose sight of that goal. Log is right - Zion cannot function as long as we're still dependent upon Denver. He knows that, I know that, Denver knows that, and I think most of us know that.

    I view this as a great step in that direction. Let's keep going.

    1. We all appreciate that Denver is a teacher. We all are very clear that no man is to become an idol. We are all so eager and anxious to point that out and remind one another. Why can we not be as animate about this:

      2 Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now.
      3 But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them;

      4 And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;

      5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

      If idolizing a man will destroy all hope for Zion - so will our refusal to unite in peace cooperation and love. Which poison are we choosing by our insistent division?

    2. Scott,

      Just to note something - Denver Snuffer once said he has no respect for anyone who calls themselves a Snufferite. One can be a Snufferite - a disciple, or follower, of Denver Snuffer - and not call themselves by that name. A rose by any other name, as the saying goes, would smell as sweet.

      For reference:

      Likewise, it is not necessary to formally declare Denver to be our prophet, priest, and king - it is only necessary that we treat him as such in order for us to have taken him as such.

      It is time to wean ourselves off of Denver Snuffer entirely or we will have, indeed, another prophet, priest, and king, and fall short of Zion because of inequality and iniquity.

    3. Log, we are certainly agreed on this - the need to wean ourselves from dependence on or idolatry of Denver. I just see that he has performed a service as we learn to do that. We are weak, but I am hopeful.

    4. Steve, you sound frustrated. This is what it is. The Lord is in charge. I think things are moving along quite nicely. I'm personally a little saddened by the controversy, not only with Log's objection, but with tone of impatience expressed by others. Log is in his place, you're in yours, and I'm in mine. Any who cannot tolerate Zion will self-select out. In saying that, I'm not pointing at anyone, I'm just stating a principle that I think will play out. We don't need to be anxious about it at all. It will be what it will be. We just need to focus on loving and not judging. To quote the Lord's words to me specifically, "Trust me, relax". Now, if I could only take my own counsel. :)

    5. Scott,

      This is the time to become independent from Denver Snuffer. If we do not do it now, we won't be able to do it in the foreseeable future because our dependence upon Denver will be enshrined in the G&S, and be part of "our" message: "Denver speaks for the Lord."

    6. Log, so you're objecting to including the words from the A&C, or from anything else Denver has written? You said, "That is not direct revelation" didn't you? Well, I think we have needed Denver as a go between, as the glue that has brought us together, but if we've learned anything from his teachings, it's that we must indeed become independent. I agree that now is the time, but I don't think we need to go so far as removing those things from the GP - if that's indeed what you're suggesting.

    7. I won't agree to a G&S which cites anything from or through Denver.

      I won't point people to a living mortal messenger / servant / prophet / priest / king without direct commandment of the Lord. See Acts 16:16-18 and note well the evil spirit's message, and consider that reliance upon Joseph is where the Church went wrong - and after Joseph was taken, the majority followed the leader ever since.

      I will instead point people to the Lord. Hence, I will not agree to a G&S which is either more or less than the Lord's gospel as I have outlined.

    8. Perhaps we should remove anything from Lehi, Isaiah, Nephi, Mosiah, etc. Our scriptures are full of men whom have given forth instruction from God of what He desires for us. Whatever is given us, are we in tune with God our Father and hear His words in what is being given? I shall not be responding again. I am at peace and know what Father requires of me. I listen to ALL whom Father sends for my further light and knowledge. Contention is not part of that.

  9. I appreciate Log's main point about avoiding idolatry and priestcraft and to be a community of equals.

    But I ask you Log, do you believe Denver has failed in any degree in making the SAME warnings? I've read over his 10 talks (repeatedly) and read lots of his blog and many of his books, and see repeated and passionate and articulate warnings to do and believe just as you admonish (as far as rejecting a strongman). He has been very condemning of the strongman model and totally slams it and warns the people to not go that direction, and he has pointed out the quotes of Joseph Smith which indicate the same thing (that our minds become darkened when we rely on a mortal, even when that mortal is a true servant).

    To me it seems that any time a true prophet/teacher/servant is chosen and sent, he is immediately placed in a sort of "no win situation," if you will. The moment that servant declares what he has been commanded to declare, is the moment that some people (maybe even most) will begin to practice idolatry of that servant. NO MATTER WHAT the servant does or says to avoid said idolatry, some people will choose of their own free will to idolize that servant.

    Do you agree? Are you one of those people with such tendencies? I confess I have those tendencies, truth be told. I need to be on guard to NOT do that. Thus I appreciate your warnings.

    But if YOU were such a servant, and God had commanded YOU to warn the people (which is the role of true messengers sent by God), what would you do or say differently than Denver has said?

    One thing you say is that you would exclude anything the Lord told you (as a true messenger) from the Guide and Standard. You said we should exclude revelation from God given to Denver. Isn't that counterproductive? And if that's the case, wouldn't we have to exclude anything Joseph said, and anything that appears in the Scriptures, as I don't know of one part of the Scriptures that wasn't recorded physically by a mortal man? Jesus commands mortal men to write. They write. So if you apply your caveat to others, we wouldn't be able to include the Sermon on the Mount, which was recorded by Jesus' messengers. In fact, we would have nothing to include.

    If I may say so, it appears you have an objection to the idea that Denver is speaking with the Lord and relaying messages as commanded by the Lord, as is the role of a true messenger. Sounds like you object to there being a true prophet (PPK, if you want to use your terms) in our midst TODAY. Mind you, most of us lament that ALL of us aren't prophets (Numbers 11:29). But it also sounds like you are okay with dead prophets' words being included.

    And I think it is incumbent upon you to confirm or deny what Mark said above. Mark spoke first-hand about you when saying, "As I recall, immediately after coming back from Boise you posted something about how you thought that you had made a mistake in standing and making a covenant and that you "take it back" for lack of a better term."

    Do you confirm or deny you felt you made a mistake? In other words, are you of "the body" or not? It appears you are NOT, because you took it back, so to speak. If you don't feel right about the covenant, then that's fine, you should own it, shouldn't you? Please weigh in and clarify. Nobody should condemn you. It's an important clarification. Obviously, "mutual agreement" would be impossible if mainstream Mormons were voting in this process, or people who reject Denver as a messenger sent by God.

    The ironic thing is that the essence of your objection is shared by Denver and probably by most people here.

    With Love,

    Joe A.

  10. Joe,

    It doesn't matter whether it was a mistake or not. All that matters is that I am one of you covenant participants in the eyes of God. If you disbelieve me, inquire of God. Here is the formula for such inquiries:

    1 Nephi 15:11
    Do ye not remember the thing which the Lord hath said?
    If ye will not harden your hearts
    and ask me in faith
    believing that ye shall receive
    with diligence in keeping my commandments
    surely these things shall be made known unto you.

    The sticking point typically is that the inquirer is not keeping the commandments of God as they are written in Luke 6:20-49, JST Matthew 5-7, and 3 Nephi 12-15.

    I explained at length why I shall not agree to any G&S featuring any material from Denver Snuffer here:

    See in particular my responses to questions 12 and 13.

    If you feel my responses to questions 12 and 13 are inadequate, please tell me specifically where you find them deficient and I will do my best to clarify what I have not yet made plain.

    You say:

    "If I may say so, it appears you have an objection to the idea that Denver is speaking with the Lord and relaying messages as commanded by the Lord, as is the role of a true messenger. Sounds like you object to there being a true prophet (PPK, if you want to use your terms) in our midst TODAY."

    I have no problem with Denver serving God in whatever matters God has commanded him. Denver's service to God has nothing whatever to do with my service to God. I will have no king but Jesus, neither shall I permit my authority to be used to advance idolatry of men to the world. If you wish to take the man Denver Snuffer to be your prophet, priest, and king, you may do so - in your own fellowship. You lack power to compel me to take him as my prophet, priest, or king, by the Lord's requirement that any G&S can only be adopted by mutual agreement, and you lack power to exclude me from the number of covenant participants.

    And, without the Lord commanding me directly, I shall not depart from his gospel, nor publish more nor less than his gospel to the world.

    You can have the gospel of the Lord and be free to make up for whatever deficiencies you find in his doctrine and his law and his commandments within your own fellowship.

    Jared Livesey

  11. Log, I think maybe I have detected something in your last comment that may be important. You mention authority and power in your statement. While the context around authority is as "your" authority, and the context of power is the power of others, the fact that they are even mentioned at all in this discussion is, I think, revealing.

    I don't think there is any authority in the G&S. It is simply a guideline the help prevent others coming among us from having to reinvent the wheel. It is a statement of beliefs coupled with suggested guidelines (a GUIDE) than can be used by fellowships. As a slight aside, I think when we ask the Lord questions like that about sustaining priesthood holders by 7 women, well, I can see Him roll His eyes a little, like, "you still don't get it, do you". Well, Ok - since you want a guideline, here's a good one".

    You also mention power. I am of the opinion that the only power that exists eternally is the power that comes through the very teachings you mentioned above - Christ's great sermons - which, by the way, are NOT commandments. They THEMSELVES are a guide for keeping the two commandments - love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Power AND authority come only from living these two commandments. That is the beauty of the gospel, and it is the source of Christ's power AND authority.

    This is why I don't personally feel the need to critique either the scriptures or the G&S. Christ is indeed my authority, the source of all power, and any authority or power that might some day devolve upon me can only come through the exercise of charity. The words in the scriptures I accept as A guide (not the only guide) - insights to enhance my understanding of how to love as He did. Anything more than that is, in my opinion, idolatry of the scriptures.

    The covenant I made was to love God and love my neighbor (as myself). That's what I heard Denver say when he read the A&C, and once I heard the words in that setting, I knew I would stand. There were lots of words surrounding it, but we humans seem to need all those fancy words, even when the gospel is so simple.

    This comment serves two purposes in my mind: 1) to clarify to all how I view this issue of the G&S, as well as Denver, and your objections, and 2) offer you another viewpoint for your consideration.

    Ultimately, the gospel is love. God is love. Christ is love. This is the only commandment - to love. All else is derivative and a guideline. All exercised authority is between me and Christ. No man holds authority over me that I do not concede him. All righteous power comes ultimately from love. It is the way of the universe, it is the law of all creation. We can choose to live in harmony with that law or not. To do so is life - to drink of the living water. To choose otherwise is sin and death, or separation from God.

