Sunday, November 26, 2017

A Guide and Standard Chosen by Lots-CALL TO VOTE (11/26/17)

Brothers and sisters,

God commanded us seven to do two things. We have complied with what the Lord told us to do. We presented the document to the people (online) and to Denver Snuffer (in person). After having accomplished this, the Lord showed us the way forward.

Here is a portion of the Prayer for Covenant that we found relevant and respectful to all the work done in the past and present:

“We desire as a people to repent and remove the condemnation and to overcome your rejection, and to be true and faithful to your commandments. We have labored to present this to you in the hope we have shown respect for your word and not the works of men. We acknowledge that you have inspired and guided this work by your Spirit. We acknowledge we are imperfect and, despite your inspiration and assistance, we know there are faults and weaknesses with us and therefore we ask for your mercy to cover our weakness. We have attempted to be unified in this work, but have sometimes disputed with one another, and therefore ask to be forgiven for our own contentions as we were laboring beside one another.” (Prayer for Covenant, pg. 5)

First, a personal comment to all those who doubt. We do not know why the Lord chose us to complete this work. However, despite our weakness ,we know the Lord has been with us in abundance as we have worked. There is no denying this. We witness, in boldness, that God has been with us, helped us, and inspired us. He spoke to us and accepted our offering. Our completed work is enough until such a time may come that the Lord makes it known that a change is required. For now: it is enough. This we know. We have no doubt or fear, for love has cast this out of us.

In reflection, we realize that we have composed a document adapted to the weakest of us all. Though these words are quotes from the Lord and through His authorized sources, these are now our words. They belong to us as a people. They feel to us now as familiar as if we had written them, originally, for ourselves. We pray the day will come when all will be prophets, that any may speak the Lord’s words and we will recognize that they come from God, not based on the name of the person speaking, but based on the fact that our spirits are more refined and capable of recognizing truth. When that day comes for us as a people, we will know that we are truly progressing to the day when all may know the Lord for themselves and not rely on any other.

To those who cannot accept this document, or those who have doubt, anxiety, or fear - we invite you get in contact with us via our email ( Then we can call you, contact you remotely, or meet with you in person. We invite you to hear our testimony and why we did what we did. We will listen to whatever you have to say. We will pray with you. Online forums and comment sections so quickly spiral down into the mire. Please let us reach out to you personally. We are not here to debate with you, argue with you, belittle you, or to contend with you. We are not better than you. We just want to pray with you and have you hear our peace (piece).

While a few have been vocal on the blog posts, we know of hundreds ready to be heard. It is time to hear from all.

A vote will be offered from Monday, November 27th until Friday, December 1st to invite your acceptance and support for adoption of this Guide and Standard for inclusion in the scriptures.

Guide and Standard by Lot

This is the link to participate in the vote:

We ask the people to vote, and answer if this work is enough. The scripture committee will then format and finish the edits before publishing in the scriptures.

May God bless us all as we work toward being one. Though we are weak, may God grant us strength. May we have patience for one another as God has patience for us. May we freely forgive and love one another as God so quickly forgives and so infinitely loves us. We know that God has blessed us seven and been with us, and we pray for these blessings be extended to you all, and for Him to be with you.

With love, and in kindness,

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 dissent from this proposal.

    Jared Livesey

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Mutual agreement in God’s system means exactly the same thing it meant in the very first councils. God allows every individual the right and freedom to choose. There will ever be opposing views. And so it should and will always be. Those who mutually agree with God, His voice, His instruction, and unify in Him stand with Him. So, each must seek and receive His voice. Ask Him. His voice is still and small and speaks peace.

      Exercising your right to choose does not break any covenant. This is the voice of fear seeking control. Unanimity as a requirement was rejected in the first councils. Nothing has changed. God has made us free. The challenge is not unanimity, the challenge is for us to accept the differences we may have and continue to live in unity, peace, respect and love for one another as Christ has commanded us.

      Listen to God’s voice - follow Him. The voice of fear and control is discernible. Turn away from it. Unite in Christ our Redeemer.

    2. Steve,

      By your comment, you are a witness unto yourself that you have read the warning.

      Jared Livesey

    3. I regard no warning from men. I regard my God and Him alone.

    4. For example, here is a warning I take very seriously:

      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.

    5. This is a revision of my original post against which Steve is contending.

      I concede this one choice will not break the covenant.
      The Lord requires mutual agreement on the G&S, as he has stated in plain language.

      To do anything more or less than the Lord requires is to not do as he has required.

      “Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required” (A&C, p. 8).

      “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.”

    6. Jared you have pointed out a very cogent and important point in quoting the Lord
      From page 8 of the Answer and Covenant.

      “Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required.”

      Here is substantially what the Lord requires of us from the preceding paragraphs on page 8 (actually the first sentence comes from page 7 last line)

      “Let not your hearts remain divided from one another and divided from me. Be of one heart, and regard one another with charity. Measure your words before giving voice to them, and consider the hearts of others. 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. Take care how you invoke my name. Mankind has been controlled by the adversary through anger and jealously which has led to bloodshed and the misery of many souls. 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...”

      The Lord has “required” quite a lot from us indeed. The only part from page 8 about which there has been any real disagreement has to do with language relating to “a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people”. There is no need to re-hash that issue - many simply dis-agree about that. And that is fine. We can disagree on that and ten thousand other things. The Lord can and will provide direction and course adjustment on stuff we may disagree about. He says so in the quote above if we will unitedly come to Him to receive His part.

      It’s not so easy for the Lord to fix all the other stuff He requires of us if we refuse to listen to His words and change our hearts toward one another. To this point we appear to want to ingnore all the other stuff He requires of us, unity, no division, charity toward one another, so that we can continue like a bunch of angry hens to squabble over the one item He has said He will show us His part if we will allow Him to do it.

    7. Part two

      Therefore the real issue(s), the one(s) that we all ought to assess and be sure we are not lacking in, is all the stuff the Lord requires of us from the quote above. The weightier matters of the Law as Peter called them.

      All of the to do about which version of a ”statement of principles” to take to the Lord, has had the effect of dividing and separating hearts. What has happened, because of the disagreement arising from one requirement of the Lord, (the one He said He can fix by showing us His part,) is contrary to all else the Lord has required of us in the quote above.

      We ought to lay down our defenses and unite in the Lord Jesus Christ. Some thing are more important than other things. The prophets and the Lord Himself have taught repeatedly that the higher law requires all that the Lord has required of us from the quote from page 8 above.

      You are also precisely right, in pointing out, “I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, he have no promise.”

