Sunday, December 3, 2017


Sisters and Brothers,

This is going to be a long explanation. Whenever we try to be brief, we wind up regretting it due to the complaints about lack of details.

We are grateful for all of the work, prayer, and thought that has gone into developing a statement of principles that can be accepted by the people (The Lord hasn’t required His stamp of approval on it, simply our own mutual agreement). Because the committee has been learning as we go, we have done the best we know how, but we’ve come to realize that the task isn’t finished yet. As the title of this post implies, there is a choice to make.

The most recent challenge that we are faced with is what to do with the acceptance votes for the August 5th version of the Governing Principles. That document was put on hold and wasn’t published into the scriptures because of the mutual agreement issue. The helpful understanding recently received from the Lord has released that hold. The August 5th document received as strong an approval as the recent Lots document and therefore is just as deserving of consideration. So now what? And what about any other documents that meet the criteria set by the Lord?

Discussion within the committee and with others makes it clear that the scripture committee is not the body to decide which version finally goes into the scriptures. That is up to all of us. We recognize that many are tired of votes that are not final. A formal request has been made to the committee to vote on all versions that have been put forth. In turn, we have a responsibility as the scripture committee to ensure that whatever is adopted into the scriptures meets the criteria established by the Lord, and then to actually publish them. As this call for a vote on all documents helps us fulfill our responsibility in preparing and publishing the scriptures, by bringing the people to make a decision on which G&S to adopt and publish, we agree with and support it. Because some of the submitted documents cannot be considered for adoption, we propose that it be a final vote on all qualified versions of the Guide and Standard / Governing Principles. This is the only fair means of resolution we are aware of. The top ranked version will be the accepted Guide and Standard included in our scriptures.

In the Answer to Prayer for Covenant the Lord has given us the criteria that a G&S document must meet to be included in the vote:
1.     You are not excused from writing – "I, the Lord, say to you: You have asked of me concerning the scriptures prepared on behalf of all those who seek to become my covenant people, and therefore I answer you on behalf of all the people, and not as to any individual...I answer you as one." This means that "You" at the beginning of this criteria point is inclusive - the writing of the statement must have been open in some way to participation by anyone and everyone.

2.     a statement of principles... – "a" indicates that we must produce one statement, not a collection; "statement" indicates that it will include views and explanations, not simply a list; and "principles" indicates that it can't be a set of rules, but rather must provide underlying understanding of why something is said or done.

3.     to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people... – "Adopted" indicates a voluntary willingness to abide by what is stated. Because the statement is to be adopted by "my people", it is covenant holders who vote to adopt it. Those who eventually receive the covenant will likewise be adopting the same statement of principles.

4.     Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless, benefit and inform them – The intended audience is "them," not the current covenant holders. It is a blessing to have help from others who are on the same path and who have already struggled with how to begin living what the Lord has given. The benefit is the basic framework and understanding shared that allows newcomers to hopefully start off on the right foot. The Guide and Standard gives them the fundamental information on practices that anyone would ask about. As steps are taken to become one with the covenant people, they have the Holy Ghost to "show unto [them] all things what [they] should do." Additionally, the question used to title this post is the crux of the entire project: Which one would serve a stranger the best? The question turns the focus from inward – our preferences and biases – to the outward perspective that requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and calls on us to serve, like our Savior.

5.     — so I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write... – What we are proposing involves the most wisdom and kindness we can muster. We acknowledge that there has been unkindness and foolishness throughout the process and ask the Lord to forgive such as we come together to complete His commanded task.
The following versions meet these criteria and will be included in the voting:
      August 5th Governing Principles
      Guide and Standard Chosen by Lots
      A version of the original Governing Principles that was open to public participation.
      If there are others, we are not aware of them and invite correction.
      The original Governing Principles – though this was originally acceptable to the Lord, it was rejected by many people, and then once the new criteria were introduced in the Answer, this document failed because it was not open to being written by everyone - it was written by Jeff Savage and edited by the scripture committee.
      All other documents proposed as a Guide and Standard were written by only one or only a few people and were not open to all to develop, including: The Rock of Jesus Christ, Nonmancaaf Swhafugs Guide and Standard, A Different Idea From One of the Lots Group, A Proposal to Bridge the Gap, Amalgamation of G&S Versions, Adolpho Guide and Standard, Chandler Guide and Standard, Statement of Principles, Anonymous1, and Simple Guide and Standard. Regardless of any other reasons, this alone disqualifies them.
We likewise propose that there be a time of preparation – this month of December – so that everyone has the opportunity to read and study the various versions, and to discuss with and persuade others. All qualified documents will be posted with no names or dates, in order to reduce authorship bias. The vote will then be taken over 3 days. The manner of voting will be a ranking of the versions in order of preference, just like we did once before. The version that has the highest ranking will be the one that will be included as our Guide and Standard in the scriptures: "When you have an agreed statement of principles, I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow." There is no suggestion or requirement that the Lord approve the document.

