Thursday, November 30, 2017

Committee G&S Update: Answering Questions and Putting Rumors to Rest

We would like to answer a few questions and hopefully settle a few matters. Let’s get started:

What is the meaning of the term “Mutual Agreement?”
There have been many prayers asking about this subject, as well as a lot of heartache as people have disputed the definition of this term. In response to prayers and pleadings, the Lord answered with a definition to Denver. He defines mutual agreement, as used in the Answer to Prayer for Covenant,  this way: “As between one another, you choose to not dispute.”  Simply put, even if we disagree, if we choose not to dispute, we have mutual agreement. For example, if someone insists that they will not accept any G&S other than their chosen version, those who do not dispute with them still have mutual agreement.
That definition fits well into the text of the Answer, which reads (in part), that we should: “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.” It appears that sometimes it takes a while for a group to become sufficiently contrite. This definition also will hopefully allow for us to reach a conclusion on this effort sometime in the near future. We will post an update on next steps for the inclusion of a final G&S once the current effort to gauge the body’s reaction is completed.

August 5th Document: Why was it not taken to the Lord for His approval after the majority vote?             
A couple reasons, but primarily because we felt He approved it at our meeting. Everyone who stayed through the prayer at the end felt that way. This meeting was miraculous in many ways, as we were joined by a host of people who wanted to get involved but who had not been involved before and yet able to come to agreement on the document.
However, there were some people who strongly expressed their disagreement with the document. We thought about the parable of the pass, and we did not want to rush and force something through in the current state of affairs. Ultimately, after we were given the Lord’s Answer, we wanted to wait and see how taking the covenant would change people. The Lord said that, “if [our] hearts were right…[we] could have finished this work long ago.” A light thing indeed, to get our hearts in order. ;) We believed—perhaps a little naively—that people would have a change of heart after taking the Covenant in Boise and would accept what was already put forward. That didn’t happen, so we decided to wait and see. The committee in general, and Jeff in particular, resolved to try and support any public effort to write a G&S (please read his recent post to see how that has gone for him). This process has been good for all of us. The Lord’s words to not return to Him void, and this assignment has done a lot of good for our hearts.
There is a rumor, spread by those who claim to be “in the know,” that the reason the August 5th document was not taken to the Lord was because “the scripture committee realized that the Guide & Standard was supposed to go in the scriptures, and because Jeff wasn’t a prophet he couldn’t write something that would go in the scriptures.” That is, simply put, false. If you want to know our thoughts on the matter, please see the Preview edition of the scriptures. :)
Now, if your question is “Why did Denver not take it to the Lord for His approval?”, then that’s a separate issue. We didn’t do that because, A) that is not listed as a requirement in the Answer, B) we did not believe that we had ‘mutual agreement,’ which was a requirement before the document was added to the scriptures, and C) we weren’t sure if this would qualify as Denver “participating”, and we didn’t want to invite him to be disobedient. We are trying to avoid the inevitable “darkening of the mind” that comes with too much reliance upon one man.

Is the Guide & Standard to be considered scripture? Will it be a part of the Covenant (Question 2)?  
The Question in question reads: “Do you have faith in these things and receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern you in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words, thoughts and deeds?”
No; the Guide and Standard (whichever one is ultimately adopted) will be placed in an appendix at the end of the Teachings and Commandments. While in the scriptures, it need not be viewed as scripture and “binding” (whatever that means). That was a big revelation to us. We learned that for the first time in mid-August, which we thought we had clarified…we dropped the ball on that one. This new understanding was a major factor in our decision not to include the G&S as a part of the vote we took on Saturday to approve the Old and New Covenants, along with the Teachings and Commandments, as our scriptures. We find it interesting that the Lord would declare that “The records you have gathered as scriptures yet lack many of my words, have errors throughout, and contain things that are not of me,” and yet the Lord would ask us to “receive” them as a “standard to govern [us] in [our] daily walk in life,” and “the use the scriptures to … guide [our] words, thoughts and deeds.” That sounds familiar. Is He hinting that even an imperfect statement of principles would be sufficient? If it is NOT a part of the covenant, and not a requirement for future covenant holders to accept, that suggests to us that this really is a light thing.

What is to be done?
We are not in control of that. It is interesting to note that those who claimed we would be rejecting God’s words if we rejected the Original (or other, more recent documents) are now on the other side of the debate. Now, those who feel like they cannot support the products of the “Lotsters” are told that they are rejecting God’s words. We don’t feel like either is necessarily the case. Did God call the 7 on the scripture committee? Probably. There is evidence to support that. Did he call the 7 Lotsters? Probably. There is evidence to support that. But does that mean you must accept the Original or be damned? (Though an argument could be made that our progress has stalled…😊) No. What about this recent Guide & Standard? No.
God’s ways aren’t necessarily our ways, and we on the committee were unwilling to force others to make the choice to accept one version or be cast out from the people. We are still unwilling to consider that. We don’t feel like rejecting any of the offerings constitutes rejecting Christ or His words. Whether you can or cannot support any of the documents, we hope you will still continue to fellowship with us. We draw no lines in the sand.
Revelation should not be used as a trump card. We still need to learn how to respectfully disagree. It appears that we haven’t learned that yet, so the scripture committee is playing the same role we played before. We are waiting on the Lord for further light and knowledge, and for our hearts to get right, before we finalize anything. In the meantime, this process has led to many more broken, softer hearts, than we had eight months ago.  We consider that a victory. While we are still in limbo, it is worth considering that persuasion does not consist of saying, “God told me X is true.” Quite the opposite, in fact, as God appears to answer us according to our desires. In the past we have received many messages saying “God told me X,” when we had been told the opposite. The Lord speaks to this issue in the Answer. We invite all to go and study that amazing revelation.
While we are on this topic…what is light? A wave? A particle? Life-giving substance? Disinfectant? Collection of smaller rays, strings, etc.? Or is it knowledge? Intelligence? Christ’s life-sustaining influence that allows us to think and move and breathe? Is it love or happiness? It does reduce depression… Is it merely something to see by, or a source of warmth?
As demonstrated by this exercise, the meaning of light depends on what kind of being you are (animal or plant), what kind of instrument you are using, and the current state of your environment. Yet…are they not all light? If something so fundamental to life can be so different depending on the person and situation, can we not all agree that any one (or all) of the G&S assignments may be very difficult for someone to swallow? Let’s figure out how to respectfully disagree.