      Much to consider from that page 8 and the entire Answer and Covenant. The least, is that which the Lord has said He can fix for us if we will approach Him on very reasonable terms He has set. The greatest requirements of the Lord have to do with issues that relate only to individual hearts. The Lord has been very clear, our hearts have not been right. Our focus and attention should go to those issues of the heart. Unity, harmony, cooperation, peace with, and toward one another.

      Let’s lay down the defenses, come together in unity and make some kind of showing that we do in fact desire to be His people by accepting and doing as He has required. And that has much less to do with a statement of principles that He has offered to show us His part and fix for us if we will come to Him, and much more to do with hearts that continue to need to be fixed. The first heart that needs adjustment and serious tuning in my own. I pray the Lord will help us find unity and peace together.

    8. Well, Steven, if you wish, you are invited as all are to humble yourself and converse as equals openly and publicly in a forum provided for this purpose:

  3. And, once again, all covenant participants are invited to humble themselves, and come and openly and publicly discuss the G&S as equals in a neutral forum provided for this purpose:

    Jared Livesey

  4. May I ask why a vote is being held? Does it matter? Is it mere formality so it can be said it was presented to the people? Is that so the people can feel they played a part? Why not just place it in the scriptures since it is obvious the vote will not be unanimous? Ima just wondering and asking sincerely.

    1. Lori,

      I believe the vote is being taken because everyone who answers yes, no, no, will be by voting that way cut off from the body, according to the understanding of the Lottery project.

      Thus the vote produces the mutual agreement required to pass the Lottery G&S, by excommunicating every dissenter.

      I voted yes, no, no.

      The Lord does not lie, nor does he vary from what he has said, nor does he work in secret combinations. This will be interesting to watch.

      Jared Livesey

    2. For this to work, they have to have, if they haven't got already, the Scripture Committee's buy-in.

      Jared Livesey

    3. And they may protest "you cut yourself off by dissenting!"

      The truth of that statement depends on whether Shalyce's revelation is indeed of God.

      Jared Livesey

    4. Thanks for the heads-up, Jared. Holy moly, I don't even know what to make of the last two questions. Whhhaaat? I figured I would put in due diligence first in prayer to even see if I should vote at all.
      I'm looking at the foundation and wondering if I want to build a house on it. It sure looks cracked in some places. And then Denver's newest post on his website has me wondering. I agree with you though, this will be interesting to witness.

      And for what it's worth at this point, I'm feeling more and more that simply focusing upon the Sermon on the Mount and at Bountiful as our Guide and Standard would be ideal. I was Told earlier this year to study the Sermon on the Mount and apply it. My experience as a result has shown me the power of His sermon and how much we need to take it more seriously. I think it would be beautiful to present that to the world as our Guide and Standard. Everything else can be found elsewhere, and used as led by God.

    5. Lori,

      Here how the vote reads:
      We ask the people to vote on the Guide and Standard produced by lots, and answer if this work is enough.

      Have you received the covenant?

      Here is the document compiled by seven people drawn by lot: - Do you accept this Guide and Standard and support its adoption?

      Thank you for participating. If you desire, will you please reach out to us to share your thoughts and have a conversation with us regarding the guide and standard? Please email us at

      (I'm not sure where Log got his strange questions from)

    6. Thank you, Jay, for clarification. Words are important. The two questions make good sense and what I would expect to see in this process.

      Jared, please just be straight forward and honest. Don't state something is so, especially direct questions in a voting process, when it isn't exactly so. I do feel somewhat mislead. I'm not angry, but I would have been shocked to see different questions than what you said. You may have simply inferred them, but I can't review your comment now to see if it was my mistake and I took you too literally. If I did, I'm sorry.

    7. I said "you might understand the vote this way," and what followed was how one might profitably understand the vote.

      I have gone ahead and quoted the entire vote, along with the relevant language from Shalyce's revelation which gives the profitable interpretation of the significance of the vote.

      I apologize for any confusion I may have inadvertently caused.

      Jared Livesey

    8. Oh, thank you Jared. I think the issue was mine. I remember reading that "might understand" sentence now that you have pointed it out. I just took things literally. I appreciate your willingness to clarify and always discuss.

      Hopefully someone will answer my questions so I (we) can have correct understanding about this step. Why does everything feel like a surprise to me at this point? Maybe I should change my name to "Clueless." Anyhoot. Have an awesome Monday, y'all.

  5. Jared, you make an excellent suggestion.

    May I recommend to the group here that conversations specifically about Jared's proposal, The Rock of Jesus Christ, be conducted in the space he has laid out for that purpose where the format is more conducive to discussion than here.

    I think it is wonderful that technology makes it possible for us to communicate so freely across distance and time zones. I would like to point out the obvious that carrying on discussion through this medium has unfortunate limitations. So much of communication involves eye contact, body language, voice inflection, etc. that is lost here. So much better to meet in person when possible. As Denver Snuffer has observed:

    "The greatest mischief of discussion groups lies in the mistaken impression that collective effort will help the individual in their personal journey. The path to God is solitary...
    Groups create an artificial environment...
    In a group discussion there is more contention than harmony. Contention is dark and invites errors. It would be far better to contemplate, meditate, study scriptural passages, to look into related statements from prior patriarchs, prophets and apostles than to debate with others. New information can open the mind. Contentious debate will close it...
    Take a look at discussion boards. How often are they wholesome and free of contention? The "comments" on this blog were disabled because of the deterioration that took place here.”

  6. “The Lord's People"

    When a set of principles and commandments are set forth by the Lord and called covenants by Him, and subscribed to in the affirmative by a group of people standing before God, angels, and others present; and that group of people strive to live up to those principles in their daily walk, that group of people, by decree of God, become His people.  The covenants, in all their parts, become incorporated into each person by mutual agreement by all who so agree in the affirmative.  These, then, are those who He (God) refers to as My People.

    Mutual Agreement

    When anything spoken or written in part, mirrors those words mutually agreed to by those consenting to the Covenant in its whole, then that element, spoken or written, which mirrors any part of the whole Covenant also by definition is mutually agreed to also.  For instance, if in accepting the Covenant a person agrees to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant, that person, along with all others accepting the whole covenant has mutually agreed to that one element also whether or not it is associated with the whole Covenant.

    In my very humble opinion that which has been written in this Statement of Principles has already been mutually agreed upon, even if no further action were to be taken, because all the words in it reflect the Covenant to which all of us [as the people of God] affirmatively subscribed.

    I will vote my continuing support for this Statement of Principles and would raise both arms in the affirmative and have each counted if that were permissible.

    Keith Henderson  

    1. I missed the word "tithing" in the A&C, just to pick one.

      Jared Livesey

    2. Also, the G&S is unrelated to the covenant except by the covenant requiring us to write and adopt the G&S by mutual agreement.