    Peace to you, my friend!


    1. Scott,

      You say "Christ's great sermons - which, by the way, are NOT commandments."

      Christ says, in the Sermon: "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so to do, he shall in no wise be saved in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it be fulfilled, the same shall be called great and shall be saved in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

      Christ says, at the end of the Sermon: "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

      Christ says, after the Sermon: "Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me."

      Therefore, do not make the error of thinking the Sermon is not the law and commandments of the Lord.

      The law of Moses, of which the so-called "Two Great Commandments" are a part is done away in Christ, as he himself said: "Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end."

      The Sermon is the law and commandments to all mankind, as stated in the Book of Mormon.

      "And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth."

      Let me repeat these so that there can be no misunderstanding.

      "[A]ll men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

      The Sermon is what he gave both the Jews and the Nephites by his own mouth. The Sermon is the words by which all mankind must come to Christ.

      That's why he said this to the Nephites at the end of the Sermon:
      "And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and said unto them: Behold, ye have heard the things which I taught before I ascended to my Father; therefore, whoso remembereth these sayings of mine and doeth them, him will I raise up at the last day."

    2. Scott,

      You say: "I don't think there is any authority in the G&S."

      You are mistaken, for the very reason you state in your next sentence: "It is simply a guideline the help prevent others coming among us from having to reinvent the wheel."

      It is for us "to follow." That makes it potentially a material addition to the covenant obligations. Because it may be a material addition to the covenant obligations, it cannot be imposed upon any covenant participant except if they agree to it. Since any G&S that gets adopted only gets adopted by mutual agreement, if we all agree upon a G&S, then it is for us "to follow" as per the covenantal language.

      Whatever gets put forth as a G&S therefore is by my authority - and yours - and each individual that agrees to it, for the Lord has given us authority to put it forth by mutual agreement.

      Knowing that reverencing a man is an error, no G&S featuring material that comes through Denver Snuffer shall be put forth by my authority.

      You're free to adopt whatever wheels in your fellowship you feel are compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ - you simply cannot impose such upon me in mine.

    3. Log - I would not seek to impose the G&S on your and fellowship. What makes you think I would. My statement is that no one has the right nor the power to do that. That's why the G&S is merely a guide. I don't understand why you think that is the case, and I certainly don't understand why you would ever think that I would seek to impose anything on you. I'm sure you're using the pejorative "you", but I'm making it personal, because your statement is in response to my personal belief. I'm not saying I'm offended or anything - only that I can only speak for myself. I, personally, do not believe there is any power or authority in the G&S except that which we choose to give it.

    4. Scott, if the G&S is for you "to follow," then is the G&S for you to not follow?

    5. Log - silly me to wade into the waters of the sermon with you! May I make it clear - to me, the sermon is everything. It is an expression of Christ's nature. It is an expression of the law of creation that I mentioned above. It is the goal of my life - although one that I fall woefully short of, largely because I have not defeated the natural man in me. I don't disagree with your statement - I was just saying that even the sermons point back to the 2 great commandments. As He said, "upon these hang all the law and the prophets". The last thing I would seek to do is minimize the sermons.

    6. Then preach the Sermon, and do not replace it with the Mosaic so-called "Two Great Commandments."

      With the recognition in Jesus that God is a man, the Two Great Commandments are themselves reducible to this: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for this is the law and the prophets."

      The rest of the commandments of the Sermon are how we keep that law.

    7. Scott: The Lord says, in the A&C, that the G&S is for us "to follow." Is a covenant participant following the G&S, as per the covenant language, if a covenant participant does not follow it?

    8. Scott,

      Also consider - if the G&S is merely there for us "to follow," like Thanksgiving food is there for us "to eat," and we don't actually have to follow it, just as we need not eat the food provided to us on Thanksgiving, still we must be extremely careful in what gets put forth in it because it defines us as a people, who we are, what we do, and who we represent. If we put forth anything which harms, curses, leads astray, or misinforms, we as individuals shall suffer for it, for we each agreed to it therefore we take full individual responsibility for it.

      As Joseph said, only a fool would trifle with the souls of men.

    9. Log - I just re-read the answer and covenant. The wording: "When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow." can be interpreted as a commandment, or it can be interpreted that it is a guide and a standard to be followed as the spirit directs. I probably don't need to explain extensively, but to me a guide and a standard is like a compass or a map. It's not necessarily a "my way or the highway" proposal, but more like a "this is a good way to go in most circumstances, and you can use it and adapt it to your own needs" I just don't interpret a "guide and standard" as authoritative and/or binding, but as a gift, advice, to aid in the journey.

    10. Then there should be no problem in accepting The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles, should there be?

      There is nothing in it that can possibly curse, harm, or misinform. Neither can any go astray in following it.

      And if any wish to make up for any deficiencies they find in the Doctrine and the Sermon of our Lord, they are free to - in their own fellowships.

      And, since by your own admission it CAN be interpreted as a commandment, let’s treat it as though it was, and tread ever so lightly in determining what we shall or shall not publish to mankind as the ways of the Lord.

    11. well, you have rhetorically interpreted my words into something I didn't mean. I interpret it as a guide. It should not be interpreted as a commandment, as it says "follow" not "obey". And, you omit the need, which I think is important, to supply the optimal level of detailed GUIDANCE for new fellowships. Your guide and standard is powerful, and truth, but I don't think it is complete toward fulfilling the purpose of this document. You still seem to fear that someone will use those details to exercise power over someone. I do not, as they only have power that I give them, and since it is a guide only, the Lord does now endow the current statement of principles with any authority for enforcement. Not trying to convince you, just making my thoughts clear.

    12. Scott,

      I see you have not yet read what I have written.

    13. I read the e-mails I got, Log. They contain the text of what you write on here.

    14. Did you read these?

    15. Yes I did. The first is the statement that contains the Doctrine of Christ and the Lukan sermon, and the second is your reasoning why they rest of it doesn't belong. After reading them, I shared why I thought yours doesn't fulfill the requirement to aid new fellowships and why I don't fear any power or authority because none is implied.

    16. Scott,

      The first linked-to post does not contain the Doctrine nor the Sermon.

      Please read it and get back to me.

  12. Log, (part 1 of 2)

    You said, "It doesn't matter whether it was a mistake or not. All that matters is that I am one of you covenant participants in the eyes of God."

    I'm not comfortable with the statement that mistakes don't matter. Isn't the matter extremely simple? The covenant words and the covenant itself came by way of Denver Snuffer, an authorized messenger who doesn't beat us over the head with keys and that he's "the man." He ridicules those who would follow him, in fact, and everything that I've seen from him indicates his utter contempt for priestcraft and idolatry. He avoids priestcraft and being the target of idolatry literally like the plague. I mean, he stays clear in every way you would if you were trying to steer clear.

    So either you do or don't believe it was a mistake for you to accept that covenant as coming from an authorized servant. Which is it? It's an immensely important question.

    The actual words in the questions of the covenant are harmless and agreeable with the Scriptures and easily acceptable to the Christian mind. Perhaps that's why you said YES originally? But you didn't apparently think it all the way through. The administrator is of extreme importance. If anybody else in the world had gotten up there and administered the covenant, I personally wouldn't have said YES to the questions. I believe Denver was sent. Therefore, his mission I respect. "Whether by mine own voice or by my servants it is the same". God could have been administering the covenant that day, as far as I'm concerned. So the point is WHO delivered the covenant, not WHAT the words of the covenant were. Is he, Denver Snuffer, a deceiver (as you seem to indicate by associating him with the story of the deceived damsel in Acts 16:16-18), or is he a true "DC 1:38" servant?

    That is the crux of the matter. It ALWAYS has been the crux. Was Adam a true prophet? Was Noah? Was Moses? Was John the Baptist? Was Joseph? Is Denver?

    In Acts 16, the damsel who was possessed by an evil spirit actually was stating a truth by declaring: "These men (referring to Paul and his companions) are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." Paul appeared to not like what the spirit was saying through her, as you point out, and commanded the spirit to leave her, which it did. Remember that the damsel's abilities to tell the future (thanks to that spirit which possessed her) was a source of money for those who employed her. It's not clear to me what irked Paul. She had turned into a bit of a groupie, you might say. Her reputation proceeded her, and perhaps Paul didn't like having a well-known soothsayer-for-pay backing up his testimony. Perhaps her testimony actually hurt his missionary efforts. And I think it's plausible and warranted that, as you say, Paul didn't like her pointing to them, when the true "way of salvation" was Jesus Christ, and not them, though she correctly stated they were SHOWING the way or path of salvation, which is what true servants do. Paul was no doubt a humble and meek man, and didn't want undue focus on him. Denver is the same way, but nevertheless he is obeying the Lord in doing what he's been doing.

    1. Joe, you say: "So either you do or don't believe it was a mistake for you to accept that covenant as coming from an authorized servant. Which is it? It's an immensely important question."

      The sole question is: am I a covenant participant? If so, then you go through me for any G&S proposal as per the covenant.

      How I got here is not related to the fact that as a covenant participant a G&S doesn't get adopted except you get me to agree to it.

  13. (Part 2 of 2)

    Like I said earlier, he's can't "win". If he says he's sent, then many will idolize him. If wasn't sent, then what he says doesn't matter. That's why Jesus says a true prophet is always dishonored by his own people. He can't "win".

    And as far as being personally commanded to point to a true servant, you know how the Lord describes those who must "be commanded in all things."

    So you must decide where you stand. Lukewarm won't cut it, Log, do you think?

    Either Denver is on a mission SENT by God, or he isn't. If you believe he is "sent", then you can't object to including his words anymore than you could object to including the words of Joseph or former prophets. Could you answer concisely or free to elaborate if you feel the need to.

    Joe A.

    1. Joe, you say: "And as far as being personally commanded to point to a true servant, you know how the Lord describes those who must 'be commanded in all things.'"

      I reply: I do know it. The Lord doesn't like to micromanage people in the execution of his commandments. You know that he has commanded us to, literally, "give to every man that asks of you." If therefore you withhold when someone asks of you, deciding that you will only give if the Lord commands you, then you are one of those who must be "commanded in all things."