Hey! Why was the Original ever removed?
To be brief, it was first removed from the website because there was a meeting held with a small group of people and a few members of the committee, where worries were expressed that A) there should not be a proposed statement of governing principles, B) who the hell were Jeff Savage and Michael Hamill, and C) other complaints. At the end, the two committee members present decided to remove the GP from the website scriptures to maintain the peace. More discussions, online and over the phone, continued, and a couple alternate versions were submitted to the scripture committee. At one point, Jeff was told that many people would refuse to take the covenant in September if the GP were included in the project. After much prayer, he felt to call a meeting similar to the constitutional convention, with representatives from each fellowship invited to come and help draft a version of the GP. The three versions were submitted to the group of representatives, and all were invited to pray and decided which version they would use as a base text (following the Constitutional Convention as a guide, where the Madison’s Virginia Plan was first voted on as their base text before they discussed, edited, and voted on the various elements before satisfying the people). All of those who voted, prior to the meeting, voted for the Original as the base text. However, there were many (almost half) who had either not seen the emails, or had asked to join the meeting late, and were not a part of that vote. At least one fellowship wrote in that they did not believe a statement of principles was God’s will. That meeting was long, and many people had to leave early. All of those that stayed, however, felt that God approved of their efforts. We believed that we were done…until vocal opposition arose.
About a month later, another meeting was held to try and resolve the issues with the entire group of representatives. We didn’t fully finish the task during the meeting, and it was very difficult to try and resolve the issues over email.  Thus, another meeting was held in Sandy on August 5th, where any and all were invited to attend. Online and in person, there were between 50 and 70 people in attendance, many of whom had never sat in a representative meeting. At the end of that meeting, all were asked if they opposed. None spoke. Then a prayer was offered, and those involved felt that it was sufficient, meaning we were done with the assignment. Again, there was vocal opposition. While discussions were going on about what to do, the Answer to Prayer for Covenant & Covenant were revealed, and suddenly the issue of whether this was even needed was put to rest, as we had a direct command to write a statement of guiding principles. With the additional knowledge that the G&S was not a part of the covenant, we decided, as a committee, to leave the matter until after Boise so that other ideas might flower or we might change as a people. That is where we left it, though we have endeavored to assist every other effort that has come out of the body. 
Also, the criteria for an acceptable statement of principles changed when the Lord gave us the Answer: the statement of principles must be written by "you", meaning all of us. Any document not open to contribution by the entire body does not meet this requirement. The original version was written by Jeff Savage and edited by the committee, so it fails that requirement and cannot be considered as an acceptable version by the Lord. 

(Oh, and for the technically-savvy, an iOS app will soon be released. Because we are not fully finished editing the Bible text, it should have the finalized version of the Book of Mormon for the time being.) 

The scripture committee


  1. Scripture Committee,

    If I think you're saying what I think you're saying, I agree, lets wait upon the Lord together. What was stated that "you," means all of us... RESPECT! I believe mutual agreement is possible, and not by managing perceptions, but by doing the work of being mutually agreeable. And that will take more than writing the correct words, it will take "being" the correct words... WORD! That is why, I believe, Christ was called THE WORD by John the Beloved. If we are to be like Christ, our statement ought to reflect us, and we must be accountable to God for who we are becoming. Our statement to the Lord is our declaration, and ought to be our words, that are mutually agreeable to reflect us.

    Yesterday my mother in law sent missionaries to find me. I am on the reservation, that has no address, in the middle of nowhere, and is boarded up. They walked into the front door, looking for me to "invite" me to come to church. They shared a message of the Book of Mormon, but they themselves were not the message, they were not the word. So, no matter what they quoted to me, it was doubt and confusion in them. Our statement cannot be that.

    Thanks Scripture Committee for not doing as has been done before, marketing a position like the offspring of a pitch, ...or a son of a pitch!

    Rob Adolpho

    1. HA! Rob...son of a pitch! This is why I always LOVE reading your comments. You have a gift for turning a phrase, my friend.

  2. "Simply put, even if we disagree, if we choose not to dispute, we have mutual agreement. For example, if someone insists that they will not accept any G&S other than their chosen version, those who do not dispute with them still have mutual agreement."

    Yes, those who choose not to dispute among themselves have mutual agreement, but they do not have mutual agreement with the one that insists they will not accept any G&S other than their chosen version.

    And if that one is a covenant participant, then no G&S may be adopted per the Lord's requirement for mutual agreement.

    Recall: there is no provision within the text of the A&C authorizing any covenant participant to excommunicate other participants.

    I happen to be a covenant participant, and I will not agree to any G&S than The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

    Jared Livesey

  3. Since you already know - all of you - that we, the covenant participants as a body, do not have mutual agreement to the Lottery G&S, further tallying of votes serves no purpose, since the document cannot be adopted per the Lord's requirement for mutual agreement.

    If we abide the Lord's requirement for mutual agreement, eventually we will have to humble ourselves and converse publicly and openly as equals, for how else can we come to agree between ourselves? You are all still invited to do so at a neutral form arranged for this purpose:

    Jared Livesey

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Mutual Agreement

    This newly given definition of mutual agreement notes that it is our choice whether or not we dispute. This does not change the requirement that we come up with a single statement, adopt it by mutual agreement, and add it to our scriptures. But it does clarify that the path to mutual agreement is the choice not to dispute.

    Though we all have our preferred statements, the Lord still requires that we mutually agree on one of them.


    I wrote a blog piece in favor of the Lots document, and stated that it consists of the Lord’s words, so we ought to be circumspect about opposing it. I made this assertion, not because the Lord vouches for the document (though I believe He does), but rather because the document consists 100% of:

    • Direct quotes from the scriptures we have covenanted to use as our guide

    • Direct statements from servants sent by the Lord. These servants are limited to those who all covenant holders have already acknowledged as true messengers.

    The only way to get any closer to the Lord’s direct words is if He speaks at our next general conference.

    In contrast, the August 5 document, thought it teaches many true principles and is very good in many ways, consists almost exclusively of statements written by men. In this quality, at least, the two documents are polar opposites.

    If we can’t mutually agree to accept our Lord’s own words, how can we claim to be His people?


    The Lots process was voted on by the covenant body and approved by a wide margin. This is important because the Lord didn’t require that we mutually agree on the process. Only on adopting a document at the end. The standard for adopting a process vs. adopting a document, are different, in my opinion. This is the only process the covenant body actually approved.

    Further, the body had massive input into the whole process. The body voted to use the lots process. The body were invited to submit their names. The body were invited to submit their writings. I believe this represents the highest degree of participation opportunity of any of the documents.


    I disagree with the implication that some error is OK in our statement because the scriptures contain error. Are we not trying to correct all the error we can in our scriptures? Isn’t that fidelity to truth the very reason the Lord offered a covenant? (Thank you, by the way!) Is it wise in word and kind in deed to provide others with a guide and standard that we know contains error? I believe we need to get this as correct as we possibly can. In the end, the document DOES matter.

