Wednesday, February 14, 2018

A Proposal to Build on the Progress Thus Far

A Proposal to Build on the Progress Thus Far


Background:

It appears we are very close to mutual agreement on the Lots document. Very few still choose to dispute it. Addressing those disputes seems the best way to come to mutual agreement, rather than opening up a new round of voting with more documents and further division. It seems counterproductive at this point to abandon the progress that has been made and start the process over with more documents. I would even go so far as to suggest the people have not been asked if this is their desire and if such an approach is authorized by the covenant body.

The people were, however, consulted about the Lots document, and its process was authorized by the voice of the people, clear through to adoption. Therefore, I suggest the best approach is that we build upon, and bring to completion, the approach already ratified by the voice of the people, rather than starting a new process by committee fiat.

Proposal:

I propose an announcement be made at the first session of the March conference somewhat along these lines:

“Fellow covenant holders, it appears we, as a general body, have reached mutual agreement on the Lots document and we are prepared to publish it in the scriptures as the Lord has required, if this is indeed the case. Because the Lord has defined mutual agreement “as between yourselves, you choose not to dispute” we now desire to know, before we proceed, if there are any who dispute the adoption of this document. If you choose to dispute it, will you please raise your hand?”

Any raised hands will then be noted and addressed personally in a private meeting after the conference session. I would suggest that in each case (meaning each person who raises a dispute) a member of the Lots committee and a member of the scripture committee, randomly drawn, meet together with that person to listen to, understand and document their dispute, and ascertain whether the dispute is over the document itself, or some other issue.

(Examples of other issues include their preference for another document, their dispute over who wrote it, their issues with process, or people, or another factor outside the document itself.)

If they do not dispute the document itself, adoption can continue.

If they dispute the words as written, the dispute must be carefully considered against the standard of truth as contained in scripture, by the two who meet with the person. If either the Lots committee member or the scripture committee member is persuaded the dispute has scriptural merit and must be addressed, the lots committee will be invited to revise the document to eliminate the dispute so adoption can proceed.

If it can be revised before the second conference session, the revision(s) will be announced in the second session, together with the agreed end of the dispute(s) that brought about the revision(s). At that point it will be asked again if there are any disputes that have not yet been raised. If not, it goes in. If there are yet disputes to the document itself, it is tabled until next conference.

Strengths of this proposal:

1. It builds on the unity we’ve already achieved, rather than fracturing it.
2. All are free to make their voice heard, if they so desire, knowing their dispute will be heard and carefully considered.
3. It allows for flexibility and a mechanism to resolve disputes, if at all possible.
4. It enthrones the scriptures as the arbiter of truth.
5. It exactly follows the Lord’s word and definition of mutual agreement, rather than merely proposing a majority vote wins.
6. It is achievable, and may result in completion of this assignment.

I recognize this proposal also has weaknesses. I further recognize this approach may not be the best one, or the right way to proceed. It is merely my suggestion as a way to move forward in keeping with the established will of the body. I offer it because the Scripture Committee asked for recommendations, and I want to support the body in bringing this assignment to completion.

Having proposed this, I will refrain from commenting on it, defending it, or arguing about it, and leave it for others to discuss the relative merits or problems with it. I do not wish to dispute, and if I’ve gotten it wrong, please offer corrections or improvements.

Adrian Larsen

257 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've read through this twice, now. I absolutely 100% agreed with the background given to explain the reasoning for this proposal and the 6 strengths mentioned.

    This is a solid proposal that refrains from undermining the completion of the assignment given us by the Lord that so very many have already mutually agreed to.

    It takes what has already been done and builds upon it in a manner that seeks to understand those who yet oppose, without unnecessarily un-doing all that has been done to unite.

    It allows for some alteration to be made to the document IF valid reason is given based on truth/scripture and not opinion.

    It shows respect for the thoughts and perspectives of those who have already given their agreement through their vote, yet shows a willingness to not go forward without addressing those still "un-persuadaed." This strikes a nice balance between both groups not being short-changed, or disregarded by the other. This would be the 3rd FORMAL effort to reach out and try to understand and hear those not in complete agreement... those formal efforts were/would be: 1.) the three days after the writing of the rough draft of the lots, 2.) the 40 days following its vote for adoption, and 3.) during this general conference. (Additionally, there have been months of discussion on this site).

    It refrains from the unnecessary cycles of voting that seem to always be offered as suggestions and have potentially no end in sight, that show disregard for the expression of votes that has already occurred.

    It allows those who have already received confirmation that the Lord has given His approval to this effort to "be still" and allow God to do His work, without feeling constantly compelled to have to re-engage in a discussion that tempts to discord.

    It eliminates an appearance of "control" by anyone, yet it shows respect for the Scripture Committee's final request for solutions to the GS situation.

    It also uses the scriptures as the measure of truth, not personal preference.

    Plus more.

    Love it.

    The only suggestion I can think of off hand is that perhaps having people voice their opposition in front of the entire congregation is too public. Some may feel this is an intimidation, or may not even be present for the conference.

    Since the conference is the intended time to come to a resolution, perhaps a way can be made that those who want to oppose can do so privately prior to the conference and the same proposed method of resolution could be carried out...a SC member and a lots member privately meet before the conference with the one in disagreement. Upon the request of the one disagreeing, a record could be kept stating what their subject matter was and how it was resolved and made known to the assembly (without names)...IF the one in opposition felt that doing so would provide transparency and keep everyone abreast of what has occurred to lead to the hoped for mutual agreement. I'm thinking out loud on that, so it may be a weak suggestion.

    Karen

    ReplyDelete
  3. But do we not already know there is at least one person, possibly more, who will dispute? So why go through the motions like this, dragging hearts and minds through a process that will not bring about what the SC has stated is required?

    "AS A PEOPLE we need to MUTUALLY AGREE which document we choose to append to our scriptures WITHOUT DISPUTE."

    I know where Log/Jared stands. I don't know where others who feel equally as strong for their chosen proposals stand. Even if Jared was the lone ranger of dispute, we as a whole are faced with a unique situation. Shall we learn to "agree with [our] adversary quickly," or not?

    We can either choose to feel resentful towards ____________, or we can become meek enough to do the really hard thing of bowing to the will of another in this matter of a G&S.

    Additionally, what can we offer and create as a whole that allows individuals to follow their chosen G&S they feel Christ has inspired while not requiring everyone else to follow along in a straight line as school children?

    A single statement of principles...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thought more:

      Given the terrible tragedy of yesterday in FL, and all the tragedies individuals, families, and communities are experiencing daily, what do we have to offer a world that is spinning ever downward into chaos?

      We seem to have so much knowledge yet lack the wisdom to apply it.

      How do we make this covenant not about us but all about CHRIST? What do we have to tell the world about HIM?

      Delete
  4. The dissenters don't have to get the approval of the majority to dissent. They also are not required to justify their dissent to those from whom they dissent.

    It is known that we do not mutually agree to the Lottery document, and the document was disputed from the time the content was announced.

    We already know there to be scripturally based dissent to the Lottery document.

    If the Lottery document - or any other, for that matter - were changeable based on knowledge of scriptural dissent from it, it would contain no words from Denver Snuffer: Thus saith the Lord: Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

    The Lottery document still contains words from Denver Snuffer.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  5. And disputing the adoption of a document has occurred, whether or not the one(s) disputing the adoption of the document choose to attend the conference(s), which are proposed to feature forced voting, forced arbitration, inquiries, records, and so on, all of which are intrinsically hostile and destructive of harmony.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't mean this as being flippant, however there is a good book, "Breaking the Habit of Being Yourself, how to lose your mind and create a new one".
    We have heard over and over that we must become new creatures, willing to let go of all we think we know and in some cases feel.
    The world is changing rapidly and many of us are still using our old paradigms to navigate it.I wonder what we would think and feel if we chose to truly create a new mind.
    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any proposal to reconcile this conflict which can possibly result in the adoption of a disputed document is wrong.

    Just as the adoption of any document which leads men to trust Denver Snuffer, as opposed to persuading men to rely upon Christ alone, is wrong.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  8. There once was a dog with a tail. The tail wanted to wag the dog. The dog was in a tizzy about theological correctness and became paralyzed. So the tail wagged the dog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the nature of this dispute - for voting cannot make wrong into right - there not only has been no progress made, but there cannot be progress made without a change of hearts and of minds.

    One proposal thus far made does effect a change of hearts and minds and produce unity in righteousness.