      On the other hand, if the Lord has commanded me to cry repentance, as he has all of his covenant people, then it is upon me to tell you to repent of your dependence, your trust, in men, and to cease from your idolizing of his servants. Thus in this I am fulfilling his command, while those who encourage, or even seek to compel, reverence towards the Lord's servants are breaking his commandments by teaching men error and leading them astray.

      I can object to Denver's words being included in a G&S because I know where the Church went wrong, and the only way to repent of depending upon a man to bring you the word of the Lord is to stand independent of him and do the Lord's will for yourself.

      By, for example, preaching his gospel and nothing else save he shall command.

  14. And Log,

    I've skimmed through your blog post where you answered several questions (not sure who was asking the questions), but I generally see you saying a lot I think is scripturally sound.

    But rather than explore everything you've written, it just makes sense to establish if you think Denver was sent or not, and therefore if you made a mistake in entering into that covenant. I don't see how you can have it both ways.

    Do you think Denver is deceived, or is a deceiver, or is he truly sent, and why? It does matter.

    I'm kind of confused about your intentions and genuineness. Your "About Me" statement on your blog says, "I am an inactive member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church").

    "I have been baptized again outside the auspices of the LDS Church because I believe Denver Snuffer has truthfully reported that Jesus Christ renewed the commandment to be baptized and so-called "rebaptism" is no longer a service that the LDS Church provides for members."

    It seems like you endorse him as a true servant there, but then elsewhere spend a lot of time appearing to argue against him being a legit, "sent" servant of God.

    Which is it?

    Sincerely, with no intent to offend, I'm just trying to understand you,

    Joe A.

    1. Joe, you say: "I'm just trying to understand you."

      Joe, you also say: "[I don't want to] explore everything you've written."

      These two are contradictory.

    2. I don't have the time to invest in reading your voluminous writings. Your comments here are enough to persuade me I shouldn't invest the time because of the contentious nature. And I like a good debate mind you.

      You said above that everything goes through you. The spirit I feel from you is that you are enjoying the veto power.

      If even you have that.

      Because you're not answering my straightforward, simple question to you, that raises a concern if are genuine. And if you are not genuine, then I believe that throws into question the legitimacy of your status as a covenant-maker.

      Obviously, one would expect opposition to this process. There is opposition in all things. So one would quite naturally EXPECT opposers to illegitimately take upon them the covenant so as to gain intel and/or to oppose the work of God.

      This is my first dialogue with you so I don't know you or your intentions (and would like to give you the benefit of the doubt), but I think it's fair and reasonable to ask if you think Denver is a true servant.

      Why would any intelligent Christian take upon themselves a covenant offered by God if they didn't believe the terms were given by God (via a true messenger)?

      You can't escape the question, if you want others to know your true intentions, without owning how you view Denver Snuffer.

      I think it's interesting you carefully chose the word "reverencing" Denver. That's not a bad choice of words. But reverencing is not idolizing. If you revere someone, that doesn't carry the weight of worshipping--not even close. So you are arguing against yourself. On the one hand your implying at the very least a worship of Denver, but by using the term "reverence", you show you understand revering isn't worshipping. In other words, including his words may in fact cause us to respect or revere him--that is true. And I say, So what?! If you don't revere people who commune with God then you probably have an inferiority complex. It's okay if some are more intelligent than you. You're okay with that I assume? We aren't all "equals" in light and truth, my friend.



    3. Joe, you say: "If you don't revere people who commune with God then you probably have an inferiority complex."

      I say: "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

      [For, if ye do,] are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges [having] evil thoughts?

      [I]f ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

      If, therefore, you reverence Denver above any, you are not the Lord's.

    4. Log,

      Sounds like you're getting all lawyerly. I respect and revere all kinds of people. I respect my elders. I don't think you can persuade me that's a sin.

      I guess I couldn't persuade you to clarify if you believe Denver is a deceiver or not.

    5. Joe, you say: "I respect and revere all kinds of people. I respect my elders. I don't think you can persuade me that's a sin."

      I say: My obligation to warn you from sin is fulfilled by quoting the scriptures in your ears.

      You say: "I guess I couldn't persuade you to clarify if you believe Denver is a deceiver or not."

      I say: I have already said, multiple times, I believe Denver Snuffer.

    6. Log,

      Thank you for your attempt to warn me of sin by quoting scripture. I don't interpret those scriptures to mean what you say they mean. Respecting / revering someone for their accomplishments or wisdom is not remotely the same as worshipping them. Christ commands us to honor our parents. So that's a sin in your mind?

      I've seen plenty of folks like you who are upset instead of grateful that there are others who possess more light, knowledge, and truth than they do. They feel threatened by such people instead of inspired.

      Denver or Joseph don't threaten my ego. I realize I'm not their equal in knowledge but God says I can be. Joseph and Denver don't claim to be greater than anybody as far as authority to compel respect or obedience. Denver views himself as our equal in that regard.

      But he is delivering a message from God.

      Your snswer was a lawyer answer. So I ask again...

      Do you believe God has "sent" Denver and authorized him to offer the terms of the covenant?

    7. Joe, you say: "Christ commands us to honor our parents."

      I say: The law of Moses is ended, including the 10 Commandments. The Sermon, which is the law and commandments of Jesus Christ to all mankind, says nothing about honoring our parents. And, to clarify a point of confusion, "to honor" means to obey, to grant their requests, which the Sermon makes clear we are to do for everyone. So you're changing the subject.

      Joe, you say: "Do you believe God has 'sent' Denver and authorized him to offer the terms of the covenant?"

      I say: Yes.

    8. Do any scriptures say the 10 Commandments were part of the Law of Moses? I've never heard such a notion that God has rescinded the 10 Commandments. But He did do away with the animal sacrifices, etc. We are to offer up a broken heart and contrite spirit as sacrifices (3 Nephi 9) instead of animals.

      Jesus made sure the 10 Commandments AND the Law of Christ as contained in the Sermon on the Mount were included in the BoM. Both are essential and I don't believe contradict each other. I'm surprised to hear anybody boldly declare that we are not subject to the 10 Commandments anymore. That sounds totally apostate to me. Even though that's off topic, I'd love to hear your scriptural basis for such an extreme view that I would call anti Christ.

      You said you believe Denver is sent by God to administer the covenant.

      I assume you believe Joseph was similarly sent?

      But you accept Joseph's words in the G&S but reject/ forbid Denver's. Why?

    9. Joe, you say: "But you accept Joseph's words in the G&S but reject/ forbid Denver's. Why?"

      I say: For reasons explained here:

    10. Where It All Went Wrong

      2 Nephi 32:5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

      All must come unto me or they cannot be saved. And how do men come unto me? It is by faith, repentance, and baptism, which bring the Holy Ghost to then show you all things you must know (A&C p. 3).

      So, the Holy Ghost, given to us when we exercise faith in Jesus, repent from all our sins, and are baptized, shows us everything we should do, and everything we should know. If one takes the Holy Ghost for their guide, they have no need for any mortal to teach them, as John noted (1 John 2:20, 27).

      Where did the Church go wrong?

      If the gentiles unto whom the Book of Mormon was given had hearkened unto the Holy Ghost they would have come unto me in Hyrum and Joseph’s day. But they did not hearken, and would not allow me to abide with them in word, and in power and in very deed (A&C p. 3).

      They did not listen to the Holy Ghost, which would have told them all that they should know and all that they should do. Who were they listening to?

      In a citation from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 237, we find the following account:

      President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall--that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

      Instead of listening to the Holy Ghost, they listened to Joseph Smith, who, while a prophet, was yet a man.

      So, what’s the lesson we should learn from the Church?

      Jeremiah 17:5 ¶ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

      2 Nephi 4:34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

      2 Nephi 28:31 [Thus saith the Lord:] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

      The lesson we should learn from the Church is that trusting in a man, even if that man is a prophet, leads to cursings and condemnations by the Lord, and that we should instead take the Holy Ghost for our guide.

      In a passage from Denver Snuffer, we read the following:

      If you understood the scriptures you wouldn’t even need what I’ve written.

      And how do we become able to understand the scriptures? In another passage from Denver Snuffer, we read this:

      The journey back to Him begins with all He has provided and preserved of His word. It begins for each of us in the scriptures. One of the immediate effects of baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost is to have the scriptures come alive; to have them overwhelm you with revelation, light and truth. It is not you doing this. It is you experiencing it, but the Holy Spirit opening and lighting them so the same Spirit which gave them at first now receives them in you.

      So, it is the Holy Ghost which gives us power to understand the scriptures.

      According to Denver Snuffer, if you took the Holy Ghost for your guide, you wouldn’t need Denver Snuffer. It seems then that following a man, even a man who is a prophet, is the behavior of people who have not taken the Holy Ghost for their guide.

    11. As long as you consider me your enemy and attempt to judge my heart rather than evaluate the words I am actually saying for their truth, you will not understand what I am saying and we will not proceed.

      Mutual agreement is not forged on a battlefield nor is truth found in debate.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. Right now, the conversation being had in secret is how to go around the public dissenters to the Lottery G&S and persuade the Scripture Committee to add the Lottery G&S to the scriptures.

    Their argument follows the logic Adrian made explicit:
    1. Shalyce’s revelation is from God.
    2. All who dissent from the Lottery G&S are not of the body - in context, meaning covenant participants.
    3. All who dissent may therefore be ignored.

    Thus, the requirement of the Lord is violated: instead of a G&S being adopted by “mutual agreement” it gets adopted by “majority rules.” From the beginning of this all, the aim of the adversary has been to get the people to break the covenant by wilfully doing more or less than the Lord has commanded.

    And if they succeed in persuading the Scripture Committee to accept Shalyce’s revelation and publish the Lottery G&S, despite the Lord’s requirement that any G&S be adopted by mutual agreement of the people - all the covenant participants - and lacking the mutual agreement of covenant participants, then the covenant, as I read it, is broken.

    Sometimes, the worst thing you can do to someone is give them exactly what they’re asking for. If they will not heed your counsel and warnings, it is just to give it to them: they asked for it.