      The issue isn't whether the G&S reflects the A&C contents. The A&C contents are not necessarily related to the G&S contents. Just because something, or even everything, in the A&C is put into the G&S does not confer assent to the G&S. The two things are distinct.

      Just to clarify a point of apparent confusion.

      Jared Livesey

  7. Putting this in the main thread:

    You might understand the vote this way:

    "Are you a covenant participant? yes / no"
    "Are you a member of the body? yes / no"
    "If you said no, might you become a member of the body? yes / no"

    Given Shalyce's revelation, that they have unity with the body, it seems pretty clear they intend by this vote to excommunicate every dissenter.

    We shall see what the Lord says.

    Jared Livesey

    1. Unity with which body? Body of Christ? Earthly body? Heavenly body? Covenant body? Body of believers? Body of worshipers? Unity in the 7 Lots participants?

      By that wording, where do you get the idea excommunications are intended? Excommunication from what? From who? Is suggesting excommunications a manipulative ploy to spread fear? Lies?

      What authority is used to offer warnings? What are the consequenses of need heeding the warning? Excommunication? Rejection from God? Rejection from man? Why is such a stout warning being expressed? What is the motivation for the warning? What inspired the warning? What authority, directive and from whom?

      Jared, I'm hoping you could answer some of these sincere questions I have. I have seen your continued dissent from the process being so outspoken and demanding that your views are considered - fair enough. But when such a stern warning is cast upon the body, I take note and ask you, Where are you coming from? What spirit animates you in these actions you have taken?

      Daryl Brown

    2. Daryl,

      I invite you to ask of God, who gives to all men liberally, and does not upbraid.

      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.

      May your inquiry of God be fruitful.

      Jared Livesey

  8. The vote, verbatim:

    1. Have you received the covenant?
    2. Here is the document compiled by seven people drawn by lot: - Do you accept this Guide and Standard and support its adoption?
    3. Although you may disagree with this being your preferred Guide and Standard, will you agree at this time to adopt the document as presently written, as a guide and standard for those that desire to be the Lord’s people?

    Remember the relevant language from Shalyce's revelation: "At this point, you have a unity with the body. They agree with these words, and this document will suffice."

    If you therefore disagree with those words, or believe that the Lottery G&S does not suffice, you are outside of the body, if Shalyce's revelation is of God.

    Jared Livesey

    1. Thanks, again, Jared. Time for people to consider.

  9. So, folks, the apparent intent with this vote is to excommunicate every Lottery G&S dissenter from the covenant.

    The Lottery G&S supporters may protest that no dissenter is of the body, and by voting in dissent from the Lottery G&S one is simply affirming one is not of the body, but that depends upon whether Shalyce's revelation is of God.

    I voted against it.

    Jared Livesey

  10. This all seems very familiar.

    The Chosen Ones

    Alma 31
    15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.

    16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.

    17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.

    18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

    Using Private Inquiries, Like Voting, without Disclosing Intent to Cast out Dissenters

    Alma 35
    3 And it came to pass that after the more popular part of the Zoramites had consulted together concerning the words which had been preached unto them, they were angry because of the word, for it did destroy their craft; therefore they would not hearken unto the words.

    4 And they sent and gathered together throughout all the land all the people, and consulted with them concerning the words which had been spoken.

    5 Now their rulers and their priests and their teachers did not let the people know concerning their desires; therefore they found out privily the minds of all the people.

    6 And it came to pass that after they had found out the minds of all the people, those who were in favor of the words which had been spoken by Alma and his brethren were cast out of the land; and they were many; and they came over also into the land of Jershon.

    Yes, this does all seem very familiar.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. Although I am in support of this, I feel rushed. Why so soon on the acceptance?

    On the one hand, yes, we want the scriptures to (finally) be complete. And as Keith stated, we already on agree on the content, so whats the hold up? On the other hand, as you know, many people are not feeling this revelation. I feel like they deserve more than a week to be persuaded.

  13. Yes I agree it feels rushed.
    Also, a few questions regarding the vote.
    1. What is the purpose of the vote?
    2. Is there an acceptance threshold we’re trying to meet that the voting results will identify? If so, what is that threshold? 51%? 91%? 100%?
    3. If the threshold is 100%, we clearly don’t have that so more time to persuade is probably needed.
    4. If the threshold is less than 100%, how has that been determined? Will it still fulfill the Lord’s requirement of mutually agreed upon principles?
    5. What does asking “is it enough” mean?
    6. You mention above that the vote will be taken and then the scripture committee will format and edit before placing in the scriptures. This is assuming mutual agreement? Is there a step I’m missing?

    Thanks for considering my questions and thanks for your efforts towards this project.

  14. I agree with Jeffrey - while I'm sure this is yet another GS document that's ok with me, I'm having trouble understanding why the rush to get a vote done this week.

    I'm also having trouble seeing how, exactly, this vote will or indeed can be any different from the votes we've taken before. I predict a wide margin in favor, something on the order of 90/10. What of those who vote no for some reason, are they just cast out? What of the other proposals; who decided not to dignify them with a vote, and how are they sure this is ok? I really don't want anyone to feel they've been strong armed or coerced, or had this thing rammed down their throats. If you can help me understand how this vote is different from the one that took place in early August, I'd really appreciate it if you would explain it to me.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.


    The tl;dr is this: We aren't capable of mutual agreement without coercion right now.

  17. The previous common consent vote of Aug 5th was set aside by strong personalities in this movement who felt that we needed to pursue 100% mutual agreement.

    Those personalities appear to have realized the error of setting aside common consent as they have apparently now endorsed this effort and have publicly advocated that those who do not agree with this particular document are not part of the body.

    If this document is going to have legitimacy, we must acknowledge that it was an error to throw out the previous common consent vote.

    I suggest we accept the Aug 5th vote as the first statement of principles adopted by the common consent of the body and then acknowledge this document as the second.

    1. This will be a several part response. I apologize up front for the length, but feel it important to share.

      Taylor and Daniel,

      While I am no expert on this topic, I have paid close attention to all that has happened. I was a firm supporter of the Original, the June, and the August documents; so I have no agenda. I believed any of them would have been acceptable to the Lord. I felt as frustrated as anyone over the fact that the vote in August was left undone and never taken to the Lord for acceptance. I guess we hadn't learned yet, as a body, the lessons we still needed to learn.

      The reality is that at that point in time, the GS was under the responsibility of the Scripture Committee by assignment. It was their decision to not take it to Denver and the Lord and submit it for His acceptance. I am sure they were prayerful over that and that such a decision has served the purposes of the Lord, even if it was frustrating to some of us. No one but the scripture committee had the right to make that decision at that time.