    If we are willing - that is, desiring - to do all things whatsoever the Lord has commanded us, then let us be up and doing.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are one strange dude Jared....God bless you brother...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find it really odd that rather than questioning the work produced of the Governing Principles presented, …the current effort is to question those who openly disagree instead, blaming them for our failure to be mutually agree-ABLE. Enormous efforts have been made to qualify and disqualify opinions, so that a final outcome can be established, so that we can check that assignment off the checklist, looking forward to better stuff in the future, ...like restoring the remnant? Huh, what-da?! Mutual agreement is the by-product. The effort is the Governing Principles. Yet, all I have ever heard from the beginning was a condemnation of those who won’t produce the by-product, those who don’t mutually agree. Opinion polling is no different than what has been described as the lots effort to mitigate the statistics to win over the argument of the Aug 5th document. Votes do not express the hand of God running this thing, it expresses the same compulsion that is always used to push forward an opinion. If it were not opinion, and instead represented truth, no one would have to convince me to be mutually agreeable. No one convinced me to walk this path but God. So I blame the documents, against Adrian Larsen’s opinion that nothing is wrong with it. Every last one is incomplete, including the non-existent King Follet effort, because we as a people are incomplete, fighting to make a by-product!

    At every corner we quickly slam together a document, and then spend days, weeks, and months trying to get everybody on board. Why not spend days, weeks, and months working on the document, understanding perspectives, writing together, coming together, instead? The repeated pattern so far is to have a single loooooooongass meeting, and a quick short-order vote, …and then it’s the short-order vote we end up fighting. False deadlines have magnified the problem, and Karen recently put up, yet another deadline, which will cause more rushing of the pass. Jim O’Rullian hopes to sustain the lotsters percentages, holding the opinions of percentages as justification for printing it already. When we do shoddy work, why do we expect the successful by-product? We don’t have the by-product because we keep skipping the work, which is the content of the document.

    I find it really odd that those fighting so hard to get their opinions validated by a vote have no intention of paying the document much attention once it is printed, and placed in the Guide and Standard. Some think it is only an instruction manual, others think it simply a brochure for new converts, and yet others think this is only a practice to do better things. All of it is projecting your idea of Zion on God. If God has commanded this of us in preparation for Zion, every Zion had to do something similar. This isn’t only important, it’s something far different than any of the documents have assumed.

    My point? Let’s keep working on a document, rather than using what little authority we have, as we suppose, to exercise unrighteous dominion, forcing a vote, forcing a result, forcing mutual agreement, …forcing a by-product.

    Robert Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob,

      I was wondering what you meant by me (Karen) being responsible for creating a false deadline?

      Are you referencing my comment in my "suggestion" portion above about General Conference being a time intended for resolution? If so, that is not an idea I came up with. That is coming from the Scripture Committee's back on their February 8th post, that I believe you expressed appreciation for them writing.

      This was sentence was in the final paragraph written by the SC:

      "A direct effort will be made at the conference in Phoenix in March to resolve the matter."

      I'm sorry if it came across to you as if the idea to do something at Conference was mine, or seemed I was the author of an artificial deadline.

      Because you pointed out my name specifically as being responsible, I thought I better clear that up, so it wouldn't confuse others reading, too. I was merely continuing forward with the Scripture Committee's request for proposals that are intended to resolve the GS at that point. I think that Adrian's and Gordon's proposals both offer the conference as times for resolution, too...all their ideas for a "time-table" were probably based upon the instruction given in the SC post, as that's where I first saw it, too.

      Just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting credit where credit wasn't deserved. LOL

      Love you brother.

      Karen

      Delete
  12. There's no point working on a document because one person will accept no document but his own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s like saying God have a commandment, but forgot to prepare a way for us to accomplish the thing He has commanded. I believe it is not only possible, but to add to that, it’s one of the only options not endured through. All the focus has been on MAKING IT MUTUAL AGREEABLE. We want the by-product of success, not the labor.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  13. With reference to Adrian’s proposal:

    I agree with and support the proposal as written. I believe it is wise and fair, and is the best way forward given our present stalemate.

    -Matt Lohmeier

    ReplyDelete
  14. With regard to Adrian’s proposal, regarding the Lots proposal, my wife (Krista Fausett) and I agree wholeheartedly and support this document as our guide and standard.

    Let me further state that on Jared’s own website he clearly states, “Therefore, I confess before men, angels, and God, that I did say “yes” when I should have said nothing. I do not know how else to repent of this except to say that to those who have entered into the covenant provided through Denver Snuffer, they should consider me as not being part of that covenant. I failed in a test of personal integrity pertaining to question 1. I lied by saying “yes.” I repent me of this lie by making the truth known.”
    Let me repeat one line here, and let us put this matter to rest: Jared (Log) clearly states “they should not consider me part of that covenant.” He admits he made the covenant and then withdraws from it. Therefore to reach mutual agreement, without his voice is still reaching mutual agreement. I’m sorry, but I’m just pointing out his own words and since his words have been the most adversarial on this whole topic, why don’t we point out the elephant in the room, which is that he has already withdrawn. Jared, I wish you good luck in all your endeavors, but the vast majority have voted, accepted and want to move on with what the Lord wants us to do next, so please for the sake of Zion, step aside, lay down your weapons of war and whatever ambitions are causing you to try to hijack this attempt at building Zion and lets all move forward.

    God bless you all and let’s finalize this in Phoenix.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Let me repeat one line here, and let us put this matter to rest: Jared (Log) clearly states “they should not consider me part of that covenant.” He admits he made the covenant and then withdraws from it."

    The very next post on my blog says this:

    "So what do you do if you, like me, discover that you have entered into a covenant that you did not qualify for, and were acknowledged by God as having entered in?

    You execute your end of the bargain to the utmost of your ability, even until you are crushed under it.

    You can't unring the bell."

    A covenant from God cannot be gotten rid of by saying "I withdraw."

    I would know.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  16. This sounds like a reasonable and inspired solution to our current situation. I completely support Adrian Larsen's proposal because it honors the voice of the people, takes into consideration the positions of those with differing views, respects God's hand in our efforts to fulfill His commandment, and enacting it will limit further division and contention among us.

    Someday we will all look back at this and have a good laugh.

    James Fargo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear, The Real James,

      Sorry for the mix up, and thanks for the response. Although this online stuff makes me look Anti-James, I love you bro. Jim too, but don't tell him I said that, he'll think I'm softening up.

      You oughta check out Denvers post on All or Nothing, Sept 2016. You might view this assignment a little differently. But, hey, you might not, right?!

      Shoots,
      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  17. It is not wise to stake the salvation of the body on a gamble that I am not a member of the body.

    It might be advisable to inquire of God rather than gamble.

    Here is the formula for such inquiries.

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

    It's that bolded part that people have the most problems with, since diligence in keeping the commandments of the Lord is a function of belief in his words and faith, or trust, in him. For example, if you understand that "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again" (Luke 6:30) is one of Jesus's commandments, and you elect not to do it, then you have no promise that he will answer your inquiry.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stop the presses, hold on, and wait a minute,

    There are some difficult observations that we ought to consider before trying to finish an assignment we haven't even taken the time to understand. There is a lot of congratulating for hard work, or for hosting a meeting, or in support of differing proposals to move forward going on. Yet, one significant question hasn't even been addressed, “What's it all for?”

    We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear, rather than waiting for the Lord to lead and direct every step. In the absence of knowledge, we substitute zeal. We have gotten really creative at writing our own stories, painting the preferred document as the hero of the story, and those who oppose it as the villain. Everyone knows that to the victor goes the history. The victorious Smith and Wesson society has been retelling our history, such that the Indians prefer to play Cowboys in a game of Cowboys & Indians, …since Indians are vilified.

    God is unchanging, and His ways aren’t ours. Repentance is making our ways His. I’m not certain that in this project, so many opinions have skewed God’s ways more towards ours, ...and that’s an abomination. It’s no wonder, the by-product of our efforts thus far is stagnant or even regressive contention. Even when we do it with a doily cloth and soft wispy voices, using a general authoritic pentameter, ...it’s still a train wreck. ...Or was I not supposed to say that out loud?

    Question: While we are so busy getting r'done, voting and casting lots, figuring out how we can move forward to restoring the remnant, and acquiring the answer of acceptance from God, ...when did we ever figure out "What this thing will be used for?" What's the function of it? Once printed in the Book, is it simply forgotten? Or does God have more to tell us before we lock and load and fire, to complete the assignment?

    Think About It: The temple will be built atop the land. The land is tied to the covenant. The covenant is incomplete without the Governing Principles. Yet, no one has asked the question of how all of these connect. We have written Governing Principles without seeking God about how it relates to the land covenant and the temple? We would be fools to think they are not related. God's ways always have order and purpose to them. I don’t see how we can be done with the Governing Principles assignment when something so simple as this hasn’t even been on our radar?