    My Lord, on the other hand, desires Zion, the society of the pure at heart, even all who hear him and keep his law and commandments. Therefore, that’s what he shall have.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. As it is written, the Lord worketh not in secret combinations (Ether 8:19).

    3. Log, you claim knowledge of a conversation being held in secret. Do you know this for a fact, or are you speculating. You state it as if it is fact, which could be misleading if you don't actually have that knowledge.

    4. Scott,

      I have no direct knowledge of the conversation, having declined the invitation to become part of it. It is an inference based on data and problem-solving.

      The problem they’re trying to solve is how to appear to abide the terms of the covenant while breaking the covenant simultaneously in the matter of adopting the G&S in order to meet a deadline.

      They have not humbled themselves to discuss openly and publicly as invited, therefore their discussions are in secret. I know these discussions exist.

      They do not address my writings to be able to persuade me therefore their goal isn’t mutual agreement.

      The inference is not difficult to make.

  17. Hi Log,

    (part 1)

    I just read this Sat morning a blog post at which lays out a very solid argument and to me is very persuasive. Some of the points have been made above already by others. Have you read the blog post above? It's very possibly accurate to say it was composed with you in mind.

    I'm thinking in terms of how to persuade you, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you are not wanting to be persuaded. It's obvious as the sky is blue that you are in opposition to Denver even though you SAY you accept him as being sent by God to legally administer the covenant.

    I call this speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

    Do you not see this? In other words, you're not being consistent.

    I say that to you directly because I would appreciate somebody saying that to me. For example, I do appreciate you saying that I'm sinning by saying a respect/ revere / honor some people for their accomplishments and wisdom. Your scripture quotation falls short (in my view) of sustaining your argument, but at least I am able to see your argument in the light of day, which led to you saying that the 10 Commandments have been done away with because they are part of the Law of Moses, which idea I regard plainly as the mind and artifices of the devil. You haven't conceded you were wrong on that. If I'm wrong, please show me. I will humbly consider your scriptural citation. I think that idea is completely apostate.

    And if that one idea is apostate from Christ (whom you keep saying is Whom you worship and Him alone), then that throws into question your intentions.

    And since you write so much, there is much to find in your writings that I would say exposes your errors and disharmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and with reality (things as they really are), as Jacob teaches.

    1) One is that you can accept Joseph's words but reject Denver's. That makes no sense. I'm not saying that Joseph or Denver always spoke/speak the words of Christ, but as far as their quotes inserted into the G&S, what specific statement of either man is objectionable (which statement or idea is not given by the power of the Holy Ghost)?

  18. (Part 2)

    2) You have said it was a mistake for you to accept the covenant in Boise. You say the mistake doesn't matter, but that's the whole point. What specifically was your mistake? You believe Denver was sent then and he spoke the words of Christ (in the covenant), but he's not sent now? What specifically was your mistake? You'd be a fool, to subject yourselves to a covenant that any "non sent" man would offer. What would be the point in that? So you first have to believe Denver was sent. Clearly you object to Denver being sent as a legal administrator. But you say you don't. You contradict yourself. This very well could be a lie you're caught in, meaning intent to deceive. I don't know your intent. But the contradiction is very problematic for your credibility. An infiltrator would argue that he took the covenant in Boise to become ONE OF the group, with the plan to say it was a mistake afterwards, and then say, "but you have to listen to me and "go through me" and accept my veto power because I took the covenant and that is what is important. If I agreed to the terms, then I'm a covenant-maker. Never mind that I believe I made a mistake. The point is that I entered into the covenant." And then said person would obfuscate and avoid the resolution of whether it was a mistake or not. To be clear, in my view, if you accept the words of the covenant as given through Denver, then you believe him to be a spokesman for the Lord, just as Joseph was, just as Adam was. So you CANNOT object categorically to his words being included in the covenant. You can't have it both ways, as you are attempting to do. It makes no sense that you would object frankly. Unless you are lying or are deeply confused. If you have a specific objection to content, then what is it? You are saying TRUTH when you warn against idolatry, but you're saying the same thing that Denver and virtually everyone else is saying.

    3) In your blog, you make some telling statements, like: "I will not willingly participate in the formation of another Gentile church based on what the Nazis called the Fuhrerprinzip, meaning the "Leader Principle," with Denver Snuffer as the unwilling Fuhrer." You are lying here or are confused. You know this remnant movement is not attempting to form another Gentile Church and is on record of not wanting to take that same path, and in fact REJECTS that. So why do you say the opposite? I've seen you quote DC 10:67-68 before. So you know. And you know there is no incorporation. You know there is no hierarchy, a key characteristic of the LDS Church. You know that there is an almost paranoid attempt among the people to avoid priestcraft and idolatry. The principles outlined in the G&S prove what I'm saying. You know this is a movement of equals, albeit imperfect men and women who can err.

  19. (part 3 of 3)

    And seriously, you try to impugn the attempt to establish Zion by associating this process with the Nazis? From a psycho analytical viewpoint, I would love to hear how you compare Hitler to Denver Snuffer. I would love to hear how you equate or liken the Nazi's to Denver or to this remnant movement. Go ahead and write a blog post on that if you feel so inspired. Would love to read that one. But no, I shouldn't encourage you to lose focus, because that is what that would be. I bring up this quote of yours because it illustrates your frame of mind for all to see. I think it's fair game. You're perfectly willing to argue publicly and quote scriptures left and right and to, let's be honest, set yourself up as a light, and as the conscience of the group, so your statements should be scrutinized. I've only read a few paragraphs of what you've written at your blog. Enough to see that, in my view you're not filled with enough light and truth to compensate for the errors, though I agree with much of what you say. So like the chocolate pie that has a teaspoon of human stool in it, I don't feel the inclination to use you as source for light and truth. Denver's writings are the exact opposite. He's full of so much light and truth and sounds like a prophet after the order of the Son of God, that I'm willing to partake of his pie for the very occasional hint of human frailty that comes through.

    4) Your comparison of what you allege may be in private discussion to a secret combination that is murderous and of the worst form of Satanic wickedness is disappointing. The Lord said to not only beware of wolves within the flock, but to cast them out and even destroy them if found (citing Alma 5:59-60). If you are a wolf (not saying that you are, but that you COULD be for sure), then is it a secret combination to discuss what to do about the wolf? And if there is wolf, is it unrighteous dominion to exclude him? Or should wolves be allowed to thwart progress, and be allowed to keep protesting and running their mouths when their reasoning and disagreeable spirit about them defies harmony with the the Lord (and His servant) and the group? Alma said to take these drastic measures:

    59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

    60 And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed.

    I now see the wisdom of going through this process. It is very possible that this process was designed to have the side benefit of exposing wolves (even one wolf) who weren't really known before. The discussion process emboldened people to speak up and make their objections. Most apparently, like myself, feel their objections have been heard. There has been plenty of time for hearing out particular concerns.

  20. Underdog2,

    One man above any is a hierarchy.

    As to the rest, my credibility doesn’t matter.

    Either I am a covenant participant, or I am not.

    If I am a covenant participant, then I must agree to any G&S or else it does not get adopted.

    You lack power to excommunicate covenant participants.

    Therefore you go through me, and each and every one of the other dissenters, and get our agreement or else you do not get your G&S.


    You accept Shalyce’s revelation and thereby gain the power to excommunicate every covenant participant who dissents from the Lottery G&S.

    It’s your choice: execute the covenant as written, in which case you may adopt the gospel of our Lord as your G&S, or accept something outside the covenant which appears to allow you to sidestep the Lord’s requirement that a G&S must be adopted by mutual agreement and adopt something other than the gospel of our Lord as your G&S.

    As for me, I will stand on The Rock of Jesus Christ.

  21. UnderDog2, you say: “I've only read a few paragraphs of what you've written at your blog.”

    I reply: Without reading what I’ve written, you cannot understand the arguments I’ve put forth. You’d find many of your question answered if only you would read what I’ve written.

  22. Here's an idea, and it is a serious one - I'm not being rhetorical OR bluffing. If there are truly dissenters, and there appear to be, perhaps we could come at this from the opposite angle, and allow THEM to work together as a committee to come up with a G&S (Statement of Principles, actually) that is acceptable to them, and then see if the rest of the group can consent to what they come up with.

  23. I also want to say this. There is a lot of contention and attempt to control in this discussion. There is a spirit of judgment and speculation about motives that is counter-productive.

    Zion will not be gathered based on telestial principles. This community will not survive based on telestial principles. The ideas (behaviors) of comparison (ourselves to others, ourselves to God or some standard or checklist), competition (attempts to measure ourselves higher or even lower than others as measured -again - by some standard), contention - and these three lead to control - will not work among us. I am calling these the 4 C's - comparison, competition, contention, and control - the principles of babylon. They build upon each other in that order, and they cannot exist in Zion.

    Unfortunately, I read a lot of this in this discussion. It will get us nowhere.

  24. Scott,

    That’s a great idea.

    Another idea I had was for each individual to write their own G&S, and then maybe we could all compare G&Ss every month or so until all our G&Ss were the same, for then we would be mutually agreed as one.

    1. Seriously, once the number of dissenters gets down to a certain number (less than 10?), let them be a committee. As long as it's more than that, we continue to work as committees by lot. OR - if we need another committee, make sure that at least 2 of the dissenters are on the committee. The details or numbers I mention are not important - it's the principle.

    2. Scott,

      I’ll save you the time. I am not budging from the gospel of Jesus Christ, as contained in The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles, or its functional equivalent.

      I don’t have a deadline for obtaining mutual agreement, and I am willing to wait as long as it takes.

      Jared Livesey

    3. You know, Log, I actually could go with that Rock of Jesus Christ statement. I have said for a long time that it needs to be simple - the simpler the better - in order to gain mutual agreement. However, I think one of the purposes of the SP is to assist other fellowships by offering a level of detail that is missing. There are indeed things like baptism and the sacrament that need to at least be pointed to in the scriptures - in other words - under baptism - say that we believe in baptism and then point to the scriptures. Same with the sacrament. I don't think the current SP on the table violates that. I could probably do without the whole priesthood thing, but the groups seems to want it, and I don't think it does any harm, so I'm willing to flow.

      Apparently you see your refusal to budge as an expression of love - otherwise you wouldn't do that.