      Since that time, the scripture committee has officially stated that they are now NOT responsible for the GS anymore. They said that they finished their responsibilities over the matter, which ended in division and gridlock, and will not be responsible for its completion. The body must figure it out.

      The assumption by many that mutual agreement meant 100%, was part of why that gridlock existed, and continued to exist after August.

      We have never been given a definition by the Lord of how mutual agreement is to look; what will be acceptable to Him. Is it 100% of every person who took the covenant? Is that even possible? We were clearly told that there are still those that are lofty among us, how is it possible that we can expect complete agreement between every covenant holder, especially when we still have not risen up to prove our ability to dwell in Zion and connect to the mind and will of the Lord? Zion may have a people who are connected enough to the Lord to produce 100% agreement, but we are not that group yet. We are proving ourselves. There are varying levels of commitment, understanding, and ability to hear the voice of the Lord. That isn't a criticism of our condition, I am just trying to be a realist on the matter.

      How is it possible that we would expect that there will not be opposition to something the Lord wants; it is always the case. In Joseph's experience, it proves out that often those who were once the most informed and dearest of friends become the opposition. I am not accusing those who oppose this document of being tares, or prideful. But a genuine question I have to those who feel they cannot accept this document is, “Why?” What is there in the document that is unacceptable? It is all language we have received from the Lord. If we are to be easily entreated, why do we continue to find reasons to squabble over little details; when most of us already see that this is NOT really about the details of the document, but about our loftiness and inability to set aside differences of opinion to do the work of the Lord.

    2. part 2 continued.....

      We covenanted to follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon in word, thought and deed. Have we forgotten the words found in Alma and Helaman that ask us to be “easily entreated?”

      “And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times… (Alma 7:23)

      “Oh, that I could have had my days in the days when my father Nephi first came out of the land of Jerusalem, that I could have joyed with him in the promised land; then were his people easy to be entreated, firm to keep the commandments of God, and slow to be led to do iniquity; and they were quick to hearken unto the words of the Lord—(Hel. 7:7)

      What does it mean to be “easily entreated?” The 1828 Dictionary defines entreated as “consenting to grant what is desired.” We should all ask ourselves if we are among those who easily consent to grant that which is desired; particularly when the desire is righteous and a request from the Lord. Will you be one who will walk a mile with your brother in righteousness because he requested it of you?

      What is desired of us by the Lord, is for us to figure out how to set down our personal opinions, implement the standard of conduct between us that is becoming of those who claim discipleship of Christ, and be easily entreated to agree to a document that gives sufficient instruction to replace Section 20.

      Some are saying that we need more time to persuade. Is there anything in this document that you have not heard before? Most of it was taken from the ideas found in the Original, the June, the August, and a myriad of other documents submitted by dozens of believers in the movement. The document reflects the work of hundreds of individuals input and understanding of this assignment, as given to us since March. We have been working on this intensely for 8 months now. How much time do we need? One individual who decides they will never accommodate others could potentially hold the entire body hostage indefinitely. The document is not anything new in reality. We should go to the Lord and ask him if it is acceptable or not. We really don’t need months more to do this, we’ve had sufficient time.

      As for why this document is being put up for a vote with the intent to be submitted for inclusion in the scriptures, even though the August document was voted upon and never submitted; As stated, the August document was under the responsibility of the Scripture Committee and they chose not to present it to the Lord and have officially put it to bed. Thus, it was incumbent upon the body to figure out how to proceed. 87% agreed to a lot system wherein the Lord could be left to choose who would compile the document based off the Lord’s words and the work previously done by others.

      That is scripturally called the voice of the people. It is perfectly legitimate to do our business that way, particularly when the people involved are so intent on doing the will of the Lord. There must be a mechanism whereby decisions can be made, and things can get accomplished and move forward (especially when no one can be the strong man and dictate…even the least among us cannot resort to being a strongman by holding others hostage to their opinion). The scripture committee used this method repeatedly to determine the content of the body of our scriptures, and we had no issue with it. It is a legitimate method wherein to grant permission to move forward with something. Great respect was attempted to be shown by those proposing the Lot system, by first requesting permission to do it by the voice of the people. They didn’t just assume permission, but asked and were granted permission from everyone.

    3. part 3 continued....

      As a consequence, the seven chosen by lot, have moved forward with their assignment knowing the voice of the people had granted permission. Because the lot system was based upon the faith that God would choose who He wanted to finish out the work, they must now conduct themselves with the same sort of permission from the Lord to act, that we had previously granted to Scripture Committee in trying to get this assignment completed. Either the Lord chose them to do it, or He did not. I believe the Lord gave abundant witnesses, or signs, to us to show us that He was indeed behind the lot system.

      Once finished, they took their completed document to the Lord first and foremost. This is as it should be, as we are all attempting to rise up and receive answers from the Lord on our own, and within the parameters of responsibility that we have. The responsibility was granted them by the voice of the people, and the Lord, to do so. They took their responsibility serious and were given individual witnesses, as well as a group answer when they united in prayer with Shalyce as voice. The Lord spoke to them in answer to her prayer. Are they supposed to ignore His voice and the approval He gave? Should they have confidence in His acceptance and continue on with what He asked of them? I believe that based upon what we all profess to believe; we would expect nothing less from them.

      They do not have the responsibility over any other documents put out there for consideration. Their only responsibility and obligation is with the document that they were granted permission to create, that was subsequently accepted by the Lord. They fulfilled the other requirements given by the Lord in answer to their prayer (presented it to the body and to Denver), and were then instructed that the final step is two-fold; take it to the people for a vote and during that time, continue to try to persuade those who may feel opposed to it still. They are faithfully fulfilling that responsibility. Their email has been made available and the request is made for those who oppose the document to contact them directly.

      They have reached out to a number of people already, and will continue to do so throughout the vote, and as the Lord instructs. This does not mean that everyone will agree. Nor were they instructed that everyone would or was required to agree. They are taking this one step at a time to complete what the Lord has asked and nothing more or less. We should not panic and make assumptions that have not been stated.

      So what does that mean if there’s 90% approval and 10% disapproval? Does that mean the 10% are being excommunicated from the covenant, as some have expressed. They have not said that. That is not their role to determine. My assumption is that removal of an individual from the body is by personal choice, not by how one votes on this matter. If one allows themselves to become so obsessed with anger over the matter, perhaps that spirit will overtake an individual if they allow it. But it certainly isn’t necessary.

      For me, I choose to be easily entreated. It is the position that many have had through this entire process. I am grateful for so many people who have a spirit of good will and cooperation.

      Sincerely and with love and respect to each of my brothers and sisters in Christ,

      Karen Strong

    4. So since you are saying you are easily entreated and to entreat is to grant what is requested, are you saying that you are ok with this proposal?