The argument that mutual agreement requires unanimity is a flawed perspective. Because the Lord's explanation of mutual agreement points to dispute and not disagreement, it is clear that people who disagree can still be in mutual agreement. So any regular vote that we have experienced, even presidential elections, conform to this perspective. We vote, and if our choice isn't the winner, we acknowledge that and move on. Mutual agreement acknowledges the voice of the people and majority rule (see Helaman 1:1-2). Those who choose to dispute such a result, though they may be part of the community, choose to deny the choice each of the others has made. We have a responsibility to hear what they have to say and to endeavor to persuade them. We are to love them and treat them kindly, but they do not have a right to prevent the outcome of the vote to be adopted. In our case, if they refuse to accept the version of the G&S selected, they are free to go print their own version and to continue worshiping with the rest of us, but they do not control the choice. We must likewise remain open to respectful disagreement. Also, to claim that continued disputes means we do not have mutual agreement likewise shows a misunderstanding. Human nature is such that there will always be a few who choose to dispute. The choice to dispute self-selects a distancing away from the body of believers who choose to not dispute; it does not hold the main body hostage until the disputes are all resolved. The Lord requires mutual agreement, therefore He requires that we choose to not dispute. Disputes and efforts to control the decision-making process can't exist in Zion.

Just as important, we need to see the G&S for what it really is – a Quick Start guide to be found in the appendix. It isn't canonized scripture, it isn't a revelation, it is simply an effort to help investigators and newcomers get their feet under them. We need to complete this task so that we can move forward and hopefully receive further light and knowledge as promised.

The scripture committee


  1. Dear Scripture Committee, Guide and Standard Committee, et al:

    The following statement was posted here: http://guideandstandard. committee-g-update-answering- questions.html "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."

    It is the case that anyone may dissent from any proposal on the personal belief that this is the proper interpretation of the A&C, and we may then discuss whether this is the only, or even a reasonable, interpretation of the A&C, but nobody is authorized to set forth binding interpretations of the A&C. None of us is the boss of any of us. The Guide and Standard Committee lacks standing to issue any interpretation as binding upon the covenant participants. If someone wants to make a public argument along those lines as justification for dissenting from a proposal, let them do it in a forum where the proposition may be examined and addressed publicly. I think that such a person will find it hard to explain why their interpretation of the A&C, if applied consistently, wouldn't require each and every covenant participant excepting Denver Snuffer to actually contribute materially to any given proposal, such as everyone typing in a letter, a space, or a punctuation mark to fulfill the condition mentioned in this paragraph. After all, that's where this argument leads, and would, if consistently applied, lead to the rejection of any existing proposal, not merely Jeff Savage's original.

    Unless the Guide and Standard Committee is dropping its policy of neutrality, I request you modify that post to render it value-neutral in these disputes by removing that paragraph, and the corresponding material from the present post.

    Otherwise, we have a dispute about the Scripture Committee, and the Guide and Standard Committee, usurping authority.

    Jared Livesey

  2. Adolpho Guide and Standard? What are you talking about? Rob and I haven't written a document by ourselves. The first one we wrote was with our fellowship (this one we submitted June 9), then we wrote one with the help of others (Fargos, Hornings, O'Rullians) which was submitted along with 6 others to be voted upon, then we wrote another one with our fellowship again before the August 5 , then one with Adrian Larsen. So not sure which one you are referring to as the Adolpho Guide and Standard???? Q

  3. Remember: we don't have mutual agreement as long as we have dissent, and I dissent from every proposal save it be The Rock of Jesus Christ.

    If therefore you usurp authority and place the most popular G&S which yet has dissent in the scriptures, you, the Scripture Committee and the Guide and Standard Committee, will have not fulfilled the requirement of the Lord, but will have done something else, and we as a people will be unable to accomplish tasks the Lord will lay upon us, as he said in the A&C.