    4. Scott, have you read what I’ve written as to why those things you think should be included are, in fact, best left out?

    5. Start here:

      Or you could go directly to my blog and read November and October’s posts.

  25. Also, here’s an oddity:

    If Shalyce’s revelation is of God, there’s no need to even talk to those who disagree - they aren’t of “the body”. You already have your “mutual agreement” in that case and can proceed on to the Scripture Committee, assuming the Lottery G&S has already been emailed to Denver.

    What purpose then is served by arguing, accusing, contending, and so on, against dissenters (particularly me) when on your own claims you have no dissenters and have already “won?”

    1. Winning sounds a lot like competition. Shouldn't be part of the formula, of course. Log - I don't know what the purpose is in arguing, accusing, contending, and so on - as you say. I'm trying not to do that myself. I have lots of things that I believe, that I have learned, that, if I were to present them to the community, would be rejected or at least looked at with suspicion. I have no need or desire to share them and cause contention. If they are true, such truth will eventually come to light. If they are not, then I have more learning to do. I am here to contribute my love and whatever wisdom and insight I might have. I don't have to be right, and I especially don't have to prove to anyone else that I'm right. I just need to love them, and accept their love, while we all walk down our individual paths toward the great round-about of truth. It's like the arc-de-triomphe. Many paths leading in - but leading out is the Champs de elysee which leads to the Louvre and which represents Zion. We all need to arrive by our own path, and we need to encourage and be encouraged by loving each other. Truth will ultimately win out. We will each have truth distilled upon us, and falsehood and unbelief will fall away as we approach the center, but only if we focus on loving each other.

      This is my approach, my philosophy, and the condition of my participation in this community. When I heard the answer, and the repeated pleas that we love each other - that's when I knew I would stand. Not before. These words came THROUGH Denver's mouth, but I heard the Lord's voice. It could have come through you, it could have come through me, but the Lord speaks with love, and that's the voice that I heard.

      Perhaps what I'm saying now is the the Lord's voice. Perhaps some will recognize His voice in this. Perhaps not. To the extent that my heart is aligned with His, that my nature is aligned with His, then perhaps this IS His voice. I don't know. It's not up to me to make any such claim. It IS up to me to encourage, to love. If I stop doing that, then I am lost, the covenant broken.

    2. Scott,

      Wisdom, as the A&C says, counsels mankind to align their words with their hearts. That is, say what you mean, and mean what you say - cease from hypocrisy.

      I would rather people spoke from their hearts than acted like they felt what they do not feel. I prefer the straightforward and honest to the hypocrites, the actors who feign what they do not feel so that men may believe them to be the characters they’re playing.

      I appreciate, for example, UnderDog2’s straightforwardness. I know where I stand with him.

    3. Log, are you accusing me of being a hypocrite?

    4. Not at all, Scott. In the first paragraph, I meant the word “you” in a general sense, not you as an individual.

    5. The antecedent was “mankind,” after all.

    6. Then why did you respond that way to my heart-felt soliloquy?

    7. Because I would rather people were straightforward and honest and spoke in alignment with their true feelings rather than follow your example without it being in their hearts.

      This kind of imitatation is likely, since we’re all coming from a culture of hypocrisy where soliloquys are most often used to signal what acceptable social behavior is for others. I’m not saying you meant to hold yourself up to follow, only that talking to yourself in public in venues like this lends itself to such interpretation - “Oh, then I should do that, lest people think less of me for not appearing loving!”

      I’d like to get away from appearances and deal with truth.

    8. Well, I did speak in alignment with my true feelings. That is not to say that I am successful myself in attaining such an high standard, but that is the standard I strive for. I can't control what someone else's motivation might be if they were to say what you said, "Oh, then I should do that..." If someone is going to follow and example without it being in their hearts, in an attempt to "look good", then they have greater challenges than that.

      I admit - I do hold that light out there that others might see, and hopefully follow. Are we to hide our light under a bushel? This, of course, assumes it is indeed light. I hope it is, and I hope it's a light worth imitating - but each person has to make it their own.

  26. Log,

    You said, "One man above any is a hierarchy."

    How do you define "above"? This may very well be the keystone of your misunderstanding.

    You said: "Either I am a covenant participant, or I am not. If I am a covenant participant, then I must agree to any G&S or else it does not get adopted."

    Do you expect the group to be chumps, to just go along with apparent manipulation? Is Zion to be a society of chumps?

    The case against you as an infiltrating wolf:

    1) You accept Denver as a spokesman for God and as one sent AND enter into the covenant.
    2) You immediately say your action of entering the covenant was a mistake. (I haven't seen an explanation why), and you even now claim he's a true messenger but that the G&S can't contain his inspired words.
    3) A mistake inescapably means you would not have done it originally.
    4) Normally the person who made the mistake would quietly exit the group, to which he didn't want to belong in the first place.
    5) But you choose to stay, arguing on a technicality, that you should not be expelled because you technically entered in originally.
    6) Presumably you have served as a leading voice of (illegitimate) opposition the entire time, potentially influencing others. That's my guess.

    Your defense is a 'legal' defense. Technically, you claim, you're part of the body. When in truth and spirit you admit you are not.

    You prioritize a technicality over truth and spirit.

    Why don't you just depart in peace?

    But if you don't depart, and continue to insist to be part of the body based on a technicality, I don't see you being wronged by being considered not part of the body. In fact, if any wrong is being done, isn't it being done by you? Namely, taking advantage of the goodwill and charity of the body, where you are thinking the body is comprised of chumps.

  27. UnderDog2: I commend you for aligning your words with your heart.

    It’s not me, nor anyone else here, that you have to persuade I am not a covenant participant.

    It’s the Lord God you must persuade.

    1. I believe you persuaded God yourself by admitting your mistake.

      Why wouldn't God accept your mistake?

      He honors our agency.

      So He accepts your confession of a mistake.

      Meaning you've pulled out of the group and covenant by your own admission.

      No harm done. You may depart in peace.

      Why you would even want to be here is strange unless you're trying to impose your will or trying to "win" an argument.

    2. UnderDog2: I am required, per the covenant, both to write and to adopt, by mutual agreement, a G&S.

      Therefore I shall.

      Neither you nor I have power to excommunicate anyone from the covenant.

      Therefore you go through me to get your preferred G&S proposal approved, per the covenant language: I must agree to it or it doesn’t happen.

      You cannot drive me off, and you cannot cast me out.

    3. I believe God honors your desire to withdraw. I would honor your desire to withdraw. Are other participants standing in your way from withdrawing?

      You say you wish you hadn't have covenanted originally. God understands. You are excused. No harm no foul.

      You're not being compelled to remain. Playing the martyr card is clever, but unnecessary.

      You don't have any obligations to fulfill.

      Your services are not needed. Why would God or anybody in the group care what you thought if you weren't/ aren't a sincere participant?

      Further participation by you is inappropriate and undeserving.

      If you were sincere, I think your opinions and input should be valued and I would revisit a question from above:

      You said, "One man above any is a hierarchy."

      How do you define "above"? This may very well be the keystone of your misunderstanding.

    4. UnderDog2, you say: “I believe God honors your desire to withdraw.”

      I say: God’s thoughts on the matter do not seem to match yours.

      UnderDog2, you say: “how do you define ‘above’?”

      I say: you clearly respect Denver above me, therefore there is a de facto hierarchy here, if not de jure.

      A society founded on inequality cannot attain Zion.

    5. I certainly don't speak for God.

      What I'm saying is that God honors our agency. If somebody feels like they made a mistake and didn't want to enter the covenant in the first place then it makes sense God would honor their choice to withdraw. He doesn't fight us on our agency. You're not trapped.

      Do you feel you're trapped and can't get out?

      Repentance wouldn't work for many people if they were trapped into former commitments to sin. Many say, "I don't want this sinful life anymore. They change. They repent. They go from rejecting God to accepting Him. In your case you went from accepting a covenant to wishing you hadn't.

      Remember the time Mormon repented of the oath he made to not lead his armies? He changed. We are sovereign. We have agency. God respects what we decide. He is patient.

      So depart in peace and when or if you're ready please return with full purpose of heart.

    6. UnderDog2: As I mentioned, you cannot drive me away, nor can you cast me out.

      Therefore, I shall do what I agreed to do as per the covenant. Why would any disciple of Christ seek to persuade me to do otherwise?

      Remember: “And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation.”

    7. If you are a wolf you should be driven out.

      It seems you could be frankly. But I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

      What I see is your own testimony has cast you out. No need for anybody else to cast you out because you've already done that.

      But you attempt to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say it was a mistake to have entered the covenant and then have any believable case that you're sincere for sticking around and participating in this process.

      Like I said, infiltrators are to be expected. You could be one. If so, that would give you motive for your behavior. A very cleverly hatched plan to thwart the work.

      If you're not an infiltrator, then you are confused, and a keystone of your confusion is based on your erroneous definition of what hierarchy is.

      I'll address that here.

      From earlier, you said:

      UnderDog2, you say: “how do you define ‘above’?”

      I say: you clearly respect Denver above me, therefore there is a de facto hierarchy here, if not de jure.

      A society founded on inequality cannot attain Zion.

      Abraham 3:19: And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they...

      Yes. I respect Denver's and Joseph's and Moses' words more than your words. They are true prophets. You are not.

      This doesn't sit well with you, clearly. I think you might consider checking your pride at the door. Will you please consider doing that? We all have different levels of intelligence. That's okay.

      You are more intelligent than many. But others are more intelligent than you. In intelligence, we are NOT equals. There IS absolutely unseen "hierarchy", if you will.

      But as far as LDS Church "hierarchy" where there is a "boss" in any given meeting or conference, that doesn't exist in the remnant. Denver would not presume to be "above" anybody in any gathering.

      Some day, when the knowledge of God fills the earth, then we will ALL "know" God and be equals in that respect. But right now very few have that knowledge. And even if they do, they aren't any better than you or I. Denver has said that repeatedly. He doesn't ask for position or titles and would reject such offerings.

      He teaches a society of equals.

  28. If Denver teaches a society of equals, then why do you esteem him more than you esteem me?

    Isn’t that rather contradictory?