      It seems to me that accepting the voice of the people means accepting all of their voices. Isn't it an easy thing to call one document the earliest accepted version and another document the latest accepted version?

      I think there are a lot of folk that would appreciate the gesture and it seems like such a simple request.

    5. Thanks for taking the time to respond Karen! I'm making it a matter of prayer before I determine whether, or how, to vote this week. Like you, I'm intending to be easily entreated. There have been at least 5 proposals that have been advanced at some point that would be fine with me. As that list continues to expand, I'm mainly trying to understand what makes this process different from what's happened before - others have experienced outpourings of the spirit, answers to prayers, etc. I really don't want to be found contributing to any abuse of our brothers, and I hope however this process proceeds, we can avoid further scarring of one another.

    6. Hi Karen. I've only time to read through the first part of your comment, but will come back to finish later and share my answer to your question of why I feel unable to accept the lots G&S. But I wanted to ask if you could help me understand the responsibility part you mentioned.

      You said it was originally the scripture committee's job to create the G&S, and I understand that it had been decided Jeff would tend to it since it was his question concerning LE D&C 20 that started the inquiry. But was it understood that originally Christ meant Jeff alone should create it, and once the committee mutually agreed to that version, the task was done? Or is there a possibility that Jeff and the committee could have asked Christ if the group (us) should be included from the first? Was that ever considered? Or since there has always been the small group of individuals working on the scriptures, it naturally would follow for one of them (Jeff) to write a new revelation to replace D&C 20? Is that how they were thinking of it?

      Maybe the only person who could tell me is Jeff himself, but it has been on my mind ever since the beginning of this. And maybe it does not even matter now. But it seems from the outset (after preview docs of the scriptures were released) that we struggle to accept revelations from one another, no?

      And when Christ gave His Answer and renewed His command that we create the G&S, I felt the "you" was us. But maybe He had been willing to change the "you" from having meant only Jeff to now mean all of us? But it sounded like He always meant the group as a whole body, because Denver shared how Christ told him He hadn't expected we would get it right immediately. But that was after the task was opened up to the group, so maybe not?

      At what point did the scripture committee understand they should invite the rest of us in to the work? Only after a lot of hullabaloo?

    7. Lori,

      Nice to hear from you again.

      I don't know the answers to all of your questions. I just know that it was clear from Denver's talks that the scripture committee was called of the Lord separately through their own inspiration first, then brought together by him at the end of 2016, and that the Lord confirmed what they were doing His work, and made it part of the preparation for us to receive His covenant...after first fixing and making as accurate as possible the word that He had given to us, to the degree that they could with available information.

      Since the GS came about by needing to remove Section 20 and replace it with something that would fit for fellowships, as instructed by the Lord through Denver, and the assignment was given to them as a committee, I'm sure it was up to them as to how that was to be fulfilled.

      They initially chose Jeff. I think that was acceptable. Jeff then allowed others to be involved. That was acceptable, too. Then he allowed for an even larger group open to anyone in August. That was acceptable, too. But ultimately, it was the scripture committee that had the oversight to get it done and approved. I may have something messed up in this, but that is my basic understanding.

      For me, it is literally water under the bridge. If I hold on to "what if's," or "why not's," I will be tempted to travel a road of resentment or feeling I'm justified in a "pity party," so to speak. It has been a temptation for me to go there; because I was willing to accept all to the avenues and felt sad that others made it so difficult to do. I'll be honest...the weekend of the covenant was miserable for me because I was so upset that the August document wasn't taken to the Lord. There's a confession that I'm sure others relate to, but i share it is to show I am not biased toward the current effort.

      But after soul searching, the spirit whispered to me to move forward from the point where we find ourselves in the moment, and stop re-hashing the past. No good comes from it, unless we are using it to learn from and correct our mistakes, it divides. Otherwise, re-hashing it over and over is like having a wound that we keep pouring salt in. I was prompted to work to find something and the Lord led me to the United Proposal, followed by the Lots proposal to carry it out. I believe I felt His confirmation because I was willing to lay down my prior position for the good of the whole. Don't know if that makes sense. But hope that helps with your question.


    8. Lori, in the scriptures project official announcement it states: "(A Proposed Set of) Governing Principles is a rewritten statement of principles and practices -
      similar to LDS Section 20 - that reflects this assembly’s efforts to preserve the Restoration. This
      statement is not yet completed. It requires additional inspired input from you."

      Seems like it was meant to have the greater assembly's input from the get go.

    9. Seth N, thank you for pointing me to that. I have taken some time to review that and other recent posts on the sister blog for the scriptures. It is still unclear how the committee felt it okay to unanimously accept Jeff's work, but then acquiesce to a group of people (they said they were told numbered 230) and invite the larger body to work on what was then called governing principles. But it hardly matters anymore. Those in charge will do what they will do.

    10. Karen, I have not forgotten that I said I would return and share my "why," but after writing and praying and crying and praying and writing more I have decided to keep my thoughts private at this time. But I appreciate your willingness to listen. God bless.

  18. Daniel,

    1. The document voted upon on 8/5/2017 is not part of the covenant I assented to on 9/3/2017.
    2. The 11/22/2017 revelation to Shalyce Woodard stating the Lottery G&S team has unity with the body, meaning, in context, the body of covenant participants, despite lacking the mutual agreement of covenant participants required by the covenant, thus logically implying all dissenters from the Lottery G&S are not covenant participants, does not apply retroactively on a facial reading of the revelation.
    3. Therefore, if your suggestion is taken as a proposal to adopt the document voted upon on 8/5/2017, I dissent.

    Jared Livesey

    1. Ask God yourselves. You need not rely on any voice of any man putting forth shrill accusations and devicive position after divicive position. The accusations put forth men, that anyone who feels opposed to any certain Statement of principles will be excommunicated is an invention of men which is without merit or basis in truth. It is designed to make you fear. Does our redeemer do that? Does He threaten and coerce to get you to believe Him and follow Him? His voice is clear. It is still and small, but discernibly clear. Contrast His voice with what you are bombarded with here.

      What is there to be excommunicated from? The covenant you made is between you and God. Angels made note of it, but they have power only to testify what they saw you do and say. It seems only our Lord, since it is entirely between you and Him, would, or could, have anything to say about your covenant with Him. You need not listen to the threats and fear pandering put forth by men about excommunication from a covenant you made with God alone. Only He has power to do anything with the covenant you entered into with Him. You can honor it, or you can break it. It is entirely your choice. He is the only one who can allow it to continue. He is the only one who can say with any authority whatever that it is no longer of force. Feeling one way or another about a statement of principles to guide you is something you can ask God about. Go ask Him. He will tell you. If it is a matter that will come between you and Him and your covenant with Him, He will tell you.