    Your choice, of course.

    Remember, the thing which has always brought the cursing of the Lord upon his people: "they say, and do not."

    Jared Livesey

  4. "The argument that mutual agreement requires unanimity is a flawed perspective."

    It is not an argument: it is the meaning of the phrase "mutual agreement." The argument that mutual agreement does not mean mutual agreement, but something else, is therefore contrary to the A&C.

    Thus we begin again to go aside from the clearly stated requests and requirements of the Lord, and into the time-worn Gentile paths of willful disobedience.

    Jared Livesey

  5. "Also, to claim that continued disputes means we do not have mutual agreement likewise shows a misunderstanding."

    The misunderstanding is not had by those making the claim: where there are disputes, there is not mutual agreement.

    Disputing / dissenting / disagreeing is not mutual agreement.

    Jared Livesey

  6. Will you help me understand how Helaman 1:1-2 talks about majority rules? Will you also help me understand where in the BOM it talks about voting? I don't see that in there, where are you seeing that? I can only find it in the D&C and interestingly enough it appears for the first time in D & C 20. To me, the Voice of the People refers to mouth to ear communication, not a vote.
    Thanks Q

    1. Q, though I am not part of any committee, I'll take a gander, if you are okay with that?

      They are equating majority rule with the voice of the people in verse 5, where after a contentious process, one of the late Pahoran's three sons was "elected" to the chief judgment seat. Three sons, three brothers had each wanted to be chosen. Pahoran "won." One of his brothers gave up his desire for the seat and united with the people (vs. 6). But the third brother never relented and was given a death sentence because he stirred up so much rebellion among the people; a rebellion which could have overthrown their whole government. Eventually it would, because this is also where the Gadianton Robbers have their beginning. It is a curious chapter to reference at this time during this process to find a G&S.

      The term "voting" is not used in the Book of Mormon, that I am aware of, but instead we hear of the "voice of the people" or people gathering together in various groups to "cast in their voices." Mosiah 29:39

      Perhaps our way of voting is akin? We are not given the specific details of how those during Book of Mormon times actually expressed their voices as a people. I don't believe they were without advanced means to vote in a dignified and orderly way. But maybe they gathered and raised hands with someone appointed to note it and report?

      It is also worth noting how equality is depicted in that same chapter 29 of Mosiah. And too, how choosing judges was described in terms of reigns.

      I don't know if I helped at all, but that is what I see and understand. I feel it would be helpful to agree that majority and voting is the way to decide the G&S as a group first. Baby steps in mutual agreement.

  7. "Those who choose to dispute such a result, though they may be part of the community, choose to deny the choice each of the others has made."

    Nobody is compelled by adhering to the Lord's requirement of mutual agreement, which is the point of mutual agreement - you don't get to make me accept what I do not accept.

    But now, with majority rules being willfully substituted for the required mutual agreement, the minority is being compelled in accepting that which they do not agree to, and prevented forcibly from fulfilling the Lord's requirement.

    This is not the way to Zion.

    Jared Livesey

  8. "The choice to dispute self-selects a distancing away from the body of believers who choose to not dispute; it does not hold the main body hostage until the disputes are all resolved. The Lord requires mutual agreement, therefore He requires that we choose to not dispute."

    The Lord requires that the majority not enslave the minority by imposing upon them that which they do not agree to, but that we all come together as equals and discuss with pure knowledge in meekness, patience, kindness, and long-suffering until we agree as one. For this purpose did he require of us mutual agreement, and to see if we were willing to do all things whatsoever he requires or commands of us.

    We are declaring as a people right now that we are unwilling to abide his requirements and commands, even though we know and understand exactly what he asked for, for he gave it to us in our own language and to our understanding, and we are going contrary to that which he has plainly required of us.

    This action by the Scripture Committee and the Guide and Standard Committee lays the foundation for our failure as a people to attain Zion.

    Jared Livesey

  9. I am a bit taken by surprise with this development. My heart feels for those who accepted by vote the lots version. I imagine there is no small amount of hurt and anger. I'm sorry for that. Truly I am. There is too much hurt going around.

    Thank you, mysterious scripture committee, for taking the time to speak these words. I especially was moved by your willingness and acknowledgement in point 5 that there has been "unkindness and foolishness." Surely there must be some way to decide matters, even small details, and to mutually agree on each or everything without doing/saying things not in harmony with Holy Spirit.