    1. Log, I value my wife's words more than I do Fawns, or yours - sometimes even more than mine. That doesn't mean there is a social hierarchy at play. The equality being declared is equality before God, equality of the right to be loved, sustained, respected.

    2. That simply means you love your wife above others, and that inequality is, indeed, hierarchy.

      That inequality, that hierarchy, by the by, is why the married are hindered in their service to God, says Paul.

  29. And isn’t the attempt to drive others out of the society inherently destructive of a society of equals?

  30. Doesn’t the very attempt to drive me out reveal that you see yourself as of higher position in the social hierarchy than me?

  31. While men use words
    as weapons of war
    and stab each other
    with scriptures
    tender hearts are wounded
    and the women weep
    for Zion

  32. Indeed, how can we ever be equal when you see yourself as higher than me, and take it upon yourself to be my judge, and seek to prevent me from fulfilling my agreement with God as per the covenant?

  33. (part 1)


    You said, "And isn’t the attempt to drive others out of the society inherently destructive of a society of equals?"

    I tend to agree with you.

    As I said, IF you are a wolf, Alma does teach to drive you out. But as a Libertarian and would-be disciple of Christ, I think this truly is a last resort. I also don't think Christ condones being a chump. The Lord teaches in Alma 43, "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies." In terms of a robust Christian debate on ideas, persuasion and long suffering is the rule. "No power of influence..." "Driving a wolf out" may be akin to driving the "wolf" teachings out, more so than an actual person. In other words, expose the "wolf" teachings. Joseph taught to not trample men because of their beliefs. Denver teaches so beautifully to love one another. He quotes the Lord's words given to him:

    The Lord said: Although a man may err in understanding concerning many things, yet he can view his brother with charity, and come unto me and through me he can with patience overcome the world. I can bring him to understanding and knowledge. Therefore if you regard one another with charity then your brother’s error in understanding will not divide you . . . Study to learn how to respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason and persuasion rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger . . . Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger nor to invoke my name in vain as if I had part in your every dispute. Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me I will tell you my part.

    Now, Log, if you are sincerely confused, which I believe you could be based on how you define "hierarchy" and how you believe some may be "above" others, then what else can be done but brotherly conversation?

    You said "Doesn’t the very attempt to drive me out reveal that you see yourself as of higher position in the social hierarchy than me?"

    I sympathize with your sentiment. I agree with you on the principle of one being persecuted for his minority beliefs. But again, what I've done repeatedly here is quote you. You've been given the rope, so to speak, to hang yourself. I let your testimony speak for itself. And your testimony convicts you as being an illegitimate participant. You've said you made a mistake and shouldn't have taken the covenant. You're excuse to remain and debate is that you're now under obligation to participate because of a prior mistake you admit to making.

    Since this is a sticking point with you (you aren't disposed to believing that God will honor your desire to withdraw peaceably) and I certainly have no power, as your equal, to expel you, then that only leaves the option of long-suffering persuasion.

    You are rejecting the inclusion of Denver's quotations because you feel he is "above" you, when his writings extensively teach he is your equal and not the leader and in no way is he atop any hierarchy, even a flat organization with one "above" all the others.

  34. (Part 2 of 2)

    Let me ask you, Are you able to concede that Abraham 3:19 point, that there are different levels of intelligence, that there is INEQUALITY in intelligence, just as some people can jump higher than others?

    I assume you will concede this self-evident fact.

    Now, can you concede that just because somebody, like Denver as a good example, is at a higher level of intelligence (having received more light and truth) than others (he's testified of many visitations and face-to-face conversations with our Lord Jesus Christ and conversing with prophets like Joseph and others), that he nevertheless is NOT "better" or of higher "organizational stature" than others?

    Signs that someone is of "higher position in the social hierarchy", as you aptly put it, would be visible things like the following:

    * When he enters the room, everyone stands.
    * When sacrament is administered, he is served first before ANYBODY ELSE.
    * In a conference, he sits in front in a literally higher position than others (on a stand) facing the congregation.
    * He presides in meetings, meaning people look to him and there is a general awareness that he's the one in charge.
    * If there is a deference to him and any indication that people are deferring to him, he does NOT correct them, but allows the deference to continue unabated.
    * The person of higher position would refer to himself as "president" or "leader" or any title that would indicate an organizational or positional higher than others.
    * The person "in authority" would have subjects or quorums which he is to govern of oversee.

    As far as I'm aware, I'm not aware of Denver or folks in this movement seeking for the honors of men, or seeking for stature. It may happen. I probably does, And will happen. But as far as Denver is concerned, he painstakingly seeks to avoid even the appearance of being a leader or unequal (somebody "above" others). In his 6th talk on Zion, Denver said:

    We all have our lusts, meaning “ambitions” in this context. Lusts and ambitions are the same thing for purposes of this verse. For example, "I really want to get ahead in the organization,‟ is a covetous desire. Inequality invites lusts. Inequality invites covetous desires. To be one, you must have equality. You can't have one heart, one mind, and no poor among you if you have a stratified group of people. There can't be any rich or poor. As a consequence of what it takes to have Zion, you cannot have a “Strongman” model. It will not work. As Gentiles, you are prone to this failure. You crave a “Strongman” to be your idol. Therefore, you seek what cannot be in Zion.

    So you see, you and Denver are on the same page!!!! I believe you ought to give a talk at the next Conference on the dangers of inequality!! You would deliver a needed and spectacular sermon on the subject no doubt since you've given the topic so much thought.

    Third, do you concede that Denver doesn't act as a person of "higher position in the social hierarchy"? Do you concede that Denver teaches to be equal and against being unequal?

    Here's another quote from that Zion talk:

    "Rise up (and this is a very modest thing to begin with), you will learn so much so quickly. You will be astonished. You don't need or want a “Strongman,” and the woman's voice should be equal with the man's. There should not be some "ruler" among you Gentiles saying, "It's this way! It's gotta be this way! I prayed about it!"

    I believe Denver is your biggest ally in your cry for equality.

    Has your concern about not wanting to include Denver's quotations because that makes him "above" us somehow in your mind been resolved?

    1. UnderDog2, you say: "You are rejecting the inclusion of Denver's quotations because you feel he is 'above' you."

      I say: You're welcome to try to make that case by direct citation to anything I've written.

      UnderDog2, you say: "I believe Denver is your biggest ally in your cry for equality."

      I say: As is also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the aforementioned apostle James. Whether Denver wants you, asks you, or seeks for you, to hold him in higher esteem than me is not relevant. That you in fact do hold him in higher esteem than me is relevant.

      We do not attain Zion except we start off in humility on a foundation of social equality.

    2. Log,

      You say what YOU do or say is irrelevant. So that means what I do or say is also irrelevant, by your logic.

      I've tried to listen to and understand your concern. With incremental questions I've attempted to do that. There was a flow to my questioning. I didn't see your attempt to respond to that natural flow. What shall I make of your avoidance?

      So you circle back to the proverbial strawman that there is no equality inherent in a G&S which includes quotes from a living authorized messenger.

      In your mind, he is "above" you or us and therefore there is a hierarchy, even if it's just one man "above".

      I've addressed how I believe your viewpoint of what "above" means is inaccurate (it appears it's rooted in pride or jealously is what I'm guessing since you are bewildered why someone who value a prophet's words over yours). I've asked step-by-step questions to illustrate this. You've refrained from answering, clinging to your strawman.

      What else can be done to grant you the opportunity to be heard than to ask you to respond and clarify your position and to respond to possible resolutions to your concern?

      Alma said this:

      6 And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people.

      7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

      I agree. Denver absolutely agrees. Do you agree with this? I hear you saying these exact words of Alma, but you think that by quoting an "Alma" (as in quoting Denver in the G&S) that that is elevating Denver to a "higher position in the social hierarchy" than you.

      Your concern honestly seems like a very underdeveloped, petty envy, driving you to say, "if you don't esteem my words as much as Denver's than I will take my toys and go home."

      OF COURSE, a true prophet has more light than you or anybody who's not seen into heaven and parted the veil. Alma, a true prophet, despite his greater understanding of heavenly things, however, humbly and rightly rejected that he should be made king.

      King Benjamin was entertaining angels, but said he was no better than others. Said he, "And I, even I, whom ye call your king, am no better than ye yourselves are."

      What does it take to convince you that Denver is no better than you, or anybody, and doesn't teach inequality either? What do you need to hear? I invite you to start by responding to the few step-by-step questions I asked above.

      If you refuse to respond, then what else can be concluded but that you're not sincere and indeed an infiltrating wolf who slipped in by disguise, and you're not confused about equality at all, but really resolute in sowing the seeds of disharmony, with an agenda to thwart progress?

      It's a good question for you too: what would you do, hypothetically, about a participant who refuses to reason and doggedly clings to his pet dogmas, in the face of obvious resolutions brought forth, but rejected?

      I want to listen to you, Log, but I think you need to meet half way and listen to me. I'm trying to be respectful to you, as I would expect to be treated with love and respect too.

  35. UnderDog2: “I've tried to listen to and understand your concern.”

    I say: Go read what I’ve written. It is to explain my concern that I wrote it, after all. When you can explain my actual position to my satisfaction after having read the entirety of what I have written on this topic, then we may potentially be able to profitably discuss my concern.

    If not, then not.

  36. Log, I read your other document - the question and answer one. You have everything laid out in your mind. I don't agree with everything you say. I understand the logic behind it, but the thing that is missing seems to be humility. Your arguments over the past few days seem to be this:

    1) I took the covenant by mistake, but having taken it, I intend to stick by it
    2) I believe that Denver Snuffer is a true messenger sent by God, but his words are not the words of the Lord, and I will not accept them as part of the SP.
    3) I will not accept anything in the SP except the scriptures I have specified (or something functionally equivalent), and I am willing to stand my ground regardless of the opinions and/or beliefs of others in the covenant community - thus communicating that you have no respect for their opinions or beliefs.
    4) There can be no hierarchy, no person set above another - yet you have set YOUR opinion/beliefs above those of all others. THAT is a true hierarchy.
    5) The GS which will result from the SP is, according to the AC, to be "followed" and is therefore binding - as if it can be enforced. Therefore, you don't think anything other than the doctrine of Christ and the Sermon on the Mount should be included, because anything else might be used to force someone to do something against their beliefs.