    Choosing Not to Dispute

    Given the Lord’s definition of Mutual Agreement, I would invite all to look again at the Lots document. Is there anything in that document that you dispute? If not, can you accept it as a true and correct statement of the Lord’s direction to us? Even if you prefer another statement or process, can you dispute what is written in the Lots document? And if so, is the dispute significant enough that it is worth preventing completion of this assignment?

    If so, please bring your dispute to the seven.

    If not, let’s mutually agree to adopt the document.

    1. Perhaps if the body had determined to slow down and obtain mutual agreement for a process first then some few could have been spared the suffering and accusations they are now enduring, which by the way does not exactly cause them to want to join the club. How do a group of people mutually agree without one or more of them being made to feel they are being pressured by peers to go along with the majority?

    2. What I simply mean is that maybe it would have been wise of us a group to learn how to take baby steps of mutual agreements together rather than attempt to run before we are understand how to stand arm in arm together. Not everyone is ready for a marathon and hence need time to train.

    3. If we can't mutually agree on the Lord's own words, it's highly unlikely the body could ever mutually agree on a process. Such a hurdle is both unnecessary, and thus far, demonstrably impossible.

      The only requirement for mutual agreement is in actually adopting the document. I realize some are very hung up on process, but in the end, it's ok if we don't exactly like the process. I've publicly stated the lots process was not my first choice. But it was an adequate way to choose the participants without bias, and it was a fair way to break the deadlock. So I feel no need to dispute about process.

      Regardless of the process, we have an end product to examine. That is what is important at this point. Can we agree on the Lord's words, as His people? Or can we not?

    4. I can respect your desire to not get "hung up on process," but just because you think and see things one way does not mean it is so or needs to be so for everyone else. Perhaps your strength is in the finishing up part. Perhaps mine is in the beginning. Should we not be seeking how to enable one another to use our individual talents to fulfill Christ's commands for the good of the whole?

      How a person gets to a place is just as important as the outcome, if not more so, I feel. For the process requires and teaches a multitude of lessons and develops an equal number of attributes. One learns about the workings of his/her heart. You may only need six weeks to train for a full marathon while I would most definitely need a year. You may pick up on underwater basket weaving with the first lesson while I have to first learn how to dive without drowning.

      And in the case of group work, process develops foundational relationships and trust. Bonds are grown that could not be created in any other way. What are we prepared at this point to teach others of how to overcome obstacles in relationship building?

      We cannot bypass process in this endeavor and expect love to develop and flourish. And if Zion is not built up by and through love, then I don't know what Zion will be. I don't even think I'd want to be there. God is love, yes?

      It feels like you are saying to me, in essence, "Deal with it. We decided this. We know it is of God. We don't have time to wait for you to catch up. Accept it. Stop being difficult, stubborn, opposing, and otherwise disagreeable," though I would say I am none of those things. Is that what you are saying? Am I free to learn and grow at my own pace or must I learn to perform for others? Shall we tell others the best way to begin building up a Zion people is to make some force their hearts? Because until then, it seems people must be ruled and bossed around.

      Perhaps it was once thought impossible by some that anyone could NOT AGREE with a document composed of Christ's words--A&C, scriptures, Denver. And when it was seen that some did still indeed struggle, things got weird, hurtful, and wrong because some did not know how to respectfully respond in love and patience. What it feels like for me at this point is that I have been painted into a proverbial corner where my agency is not being respected. Peer pressure is strong! I either join in or I am rejecting Christ’s words. And that appears to be the pattern throughout the process. I believe if we had sincerely worked to mutually agree on smaller items beforehand, we could have easily accomplished the task.

      Unfortunately for you all, I am a slow learner and require time and patience from others. I can only apologize profusely for that. Everything feels like peer pressure to me at this point. I do not believe others are genuinely interested in helping me, uplifting me, or strengthening me. Indeed, it sounds like some are perfectly okay if I were to go away. And some few others as well. If we only learn to love those who are easy for us to love, then is that really love—of the enduring, eternal kind? Is that the kind of love that moves one to give his/her life for another? Is that the kind of love Christ has for us?

      I am just trying to help others understand my perspective. I am not burdened by an ego here. I am not hung up on thinking I am right and a know-it-all. But when I can see people not in agreement, I want to pause and understand why, then see how I can help. Unfortunately, I am one of those people, and I am unwilling to leave people behind who do not wish to be left behind. Christ has not told me to do so.

  6. One other thought about the Lord's definition of Mutual Agreement:

    It doesn't actually change the definition of mutual agreement at all. Rather, the Lord's beautiful insight kindly provides direction about how to get there--by choosing not to dispute.

    Mutual still means mutual. Agreement still means agreement. And adopt still means adopt.

  7. In this statement “While discussions were going on about what to do, the Answer to Prayer for Covenant & Covenant were revealed, and suddenly the issue of whether this was even needed was put to rest, as we had a direct command to write a statement of guiding principles“ we believe a correction to the record might be important here.
    The Answer was received on July 29th exactly one week before the August 5th meeting. All are free to interpret this however they choose but we felt it important to see things as they were and as they are, even if we can’t seem to see them as they will be. :)

    1. Oh interesting. I never connected the timeline. So one could infer that the August 5th meeting met the Lord's requirements because all were invited to participate. The August 5th document was the one voted on with 91% acceptance, correct?

    2. Though, if we're examining timelines, we should also note the vote on the Aug 5th document took place before the covenant, so it wasn't "His people" who voted.

    3. Agreed. The Aug 4 document was not written or voted on by the Lord's covenant people, as the covenant had not yet been offered. The only document written by "his people" is the current Lots document that He has already accepted. To me, this issue couldn't be more clear.

    4. Yea, so I guess I have a slightly different view. I'm cool with our different opinions though.

  8. What is “mutual agreement”? The word mutual comes from the late 14th century Middle French mutuel, and from the Latin mutuus, meaning “reciprocal, done in exchange.” That which is mutual is freely interchanged, i.e., mutual love, mutual affection, mutual hatred, etc. (It can incorrectly be used for “common” as in our “mutual friend.” However, it’s ok to say “mutual friendship.”) The word “agreement” also dates back to the 14th century, meaning “mutual understanding,” from the Old French agreement, noun of action from agreer “to please, satisfy, to receive with favor, take pleasure in.” (from Latin ad “to” + Old French gre, gret “that which pleases,” from Latin gratum, gratus “pleasing, welcome, agreeable.” (See Online Etymology Dictionary,

    A mutual agreement is a pleasing, satisfying, agreeable, welcome reciprocal interchange. It’s an exchange of ideas that is pleasing. It’s an understanding between parties. There’s no disposition to dispute.