      It is absolutely unnecessary for you to involve, to listen to, or pay attention, to any man who thinks he has authority to tell you anything about your personal covenant with God.

      Here’s how it works within the system our God has decreed. He has not, and will not ever change. He is governed by law. He is the giver of the law. If you are separated from “the body” that He calls His, it will be self selection. Period. It will happen in the very way it has happened from the beginning:

      (D&C 29)

      “36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil--for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;”

      It is simply a matter of agency. No other person can do that for or to you.

      If you find yourself separated from God it will be because of an exercise of your agency. God did not, and does not, require unanimity. To do so would destroy agency on the part of one or more. He cannot do that. He would cease to be God if He required you to take any position to which you feel opposed. It is eternal law. Period.

      It has ever been so that a faction of children will mutually agree to God and His Law, His voice, His word. They approach Him alone, hear His voice, come to Him, and receive Him. Others are easily persuaded by men, their philosophies which are always mingled with enough scripture to make them appear authentic.

      You will only know you have chosen the good part when you finally set yourself free from all the voices pounding you and just go to Him alone. He will tell you the answer to every question you may have. It is the only way you can proceed and not be deceived.

      Leave men and their philosophies and fear out of it. Go to God. He laid down His life in order to win the right to be the only one you can trust and rely on. Trust Him. Receive Him. Follow only Him. Listen only to Him.

      I bear solemn witness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Allow yourself to be guided by Him. When He speaks, trust Him.

    2. Steve, your party tends to make the image out to be precisely the way Jared has stated. It was your comments that stated that those who don’t accept the current words have rejected the covenant. But you’re upset with Jared for restating it as an excommunication, why? Because it puts you in the position of the bishop or stake president because your words draw a line in the sand?

      Yours, Keith’s and Karen’s comments are so offensive because it uses words of covenant to control the perceptions of others, rather than simply stating why you agree and let others choose for themselves why they would or wouldn’t agree. If disagreement arose, go back and try again. But that isn’t going to happen according to you because we already mutually agreed. It won’t happen to Keith because he’ll raise two hands high in the air in support of this only. And for Karen, she says she don’t care which is accepted, but for her it’s the majority. All three of you stated why you go with the lots, but none of you are willing to consider the progress of something other than your own understanding, while in the same breath you have called yourselves charitable, humble, and kind.

      You may not see your departure as excommunication. Jim O’Rulian didnt even consider this a possibility, that people would descent from the lots proposal. All of you see this a way to get’er done, so we can get to the good stuff. I have an opposing opinion, this work on the people, with the people we are calling Family is the good stuff.

      Rob Adolpho

    3. Oh Rob - I won’t contend with you - but I do want to say hello to you and Q. I hope your family is all well and happy. I bet it’s getting cold up north? I wish you guys a warm and happy Christmas. Probly not the right place for a personal note right? I hope we can diasagree and still dwell together in peace and the joy of our Lord. My best to you guys Rob.

  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Zion in fact is those who unite in the Lord our God according to the union required by celestial law. Division will never lead to Zion. You are invited to unite in the Lord Jesus Christ according to His Law. Go to Him. Hear Him. Receive only Him.

      D&C 105:

      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.

      Division cannot lead to Zion

  21. I am now satisfied that this vote CAN be different. I can't say that I "know this is God's will," or anything like that yet, but I am open to the possibility. If I can persuade you to be open, then I want to do that. However you vote or don't vote on this, I have no intention of withholding love or fellowship from anyone; you are a brother or a sister, you belong to the Lord, and you are worth knowing.

    1. Make that two Taylor’s who approve of that message.

      Taylor W

  22. As of today, 11/27/2017, 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.

    I have posted explanations for The Rock of Jesus Christ, and have invited one and all to come and humble yourselves as equals, and reason together openly and publicly concerning this matter in a forum provided for this purpose: You are all still invited to do so.

    It is not my purpose to make you move, for if you move only unwillingly, then you do not agree in your heart even if you feign agreement with your lips. I will explain why we must all stand on The Rock of Jesus Christ to those who seek an explanation in humility as equals, both openly and publicly, for only if you are persuaded will you move on your own.

    Your servant,

    Jared Livesey

    1. Friends,

      Consider the contradiction here from Jared's (Log) words...

      "A Confession To My Readers" 9/4/2017

      "Therefore, I confess before men, angels, and God, that I did say “yes” when I should have said nothing. I do not know how else to repent of this except to say that to those who have entered into the covenant provided through Denver Snuffer, they should consider me as not being part of that covenant. I failed in a test of personal integrity pertaining to question 1. I lied by saying “yes.” I repent me of this lie by making the truth known."

      And this from Jared on this very blog...

      LogNovember 25, 2017 at 9:20 AM


      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."

      Are we to not consider you as part of the covenant as you stated in your blog post?

      Janson Fish

    2. Janson,

      What matters is whether God considers me part of the covenant.

      For that, you’ll have to inquire of him.

      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.

      May your inquiry of God prove fruitful.

      Jared Livesey

    3. Janson,

      You think log is the only person preventing 100% mutual agreement? We can pretend he's not in the covenant if we want, but we still won't get 100%.

    4. TBM,

      I don't think that, I'm aware of others who aren't in agreement.

      I have been reading the blog posts and Jared, to me, seems to be the most adamantly opposed to anything other than his proposal. I've identified contradictions in his writings and thought it fair to emphasize them in light of his arguments.

      Janson Fish

    5. I find it telling that individuals are choosing to attack Jared the person instead of dialoguing with him about what they find lacking or wrong with his proposal.

      Why is it that one proposal, one idea, has been pushed ahead of all the others for voting? If we are going to vote, why not vote on every single one?

  23. This question is going to veer from the current discussed topic. But I don't know where else to ask this question. If you can direct me to a forum or someone who knows, etc. I will be much obliged.

    I am not acquainted with you all and am working to understand what all this means. I emailed Denver a question about two weeks ago. I received a reply from him. Then I asked a question again and received no response. My friend said I likely appeared obtuse and that's why I didn't get a response. So maybe I am obtuse, but I'm not meaning to be. Here is the email I sent Denver:

    In the paper, Scripture, Prophecy and Covenant the opening line says: "The adoption of latter-day scriptures as a law and covenant is a necessary step foretold by the Book of Mormon." I was looking for the scripture in the Book of Mormon you are referencing where it says "law" and "covenant", etc.. Can you direct me where to read to see your point?

    Thank you.