    In my view, Log, you have set yourself, with your opinions and beliefs, above all others. You have demonstrated an unwillingess to compromise, again, in doing so, exhibiting a complete lack of respect for the understandings, interpretations, commitments of anyone else in the group. In doing so, you have effectively set yourself up as a group of one - seeking to force all others to bow to your beliefs and opinion.

    The great irony is that you have actually set yourself up as a strongman, forcing everyone else to bow to your will or to unrighteously "cast you out". You've created a no-win situation for the whole community - we either give in, or we cast you out. This is the result of your no-compromise position. I've seen this in action before. It is unrighteous dominion at its finest, and it's done under the guise of obedience and righteousness.

    You said earlier that you appreciate knowing where you stand. Well, there you have it. That is my opinion of your behavior on this.

  37. You can’t cast me out, Scott.

    When you can restate my position to my satisfaction, then we may profitably discuss.

    Until then, not.

  38. But I thank you also, Scott, for aligning your words with your heart.

    It’s good to finally know where we stand.

  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Lori, I've mentioned my name above.

      I've tried to be respectful and truthful and without guile in my communications.

      Log has specifically expressed appreciation for my style. I appreciate him too for the same reason. And for not being easily offended.

      I appreciate your comments too.

      Joe A.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Lori, honestly, I don't think I said anything to Log that Christ wouldn't say. Christ loves Log. I have no doubt about that. But I don't think He loves what Log is doing - the way he is manipulating everyone else. I was kind, trying to understand, until I finally did understand. I read everything he asked me to, and then the picture became clear.

      You, Lori, have not done the same thing that Log has done. You have not dug your heals in and created a situation where there is no chance for success. You have simply expressed your feelings and concerns. Log has brazenly thumbed his nose at everyone and said, "I'm going to force you to either do it my way or violate your own standards". It's manipulation at its finest. I have pointed this out to him, and we will see what he does with it.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. I don't understand what you're saying, Lori. Honestly, I don't know how it is that I have not loved Log. As I said, I have pointed out, rather kindly, I think, focusing on behavior and effect, not personality and motivation, what he is doing by holding the entire group hostage without being willing to compromise at all. It pains me that you think I am being contentious. I am not. I am pleading for the opposite - for understanding and compromise, for cooperation and consideration of the position of others in the community. Unfortunately, it is Log who is being contentious by declaring a position without compromise.

  41. Scott, maybe you can start by explaining exactly what I actually have written where you say you see my logic and yet disagree.

    After all, if I have erred in facts or logic, then I would like to fix the errors.

    On the other hand, if you have misunderstood what I have written, then I may help to correct your understanding.

    So, from the documents I have referred you to read, and which you say you have read, please help me to clarify whatever it is you think is unclear.

    Because, in the end, if the real problem you have is not with what I have written, but is instead your condemnation of me for what you say is my lack of humility, further conversation seems futile, wouldn't you agree?

  42. Log, it's not about your SP. I've already stated that, while I don't agree that it fulfills the requirement that the Lord gave us, I could get behind it. It would be sufficient for me. It's not about whether I agree or disagree with your reasoning or your arguments or your answers.

    Instead, it's your unwillingness to compromise. You have stated that you intend to either force everyone to accept your ideas or to "cast you out". No one wants to cast you out, so the alternative would be to accept your ideas. That is manipulation, pure and simple. It is unrighteous dominion. As I said, I've seen people use similar techniques before.

    I care about you. I want you to be accepted and loved and listened to. But when you put others in a situation where they only have two choices, and they are dictated by you, that is exercising control. It is setting yourself up as a strongman.

    Do you not see that?

    I will be gone all day and will not be in a position to respond. I don't desire to be mean, or pile on, or anything like that. I think I've demonstrated that in our past interactions, as well as everything yesterday. I want to understand, but you can be so dogmatic. You seem to thrive in dogmatism - a "my way or the highway" approach. That really doesn't work with me, or with most people. It is a sure way to get people to stop listening.

    Again, if the rest of the community accepts your proposal, then I will too, but they way you are going about it is...well, I strongly object to it for the reasons I've stated above.

    1. Your voice is important, but it is no more important than anyone else, and you have created a situation where you have placed your voice above all others in importance, and that is an hierarchy of the most pernicious kind.

    2. And, you know what? When I prayed about this yesterday morning, the Lord said, "It's not your job". That was my ticket out. I didn't need to read all your stuff, I didn't need to engage all day with you on all of this. When I ask myself this morning why I did - the answer is clear. It was out of love for you. I wanted to understand, and I wanted to be on your side. Believe it or not, I am on your side. I'm offering counsel and a view point that you apparently can't see because I have to think that if you did, you would adjust somehow. However, what you do with it is up to you.

    3. Scott, when I asked what is your actual problem with what I have written, you responded: "[I]t's your unwillingness to compromise."

      And it seems that the Lord has told you that correcting my sins, as you judge them, is indeed "not your job."

      Perhaps, since your problem is apparently with me, and not with what I wrote, you should recuse yourself, since you cannot be an impartial judge of truth, but are instead a judge over my heart?

    4. Recuse myself? Like this is a trial and I am a judge? I did not communicate clearly. I was praying about what to do about the whole situation - the interaction between you, the committee, the community, etc. It was not about "correcting your sins". I cannot correct your sins, and I am not judging your motives or your heart. I have said more than once that I'm sure you must believe that your actions are loving or you wouldn't engage in them. I am offering MY insights on how your interactions with the rest of us are manipulative, setting yourself above others, and exercising unrighteous dominion. It is up to you to recognize that or not. My problem is definitely with what you wrote in that you declare an unwillingness to compromise and in that it sets your opinion above that over others. In short, I am judging your actions, not your motives or your heart.

      I will say this - every time I engage with you, you exhaust me. I will gladly recuse myself and let you work it out with everyone else. I've done my best. After all, it's not my job.

    5. "I am offering MY insights on how your interactions with the rest of us are manipulative, setting yourself above others, and exercising unrighteous dominion.

      My problem is definitely with what you wrote in that you declare an unwillingness to compromise and in that it sets your opinion above that over others. In short, I am judging your actions, not your motives or your heart."

      Precisely. Judging truth is not your concern. You are judging me.

    6. And judging me is not your job.

  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

  44. When I read the competed G&S, the prayer to Heavenly Father and response, I was truly amazed what the 7 lotsters +1 had accomplished. It is truly an inspired work. And I express my deep gratitude for the prayers, fasting, heart-felt commitment and time that went into this effort. I receive it wholly without any reservations as our G&S. As far as the Servant David is concerned, I have had a spiritual witness that he is sent and I am grateful for his continued sacrifice on our behalf. It pains my heart to read such criticisms of him and look forward to the day we are of one heart and one mind. Further pruning will be necessary to separate those who can discern truth from those who cannot whoever they may be. I pray that we cease to offend the sacredness of this moment. God Bless you all and love to you as my Brothers and Sisters and fellow believers. I will not respond to any comments reg

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  46. Lynne,

    I will not receive the word of the Lord from (wo)men, but I will receive them from heaven.

    I dissent from this proposal.

    Jared Livesey

  47. I have read this thread of comments and as one who avoids contention, normally I would have stopped. Something about some of these comments brought a feeling that felt very adversarial. I read on however, because I feel it is important to see all sides. I have read the links that were posted in order to see others' views. I believe I have a much better understanding where those who are dissenting are coming from.

    I see that there are those that feel that the G&S should be limited to the Doctrine of Christ and the Sermon on the Mount, with a possible 3rd addition to doing as the Holy Ghost directs. I read several times that if we have the Holy Ghost as our guide, no other direction is needed. For example, priests would not need to be told how to baptize since they, being guided by the Holy Ghost, would be taught that.

    Coming from the LDS tradition, my husband was taught how to baptize. We were fully active members up until March of this year when the Lord actually directed us to leave the Church. It was a shock, but the Lord made it clear to us and we recognized His voice. To keep the story short, through our studies we came to believe that the Lord wished for us to be baptized again. We studied it out, and took it to Him for confirmation. His direction was clear that He wished this for us and our children. We are fairly new in our "awakening." The Lord has been directing us in such a way that miraculous is the only word that describes it. As we were deciding when we would be re-baptized, we just happened to be listening to one of the lectures Denver gave in his 40 Years in Mormonism where he said the Lord had renewed that direction to us. Because of that, we learned that no longer were we to use the words "having been commissioned..." but that my husband was to ask permission from the Lord first to receive the authority to use the priesthood. Then, he was to use the wording from the Book of Mormon. My husband isn't a pretender. He is a worthy man striving to do the Lord's will. We don't believe that it was coincidence that we just happened to be listening to Denver as he gave us better understanding that we could take to the Lord for His confirmation shortly before we were going to be re-baptized.

    We are grateful that the Lord has given His directions to us, and know that they may at times come through another, such as how to baptize according to the Lord's will for us, which was different than what we had been taught. We then took it to the Lord for HIS confirmation.

    This is an example of why I feel that more needs to be given in the G&S then only the Doctrine of Christ and the Sermon on the Mount. In the "Answer" I read that one purpose was to be a help to those that are not familiar with the work already underway.

    We are working towards becoming a Zion people. I know I am not there yet, but I am sincerely trying. There may be many of you who have the Holy Spirit as your guide. But, for those of us who are striving for, but have yet to attain that great blessing, we are receiving what we are given and then taking it to the Lord. Of course, most of what we have received has been given directly to us from the Lord. However, there have been opportunities for our family to receive something from a man, and then to go the Lord with that information. This G&S is an example of this. We have learned the hard way to never, ever trust man, not any man. We will only follow the Lord, as I believe you all feel too.

    Our family has gained such confidence this past year in the Lord answering our prayers. Each one of us who has entered into a covenant with the Lord has the opportunity to take this to Him. What a blessing that is. I have studied out both sides and know I will receive His direction to me. It will be my answer and whatever He tells me, I am willing to do.

    1. Football Mom, I really like what you have shared. I can feel the genuineness of your heart and believe this comment thread has been elevated by you. Thank you!