    An interesting thing happened between Joseph and Oliver in 1829. “During the month of April, I continued to translate and he to write with little cessation, during which time we received several revelations. A difference of opinion arising between us about the account of John the Apostle—mentioned in the New Testament, John, twenty-first chapter and twenty-second verse—whether he died or whether he continued, we mutually agreed to settle it by the Urim and Thummim, and the following is the word which we received: . . .” (RE Joseph Smith History April 1829 ¶18) They had a difference of opinion. We don’t know who took which side, but clearly they did disagree, and the one could not convince the other. They reached a stalemate or standoff. How did they settle it? Each decided that the only solution would be to seek outside help. It wasn’t through “sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger.” (“Answer and Covenant”) They “mutually agreed to settle it by” praying together (without disputing with each other!) and presenting it to the Lord through “the Urim and Thummim.” In other words, they were heeding the same counsel that we have received in July, “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.” (“Answer and Covenant”)

    Paul D

  9. My reasoning for dissenting from every other proposal is public.

    I have done nothing in secret councils, have not refused to humble myself and reason with all who wish as equals, publicly and openly, and have made these things public for all to see and weigh for themselves.

    You are all still invited.

    Jared Livesey

  10. Also, it is not given to the scripture committee in the A&C to interpret the A&C as to what qualifies for a G&S.

    Jared Livesey

  11. That is to say, the scripture committee is not the arbiter of the means of production of the G&S.

    Jared Livesey

  12. Neither is the scripture committee the judge of the content of the G&S, except in their individual capacities as members of the body, as every member is, to either agree or disagree with any particular proposal. We are either equal, or we aren't.

    Jared Livesey

  13. Let me just begin with I am sorry for my part in what has happened here. Though I always spoke honestly and from my heart, I did not always measure my words as I ought to have, as I have been counseled by YHWH to do. For hurts and anger and frustration I caused, I am sorry. I hope anyone affected by my words can forgive me.

    I still believe we can take the time we need to learn how to knit our hearts together in love. He truly is the Master Physician, the GREAT I AM. Nothing is too hard for Him, not even the hardest of hearts among HIS FATHER’S children.

    I still hope for true reconciliation for us as a whole, where we all mutually agree upon a guide and standard representative of HIM to the world and no longer strive to alter His meaning, intention, and words to justify our desires.

    I submit this with no other desire than to repent for my part and share what I feel He has put into my heart. Today has been particularly difficult for me, but according to His many mercies He has shown me how to have peace in Him.

    I do not have a voice in this world, so to speak. I do not have a presence anywhere that others would take notice or remember me for anything. I do not seek such. But I do desire to become His, and will bend to His will in all areas, even if that makes me look foolish because I have made poor choices and must learn from them.

    I care about those He cares for and want to help Him in His work to save however many will come unto Him. I am only saddened that He has such a poor vessel to work through. I am unworthy of His notice in every way, yet acknowledge that notice me He has, and showered me with love, healing, and forgiveness in abundance. He has shown me how faithful He Is. Truly HE IS LOVE.

    I share below what He brought up in my heart today, and ask that any who read these words inquire of Him if they are sent by Him and what He would have you do with them. God bless.

    1. Prayer for Covenant:
      Heavenly Father, it is I whom you named David, asking you in the name of Jesus Christ for your mercy and grace to be with those of us who seek to become your people. We hope to repent and return to your path and no longer be condemned and rejected as a people because of those who went before.

      Take pity on us all and have mercy for us, as we acknowledge and accept the condemnation and rejection of the latter-day gentiles, and petition that we may overcome it.

      We are mindful that in 1832 the gentile saints were condemned for vanity and unbelief because they treated lightly the things they had received and they were warned by you that they would remain under condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments, not only to say but to do.

      You commanded the gentiles that they bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom and if they failed to do so there remained a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon those who claimed to be the children of Zion.

      They failed to bring forth the required fruit and were judged and scourged, and then violently driven out of Jackson County, Missouri.

      You explained there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires by them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.

      But they did not repent, and in their pride they threatened to wage a war of extermination against the Missouri citizens, heedless of your warnings.

      But it was you who used the Missouri citizens as your hand of judgment to scourge the condemned saints, in your attempt to persuade them to repent and no longer treat lightly your word.

      They still saw no Divine purpose behind their distress, and railed against their Missouri persecutors.

    2. Despite their suffering, they were not sufficiently humbled to repent, instead they breathed out threats and expressed hope to gain vengeance against the same Missouri mobs to whom you had given power to afflict the gentile saints to inspire them to repent.

      Because of the hardness of their hearts, the gentile saints were again mobbed and slain and in 1838 altogether driven out of the State of Missouri, with Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and other leaders cast into prison and condemned to die.

      But you were merciful, and did not suffer Joseph, Hyrum or any of those imprisoned with them to be killed.

      In your mercy, the surviving saints and the imprisoned leaders were able to obtain refuge in Illinois, whose people welcomed the saints, and a season of peace followed.

      In 1841 you mercifully extended another opportunity to the gentile saints to repent and return, and you approved Joseph’s offering and acknowledgements of the past failures of the saints when he petitioned you on their behalf.

      You found the prayers of Joseph and the gentiles were acceptable before you and you granted to the saints another chance for you to recover them as your people.

      As you stated to the former gentiles, there is not a place found on earth that you may come to and restore again that which was lost unto us, or which you had taken away, even the fullness of the priesthood.

      You offered and intended for a house to be built unto your name in which you deigned to reveal to your people things which have been kept hidden from before the foundation of the world, things which pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times.

      You gave to them sufficient time to build a house unto your name warning them to complete the work or their baptisms for the dead would be unacceptable.

      In those days you warned the people you will not perform the oath which you make, neither fulfill the promises which they expect at your hands, or in other words you would remove your covenant, if they failed to do what you commanded.

      And you foretold what you would do unto the people if they neglected to do the work assigned them.

      You warned: For instead of blessings, we, by our own works, would bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon our own heads, by our follies, and by all our abominations, which we practice before you.

    3. From Yeshua’s Sermon on the Mount, NIV Matthew 7:
      Judging Others
      7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
      3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

  14. Thank you to the scripture committee for putting this out. It answers a lot of questions I had and I appreciate the time you took to write it.
    I do have a question though. So the vote for August 5th didn’t count because it wasn’t the covenant people. So what is stopping us from voting on it now? If that’s the only thing keeping it from being accepted by the Lord, then maybe we should put it up for a vote against the newest version. The document with the most votes can be the official G&S.
    I’m actually okay with the one put up for vote by the 7 Lotsters. It’s definitely not my first choice, but I am at peace with it. However, I love my brothers and sisters in this movement and I think it’s really important to consider all sides here.