    You wanna be done, and you can be. Just walk away. However, I’d prefer submitting to God to make my ways His ways, allowing Him to instruct, rather than filling in the silence with zeal.

    Karen, I appreciate you identifying the original source of the time deadline as being the SC. While you may not have originated it, repeating it has the same effect, it hasn’t changed what I was addressing about magnifying the confusion being caused to rush the pass. Actually, the more of that kind of thing that gets repeated, the more people get frantic, as you have legitimized the time crunch. I don't recommend it sister.

    Look, I know I keep bringing up difficult things that we must face, but to me, this is ALL OR NOTHING! Either I trust in God alone, and be ALL IN! Or I cut corners, follow crowds, respect men, and get NOTHING.

    I take this serious. I am not simply repeating myself. I am trying to add light to the subject, introducing better perspective, rather than pushing your opinions with percentages, numbers and votes. It's so that we don’t cut our own throats before we ever begin, like the ancient saints. I want to repent, and express my repentance with you all in this Governing Principles document, making my ways God's. It will not happen until we do the work of understanding the assignment, and one another.

    PEACE!
    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You might want to consider what Denver has said about the Zion effort in his post on All or Nothing, September 2016. It has more insight to this project, in light of Zion, ...precisely where this project should be viewed in context of. It's seven different blog posts, so the number ought to catch the attention of those who like numbers.

    I've been studying it in depth, and the fifth seems to speak loudly to my heart, about this all starting with a small group, and growing from there. I've yet to finish the last two.

    Happy research,

    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rob,

    I was merely trying to find out if you were asking a question that you wanted to engage in dialogue about.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where you talking to me, Rob Adolpho? I didn't think so, as you were addressing Devin Faussett. I have heard the "can't unring a bell" argument here before, so I wasn't sure you were addressing me. I never saw the question, but I have to be honest bro, you repeat yourself a lot, so sometimes I scan your responses. Who knows, I might be guilty of the same thing, ...but in this forum we walk on egg-shells, lest someone point the finger at us, accusing us of being too rough, too mean, too low, too vulgar, etc.

      So, I'm a bit confused at what you're talking about. I've done this before, where I've addressed someone, thinking they were someone else (Sorry James II and THE REAL JAMES). Just lookin'out and clarifying.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. Rob,

      You asked: "Question: While we are so busy getting r'done, voting and casting lots, figuring out how we can move forward to restoring the remnant, and acquiring the answer of acceptance from God, ...when did we ever figure out "What this thing will be used for?" What's the function of it? Once printed in the Book, is it simply forgotten? Or does God have more to tell us before we lock and load and fire, to complete the assignment?"

      I said in response: "If you are asking, I can answer."

      From what you say here, however, it's clear by your next post where you recommend researching Denver's writings you weren't asking a question you wanted any of us to answer.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    3. Oh, perfect. So, ...we good?

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A final word on my covenant status:

    My covenant status is not a matter of how many people hold the opinion that I am not a covenant participant.

    The sole action necessary on my part to enter the covenant was to have stood and said "yes" when the officiator so instructed the audience. I did so.

    There is no exit clause from the covenant within the text of the A&C, which is to say the text of the A&C does not admit the possibility of exiting the covenant by any actions or words. Those who assert my confession to having falsely answered "yes" to question 1 and statement that I should not be considered a covenant participant suffices to terminate my status as a covenant participant make this assertion without any textual support in the A&C. There are also no provisions within the text of the A&C for excommunication from the covenant.

    As it stands, I consider myself a covenant participant and my participation in the G&S discussions - including my permanent disputation of the adoption of any document other than The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles - is done pursuant to the instructions pertaining to the G&S in the A&C, the covenant obligations, and the requests, requirements, and commandments of God.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jared, and anyone else out there who feel that by having taken the covenant obligates you to continue to “contend” as Jared is, let me put your mind at ease. If you’re worried that the Lord is holding you to or requiring you to keep contending about this subject, you don’t need to worry any further. See, the Lord has given you a break from worrying about that any further. D&C 82:10 states that “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise. So, the Lord will absolutely hold up his end of the covenant if you do your part, but since you feel like the Lord is holding you to the covenant, despite you withdrawing from it, you need worry no longer...the Lord clearly states that, “when ye do NOT what I say (as your contending is proving to do) ye have no promise”. See? You’re absolved from this promise or covenant because as you have chosen to continue to contend (rather than lay down your weapons of war) you have already disqualified yourself from the covenant and “ye have no promise”. Problem solved. You may go your way in peace and leave us to ourselves to complete the guide and standard task amongst ourselves, and we can go our separate ways in peace. Or, if you’d like to repent and come peacefully continue with us, and accept the will of the masses, or choose to be an agreeable participant in Zion, then we would love to have you continue further with us. The choice is yours, but the Lord clearly spells out that you’re absolved from worrying about a covenant if you think that contending over it is your obligation since you mistakenly accepted the covenant. We love you, and want you to be happy, whether that means with us as a team player or on your own path in whatever way will make you happy. Zion will have no strongmen, not you, not anyone. Further contention only solidifies your disqualification of it, so please repent and become as a little child on this matter, for your own sake.

    Love you brother,
    Devin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Devin, do you want Jared to leave the covenant group, to be as one of the billions who has not received it? Is that a preference or a wish? "Team player?"

      For Jared or anyone else who feels they entered into this covenant opportunity, I openly accept them. I want to welcome and embrace them, not looking for legalistic ways to say they are "disqualified?" or cannot participate or be here in this moment. I will not interpret what they feel in their hearts as Christ's will for their lives.

      Jared believes this is where he is to be, I welcome him. Perhaps he, like Esther of old, has been brought to be among us for such a time as this...

      I do not view Zion as a "team" we need to recruit "players" for. I actually find that idea rather offensive. This is not a game to me nor I am here to be a "team player." I am here to come unto Christ and all that entails, which is built upon learning to love others and to offer them charity.

      I believe others who have not yet awakened to the truth and knowledge we have been given will come because of Christ, His love, and an awakening of a seed planted in their hearts long ago by Messiah; not because their "team Zion" made it to the 'Celestial Bowl'...What a tragic thought!

      Our words and actions will speak, are speaking, our love or lack thereof...that is what I feel to repent of most right now.

      Delete
    2. PS-I do not always agree with Jared or how he expresses things. I do not believe I need to. I do not agree with most on this G&S issue. But I do need to be willing to listen and learn. I am willing. I am also willing to meet Jared where he feels he needs to stand, and not because I think one of us is above the other either. But because I looked at what he is able to offer and I see truth, wisdom, and light. I see teachings, doctrine, and commandments I want to build my life upon. People are important to me.

      Delete
  25. Jared brings up a fascinating theological issue. He says:

    "So what do you do if you, like me, discover that you have entered into a covenant that you did not qualify for, and were acknowledged by God as having entered in?

    You execute your end of the bargain to the utmost of your ability, even until you are crushed under it.

    You can't unring the bell."

    A covenant from God cannot be gotten rid of by saying "I withdraw."

    First of all, the above statement implies that the covenant entered into was invalid from the beginning by virtue of the fact that he did not "QUALIFY" based on the terms of the covenant.

    Wouldn't that make the covenant null and void?

    But there is a deeper question at the heart of this issue.

    Is it really true that a person cannot withdraw from a covenant they did not really intend to enter into?

    Is that sound doctrine?

    Seems to me the ramifications are pretty far reaching.

    If I am baptized as a baby into Catholicism, I guess I must honor that covenant and always be a Catholic.

    As an adult, if I enter into covenant that I later want to repent of, am I bound to stay in that covenant?

    If I am duped into a false ritual because of my own ignorance, and because I was never told up front what manner of satanic signs and wonders I would be entering into, I guess I am sealed up to Satan despite my own ignorance and naivety.

    Is it really true that a person can never reconsider a mistake they made and repent of it?

    Does God really hold people hostage after they realize they should not have entered into covenant?

    There are scriptures that state that God is no longer bound in his part of the covenant once a person reneges on their part of the covenant. That seems to be the extent of the issue and it implies that people do have the option to withdraw from a covenant.

    Logs comment that he must execute the covenant he entered into "until he is crushed under it" seems to be suggesting that he has no hope of a positive outcome and only sees personal devastation from entering into it.

    Does an outlook like that qualify him to be holding so many other people hostage in their attempt to honor their covenant with a brightness of hope?

    This is a serious theological issue that Jared has brought up.