    But I also have questions. My experience thus far in asking questions has born little fruit, but I'll ask anyway. I do best when given understanding. I know that requires time and patience from others, but if you could understand what the view is like from the outside, perhaps then you would see my perspective. I really do feel out of all the loops.

    "...we've come to realize that the task isn't finished yet." How did you come to this realization? Did something happen? What?

    "Discussion within the committee and with others..." Who are the others?

    "...we propose that it be a final vote..." Does use of the word "propose" mean you are asking for input *before* any actions are taken? Because that is how I interpret that word. It seems, however, that to say one proposes something really means "this is what we are going to do now." And the "we" are some unknown individuals akin to the Great and Powerful Oz.

    A previous posting mentioned Denver being given the definition of mutual agreement from Christ. Did someone ask him to inquire? How did you all come to receive the definition from Him?

    And Log asks a question I, too, would like to know how everyone answers it. Who decides what is meant by various statements in the A&C? Are we all in agreement that what is expressed here is sound and correct?

    1. I could guess at a few answers but realize they may not be entirely factual. Having talked with different people.

      ""...we've come to realize that the task isn't finished yet." How did you come to this realization? Did something happen? What?
      There have been multiple people who have asked them to allow a vote of the Aug 5 document to see if the approval would be equal to or greater than lots case at this time. There were 25 who voted no on the Lots case (at least 5 of those said even with their no they would not dispute moving forward with it). And even among the No, Yes, I know some were OK with it but preferred something else.

      ""Discussion within the committee and with others..." Who are the others?

      From those who have emailed, talked over phone, and includes their respective fellowships they reside in which i know have talked some of their "ears" off with many different ideas.

      "Who decides what is meant by various statements in the A&C?"

      While they stated they are up for correction, they did make this statement in the post.

      "we have a responsibility as the scripture committee to ensure that whatever is adopted into the scriptures meets the criteria established by the Lord, and then to actually publish them"

      I'm sure they could clarify far better than I. This is just from what I have seen myself.

    2. Thanks, TysonHunt. Your response has been helpful. There really are a lot of folks talking to one another elsewhere. Hopefully some few will be okay with sharing here so peoples like me are informed and included.

  10. What about the statement of principles on ComeServe? That was written by all. Also, will these statements be posted? Thanks.

  11. How can we be unified in something when unity has not been brought to the attention of the whole and come to some consensus of such?

    What about Natural Law or God’s Law?

    A group, of any sorts, to obtain unification: They have unity in acts, thoughts, and emotions. When all three aspects of consciousness are unified and not in opposition or contradiction to each other, the universe will respond in kind to that kind of unanimity or energy.

    If and when those of Light, or those for the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, use the collection, focus, and directions of energies they will be able to accomplish great things –as a group. Our acts, thoughts, and emotions need to Become ONE. This is Zion.

    I would love to see an open discussion about *these* things. For without one you cannot have the other, not in a group, that I can see anyways. Not for what has been asked of us.


    1. I agree Natural Law would be an important subject to learn together. That is where true power is created.

      What are your thoughts about whether oneness within each individual is required before oneness of a group can be achieved? I know it is important for me to learn how to achieve singleness between my thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. I lack much concentrated power until I do. And what is the object of my thoughts, emotions, and behaviours? Would it need to be the same as part of a group? Is that where mutual agreement comes in? We all agree together on a goal/goals to focus our collective thoughts, emotions, and behaviours upon? And are then enabled to formulate a plan mutually agreeable? Good, important stuff.

  12. Now is the time for any who wish to honor the Lord's requirement that the G&S must be adopted by mutual agreement to make your views known to the Scripture Committee and the Guide and Standard Committee.

    If these committees accomplish their intentions as they have announced them, then the Lord will give us as a body assignments we will be unable to accomplish, as he has said in the A&C.

    Remember, remember: the point isn't to meet a deadline. The point was to see if we would do exactly what the Lord said, no more, and no less.

    Therefore if you intend to perform all that the Lord requires as he requires it, even if it means your personally preferred G&S does not get adopted, then make your voices known.

    Otherwise, how can we ever come to Zion when instead of reasoning in plain humility publicly and openly as equals until we agree as one and move together freely, we instead unjustly impose the will of the majority upon the unwilling minority?

    And if we don't care about doing all things whatsoever the Lord has commanded us, for what purpose did we enter into this covenant?