  15. Sorry, I just realized that it was only in the comments that people are saying the August vote doesn’t count because it was a covenant people. So here another question I have if the noncovenant people comments aren’t a real reason. One of the things that doesn’t make sense to me is the last paragraph that explains why Jeff’s document doesn’t meet the criteria to be accepted by the Lord. Jeff’s document was the only one that invited any and all to participate. All were invited to contribute 1) by sending a rep from each fellowship and 2) all invited who felt inspired to participate at the August 5th meeting.
    It’s the document by the 7 that excluded all from contributing because it can only be scriptures or a prophet (that means it isn’t written by “you”). I’m confused. This feels like a contradiction to me, but I realize I could be totally missing something. Please enlighten me.

    1. I promise I’m not trying to argue about anything. I really loved this post you all put out. It’s just that very last paragraph about why the August 5th document couldn’t be used that has me scratching my head a little. I truly would love to have someone from the scripture committee better explain it to me. I absolutely realize there is something I could be missing.

  16. To Whom It May Concern:

    I do not acknowledge Denver Snuffer to be "a true messenger," whatever that phrase even means. While I believe Denver Snuffer, I do not and will not serve as his prophet and therefore include none of his words in the G&S, without regard to whether the words Denver Snuffer speaks could possibly be from Christ or not. Denver Snuffer may speak for himself to whomsoever he will. Men need not confess Denver Snuffer, or "acknowledge" him, to be "a true messenger," whatever that phrase even means, nor even enter the covenant offered through Denver Snuffer, to be saved.

    If men trust in Denver Snuffer to bring to them the word of the Lord instead of keeping the commandments of the Lord contained in the Sermon with diligence and obtaining his word for themselves, they are cursed of the Lord and remain telestial. Teaching men to trust in Denver Snuffer curses them, harms them, and misinforms them.

    If we, unlike those who came before us, intend to honor the Lord's requirements - and to honor means, in this context, to obey - then you may cease from campaigning for your preferred G&S. This is a circumstance where the Lord has made it impossible for the majority to "win" so long as a minority exists, if all parties intend to honor the Lord's requirement.

    I have formally given notice to one and all that I dissent from every G&S proposal save it be one - or, if you like, I dispute the adoption of any G&S save one. I have also given you the reasons, publicly, in prior writings, found here: . Attempts at ostracizing me will not succeed in driving me off, and you lack the power to excommunicate dissenters in order to attain mutual agreement.

    If you intend to honor the Lord's requirement, you will humble yourselves and come and discuss as equals, openly and publicly. I have procured a neutral forum for this purpose here:

    Your servant,

    Jared Livesey

  17. I suppose I should add: If you choose not to dispute with me over the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles as our Guide and Standard, or Statement of Principles, then we're done.

    Add The Rock of Jesus Christ to the scriptures and let's move on to the things which the Lord may lay upon us next.

    Jared Livesey

    1. Jared,
      Not included in your Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles, but immediately preceding your opening text, is this commandment from the Lord, given in Bountiful:

      "And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."

      And then He continues with the opening citation that you use in your proposed statement, which you claim to accept, practice, and teach: "Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

      I don't claim to know why you are pointing out a paradox to us, but you go out of your way to use language which can be directly tied to His Sermon. So the question at hand is this: Can "The Rock" be established by using the methods of "the devil?" In other words, can a statement which holds to the doctrine of no disputations stand if it is established through disputations which you invite to take place? ("If you choose not to dispute with me...then we're done.")

      The only solution I can find is given in the AC, where the Lord says, "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."

      So if no one has asked you this, Jared, I "officially" do so now. Will you pray together with me? I know you said that if I do not dispute with you, then "we're done," but I'm hoping you are meaning that as if to say that "such things are done away," which is precisely His doctrine.

      If that is something you are willing to do, please let me know and I will kneel with you, my friend.

      --- Doug Larson

    2. Doug,

      Do you and I have a dispute which requires praying over?


    3. Doug,

      Let me put it this way: if you do not dispute anything I have said, then what is there to pray over?


    4. Doug,

      If you disagree with me, come, let us converse together in humility as equals, publicly and openly, and see if we cannot resolve our differences. I have procured a forum where we may do this more easily than on this blog:

      If after that conversation you find yourself still disputing with me, then we may indeed pray together.

      If, on the other hand, you are not disputing with me, then we have nothing to pray over.

      The first step is actually talking: "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."

      You'll notice I am not sharply disputing, neither am I angry, neither am I condemning any. I'm simply rephrasing my lack of agreement as "disputing" to comply with the verbiage in the post under which these comments occur.

      After all, now the Lord has told us that, with respect to a G&S, silence may be taken as assent. Therefore I must actively speak up in order to be heard.


    5. So far, we have done everything except "coming together by precept, reason, and persuasion."

      We have retreated to email echo chambers where the like-minded can avoid talking with those who don't agree with them.

      We then rolled dice to avoid talking to one another, hence the Lottery project.

      Now we propose to (and actually do) run to Denver, or the Lord, instead of talking first amongst ourselves.

      Why don't we first do what the Lord has counseled before deciding our dispute - if such actually exists, once everything is explained - is unresolvable?

      How can we ever be Zion - one in the Lord - if we fear and despise and consider ourselves above one another to the degree that we won't even talk first to each other?


    6. I have no dispute directly with you, other than being part of a group, which by your own words you have disputations with. There has not been any anger or accusation, hopefully on either side, but you have not "agreed quickly" with me or others, as is directed in the Sermons (although, for some reason, you did not include that part in your statement).

      The paradox is that you will settle for nothing less than your thing. If it goes through the way you hope, then there will be others who have been compelled to mutually agree with you, as they will not settle for anything less than their thing. Is this how you want to establish the Rock?

      The Lord said not to have disputations. You said you have them. I'm part of the collective group you claim to have disputations with. You dissented ("or disputed, if you like") against my "idea," so apparently you have disputations with me.

      But I will do as you request and head to the forum.

    7. Doug,

      If we have no dispute, then we have no dispute.

      Nobody's being compelled here. If we care about fulfilling the Lord's requirement, then we will act according to his requirement.