    One worth pondering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not feel Jared is holding me hostage, never have. You have asked some questions that would be good to take up with Christ the Lord.

      I am choosing to accept someone/anyone who feels they are part of this covenant opportunity, without reserve and with a desire to learn with them how to love others.

      I have concern at this point that some are looking for ways to "disqualify" Jared or not be required to include him in our mutual agreement. I hope my concerns are baseless.

      We should be focused upon getting our hearts right before Christ, seeking His heart and mind and will in order to create a statement of principles that will enable a people to truly become His PEOPLE.

      Delete
  26. I appreciate everyone's efforts on behalf of all of us to keep the commandment which the Lord has given us. I have learned much through this process and my love for others has increased and grown. I am seeing so much talent and ability and uniqueness among us. I can see the Lord's hand moving and it amazes me. He is a teacher and He is teaching us. I have so much gratitude for all of you. Do we still have a lot of work to do in taking all the knowledge that is in our heads and moving it into our hearts? Yes. But, I have seen more love and charity and willingness to work together than I have seen dissidents. I see more good among us and a desire to please the Lord. I want to thank everyone for their efforts on this assignment. I appreciate this proposal and the spirit behind it which is to continue to build on the unity which the Lots document is closer to than any other completed work. Thank, you, everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Strength of Zion will come from those who are taught correct principles, ...and then GOVERN THEMSELVES. It is contradictory now to enforce a vote, when men are supposed to GOVERN THEMSELVES.

    The going trend is, lets get this done, ...and SAY we've done it already. People, we got work to do, and the work is inside of you. Let's be the kind of people who ask questions, letting God direct, removing our opinions with truth. Shifting sands of opinion is unsafe to build on. Thus far, all we have before us are opinions. And just like the prophesy of Gentiles, methods are conjured to enforce the opinions as truth. Albeit they are couched in passive aggressive terms like proposed rather than commanded, suggestions rather than legislated, and recommendations rather than enforcement. Despite how we dress up our words, the motivation behind it remains unhidden.

    We ought to Govern Ourselves. And if the by-product of mutual agreement isn't attained, with problems that have been unaddressed, ...then lets be vigilant and diligent, and seek more answers from God to once more Govern Ourselves. If our next effort doesn't work, we must look inside us. Let's force God to interrupt our self correction, to communicate we are done! It's a whole different story when we hear The original supporters saying, We are done! Then the Aug 5th people claiming, We are done! Adding to it all, the lots claiming God said it's enough. If we are done and it's enough is God's communication to you, ...then be done and stop all your efforts to make it done for me, to make it enough for me. God never told me that. Keep working on this has been my instruction.

    Enoch had much more time than we have had to produce Zion. God walked and talked with Enoch in a Terrestrial environment, instructing them to become celestialized. Once celestial, they could not remain on the Earth. If Enoch will return as prophesied, our task is not only to dwell in the presence of Christ, but to receive His instructions, so that Enoch can return because we are like them. It begins with the work to Governing Ourselves, like Enoch.

    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always feel more hopeful after reading your comments, Rob. (Not to be weird or praising about it.) I am feeling much disheartened this morning. Christ's words to be tender with one another, to love one another ring in my ears constantly. I feel beaten down, literally. It's as though people do not care about the heart work, their heart work, and only want what they want. I am willing to not dispute, but my heart is broken...I feel no sense of rejoicing over US. Lori

      PS-Rob, I am genuinely interested in learning more about what can be offered by building upon what Joseph left us in the King Follett Sermon. I hope time enough will be given. God bless.

      Delete
  28. Rob,

    Zion does begin with us governing ourselves - by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom.

    That law is the Golden Rule.

    Those principles are the commandments of the Golden Rule, which collectively are known as The Sermon on the Mount.

    Hence The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree about the law, but I stand differently about the Rock document. You ok with me having my opinion, not colliding with yours? I know you have a strong stance, and I get that. Stand all you must, brutha!

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. Rob,

      I am just explaining why the answer is what it is. If you still question whether the Lord's law and commandments is his guide and standard, then you are not persuaded that his path is the only way and hence you look elswhere for light.

      You are, of course, permitted whatsoever thoughts you care to think - it's not like I have any power, real or imagined, to make it otherwise.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  29. 3 Nephi 15:9-10

    9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.

    10 Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  30. We can really make ourselves miserable with what we perceive to be from God and in reality is just our own stubborn interpretations. We must overcome our unbelief and our egos in order to continue in light and grow as a spiritual being worthy of more light. You can philosophize and justify many sins by scriptures, or conversely, that many actions are sins, by the scriptures. Turning yourself in circles until you are so dizzy, you literally can't see the truth. God does not have part in our every dispute - most of the time it is our problem alone.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Regarding the SC (1 of 2),

    I have noticed a partiality for or against the SC, depending upon their (SC) position, for or against the document being pitched. They have at times leaned too much one way or another, but seems to have self corrected, to maintain neutrality. When you're in heavy surf, waves crashing all around you, rip tides pulling one way, against your desired position, ...neutrality is tough to hold and maintain. Self correction is a difficult work in and of itself, and we haven't even begun to describe the complexity of catching and surfing a wave.

    I have heard complaint from the Lotster's, most recently Jim O'Rullian and Steve VanLeer, concerning them being disgruntled with the refusing of the SC to let them print their document. They think they have done sufficient for the vote to be cast and to be done, and are frustrated by the SC, ...so they turn to accuse them of having too much power over the executing of the assignment. Whereas if they were the executors, they'd already accept their own document, right? Of course they would have their justification that they have percentages, they have the odds of the lots, they have made the phone calls, etc. and so forth. And their argument is that the SC is unjust, and needs to get out of this.

    People in their circles of influence have chimed in, to add credibility to their opinions against the SC. Adrian's most recent proposal here looks harmless at a quick glance, but is couched in terms of reasoning, that what he understands what God is looking for, “actually is” exactly what God is looking for. His suggestion for a vote at the conference to remind us not to dispute, just before asking if anyone will dispute, is like holding an axe overhead and asking, do you support the lots document? It’s already in dispute, but the strategy seems to be to make a lot of noise celebrating the win, so no one can hear the dispute. If God works in whispers, through the meek, through babes, …how will they ever here God talking when they’ve already begun the celebration? To make it worse, those who dispute will be interviewed to “hear their view?” So, we are going to send two home teachers, to “hear them out?” …And then what? Blood atonement, …or something similar symbolically like cutting them off if their reasons aren’t good enough (like most people already think about LOG/Jared Livesay)? There are legitimate reasons that this is repeating actions, expecting the by-product of success.

    By simply removing the thing that seems to most obviously be in the way, the SC, what then will fill its place? This assignment is to end the committee mindset, end the hierarchy, to be mutually agreeable, to be self-governed, instead of just looking like we be mutually agreeable, being governed by voting. If it’s self-governed, …who knows what that looks like, right?! Thus, the need for God’s part.

    The way Zion “grinds to dust” the kingdoms of man is not by force, it is by faith and pure intelligence. They begin with a seed, within the laws of controlling government, because they live a law of self-governance far higher than the controlling government, producing no interference with the world. Our citizens will live far above their laws, based upon “Principles.”

    ReplyDelete
  32. (2 of 2)

    That’s why I think this assignment is not accomplished by any of the documents on the table. Where is the solution written in the proposed Governing Principles for NEVER requiring a committee to settle disputes, differences, mutual agreement? The laws set forth in the statement of principles must represent the law that would go forth, to establish how we govern ourselves so far above the governments of the world, that we can live in peace, even within their ruling and reigning with blood and horror.

    I hate the idea of a hierarchy, but I have no problem with referee’s, if they maintain neutrality and call the game fair, until we establish this Governing Principles that no longer require them.

    The scripture committee has my support, until something comes forth that represents God’s part.

    Rob Adolpho

    PS. I received a call regarding me using names, and coming off as a personal attack. I do not intend to address anything more than the argument put forward. I address names since they are the ones promoting the idea, and in this forum, simply addressing ideas has no relevance in isolated terms. I cannot address anonymous, since they seem to want to add to the conversation, without being accountable for their input. Besides, I already screwed up with associating James Fargo (THE REAL JAMES) with James II, …and I’m grateful to know that I was addressing the wrong guy, so I can self-correct. I expect to be held accountable for everything I put forth, and hold myself accountable to try to add light each time. If I’ve have hurt, I did not intend to. I write my ideas carefully, so that I address the ideas and not the people. I believe the people are good, but the ideas, …well, I think they suck. I’m trying to not suck so bad. In the white culture of Utah, it is polite to address a large group, hoping that those within the group get the hint, but not directly. That might be your method of approach, but it is not mine, and it doesn’t come off as kind to me at all. Most times it seems passive aggressive. However, some may just be reserved, and I can respect that about them, celebrating that they are getting involved, like Matt Lohmeier. I appreciated the call, and cleared the air, regarding the matter. But, perhaps those who have been named may feel the same way. E kala mai ia’u (please excuse).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 1

      I fully support Adrian’s proposal as a way to resolve any outstanding issues regarding the GS. I do so based on the following truth I believe needs to be realized and accepted by the covenant people. There have already been those who ascribe untrue motives to what I am about to say. I am not persuaded or moved by any man’s voice. Here is truth. Those who fear this because it may make “waves” - I say find your guts and stand for something true.