    Denver responded:
    There are many places where the Book of Mormon is identified as containing the "fulness of the Gospel" including revelations through Joseph. But internal to the Book of Mormon itself, the following are a few (but not by any means all) that bear on the question:
    Lehi explains:
    "Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me and to my children forever and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them. ..For if iniquity shall abound, cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
    Nephi prophesied:
    "the promises of the Lord are great unto the Gentiles, for he hath spoken it and who can dispute? But behold this land, saith God, shall be a land of thine inheritance and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land. This this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles and there shall be no kings upon the land who shall raise up unto the Gentiles. ...For I the Lord, the King of heaven, will be their king and I will be a light unto them forever that hear my words. Wherefore, for this cause, that my covenants may be fulfilled which I have made unto the children of men, that I will do unto them while they are in the flesh, ...he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish for they are they who are the whore of the earth. ... Wherefore, the Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel. Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed and they who shall be numbered among thy seed forever for the land of their inheritance... I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God."

  24. Part 2
    And, again Nephi prophesied:
    "as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord, and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off."
    Christ prophesied:
    "in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them. ...At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations and above all people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings and of deceits ...I will bring the fullness of my gospel from among them. And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them. And I will shew unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you, but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fullness of my gospel. But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel."

  25. part 3

    Christ also explained:
    "When they shall be fulfilled, then is the fulfilling of the covenant which the Father hath made unto his people, O house of Israel. Then shall the remnants which shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth be gathered in from the east, and from the west and from the south and from the north, and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God who hath redeemed them. And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land for your inheritance. And I say unto you that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive after they have scattered my people, then shall ye who are a remnant of the house of Jacob go forth among them. And ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many, and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep who, if he goeth through, both treadeth down and teareth in pieces and none can deliver."
    And again:
    "that he may shew forth his power unto the Gentiles for this cause, that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel. ...whosoever will not believe my words, who am Jesus Christ, whom the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles and shall give him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles. It shall be done even as Moses said, They shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant. ... wo be unto the Gentiles, except they repent, for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee and I will destroy thy chariots and I will cut off the cities of thy land and throw down all thy strongholds. ...But if they will repent and hearken unto my words and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this remnant of Jacob unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance. And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city which shall be called the New Jerusalem...and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles."
    Moroni warned that God said to the Brother of Jared:
    "whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them. ...Wherefore, he that doth possess it shall serve God, or shall be swept off, for it is the everlasting decree of God."

  26. part 4
    Moroni also explained:
    "Come unto me O ye Gentiles, and I will shew unto you the greater things, the knowledge of which is hid up because of unbelief. Come unto me O ye house of Israel, and it shall be made manifest unto you how great things the Father hath laid up for you from the foundation of the world; and it hath not come unto you because of unbelief. ...And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed. Therefore when ye shall receive this record, ye may know that the work of the Father hath commenced..."


    In Denver's response I did a word search and there was no scripture reference to "law", only "covenant". But all the covenant scriptures he gave are in reference to a covenant that has already been made in the past. I have taken the BoM and D&C and done an entire word search on the words "law" and "covenant" and can not find the answer. Then I asked Denver the following question over a week ago and received no response. Can anyone here answer my questions? Thank you in advance.

    Thank you for your response. I am working through Preserving the Restoration and Conversing with the Lord through the Veil. A friend has asked me to consider the "Scripture, Prophecy and Covenant" paper. I read and re-read your response to my email. You referenced the Fulness of the Gospel and I find I am still confused. I'm just looking to know the reference for where it says, "The adoption of latter-day scriptures as a law and covenant is a necessary step foretold by the Book of Mormon." i.e. the Scripture you are referencing. Additionally, for those that were not aware of the covenant taking place two months ago - how does one go about making it at this point?

    Dan Burnside

    1. Dan,

      I would invite you to ask of God, who gives to all men freely and doesn’t upbraid.

      The formula for inquiring of God is as follows.

      1 Nephi 15:11
      Do ye not remember the things 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.

      May your inquiry prove fruitful.

      Jared Livesey

    2. Dan, I believe the covenant implies a law. There are always terms in a covenant, and those terms become a law to the participants. Breaking the terms is breaking the law, and invokes the consequences inherent in the breaking of the covenant.

      As for how to make the covenant now, that was mentioned at the September conference when the covenant was first made. Any sustained priesthood holder can administer the covenant to anyone else who wishes to make it, simply by reading the words of the answer and covenant out loud to the recipient, and the recipient standing and saying YES at the appropriate time.

  27. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood [or association, or covenant]; only by persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned. When we undertake to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold the heavens withdraw themselves, the spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood [or association] or the authority of that man.

    I say that to recommend caution on the part of anyone insisting that "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." If you want to dissent, that's fine with me. Really. I'll still fellowship with you, pray with you, break bread with you, etc. if you disagree with this (or any other) proposal. But I'd recommend against attempting to assert that sort of control, or compulsion, or dominion.

    1. Would you agree foisting a G&S upon those who do not agree to it is control, compulsion, or dominion?

      If not, why not?

      Jared Livesey

    2. I am against cramming anything down anyone's throat. Someone might attempt to control, compel, or dominate by using their influence to push something into my scriptures that I disagree with; if that were to happen I'd feel at liberty to ignore that and teach my children the truth as I understand it -- D&C 132 and the 2 ODs have been in my scriptures for the last several years, and I haven't felt at all obligated to teach my kids the LDS lines about polygamy or racism.

      So short answer - yes, I can see why that would feel like control, compulsion, and dominion. Longer answer - it's bound to not be very successful, because I don't feel like I have to comply with anything that violates my conscience, even if the vote tally is 10,000,000 to 1. Since I've been free to ignore the troublesome bits of D&C 132, and I've likewise been free to keep my own record of things I experience or learn about, and keep those in MY collection of sacred records, I don't feel controlled, compelled, or dominated.

      Now, if you came into my house and started auditing to make sure I'm using the Official Orthodox Approved Scriptures and Nothing Else(TM), tearing out or re-writing pages of journals, etc., that'd be control, compulsion, and dominion.

    3. Well, I don't know that I feel free to ignore a G&S. It is, after all, for us "to follow," and it is meant to bless, benefit, and inform those who know nothing about the Lord's work now underway. I would be unable to say "no, I don't believe this stuff" if I agreed to it. I'd have to stand behind it, and by my agreement to it I would also have to take responsibility before God for its effects. I grant others may feel differently.

      One of the benefits of The Rock of Jesus Christ is that it affords nobody the right to judge anything anyone does, nor the ability to enforce anything.


    4. Well, everyone has the right to judge, with the proviso, of course, that as we judge, so shall we be judged. So the safest course is, of course, to simply not judge.


    5. Most of the proposals aren't able to be used to 'enforce' anything; I'm not sure what 'enforcement' might look like anyway. Your proposal isn't bad, and is on the ever expanding list of options that would probably be fine with me. I do like that yours is heavily scripture; I like the same things about this "lots" proposal. Points to you for brevity though.