    8. But you said you dissent "or dispute if you will" with my idea.

    9. And you said you have no direct dispute with me. It seems then we're in agreement: there's no dispute.

      My "dispute, if you will," with your idea is that your idea, a G&S that amounts to “We believe that there is truth in all traditions and methods if the ultimate purpose is to love and accept each other. Let all who have truth bring it and join it with ours, that we may learn together," does not fulfill the requirements of the Lord's assignment according to the plain and literal reading of the A&C, to wit, it provides neither a guide (direction for behavior), nor a standard (a measure of behavior). It makes no statement of principles (either rules of behavior or explanations for rules). Neither does it do anything to bless, nor benefit, nor inform those who are as yet unaware of the Lord's work now underway.

      Since it does nothing that the Lord requests us to do, I dissent, or, "dispute," if you will, the adoption of your idea as the G&S.

      If you believe I have erred in my reasoning, let us discuss. If I have not erred, then we have no dispute.


    10. You'll find, in the end, my dissent from each and every other proposal offered thus is based on the Lord's requests for the G&S according to the A&C.

      It must provide a guide, or direction for behavior.

      It must provide a standard, or measure of behavior.

      (A law fulfills both of those requirements, as does commandments.)

      It must be a statement of principles.

      (Principles are, in my understanding, rules of behavior, OR [in another's understanding] reasons for the rules.)

      It must bless.

      (Therefore it cannot curse.)

      It must benefit.

      (Therefore it cannot harm.)


      It must inform.

      (Therefore it cannot misinform.)

      And it must bless, benefit, and inform those who know nothing as yet about the Lord's work now underway.

      Also, it is to be added to the scriptures, and it is for us to follow, as per the A&C, and therefore goes out to the world with our scriptures.

      Therefore, this is a forward-facing statement from us to the world, and is for us to follow internally also.

      Anything which falls afoul these things doesn't meet the Lord's request and I will not agree to a G&S proposal that fails to meet the Lord's request.

    11. And who can dispute that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, as contained in The Rock of Jesus Christ, fulfills all of these conditions?

      Let him stand forth and let us discuss.

      And if none dispute that the gospel indeed does fulfill these conditions, then what have you against The Rock of Jesus Christ?

      Jared Livesey

    12. At the end, I said that I didn't want to posit exactly what the statement was, with the hope that some would be willing to work through it together. I think there is an alternate possibility which satisfies the requirements and makes it so there can be "mutual agreement." Shall I continue on the forum?

    13. My main concern is that while the Lord speaks to the language and understanding of men, the "Rock of Jesus Christ" speaks to Jared's understanding, as well as some others familiar with scripture. Just by insisting on describing it in the way you do, it will exclude those who do not speak "scripture-ese." It will therefore not bless them or benefit them, because it is not accessible to them.

      I know many people who live the doctrine of Christ for the most part, but because of sour experiences with the previous care-takers of scriptures are repelled by the them. Their pre-conceptions will cause a presentation such as this to be a stumbling block, and will thus drive them away.

      The only way around this is to employ the gifts of the Holy Ghost to inform, benefit and bless them, and your statement does not do that. It simply parrots what the Lord said and does not allow for the unique adaptation of understanding which is needed.

      You may say that if they will not "come to Christ" through the language you understand, then let them go their way, but is this not cursing them? I refuse to leave them the behind, just as I refuse to leave you or any of my other brothers and sisters in this movement to the mayhem which is surely coming.

      The way a person can learn the doctrine of Christ is through the power of the Holy Ghost, because the Spirit speaks everyone's individual language. "The Rock of Jesus Christ" speaks your language, but what about a disaffected exMormon or Christian? If it creates a PTSD response in even one person, then it can potentially harm them. If a person equates "Christ" with the things that so-called Christians do, or if one already has an erroneous definition of baptism or other points of doctrine, then it misinforms them.

      The only way around this is the power of the Holy Ghost, which gives the gift of tongues, the interpretation of tongues, etc. It truly blesses, informs and benefits.

      "And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father. Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them."

    14. Jared, how does your proposal inform those who know nothing yet about the Lord's work now underway? It's just a copy and paste of two scriptural passages.

    15. Kevin,

      The Rock of Jesus Christ, if believed and obeyed, brings the Holy Ghost, which shows all things that men should know and do. As per the A&C: "The Book of Mormon was given as my covenant for this day and contains my gospel, which came forth to allow people to understand my work and then obtain my salvation."

      How does the gospel do this? As per the A&C: "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."

      This is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and is contained in The Rock of Jesus Christ.

    16. Doug,

      I want to make sure I understand your disputations correctly.

      1. You contend that scriptures are useless in informing those who do not read them already because of language issues.

      2. You contend that the Holy Ghost will not witness of the truth of what is written in The Rock of Jesus Christ; this can only be because we do not have the authority we claim to have, and God will therefore not witness of what we say.

      3. You contend that there are those who will not believe Christ's words because they have been abused by others, and, moreover, will flee from those bearing Christs' words as found in the scriptures, because, again, the Holy Ghost will not witness of their truth to them when we bring these things to them, which can only be the case if we do not have authority to preach these things.

      Am I hearing you correctly?

      It would be easier to discuss at the forum.

      Jared Livesey

    17. This comment has been removed by the author.


    18. Doug,

      Your post was moved to the G&S discussion forum here:

      However, to address your concern that you would not find The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles if it were the G&S added to the scriptures helpful in your outreach to people who hate the scriptures and hate those who are the custodians of the scriptures, it appears that the solution to your objection is simply this: do not use documents found in the scriptures in your outreach to those who are triggered by scriptures and triggered by the custodians of the scriptures. If you would like, I have an equivalent statement which you can use in your outreach, and it is cited in your thread on the forum.

      Once seen in this light, your objection seems unrelated to the subject of whether The Rock of Jesus Christ should be added to the scriptures as the G&S. After all, if your target audience hates scripture and those who have custody of the scriptures, it would seem that you should not use documents found in the scriptures to reach them. The Rock of Jesus Christ complies with the requirements of the Lord, who has said to use his words as the standard for our faith (A&C, p. 12).

  18. I find it wonderful that Jeff Savage added his name in support of the proposal to use Lots. I think it the hand of God that Jeff's name was drawn by lot, which is statistically pretty amazing odds. I am grateful that Jeff wrote a beautiful post in support of the document written by the 7 titled "G and S Support-Jeff Savage".

    Today we find ourselves in a position to move forward in adopting a Guide and Standard for adoption into our scripture.

    Today the question is: Can you vote to adopt the document written by the 7 chosen by lot to be included in the scriptures? voting ends today.

  19. The best part of this message was that this Statement of Principles will not be scripture, but as an appendix. That is how I had read it being a light thing, and so I was happy to see that wisdom come to fruition, even if it had to be from the Lord.

    I still assert it should be called a Statement of Principles that will act as a guide and a standard.

    1. Brent,
      I am so grateful that the scripture committee cleared that up. That definitely made me feel better about things.