      Why has no one yet asked the question: “where does the Scripture Committee get the power, or authority, to decide anything about the GS?

      There was a discrete period of time when the SC had an assignment and authority for a GS statement. That discreet appointment came and went without success on the part of the SC to produce, submit, and have accepted, a statement. There has been no indication from the Lord that the SC had, or has, any authority or power concerning the GS following the discreet assignment given it to produce a statement. This is the truth.

      In the Answer and Covenant revelation, the Lord clearly (and rightly) praises the SC for its accomplishments respecting the restoration of the scriptures. The Lord also clearly mandates a new direction for the GS initiative in that same revelation. There is nothing in the revelation that appoints any person(s), or committee, to oversee, approve, or dis-approve, any aspect of the GS work. Instead, the Lord clearly assigns the covenant people to accomplish the work and present a statement to Him for inclusion in the guide and Standard, (the scriptures).

      We have acted (like dumb sheep) as though the SC had some authority from some unknown source to make all kinds of calls and decisions about the GS. The authority for the SC to make any binding calls about any aspect of the GS process ended when they failed to produce, and present, and include, an acceptable statement to the Lord before the covenant revelation.

      More.....

      Delete
    2. Part 2

      I am not afraid of truth. I love it, and embrace it regardless of whose proverbial tally whacker may get stepped on while revealing it. I love and respect our fellows on the SC. I really do! I have come to love Chris Hamill and consider him my brother. But, I’m sorry, I am not able to find where the SC has any legitimate authority or power with respect to the GS post A&C?? As I have already stated, precedence does not a law make, especially when it is without merit.

      The SC inserted itself into a process that now belongs to the people alone. It ended up making decisions in the name of equity and justice that really just messed things up! A lot!!!

      This is not to scold or to dispute with anyone. I’m simply pointing out what I believe to be absolutely true. No more, no less. (And with very little tact and diplomacy - I know)

      The proper thing to do from here is to allow the people to conduct the people’s business unimpeded by any one, or any committee, who have no more authority than what might be allotted by the people. Which authority hasn’t been legally allotted (except by the people’s apathy and acquiescence)? Since we are aspiring to be a people who will not abide anybody usurping power among us, this is a perfect time for us to say, whoops! We messed that one up! and allowed usurped power when we never should have. Let’s deal with the whole thing honestly, and with a spirit of love, humility, and repentance, and just move on. Let’s let it go.

      If the people were unfettered to do the people’s business as Mosiah suggests we should, (Mosiah 29), the people would finish the assigned work better than if there was any overseer besides the Lord. The directives and suggestions of the Lord have been earnestly sought after, with a genuine desire to do only His will, for completion of this assignment. The common consent voice of the people has become a travesty that must be re-established if Zion is ever to come among us. Even one more “vote” will fairly kill any confidence among this people that their voice means anything at all.

      I ask the SC to step aside with respect to the GS process and its outcomes. The SC has no authority over the GS, or the covenant people whose job and assignment it is to provide it to the Lord. Precedent at this point has no meaning regardless of past decisions and judgements. If precedent ever did have any binding meaning after the SC was decommissioned from the GS responsibility by the Lord in the Answer and Covenant revelation, it was only the lazy acquiescing nature of a people who have been too accustomed to being led like dumb sheep that created the allusion of authority in the SC. Furthering past mistakes will not fix or help anything going forward. Truth assures this.

      By this, I do not want, or desire, division of any kind, with any man, (or woman). I ask every concerned soul to go to God and ask if the truth has been spoken here or not. I desire only to serve and please our God who is truth.

      Steve VanLeer

      Delete
    3. Actually, the appeals to the SC are simply a matter of expedience since they are the only people among us with actual power to put anything in the scriptures.

      That's why it's logically necessary to gain the SC's complicity in any scheme to defraud the Lord of his requirement that a G&S be adopted by mutual agreement.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    4. The Lord's requirement is mutual agreement, mind, not "the voice of the people," also called "majority rules," which should not be followed, according to the Book of Mormon and the Lord's observation in the A&C that this people does not desire that which is right.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    5. All who will, may humbly join those who do mutually agree. Disagreement and failure to unite is lesser by far. Choice by agency is sacrosanct.

      Delete
    6. Truth and righteousness takes precedence over agreement.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    7. Agreement, “you choose not to dispute among you”, is righteousness and acceptable to Him. Agreement in Christ is Godly and righteous! All who will, are invited to unite with those who already agree together in Christ and choose not to dispute among us.

      Delete
    8. "Since we are aspiring to be a people who will not abide anybody usurping power among us..."

      Steve, that is not even on my radar. I am aspiring to fill my heart with love for everyone both within this covenant and presently without. At one time I had felt like there was a majority who were imposing their will upon me as they pushed forward their ideas and wants. But I am choosing to offer charity and not feel forced or compelled, much as I do not feel held hostage by Jared. I still very much disagree with the lots document, but I would rather break my heart than break the bonds of this family.

      I am sorry if you feel like the SC has taken some kind of control over this process. May I suggest you extend charity and try to understand their reasoning? Perhaps Christ has spoken to them that we truly do not have our hearts right yet? Perhaps we are lacking yet as a whole? Perhaps we have taken a misstep and need to correct ourselves?

      I do not desire for the members of the SC to step down, aside, or to walk away. Their work is unfinished yet. I trust this process still yet. Lori

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. I bid my anonymous interlocutor to ponder the following words, keeping in mind the majority, who, of course, are united.

      Exodus 23:22 You shall not side with the majority to do evil; neither shall you speak in a dispute to get the majority to pervert justice.

      Delete
    13. Fortunately we all left the LDS church in order to resolve your issues with “siding with the majority to do evil”. And you have had little success in persuading the majority to Pervert justice. So we seem to be good on all points! You have the most uncanny way of pointing out how things really are Jared! Thank you once again!

      Delete
    14. Perverting justice and doing evil in this case would be advocating the fraudulent adoption of a guide and standard which is disputed.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    15. And perverting justice and doing evil also would include attempts to suborn the SC into complicity with any scheme which may possibly result in the fraudulent adoption of a disputed G&S.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  33. Although have met many beautiful souls in this movement, I largely don't understand this people.

    You reject the words of Christ as found in the scriptures and the power of the Holy Ghost to teach you all things saying these are insufficient guides.

    You would direct those who know nothing of God's work to follow a man (to curse them), a man who says that he finds such reverencing of him "disgusting."

    http://denversnuffer.com/2013/12/disgusting/

    You ignore God's command for mutual agreement and invent ways to get around it: claiming what God really meant was majority rules or that dissenters are not "of the body."

    You profess love with your lips, while you bitterly refuse to leave the 99 to save the one.

    Having no disputations among us is not a matter of shutting up claiming unity when we are actually divided. We will not be able to withstand God if we are clinging to the leg of another and thus do not know why we stand where we stand. Look what happens to the chaff after all.

    Zion must be built up on principles of righteousness. We receive more faith as we are faithful. We understand repentance by repenting. We understand obedience as we obey. We are willing to sacrifice when we are filled with the pure Love Of Christ.

    I agree with the Saunders that we should give people the benefit of the doubt and believe that we are all doing the best we know how. That doesn't mean we can't learn how to do better.I agree with the Adolfos that we should not be in such a rush and instead allow ourselves to take whatever time we need to become of one heart. God has already spoken this to a few of you, giving you revelation to believe. And I agree with Jared that we should seek to direct first ourselves and then others to obeying Christ's commandments that we may know Him.

    To see if we will obey is, afterall, the reason we are here (see Abraham 6:1).
    So when it comes to things of Eternal consequence, we should be doing no more and no less than what God commands, just as Christ did no more and no less than what His Father commanded. Therefore, we should not seek to put forth things other than what God commands into any guide and standard.

    Those who obey will know the Lord and be one; those who know the Lord and are one are Zion.