    Are we willing to forgo Zion so we can get our scriptures completed a tiny bit sooner than we might have otherwise?

    Jared Livesey

  13. *The Rock of Jesus Christ*--the DoC and the Sermon--for some reason, has been omitted from the next round of voting. I think this is done in error.

    Just because Log is a bit...intransigent about this doesn't mean that his proposal should be automatically disqualified.

    It fits the criteria:

    1. Log has repeatedly invited input on it at . It isn't just Log's statement--my wife and I, and I imagine others, have given input.
    2. It is a statement.
    3. It has just as much mutual agreement as any other G&S, which is to say, it doesn't.
    4. It is the most important stuff for a newcomer to know. Additionally, it is parsimonious--it says the most important stuff in the fewest words.
    5. Except for two introductory sentences, it is entirely made of the words of Christ, and the most important ones at that. What could be wiser than the words of Christ?

    I'm not saying that the DoC and Sermon absolutely has to be the only possible G&S, but it would be Bold AF to say in the fewest possible words that the DoC and Sermon is who we are striving to be.

    I'm willing to bet a thousand dollars that *The Rock of Jesus Christ*--the DoC and the Sermon--would get at least 33% of the votes if it was put to a vote against the Aug 5 document, the 7 Lotsters' document, and the original Savage version). It should be included in the voting process.

    If Keith Henderson is willing to act as Central Bookie, I offer this bet.

    1. I'm cool with all you've shared except the Central Bookie thing, if it involves using the book where names of those who have been baptized is scandalously used to background check people. No bueno, in my little opinion. I would prefer not to see such a thing ever again, or will have to echo Log's words of requiring a direct revelation from God to agree so.

      But yeah, the Sermon on the Mount--what a great foundation to build a life upon. Sadly, it was only given a little blip in the lots' version. I will have to review the other versions again to remember them. There have been too many documents for me at this point.

      I would definitely love to see it given greater emphasis, especially as it is His Law and the principles flow out from it.

    2. (Lori, a "bookie" is someone in the gambling business who keeps track of wagers and pays out on bets, not someone who keeps sacred records.)

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. Guess we all know I know zip about gambling. At least I got that going for me??? Thanks, Lynne.

  14. We forget that the scripture committee is offering a service with a project that nobody in the body of believers owns. They have read the A&C and have interpreted it their own way to apply it to their own efforts. They seek to persuade the body they are doing a good job interpreting the answer and opening up things for outside involvement. Nothing they do imposes on the body. The body is free to accept or reject their work product. To state otherwise sounds like unrighteous dominion from members of the body. This isn’t anybody else’s project but the scripture committee’s. Any group in the body can start a separate project afterwards and do as they please. It’s easy to lay down weapons of war and stop disputing when you realize this project only belongs to the rest of us as the scripture committee feels like including others. In other words, ultimately it doesn’t. When they offer a finished product, people in the body are free to accept it as theirs.

    1. Aye. Props to the scripture committee. When Jeff Savage was asking "anyone wanna help revise the scriptures?" about a year or so ago, I was all "pfff good luck with that dudes." They've done a helluva work that I was too lazy to do.

    2. True, but hopefully our goal is not to passively let that happen? We want all in, no? (Yes, I am an idealist. Somebody has got to be the crazy one here.)

  15. So, is anyone...ANYONE...willing to discuss Log's proposal with him? Or any version in comparison? He has been asking over and over again. Is anyone willing to discuss his thinking and interpretation of scriptures with him sans a desire to convert him? And also willing to ignore the more incendiary things he has said that upset you? Does anyone have faith in this process and one another still yet? This pause or whatever it is would be an ideal time...

  16. Lori, I have seen several people on this blog discuss Log's proposal. I have done so myself. Log remains convinced of his position, and, as for myself, I remain unpersuaded that his proposal is the right one. I presume that others are also unconvinced. I'm also unconvinced that his proposed forum is the right place to discuss it. If we can't reason together in these comments on this blog, I fail to see how we can in a different forum.

    I also think it is important to be careful interpreting comments here or anywhere else on the internet. I have not read anything here that I deem to be offensive, and I assume that all are commenting in sincerity and a desire to gently persuade others. Of course, people often misunderstand and prefer to impose ill intent on others words, but we need to guard against that.

    I have no problem with the discussing this elsewhere, I just don't think that the remnantofjacob is the right place to do it.