      Would you be open to hearing what I see in your experience? It might help others understand what Jared has been in support of and what I agree with at this point.

  48. Lori Taylor...Of course I would be open to hearing your opinion. I am willing to hear both sides. Another lesson I learned through learning to rely on the Lord is how important it is to examine everything.

    1. Thank you, Football Mom. I did not want to appear like I was belittling or challenging your experience.

      I love how your experience demonstrates that we will each be guided and led to resources and information when there is need and we ask, seek, and knock. I have had similar blessings of guidance in my life, too, and believe all of us could share such examples.

      You shared how you and your husband came to know how to be re-baptized, how it was directly through a message Denver had given that you “just happened” to be listening to. Not a coincidence, methinks. (I actually don’t believe in coincidences.) If I may point out, it was not through a ‘guide and standard’ or any type of handbook that the needed guidance was given. It came because you obeyed the guidance of Spirit to listen to a true messenger with an equally true message, and had it confirmed to your hearts by the Holy Ghost. Christ answered you, taught you, and showed you the way.

      And could not an individual or group also be led, as we have all been led for a few years now, by promptings from the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit? None of us got to this place because we had a Guide and Standard spelling out minute details, right? Though we did have some foundational understanding. So what would be a good foundational starting place for those “others who know nothing as yet of [His] work now underway?” Does the world at large have a solid grasp on the message in the sermons, demonstrating their readiness for further light and knowledge? Do we?

      What if the G&S were to simply and only include the Sermons on the Mount/Bountiful? Can we trust Christ to do His work and lead all those who are willing to hear His voice to the messenger(s) each person needs?

      And are not all of Denver’s talks and much of his writings available in multiple formats, and for free in many instances? And will there not be those moved by the Christ’s Spirit to go out and share His message? And will they not be instruments in Christ’s Hand for teaching much of the how’s and wherefore’s? Is it really imperative to include anything beyond a familiar sermon from Christ Himself in the G&S? Cannot all the other guidance and information be found elsewhere, even in the scriptures themselves?

      to be cont'd

    2. This is simply an idea and inquiry on my part. For myself, I have always been fine with the suggested contents since the original version. I have no issues with the writings of Denver or him as a messenger sent by Christ. And I would agree with what you shared about being “kind in word and wise in deed.” But I wonder at this point if the kindest and wisest thing we could say to others and the world is to study the Sermons of Christ and learn to walk that talk. Plus it would be the guide and standard we say we are also willing to study and live. I could agree to that without reservations of any kind.

      But since mutual agreement is required, and since there is no deadline given by Christ for this task, why not take more time to reason together and study together to learn how to understand each other? And through that have our hearts knit together in love? Perhaps we can still yet come to agree mutually to include recent revelations from Denver if given time? Or maybe we should just be willing to agree to what we can agree to in order to have unity and not fracture? Is it really so bad to consider only holding up the Sermons on the Mount/Bountiful as our Guide and Standard?

      I was instructed by Spirit earlier this year to study the Sermon on the Mount and apply it to my circumstances as a member of the LDS church still. It has been eye-opening, especially as I have been shown what was/is in my heart. I have come to believe that if we as a people made a conscious effort to study that message together and discuss how to walk it out, many of our inter-personal issues would be healed and solid bridges of mutual understanding and love could be constructed.

      Given that there is such a wide range of disagreement on what to say and how to say it, perhaps a simpler approach is necessary until we as a group have greater light, knowledge, and wisdom as a whole.

      I think it would please Christ most if we chose this path, rather than rolling around in the muck and mire of verbal duke-outs and behind-the-scenes planning. It has been all too easy to forget who we are—to God and one another.

      Thanks for letting me share. Sorry I am so wordy.

    3. Lori...
      I did read your response...I'll forgive you for being "so wordy" if you'll excuse me for not responding more quickly. LOL ;)
      I can see your points. I am going to just share a few thoughts I have and if you wouldn't mind answering some questions?

      One is that yes, we were given direction on how to baptize correctly by the Lord's guidance. The Lord led us right to what Denver had directed and is in the G&S that has been proposed. My question is, do you think it would be harmful to give people direction on baptism (for example) that is in alignment from the Lord?

      Another part of the proposed G&S goes over the priesthood. For those of us who are from an LDS background, we do have questions about the priesthood. I think having a little direction such as you should ask the Lord for the authority to use it is wise. These are things that we were never taught but are obviously important.

      Aren't these guides important? If we believe that we have been shown how to properly administer sacred and unchanging ordinances by a true messenger, why would we not have those in the G&S? I'm confused by this. I understand we are trying to keep it simple.

      I'm interested in your thoughts to these questions. Also, I have had come to my mind several times that maybe the Lord is seeing if we can come to a unity as a people more than He is concerned with what we adopt. Maybe this is our test in order for us to receive more? Like you said, maybe we can agree in order to have unity and not fracture.
      We have to learn to be kind to each other as we go through this process. You have done that, and I am trying too. :)

  49. Football Mom, thank you for such a kind response. I don't mind you taking time to respond. You are a mom. :)

    I should state up front that I have never had an agenda for the G&S. I have always accepted what has been presented since the first one written by Jeff. My worries at the moment surround the disunity, meanness, and willingness to forget others who are not wanting to be left out. It is one thing for someone to voluntarily turn away, but another matter when a whole group says, "See ya. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out." That is how much of this process is feeling to me. And it hurts deeply, and out of my pain I tend to react.

    I do agree it would be wonderful as well as kind in word and wise in deed to offer guidance and the standard for priesthood, baptism, the sacrament, and even fellowships. But unless we are willing to take time to come to agreement, where can we at least say we can agree for now? Maybe use that as a temporary bridge?

    I'm a slow learner and as such tend to do most things the hard way. So I really benefit from direct explanations and answers. But I can see the reasoning behind the idea that we may all be led to the teachers and truths we are ready for through Spirit and Holy Ghost. I can also agree with it. I don't think it would be harmful to simply teach that.

    I also wonder how much Christians at large understand, not to mention non-Christians. This perspective is difficult for me to get a handle on because my whole life I've been "taught" about ordinances and priesthood. They are familiar topics to me, though I still have much misunderstanding about them.

    Is what is offered in the current G&S proposals sufficient to get folks going in the right direction? Surely we cannot expect to teach everything, but would someone who has never performed an ordinance be okay with what is given? And what about how a sustained and authorized person being able to instruct in person?

    And as to the unchanging nature of ordinances, I don't see how one person or a group can prevent someone from being led to not change an ordinance as outlined. We can state such and such, but how easily the adversary gets in. Plus sometimes there is genuine misunderstanding, and it will get taught. But maybe that is not the point. The point is that we get it right, teach it right, and demonstrate it right, yes?

    Thanks for listening. I wish I could just be given more time to sort through things in prayer and discussion before something is agreed to. I feel rushed and pressured. I am sorry for everyone here that I am rather slow. I do require a lot of patience from those who know me bestest.

    1. Something else I wanted to share: I don't know if you know Rob and Quintina Adolpho or have heard of them, but as I've read their comments throughout this process and understood their work as and with First Nation people I have wondered what they could add to a statement that is also meant to bless and benefit First Nation people. They would certainly have insights I don't have as a white American woman. I've also thought what a good thing it would be if we had the benefit and life experiences of people from non-LDS backgrounds. But maybe that is part of the burden we have to figure out.

    2. Lori Taylor, it really pains me to think that you think I was being contentious or mean or anything of the sort. I am being very open here with you - perhaps even dysfunctional - and in front of everyone else. The thought that you think that about me is almost unbearable, because that is not who I am. I would honestly like to hear you say that you understand my position, and that you understand that I was not being mean or contentious. Perhaps you can't do that. I would like for you to understand that engaging with Log takes a lot of energy and effort, and it's typically much easier to just walk away, but I didn't do that. I didn't do that because I do care about him. Instead, I listened, I read, I sought to understand. I had no objection to his thinking, to his position, although I disagree with that position. I even said that I could get behind his version of the G&S. It would be fine with me. What I objected to was his no-compromise position. I felt someone needed to point out that taking such a position has the effect of forcing others to accept his position. I felt like I did that in a reasonable way. I have seen this done before, and it is always the same. It ironically leverages peoples' desire to be of one heart and one mind to force them to agree with you. It takes advantage of their kindness and meekness and forces them to do something they would not do otherwise.

      This may be a conversation better continued in private. My e-mail is

    3. Hey Scott. Let me start by saying I am sorry to have hurt you. That was not my intention, but like all our intentions around here on the blog, it seems emotions get the best of each of us at times. I had not seen or realized you had responded to me, that's why I haven't responded back to you. If not for my convo with Football Mom, I would not be checking here anymore. I always forget to check that notify me box when I comment. :O

      Also, I prefer to keep discussions out in the open. I think that is part of the mischief that has happened around here. A forum, like the one Log recommends, or the ComeServe site, would be better suited than a blog to handle all of this. But that decision is not in my hands.

      I could say a lot at this point, but honestly I am pooped out too. ;) I guess I simply wish now that we would all stop viewing one another as opposition to be overcome, a challenge to be surmounted, a problem we wish would just go away, a problem child to be corrected, a rebel needing to be peer pressured into compliance, etc.

      I feel like we hardly know what a body of equals looks and sounds like. And for all the chatter and words, there sure is a lack of real communication! I feel like there is a Great Oz somewhere making all sorts of decisions. I'm just confused and hurt by it all. What a mess.

      I know I will not want to join in other endeavors any time soon. I will just let people with strong personalities do what they are gonna do. I'm like you and have a tender heart that loves fiercely and just wants everyone in a giant group hug. Yet, He wants me here. Ugh.

      Please be at peace with me. You are a wonderful person. I remember you from my FB days. I've always enjoyed your thoughts. Just be patient with me. I am a passionate individual.

  50. Lori..
    Thank you for your answer. 😊

    I have seen the Adolpho name on here, but no, I don't know either of them. But I agree with you that their ideas would be important to listen to, especially as we are seeking to recover the remnant.
    I am grateful to have had an uplifting conversation with you. I believe we have both listened to understand.
    Have a wonderful day!

  51. Lori Taylor...
    I forgot to mention, my name is Becky. It is nice to have chatted and learned from you!