    One more thing: For those of you who insist on using methods of control and manipulation, I formally record my dispute against the Lots document due to both the process and the final content.

    May God have mercy on us,
    Fawn Livesey


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *Adolphos. (voice to text error)

      Delete
    2. Hi Fawn and Jared. You (Fawn) have said you don't understand this people, and I really understand that. I also don't completely understand what is going on with us. I have also not understood some particulars of your perspective and Jared's, so since I fall under the category of those you don't understand, i hope you'll be patient with me while I explain why I haven't been able to see eye to eye (or heart to heart) on The Rock document thus far.

      I agree that the Doctrine of Christ and Sermons should be in any document we adopt. One of my hang ups has been your (Jared's) insistence that we can't used quotes that come from Denver, using the cursed is the arm of the flesh verse. This has seem wrongly applied to me, and insistence that we can't use any of that appears wrong to me, not because I revere the man, but because I believe that doing otherwise is faithful to this scripture: RE 3 Nephi 13:5 says, “And woe be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent, receiveth not him, and therefore he will not receive them at the last day."

      This does not say we are cursed if we receive the words of the people He has sent. Rather, it curses those who don't. If we must not use any words or messages from Christ that came through imperfect vessels, than we could not use any that came from scripture. Even the Doctrine of Christ and the Sermons came to us through such imperfect vessels. What seems to matter most is if the God of heaven is the originator of that specific message or quote. So, to me, to say we can't have a guide and standard with quotes from a specific messenger sounds like a rejection. Using the Sermons and the Doctrine of Christ makes perfect sense to me, but having those two things at the exclusion of any other things God has seen fit to give us through an imperfect vessel, that He may expect us to observe or know in addition to them, doesn't seem like something I should agree to. To do that sounds like the "some of Christ" described as inheritors of a Telestial glory in LE D&C 76 because we're willing to receive some specific parts (granted, they are very important parts) of what He's given us, but not all. "And because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another, for my work is not yet finished, neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever."

      There's also this verse in RE 3 Nephi 5:10 "...and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude and cried unto them, saying, Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you and to be your servants. And unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized after that ye have seen me and know that I am. *And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me and that ye know that I am.* Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost and shall receive a remission of their sins..."

      -Sarah S

      To be Continued...

      Delete
    3. Part 2

      To place that last verse in the correct context, this was the Nephites gathered at Bountiful that Christ was speaking to. They were the "more righteous" who were spared. They were the ones who had all seen Christ in their own Second Comforter ordinance at the beginning of this visit. This does not say that those who heed their words are cursed. It says the opposite. Those that heed their words are *blessed*. It even says that they that heed their words are *more blessed*. As an aside, I have wondered why they could possibly be more blessed. I think it may be because those who have received the Word of God to fruition are enabled to not just be blessed themselves, but also to be the means of blessing others, but that's not relevant right now.

      The difference between blessing others or not seems to be in the Word of God. If we have some of it and don't share it, we are not blessing anyone, but we are cursing ourselves. Likewise if we have some of it, and share it, but someone it is shared with does not receive it, they are cursed. They would have been cursed less if we hadn't shared it, but then we would have removed their opportunity to be blessed by it. But we can't bless anyone without the Word of God, despite the risk of them being cursed by it. This is why your (Jared's) reasoning on what should go in the guide and standard, based on blessing or cursing also doesn't make sense to me. The Word of God has the potential to bless and curse, even the Doctrine of Christ and the Sermons. The Word only curses those who won't live according to the direction and knowledge He's given us, or those who would abuse it for their own gain. But we can't be blessed without it. The Answer says our guide and standard must bless others. If we include things from Him, despite all the imperfect vessels all of His written word has gone through, then we are allowing them the opportunity to be blessed.

      I'm not trying to be pigheaded, but maybe I will seem that way. I am looking for a better understanding of this mess from God. I really do want to do this the right way, with a document that meets the criteria and is pleasing to the Lord. I believe this is what you both want to. The above reasons are why I seem to be at odds with you, though I don't want to be. This is why I can't exclude other documents from the running. This is why The Rock does not seem like the best one to fit the criteria to me so far. Hopefully, this helps us to understand each other better, even if we still don't see eye to eye.

      -Sarah S

      Delete
    4. Sarah,

      Though you have addressed my wife, may I respond?

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    5. Part 1 of 2

      Sarah, I will attempt to answer you to the best of my ability. I do not have the gifts of Jared to know the scriptures as he does, so I ask that you extend me charity as I will probably miss something.
      You cite this scripture:
      RE 3 Nephi 13:5 says, “And woe be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent, receiveth not him, and therefore he will not receive them at the last day."
      Regarding those Christ chose and sent, 3 Nephi 13:4 says, “They did go forth upon the face of the land and did minister unto all the people, uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching, baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost.”
      My understanding is that this is the purpose of the prophets to cry repentance and faith in Christ and to renew the commandment for baptism. I accept that and did accept that in recent years, both before and after hearing that message repeated by Denver Snuffer. So, yes, if we are going to say that Denver is one of these called servants, that is how we receive them and that is what we are required to believe.
      Sarah, you say,
      “Using the Sermons and the Doctrine of Christ makes perfect sense to me, but having those two things at the exclusion of any other things God has seen fit to give us through an imperfect vessel, that He may expect us to observe or know in addition to them, doesn't seem like something I should agree to.”
      Who says you can’t preach Denver Snuffer if you want to? Go ahead. There is no provision for saying that anything that is outside the Guide & Standard is suddenly banned from our instruction, but it is the body that is trying to force what others must accept. The Rock of Jesus Christ contains nothing that has not already been supposedly accepted by this body as followers of Christ, so to say that it “doesn’t seem like something [you] should agree to” doesn’t make sense to me. (The small little preface statements to my mind are the same as the preface statement that the lots document includes, basically saying this is what this is and can be changed.—from my perspective, not necessarily Jared’s).
      You also cite this scripture:
      RE 3 Nephi 5:10 "...and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude and cried unto them, saying, Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you and to be your servants. And unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized after that ye have seen me and know that I am. *And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me and that ye know that I am.* Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost and shall receive a remission of their sins..."

      Two things here: 1- Ask yourself who are “these twelve”. Since that is very specific, why should we presume that Christ was speaking of anyone other than the specific individuals he mentions? 2- notice that what Christ asks people to receive of these twelve is the same as discussed above faith and baptism so that they (or we if you prefer) can receive the Holy Ghost.

      Delete
    6. Part 2 of 2

      The scriptures are pretty clear what happens then:
      2 Nephi 14:1 “And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts? Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost? Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, wherefore they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, Feast upon the words of Christ, for behold the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them, it will be because ye ask not neither do ye knock. Wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark. For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do. Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.
      Ultimately, it comes down to whether we accept the truth of the scriptures, and the scriptures state that we must receive the message of faith in Christ through repentance and baptism to go any further and further means receiving the Holy Ghost.
      As for the lots G&S, it makes statements that are problematic at best. For example,

      As a people, we agreed to the following methodology in its creation:

      As you can see, since agreement in this task, according to the Lord, means mutual agreement and not majority rules, this claim reads falsely.

      Again, the lots document:

      we confined ourselves to the words of the Lord as found in our canonized scriptures and given to His servants Joseph Smith Jr. and Denver Snuffer Jr.

      As far as I know, there is no reason to suppose that the words from Joseph Smith or from Denver Snuffer are “words of the Lord” since that would be prefaced by a statement such as that found in the A&C document: “I, the Lord say to you:…”
      Sarah, you say, “I agree that the Doctrine of Christ and Sermons should be in any document we adopt.”
      The lots document says something similar and then actually leaves the Sermon out:
      The greatest instruction given by God at any time, to any generation, is a rule of community found in the Sermon on the Mount9 and in the Sermon at Bountiful.10 The Law of Christ is found there.11

      The lots document cites the commandment that the statement be an “agreed statement of principles” while at the same time, this group is pushing this statement even though it is not agreed upon.
      The lots document uses these words from Denver Snuffer to address the gathering of people:
      Fellowships are informal, based only on the Doctrine of Christ, and require acceptance of Christ’s simple statement of His doctrine, faith to believe and act, repentance from sin and baptism.

      It then lays out other standards by which people will apparently be judged:

      There can be conferences that can be called by anyone, but must include seven women if the
      business includes priesthood ordination.

      If there are no poor among you, then excess donations should go to the temple, but they can be shared as your fellowship determines by common consent.68

      …to name a few. And the “answer” to the lots document has similar problems.





      Delete
    7. Sorry for the weird formatting.