    1. Blair, I understand if you do not feel discussing elsewhere will work for you. I am not attempting to throw shade on others, but I have witnessed accusations and outright invitations for him to just leave. And not just him--a small group (minority) have been labeled opposition and said to be rejecting Christ's words. Log has not been affected by that as I have. I have felt ready to say, "Buh-bye, y'all."

      I do not believe anyone has an evil heart here, but there lacks simple caring at times, which is not impossible to convey in written word. I have needed to recognize that as much as anyone. Maybe learn how to handle frustrations when we disagree? Are we used to doing that? Or are you used to surrounding ourselves with those who are "like-minded?"

      I realize during discussions things can become strained, even heated. Maybe that is part of the natural process for now. We hardly know what to do with the freedom to express ourselves, given the traditions we are coming from. I don't believe it needs to be or will always be so.

      I am simply suggesting we learn to communicate without an agenda to change anyone else. I would also like to hear what folks are thinking can be done at this point? Is it felt Log is challenging people? I don't feel that, but I could see why others would think so. I choose to give him the benefit of doubt, like others want me to do for them.

      To me, a person still willing to talk has an open heart and mind. His saying he will only accept his own proposal is what I mean about ignoring something in order to maintain open, frank discussion. Maybe it comes from the fact that most proposals have been ignored while one somehow got pushed ahead for voting? It does seem odd to me that only now some/one is saying, "Hey, let's have a real choice with options." Because only one proposal is not really a choice.

      Jared is still here. He is still inviting people to talk to him. How shall the majority choose to respond? What is Christ saying to you in your heart? If I am able to learn to forgive and let go of perceived hurts and slights and frustrations from this process, may I ask others to do the same for Log's sake?

      This task was never meant to be easy, but it is doable. I don't believe Christ intended for someone to stand in September and then leave three months on. Perhaps that is why He wisely did not give us a deadline. Learning to respect agency, for a group and for each individual, is a challenging work given our whole way of life revolves around compulsion and force via rewards/punishments.

    2. Lori,
      I completely agree with your sentiment. We should all learn to communicate without an agenda to change anyone else, and I believe that all posting here are striving to do that. I have given Jared the benefit of the doubt as well, which is why I have asked questions and attempted to discuss the matter.

      I am frustrated, however, that there are so many voices in opposition but very few proposals of how to move forward. Jared has offered his, but he is the only one. The scriptures committee is trying to do their best to move forward, but gets criticized for even trying.

      I don't think that Log has hurt or offended anyone. I think they are simply frustrated by the whole situation, and by anyone who presents a rigid, non-negotiable demand. Right or wrong, such a demand rubs people the wrong way. As you said, only one proposal is not really a choice.

      So, Lori, how would you like to proceed? Do we all get on some forum and hash this out? What can we do (besides praying and seeking understanding from the Lord, which I believe everyone has been attempting this whole time) to unite our hearts with each other (which seems to be the whole point of this exercise anyway)?

    3. I should add that my views are based on my very faulty point of view, and I welcome any corrections to my statements.

    4. Hey Blair. You're good. I would say there are not many voices in disagreement, only that we few tend to be noisy. That is probably not a compliment for us few.

      I've never had an agenda per se for content of the G&S. I’ve never felt inspired to author or co-author one. I've gone along like a well-behaved gal for most of the process, even choosing to not make noise about how my family was never represented in previous efforts. (We just are not in the know or have connections.)

      I chose to stand still at one point when I saw that some voices and ideas were not being acknowledged, heard, or responded to, and when I could see agency was not respected. Again, my perspective, which is not in the know all of the time. It may be that people were being included, but comments seem to say otherwise. And everything felt forced, without true choice. Then people, fellow covenanters, were given dehumanizing labels to make it easier to not care. Brene Brown talks about this in her latest book Braving the Wilderness. I’m not a sideliner, so cue my speaking out.

      Ex. Who decided a vote was the best way to go? Who then decided majority would carry the decision? I never saw this discussed, though surely it must have been somewhere. But that makes me feel like there is a hidden committee. Is that true? There was only one outline for one proposal in the lots stuff. Was that really honouring agency for both individuals and the whole group? How can that be okay with God when His way involves a choice between two opposite choices, rather than one option and the minority suddenly get labeled opposition? I could have understood that process better if something like the original were put up with, say, Log’s offering for a vote. Those two documents appear quite different to each other.