  20. I find it interesting the wording the Lord used to define mutual agreement is: “As between one another, you choose to not dispute.”

    In Christ's sermon at Bountiful we learn that the Lord expected there to be no more disputations among the peope! This is the first hurdle we must overcome for Zion to even begin.

    To dispute means to disagree, argue, or debate. Discussing something heatedly could be construed as a dispute. There is a difference between disputing and disagreeing. disputing is when you are in competition. You are struggling or desperately trying to win something or be right. It is when you strive in debate or argument. The Lord has told us that it’s OK to disagree respectfully, that could be counted as being of one heart. But we cannot contend, argue or debate. Instead we need to gently persuade with love and kindness as stated in the A&C.

    It is sad to learn that we as a people may not even be to the point of having no disputations among us. We are still debating with each other over the words the Lord used in the A&C, meanings, documents, and processes. We still have disputations among us. If we are to even get to the first phase of Zion, as the Nephites were required to do, we must have no disputations among us. According to the Nephites Zion, the next level after no disputations, is being of one heart. When we are of one heart, we do not dispute or argue. We love each other and accept that we may disagree on some things, but that is OK. We choose to disagree kindly. The third level, exemplified by the Nephite Zion, is being of one mind. This is where we all have the mind and will of God, so we are all in agreement.

    It is important that we pass this first test, or obtain the first level of Zion, by being willing to have no disputations among us. That is why the Lord’s definition of mutual agreement, is that we "choose to not dispute." I believe this is one of the most important things the Lord needs us to learn from this first assignment as His people. The Lord gave us this assignment, using very specific wording and conditions for a reason. I think the Lord, through Denver revealing the actual meaning behind "mutual agreement," has unlocked an important key to bring us closer to obtaining Zion. We must have no disputations among us.

    We, as a covenant body, need to show the Lord we are willing to not dispute so we can even begin Zion. This is the pattern taught to us by the Nephite Zion community. This Looks like another way we can take the Book of Mormon to be our guide and accept it as a covenant.

  21. It is more important to me that I have no conflict with the Lord than with his covenant people, among whom I number.

    If the covenant people should press upon me to agree to that which brings me into conflict with the Lord, such as sending forth a G&S which would curse, harm, and misinform others, then I would rather be in conflict with the covenant people of the Lord than with the Lord.

    Therefore, I make my disputes with your G&S proposals known. I will not agree to that which curses, harms, or misinforms others. Therefore I will not agree to any G&S save it be The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles, which contains the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, which gospel blesses, benefits, and informs those who believe and obey it.

    The correct way to resolve our conflict, which is the body pressing upon me to do that which is contrary to the Lord's requirements, is not to lecture, heckle, taunt, flatter, ostracize, call upon authority, nor any other such means of avoiding conflict resolution by swaying the majority to pervert judgement, but to actually reason together in humility as equals, openly and publicly.

    I have procured a neutral forum for this conversation to occur:

    You are all invited.

    Jared Livesey

    1. Log, I have seen nothing on here that I would construe as lecturing, heckling, taunting, flattering, ostracizing, calling upon authority, or anything but trying to reason together in humility as equals, openly and publicly.

      Others may interpret comments here differently, but the typed word is an imperfect form of communication and is easily misunderstood. I prefer to assume the best of intentions exist among all those who have commented.

      If we can't reason together on this blog, when why would we be able to elsewhere? I guess I don't see the point of moving to another forum.

      Are you able to reason together right here? Is there anything else that you can add that you haven't shared already? Would you be able to share anything else at a different forum?

    2. The forum, being designed for ongoing written communication and conversations, is more efficient at it. Plus, there is no moderation there, and anyone can start a post without having to go through this blog admin. Plus, you can edit your posts and replies rather than having to delete your comment. And so on and so forth. And you can use your arrow keys on an iPad without having to scroll up or down the entire page every time you press one.

    3. Of course it is more efficient, and I would certainly prefer discussing things like that in a forum. The problem is that this is the place where the conversation is happening. Your invitation has been extended several times, and I think everyone is aware of it. If I were you, I would say anything that you want to say here (and I believe you have) and encourage everyone else to say what they want to say here (which I believe they have). I don't think it is likely that many will take the conversation elsewhere.

      In addition, I believe that the moderators here have exerted a very light hand. Any G&S proposals that people want to submit have been posted. Has anyone alleged that their proposal has not been given a place? Are we not all free to comment on them all?

    4. Jared, didn't you say that you shouldn't be considered part of the covenant body here on your blog?

      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.

      And if you're not part of the body, what difference does it make if you descent? Can't the body meet the requirements of the covenant, and reach mutual agreement, without you if your not part of the body?

  22. Can we be right with each other and the Lord? I think so. This was the biggest message in the A&C. There is a balance. I believe the Lord expects us to find it.

  23. Yes, it is possible for us to both be right with each other and with the Lord. The balance is this: do not seek to bring me into conflict with God by asking me to break the law of God by agreeing to a document which will curse, harm, or misinform those who know nothing, as yet, concerning the Lord's work now underway. So long as I am being asked to do that, we will not mutually agree.

    Jared Livesey

    1. I have read your explanations of why you think that all the other documents besides the Rock of Jesus Christ document you submitted will curse, harm, and misinform those who know nothing of the Lord's work now underway. I think we have very different definitions of what idolatry is. I accept Denver's writings quoted in the Lots G&S document as being part of the message that the Lord instructed him to share. I don't believe they lead to idolatry or depending on the arm of flesh anymore than Nephi's words do.

      Remember, the scriptures that the G&S document will be published in (as an appendix, not as scripture) also include revelations received through Denver. Are you opposed to those as well? Do those lead to idolatry and harm others? If not, what is the difference? Do you sustain the restoration edition of the scriptures? Or just the parts that don't come through Denver?

      I'm not trying to dispute, but understand. Do you see how your position can be confusing to others, like me?

    2. Blair,

      Maybe we should focus on idolatry, then. What do you think idolatry is?


    3. Blair,

      And do you agree that those who trust in men are cursed of the Lord?


    4. Log,
      Sorry for the delay in responding to your questions. Weekends don't work out for me too well for continuing the discussion.

      I believe that idolatry is believing saving power exists in anyone but Christ.

      I agree that putting trust in the arm of flesh results in damnation.

      The issue is determining exactly what this trust is and how we receive information from the Lord. Of course, the preferable way to get revelation and instruction is directly from the Lord. The Lord, however recognizes that this does not happen all that often. I believe He would prefer that method. The fact that we have any scriptures at all shows that He has other methods, which are designed to bring people unto Him, and He can give to them directly.