      As far as feeling free to reject something you don't agree to, why not? What if the body votes on a document that says you have to dance naked under the full moon every month while singing the Serbian national anthem? I'd feel fine saying "psshh, nuts to that!" and persisting in my efforts to live up to the covenant obligation by writing something acceptable. Nothing in the covenant requires me to accept "whatever everyone else is doing" - if there's a proposal I can agree to, then by all means, I'll make efforts to keep my heart soft, easy to entreat, and agreeable. If there's something that's objectionable that's gaining traction, I'll speak up and extend my efforts to persuade. If I can't persuade the body to remove that bit about the Serbian national anthem under the full moon, then I don't participate in that ritual. But at no point have I given over agency to the body to write a document that I must comply with. That has never happened. I voluntarily accepted the covenant, which included voluntarily accepting the scriptures. If I voluntarily accept this (or some other) G&S, then it's done voluntarily. If you don't, that's cool, at least with me. No reason we can't share fellowship.

    6. Well, see, that's the point with the G&S. It is the G&S only if we agree to it, otherwise it isn't the G&S and it doesn't get published in the scriptures. So if it's the G&S, which means I must have agreed to it, of course I have to stand by it, both affirming and following it - potentially including the Serbian national anthem and all.

      Otherwise, it isn't voluntary.

      Enforcement takes a couple of forms. There's formal enforcement, like how 12 women can take away one's priesthood permission slip, and there's informal enforcement, where one abuses others who don't do what one thinks they should do. Informal enforcement - imposing on people, applying pressure, calling names, and all that stuff - is contrary to The Rock of Jesus Christ.

  28. Shalyce's answer supports the idea that there are other legitimate documents:

    "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."

    This section states that acceptable documents "did come about". So if this is going to be the published version, maybe we should make it clear that it is/was only one of many acceptable alternatives.

    That is my suggestion anyway. Something of a preamble that acknowledges that there were many documents that did come about that were acceptable.

  29. I fully support the G&S as compiled by the Lot committee. I see the Hand of the Lord in its foundation.

    Paul D


  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

  32. Remember: you don't have to agree - not with me, not with anyone.
    Failure to agree is not opposition.
    Opposition is opposition.
    Contending against something is opposition.
    You don't have to oppose to not agree.
    You can simply not agree.

    Without mutual agreement, no G&S which gets adopted fulfills the Lord's requirement.
    We have no announced time limit to come to mutual agreement.

    And I dissent from any proposal save it be The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

    1. I am sorry, dear, but to question my document is to question the Ministry, and by extension, the Minister himself. I am a tolerant man, but the one thing I will not stand for is disloyalty.

  33. I've read through probably 75% to 85% of all of these comments. I think the Lord's purposes for having us produce this document are misunderstood. I see campaigning, argument, and endless explanations of points of view. Exactly the stuff he wanted us to overcome and avoid.

    If the Lord wants us to understand correct Doctrine it's going to come from Him it will never come from us. It is a trivial matter for him to correct it.

    So the test was about something else. It was about being able to be agreeable with one another, to be one people and to produce a document in the spirit of love for one another.

  34. I agree, I believe it's about getting along. Not to eliminate disagreements but to agree to disagree in love.

  35. Explaining why you don't agree is not contention.

    Jared Livesey

  36. I don't think disagreeing is what is causing the contention. I think what is causing this so called contention is gossip. Labels like "evil", "1/3" and "opposition" are straw-man allegations.

    Dealing with passive aggressiveness is difficult. If someone, who is assertive, addresses the passive part then they are labeled aggressive, and if someone addresses the aggressive part then they are told they misunderstand and are labeled as mean, or the opposition.

    I find it very fascinating how quick people in this movement label people who may oppose them as evil. I get pointing out bad behavior, but to say someone is evil? Just because someone has a different perspective, a different understanding, doesn’t mean they are Satan's follower. But, I guess what's new, I don’t know one religion that didn’t call our people Satan followers, savages etc. And why? Because we had a different understanding, we had a different perspective?

    Just because someone doesn't agree with this document doesn't mean they disagree with the Lord's words. How many times have religions come to the reservation quoting scriptures, justifying their authority and power, while physically and sexually abusing the people. Didn't the Pharisees and Sadducees have written scriptures (frontlets) that they wore. The rejection of the Lords words come in when you say but don’t do, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees.

    What if I compile all the scriptures about the Gentile nation and use that as my G&S, would you agree to that? Or maybe you believe you are no longer Gentile??? You call yourself the covenant people, but are you doing what you are saying?

    Denver stated:
    The fact of the matter is, that you can make a vow to God, but you cannot create a covenant with God. God can make a covenant which you can fulfill by your performance. God can offer you something, but it's up to you to accept it. You accept it by what you do. It's not enough to say, “Yea Lord, I'll go out and do as I'm bidden.” Instead you must actually do it. Because it is only through doing that the covenant is kept by you. It is only through doing the covenant is able to be empowered sufficiently to give you the blessing which a law has been established to allow you to lay ahold. You can't get there without God offering you the covenant and you accepting God’s invitation.

    What is this work now underway? The Aaronic Priesthood that houses the preparatory gospel? Or is it what Denver has been trying to teach us in regards to what Adam possessed? Is it what Abraham spoke about- the great and greater knowledge? What does it mean to Come Unto Him?

    What does the idea of restoring the remnant of this land and no longer forsaking them mean to you? When you say you love us does love to you mean ignore us, talk stink about us behind our backs, publicly be nice and then send private nasty emails- is that what you call Christ like behavior? Is this doing what you are saying? And you want me to join you knowing that you are saying but not doing? Uhhh…. NO thankyou! I have no problem if you have an issue with me, because of my bad behavior, come and talk to me about it, BUT WHY do you have to go behind my back and gossip. AND WHY do you believe the gossip?


    1. Love this quote Q, " God can make a covenant which you can fulfill by your performance. God can offer you something, but it's up to you to accept it. You accept it by what you do." It is certainly up to us whether we accept the covenant or not - the covenant HAS been offered, how many have accepted? I am trying to accept it.

      I just want you to know I see so much insight and knowledge in your comments. Thank you for taking the scriptures so seriously as to know how to use them to make a point and teach.

      I just want you to know there are many in this movement who think kindly of you and respect your opinions and perspective. I appreciate all that you teach me.

      I hope we can all seek for this "greater" knowledge that Abraham sought. I hope that this is the work underway, and not just another continuation of the preparatory Gospel.


    2. Beautifully, passionately spoken, Q. Amen.

      I am reminded of YHWH'S counsel to "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."

      I have much studying to do.