      Delete
    8. The majority in my mind has decided they want what they want to that they believe that if we can just get this over with, God will extend the good stuff. This is as easy as it gets. If we want to move forward, we have to be true to what we have thus far been given and keep God's commandments with pure fidelity instead of trying to walk through walls because we say God put the door in the wrong place. Thanks for allowing me to respond.

      Delete
    9. I just wanted to add that I believe that we must and that we CAN obey Christ in this task (if we will just obey Christ in this task.

      (Pearls of Great Price) The Testimony of John 10:17

      You will bear fruit if you follow the things I have taught you. ... I am the vine, and you are the branches. ... If you stay connected to me, and my words live in you, you will ask according to my will, and you will be given the ability to accomplish my will. ... It will please and vindicate my Father if you produce abundant fruit, and that will prove you follow me. ... Just like the Father has loved me, I have in turn likewise loved you.

      Delete
  34. As a general observation, I think we are very much living in fear of each other. Especially when we disagree with someone we don't know very well, or have not met. There is no relationship, so fear is to be expected. You almost can't deny the fear reaction inside the heart or mind when someone you don't know disagrees with you on something you both have placed God level stakes on. Then we just all dig in our heels. Not because we are so right, but because we are afraid of the harm we perceive the other capable of.

    I think fear is often what is driving these issues. Fear that the other person will, somehow, or in some way do or say something that will or could harm you or cause you to be cursed, or cut off or displease the almighty.

    My hope with this comment is to perhaps identify a root causing much of our disagreement. I believe its fear. I can only deal with my own. I pray God helps all of us come out of fear. I don’t know that we can love each other while simultaneously fearing the hell out of what someone else will do to us via their G&S.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here's a question:

    Which is worse? A set of scriptures without a Guide and Standard added, or a set of scriptures with a fraudulently adopted Guide and Standard added?

    And, to be perfectly clear: any disputed G&S which gets added to the scriptures will have been adopted fraudulently.

    For me, it seems that the scriptures with a fraudulently added Guide and Standard would be worse, since it would be conclusive public proof that this people not only cannot do what the Lord shall ask of them but will lie and decieve men to appear righteous, while scriptures without a Guide and Standard would at least be an honest admission of inability, with the potential to still get it right.

    But what do you think?

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do I think? I think you are perfectly right in what you say! A fraudulent GS would be one where a whole people were held hostage by one who disagreed with the people’s voice yet prevailed to have his wishes granted. That’s what I think. You’re right! I agree!

      Delete
    2. If all we ever choose to believe is that every G&S other than our chosen one is "fraudulent" how are we ever to fulfill Christ's command? Are we truly unable to learn how to cooperate in a spirit of love and respect? It appears we do not know Who we worship.

      Delete
    3. Lori,

      A fraudulent G&S is one that is published in the scriptures despite its adoption being disputed.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    4. Also, if a G&S is adopted fraudulently, that is, despite being disputed and thus not fulfilling the Lord's requirement for mutual agreement, it is not men who have been defrauded, save it be those innocents whom the document and its proponents lead to destruction, but the Lord who has been defrauded.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  36. The tail wagging the dog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a consequence of the Lord requiring mutual agreement. That analogy, however, could be replaced with the image of a rock climber who took too great a risk and is hanging onto a rock with one hand stuck in the crevasse of a rock while the rest of her dangles over an abyss, the fall into which would kill her. Evil spirits counsel her to despair, take her knife and sever her hand, and fall.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    2. You are not more sincere than others.

      Delete
    3. I only have to be telling the truth.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    4. What an analogy, can I join the rock climbing one with some thoughts of my own? (Read with some humor)

      Dangling on the rock with a hand that refuses to move or even allow other body parts a valid point of view (hence the dangling) ain’t nobody goin nowhere....

      Turns out the other body parts do work. The one hand is too stuck to see that the other hand is also holding on, just at a different spot. The feet too are functional but don’t speak up that much due to how loudly the one hand keeps insisting it’s right. But alas, the hand says it’s permanently stuck. Can’t even see the feet. Or see much of anything in that crevasse. So the feet wait patiently and quietly, and jokingly amuse themselves that there is scriptural precedent for cutting off a hand that offends rather than the whole body perish.

      Ok I’m done. This was not meant to be overly serious. If the body is described as uselessly dangling by a hand then we ought to get to have a little fun in response. :). A good laugh does a body good.

      If we are going to disagree I hope to at least smile as we work through it. I can only wonder how fun it is for a hand to be carrying all that weight from a crevasse. :)

      Jared please know I intend no offense. Just using the analogy to express another view.

      Delete
    5. Your humor does suggest to my mind a question: why should there be any disagreement about taking the Lord Jesus Christ for our guide and standard among his nominal people?

      What could the possible point of disagreement actually be? Thus far, nobody has offered anything that wasn't self-contradictory or in contradiction to the scriptures.


      If we wish to walk in his paths, it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we do so.

      If we truly want unity and peace amongst ourselves, it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we obtain it.

      If we want Zion, it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we obtain it.

      If we want to enter into the presence of Christ, it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we do so.

      If we want to see and know what Joseph knew - for he said if you could but gaze into heaven for 5 minutes you'd know more than you would ever know by reading everything ever written on the subject (which means that reading other's experiences does not give you knowledge) - it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we do so.

      All these are the things people say they want - what therefore can their objection to accepting, practicing, and teaching his law and commandments actually be?

      What can possibly excuse doing anything else?

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    6. I suppose I need hardly point out these things -

      If we truly want to love one another and be filled with charity and regard each other as precious, it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we obtain it.

      If we truly wish to be free from all servitude to sin, it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we obtain it.

      If we truly wish to fulfil the assignment of producing the G&S according to his commands, it is only in and through keeping Christ's law and commandments that we do so.

      Since the solution has been before us for a while, what is the true objection of Christ's nominal people to acknowledging, practicing, and teaching Christ's law and commandments, when they have by covenant already agreed to do exactly these things (Covenant Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the Lord's commandments in response to those who entered into the covenant)?

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    7. Jared, what is your perspective on why both moments in history where Christ Himself taught His law and doctrine did not bring about Zion?

      It struck me recently that even though two groups had Him and the commandments, neither survived intact sufficiently long enough to produce a third Zion.

      I guess I am wondering what the first two groups (City of Enoch and Salem) had and accomplished that the latter two (three, including Joseph's moment) did not. A fulness of scriptures? A father?

      I am sincerely curious to hear your perspective (and from others) on if a statement of principles comprised only of what you propose is sufficient to truly create a group of diverse individuals with one heart and one mind. Or could something more/different be required? After all, Zion is and will be unlike anything we are at present familiar with. Hence our great struggles at present. Lori

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Lori,

      Yes, The Rock of Jesus Christ is sufficient to bring forth Zion if Christ's words are believed sincerely and done as written with an eye single to God's glory, no matter the cost to oneself. No more. No less.

      As for your question about why the Jews and the Nephites failed to bring forth Zion, that is best answered by the Lord. I will give a hint, though: notice there is nothing in his doctrine about teachers, priests, and elders, yet the Nephites had these nominal distinctions among them, thus they were not equal. Notice that in the Sermon in Matthew and in Luke, there are not prophets, evangelists, apostles, seventy, bishops, deacons, elders, and whatnot, yet the Jews had them, thus they were not equal.

      How can we ever be one if we are not determinedly, purposefully equal? Thus there cannot be committees, prophets, managers, leaders, rich, poor, "authorized servants," and whatnot among us. This shouldn't be a problem, since they aren't a part of Christ's doctrine. Each man must stand for himself before God, exercise faith for himself, and keep the Lord's commandments for himself.

      There cannot be any greater than the least of us. We cannot be respecters of persons; we cannot esteem any man higher than any other man, for that is to transgress the law of God (James 2:9).

      The Sermon is equality in action. But this, and other things concerning the law of God, can only be understood by actually putting it into practice as it is written. Therefore, if any would learn from God the meaning of his law, and understand the problem that it solves, go put the Sermon into action. Put it to the test, in prayer and faith, and see what happens. Plant the seed, the Sermon, in your heart by believing it uncritically and literally, even as a child would understand it, and tend it in prayer and faith and deeds.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    11. Thank you, Jared. There is much I just don't comprehend yet about what we are trying to create here; so little has been revealed, at least to me. I do know it has to begin in myself and in my home though, not esteeming myself higher than others. And living the talk of Christ's law is definitely a challenging task I am taking seriously. Sometimes it all simply makes sense, as I study the scriptures, but there are some strong personalities here and everyone shouts...and I care about individuals... Thanks again for answering me. I will continue to seek. Lori

      Delete
  37. Just to fulfil the forms: I reject Adrian's proposal.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  38. I, as a nobody, would like to say that:
    I love and support Adrian’s Proposal. I like the way the lots’ document has come to pass along with the content and see great benefits/needs met in handling it the way Adrian has proposed. It seems to move forward wisely (as the people have already voted) and seems to meet all scriptural priorities all while being a fair and (realistically) do-able approach to sort out any concerns or problems individuals may see.