      If I trust that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, does that mean that I am engaging in idolatry? It was written by men, after all. If I believe any of the revelations of Joseph Smith, am I putting trust in the arm of flesh? Perhaps someone could view it that way, but I don't.

      Likewise with the G&S produced by the Lots group. Much of it involves quotations from Denver. If I believe that they are correct, does that mean that I am engaging in idolatry? You seem to think so, but I do not agree. I believe that they are the words that the Lord has sent to us in this day through one of His servants. They do not direct me to put faith in the servant, but in the Lord. They do not lead me to think or believe that Denver has any salvific power. They point me to Christ.

    5. I'm sorry, Blair, but I need an answer to the exact question I asked: do you agree that those who trust in men are cursed of the Lord?

    6. Tell you what, Blair.

      I really hit all the high points in these posts, and they should probably be read in this order:

      Let me know what you would like clarified.

      Jared Livesey

    7. For some reason my comment got posted under the main thread, and not here, so here it is, just in case you didn't see it:

      Log, I gave you an exact answer in the comment above: "I agree that putting trust in the arm of flesh results in damnation."

      I have read the blog posts you listed. In fact, I read most of them previously. I am well aware of what you have commented and what your position on the guide and standard is.

      Now, since I have answered your direct question, please answer mine (answers to which I have not found in your writings): Since the scriptures that the G&S document will be published in (as an appendix, not as scripture) also include revelations received through Denver, are you opposed to the restoration edition of the scriptures? How do you reconcile the fact that you think the covenant offered through Denver is valid, but you don't believe that Denver's other statements are valid enough to be included in a statement that is not considered to be scripture?

      I agree that we can go off the rails by putting our trust in Denver. But you seem to believe that nothing from Denver can be included, because that would be putting trust in man. By that same logic, no scripture can be accepted at all, unless it is given to you directly by the Lord.

      Once again, I am not trying to contend, but understand. I find it confusing that you consider the covenant to be binding, but do not accept anything else given through Denver. I have read your statements, but disagree. I have prayed on the subject, and still remain unpersuaded that your proposal is correct. What would you have me do? Must I agree with you no matter what in order for the G&S to go forward?

    8. Blair, I have to ask, again, for the third time: do you agree that those who trust in men are cursed of the Lord?

      Because you have twice not answered this question, but have substituted "putting trust in the arm of flesh."

      Please answer this exact question directly without substitutions, or else please tell me you intend to not answer the question I am asking.

      Jared Livesey

    9. Jared, I have tried to answer your question twice. If you didn't understand my terminology, it would have helped if you asked, or were more specific. I view putting trust in the arm of flesh to be the same thing as putting trust in men. I didn't realize that you needed me to use the same terminology as you in order to have a discussion.

    10. Blair,

      Unfortunately, I have to be sure we are talking about the same thing, or else I cannot be sure we are talking about the same thing.

      The verse under consideration is 2 Nephi 28:31, which reads as follows:

      [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 use of "or" indicates if any one of these three seperate and distinct conditions is met, then the person who does it is cursed of the Lord.

      Without equivocation and without substitution, do you agree that those who trust in men are cursed of the Lord, as this verse says?

    11. We will also note the following verses which repeat this message.

      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.

      Please note that the use of "or" in this last verse means if someone does either of these things, they are cursed.

    12. Hey Log. But what about that part in 2 Nephi 28:31 that states "save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost"?

      I interpret that to mean a man, such as yourself, may indeed speak a precept to others by the power of the Holy Ghost. Would that not apply to any man/woman, but more particularly Denver? Imma just seeking to understand.

      Also, to my way of thinking, if I listen to another person's words I am not condemned. But if I do not go to Father in Christ's name asking for discernment and truth from the Holy Ghost, then I would be putting myself in a position of being cursed should I follow or act on what was said. That is how I view putting my trust in the arm of flesh. What say ye?

    13. Yes, Log, I agree with that verse. Lori makes a good point--"save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost" is an important caveat.

    14. Lori,

      Perhaps we could talk about it more at the forum.


    15. Blair,

      If then we are agreed that those who trust in men are cursed of the Lord, are we also agreed that being cursed of the Lord is a bad thing, not a good thing?


    16. In particular, are we agreed that being cursed is the opposite of being blessed?


    17. Yes, we are agreed on that. I realize that you are being very careful to make sure you understand that we mean the same things, but your process seems excessive. It may go faster if you state assumptions and make your point, and allow me to correct assumptions as they arise.

    18. I already tried that by sending you to what I have already written wherein all my assumptions are laid out, and you have said you disagree without correcting any of my assumptions.

      If you wish to go back through what I've written, and tell me where I make an assumption you disagree with, then that might go faster, otherwise, well, this seems to be the only way to go.


    19. However, I must be clear: as long as the assumptions and the logic are sound, then the conclusions, howsoever unpalatable, follow.

      Therefore, I'm not asking which of my conclusions you disagree with - for they follow from the assumptions and logic.


    20. I'm sorry that I'm not understanding your approach. I read what you wrote, and could not find the answer to these questions:

      "Since the scriptures that the G&S document will be published in (as an appendix, not as scripture) also include revelations received through Denver, are you opposed to the restoration edition of the scriptures? How do you reconcile the fact that you think the covenant offered through Denver is valid, but you don't believe that Denver's other statements are valid enough to be included in a statement that is not considered to be scripture?"

      If you have answered those questions somewhere in your writings, I must have missed it. If you want, you can tell me which post (and perhaps a paragraph number) to reread, and I would be happy to read it.

      I am not trying to be evasive or corner you. I just don't get how you can take the covenant and not accept anything else. You seem to believe that you have answered that in your many writings, but I have not been able to see it. I'm sure my own ignorance and reading comprehension is the problem.

    21. Blair,

      What do those questions have to do with the truth of what I have said?

      Which of my assumptions are you taking issue with?

      Jared L.

    22. Because if you're not taking issue with anything I have actually written or said, then you are not speaking about what I am speaking about.

      Jared L.

    23. I guess we go back to stepping through the argument.

      We are agreed that those who trust in men are cursed of the Lord, and we are agreed that being cursed is not a good thing but a bad thing.

      Therefore are we agreed also that teaching others to trust in a man is neither to bless them nor benefit them, but to curse them and harm them?

      Jared Livesey

    24. Jared, I don't know if I even want to start up this comment thread, but I do want to understand your point of view. Is there somewhere that we could converse, you and I? You can email me directly if you wish,

      My questions were not about your G&S proposal, they were about your seeming rejection of the messenger through whom the covenant came. I have trouble understanding how you think the covenant is valid, and yet you don't think anything else through Denver should be included.

  24. This comment has been removed by the author.