      No one would say electing a president for the US is true choice if there were only one candidate. Isn’t that what dictators do to brainwash the people into thinking they are free? We go through a process of steps as caucuses where one or more are weeded out, then have conventions to find the final two, or more. But there is always at least two to choose between. Perhaps that is why the “losing side” are able to accept it (generally) instead of moving to Canada and renouncing their citizenships. They understand everyone has freedom to choose and one or more supported candidates will not “win.”

      And that is why these last two votes felt neither fair nor right to do. I knew what I was feeling in my heart but really struggled to get it into words, especially since there were hurtful things being written in response. I felt like I never had time to figure out what the heck I was witnessing. I hope we can all learn from this experience.


    5. It helps me tremendously when I can express concerns or ask questions and get some resolutions to them. I may not agree with the answers but at least they are answers; I can then understand why things have been done, said, or decided upon. Hopefully I am not viewed as being contrariwise to everything. I really am not. I do feel like my concerns were never addressed and my questions have gone unanswered previous to the last vote. I feel in the dark in terms of who is deciding what and why. Nothing feels like a group effort by equals here except maybe doing a vote.

      I am coming from the place of desiring unanimity because I believe it will give us the best foundation for the future. I still have a lot to learn though. Like the apparent contradiction between not disputing yet when I believe something is wrong/off, how do I address it or point it out? And what should I do if no one ever responds?

      I would like to know what my part is. I would like for all to feel included and involved in whatever way they desire to be. I would like to see more time given to get more input instead of some few deciding what proposal(s) gets pushed ahead. I suppose that has already been happening. If some feel a need to hash things out, then I’m good with letting them do that. Some of us need time to learn how to communicate. Others here could help with that through teaching and example.

      I like where the scripture committee is trying to go. Finally I experience peace and hope again. I would simply like to see more baby steps of mutual agreement before we take a step that is not true choice where people have to choose between one G&S or rejecting it. If we need to agree on a group of people to oversee something, then let’s put our heads and hearts together to figure how to do that. If we need to just use what we already have, then let’s decide together to do that. But choice must needs require more than one option, or it isn’t choice at all.

      Process is everything. This whole life we are each living is THE PROCESS for what we each have professed in our hearts we desire—to receive the Heavenly Gift and become Zion. We cannot take shortcuts or dodge important lessons, individually or as a group.

      PS—I want to acknowledge that I have seen you try to converse with Log and understand his views and ways of thinking. I hope he will address your questions with equal openness as you have his. Sometimes responses get missed when one is commenting on several posts. I believe you both have good hearts, and desire to follow and serve Christ.

  17. For those who are interested, here is a good selection of writings which ought to fully inform about my position.

    They should probably be read in this order:

    Let me know what you would like clarified.

    Jared Livesey

  18. If it's not's not God.

  19. Can we get a link to the Aug 5th doc? I couldn't find it on this website. It might be nice to linkify the post above for the various proposals. Thanks.

  20. Log,
    Thanks for posting that series here. I'll check them out. Comments sections are tough to get a sense of someone's position, so I look forward to understanding you better after reading more.


  21. I hope this comment will find acceptance here. This is off-topic yet oh so applicable. I was listening to this podcast while preparing dinner for my family. So much goodness and light. It has given me much needed perspective on Christ's Heart and Work today, and so I felt to share it with you all. I was particularly struck by the statement that you can tell a lot about a community by how much love is there. The person being interviewed is Greg Boyd, a Jesuit Priest known for his work with gangs in LA.

  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

  24. "And if thy brother offend many, he shall be chastened before many. And if anyone offend openly, he shall be rebuked openly that he may be ashamed." RE D&C 66:7

    To fulfill both this and the law of witnesses, I post this here, and note that I have sent it via email to both the G&S and Scripture team, as well as others.

    Your Servant,

    Jared Livesey

  25. A proposal for your consideration:
    I propose that the body be given the opportunity to vote on all documents, then the top 3 with most votes are added as our 3 part guide and standard. I want everyone to feel happy and represented in the end, and for there not to be division if someone’s choice doesn’t make the cut. I think allowing 3 documents could end up feeling all, or mostly all inclusive. I wonder, would Jared feel ok/satisfied if The Rock was chosen as one third of the final statement? I would be happy if it was, but especially happy if he was also.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    Sarah Hyde