    The brother of Jared asked to find a way to light the vessels yet, the Lord left it to him to figure it out, imperfections and all. The Lord accepted his best proposal and made it work. To me this isn’t all that different conceptually. We can only strive for our best, love eachother along the journey, and come to a conclusion to present to the Lord. Let’s not delay and allow the Lord decide if our efforts were worthy! I fear further delay or beginning again is unnecessary for the result the Lord is requiring. It won’t be Perfect and we won’t have done it perfectly... we are but highly imperfect people with good desires. But if we worked meekly and with all that we could ...it doesn’t mean the Lord can’t make it work perfectly, in the end. Forgive me if I’m wrong, I very well may be. But this is why I support Adrian’s proposal as the best way moving forward and laying down our effort to the Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree with your approach. Thank you. And thanks to everyone and their best efforts to obey the lords command. Hope to see you all in March.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Where can I read a complete copy of the AC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, that can be found on Denver's website on the downloads page underneath the heading PDF Downloads. Look for Answer and Covenant. Here is a direct link: http://denversnuffer.com/papers/.

      Delete
  41. Jared, do you really know you were acknowledged by God as having entered into His covenant? And if you do, does that mean you eventually received an answer to your post conference inquiries as to whether the Boise covenant was of Him (ie His covenant)?
    And again, if you do know you were acknowledged by God as having entered His covenant when you (in your own words) lied at the conference, how did you come to know this? Did you actually here his voice, were you infused with the knowledge that you had entered into a covenant He offered in Boise (even though you lied), or are you reasoning from some text? Please reply.

    P.S. to be clear, I'm requesting that you answer these questions here, and if you are really trying to live the sermon on the mount, I remind you that you've stated (rightly or wrongly) that one of the implications is that we grant all requests made of us. Please reply.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Michael,

    All I have to say on the subject is all I have already said here, and as you have read it, you know all I have to say on the subject.

    To be clear: I have nothing more to say on the subject than what you have read.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jared,

      I don't see answers to these questions here, but I haven't read every comment you've posted on every comment thread here, and some of these threads are quite long, and maybe (as you've suggested elsewhere) I'm a little dull sometimes--so if you have answered the questions I asked here anywhere, would you please kindly repeat yourself here?

      For your convenience, I will repeat myself.

      The questions are these:

      Do you really KNOW you were acknowledged by God as having entered into His covenant?

      And if you do, does that mean you eventually received an answer to your post-conference inquiries regarding whether the Boise covenant was of Him (ie His covenant)?

      And if you do know you were acknowledged by God as having entered His covenant (when you, in your own words, lied at the conference) how did you come by this knowledge?

      Did you actually hear his voice?

      Were you infused with the knowledge that you had entered into a covenant He offered in Boise (even though you lied)?

      Or are you reasoning from some text?

      As a courtesy, please reply.

      Or make plain that you are refusing my request.

      Delete
    2. Michael, if I may ask...this convo, what is your intention? Why do you only want Jared to respond?

      For me, I am done with people throwing shade on Jared for his willingness to be honest, to suggest he should not be here, or any other version of "we don't want you."

      He's here. Let's learn to accept and love folks where they are at in their journeys. There are a lot of people in this world who do not look, sound, or even believe in ways we think they ought. If we cannot learn to be accepting of one such as Jared, we surely are unwilling to love and accept a polygamous family or gang member or politician.

      We must learn to focus on what we do have in common and let Christ build us up together from there.

      Truly we are all imperfect and very flawed. Let us drop our tendencies toward Pharisaical accusations and debates and cloak each other in charity with love unfeigned. We are not Christ's until we are willing to do that.

      Will others unfamiliar with The Living Christ recognize Him in our words and actions here? Do any of us bear His image in our countenances? Or are we still marred by our treatment of each other? Let's come unto Christ and be healed by Him, and thus be healed in our relationships. Lori

      Delete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Michael,

    I have answered you as far as I am going to on this subject.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's that word for someone who preaches one thing but does another?

      Delete
    2. Does that mean you're publically refusing the above request?

      Delete
    3. Is it refusing when he has already answered elsewhere? Please stop this. If you are upset, angry, frustrated, or otherwise disgruntled by something Jared or anyone else has said or done, please take it to Christ. Let Him heal, soothe, and bear you up. HE WANTS US TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Please, let's try and do that. Please.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      It means what it means.

      If you want to know from God on whether Joseph was a prophet, the Book of Mormon to be true, Denver Snuffer a true or false servant, the covenant to be from God, and if it is whether you should enter it, ask of God and not men.

      Ask of God, and you shall receive.
      Knock, and it shall be opened to you.

      And cursed is he who trusts in man, and who takes flesh to be his guide, and whose heart departs from the Lord.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Michael:

      I have already answered you on these questions as far as I will answer you on these questions. You have read what I have written here: you already have been answered as far as I will answer you.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    7. "If you want to know from God on whether Joseph was a prophet, the Book of Mormon to be true, Denver Snuffer a true or false servant, the covenant to be from God, and if it is whether you should enter it, ask of God and not men."

      I am asking God these things, and I am trying to live the sermon on the mount while I wait for an answer from Him, and I asked you none of these things.

      What I asked you was whether you ever received an answer to your inquiries regarding the covenant offered in Boise

      By your own admission you didn't know it was of God when you said you did, and said you accepted it in Boise, and were asking God whether it was of Him long after the conference was over

      Did you ever receive an answer?

      And when you rhetorically ask what one should do if he's discovered that he's entered into a covenant he didn't qualify for, and that he was acknowledged by God as having entered in, does that imply that you now KNOW that the covenant offered in Boise was of God, and that He views you as having entered into it (even though your participation was, by your own account, based on a lie)?

      And have you received this knowledge by some kind of direct, non-transferable infussion of knowledge, or are you using reason and deduction (ie reasoning from the text of the AC, and/or some other text or texts)?

      These are the questions I'm asking you to answer here (while I'm asking God those other questions, trying to live by the sermon on the mount, and waiting for His answers to those questions I asked Him.)

      These questions are for you Jared, not for God.

      You are capable of answering them, I believe they're all relevant here (and probably of interest to others), and I ask you to answer them here (or to go the extra mile and repeat yourself here if you have answered them somewhere else.)

      If you are trying to live the sermon on the mount, please answer these questions directly and clearly.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    8. Where did I make this admission?

      "[By your own admission you] were asking God whether it was of Him long after the conference was over[.]"

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    9. I don't remember the exact date of the blog post, but you said (on Log's cabin) that you were petitioning God for an answer after you realized that you lied in Boise, when you said that you knew that the covenant offered was of Him.

      Don't you remember posting that?

      And wasn't that after the conference was over?

      It was more than a couple of days, wasn't it?

      Did you ever receive an answer to those petitions?

      Delete
    10. "Don't you remember posting that?"

      Didn't happen.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    11. I believe I read that.

      Are you saying that you weren't still pettitioning God for an answer as to whether the covenant offered in Boise was of Him after the conference?

      Please reply?

      Delete
    12. What you have already read is as much as I will tell you.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  45. "Is it refusing when he has already answered elsewhere?"

    Yes it is, because I haven't read any answer to these questions anywhere, and I asked him to repeat himself here if I missed something.

    That was my request, and if he has answered these questions somewhere, and he refuses to repeat himself here, he is refusing my request.

    "If you are upset, angry, frustrated, or otherwise disgruntled by something Jared or anyone else has said or done, please take it to Christ."

    I just got done praying for Jared, all my aquaintances, all their families, and all those they hold dear

    I didn't say I was angry or upset about anything, and I would respectfully ask you to stop judging me unrighteously, and to stop imputing motives to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, please forgive me if I have offended you. I am not judging you but honestly inquiring why you are seeking specific answers from Jared...and not anyone else here...I did say "IF" and was speaking in general terms to all of us, which may have not been the best way since I was also speaking in a comment to you. That is my poorly determined move. I was speaking from experience of how I have needed to seek Christ's help in dealing with all the emotions I experience with this process. No one but Christ is holding me up at this point.

      Perhaps if you will answer my inquiry about intention I can understand better why you are here and asking Jared for something that you also could ask the rest of us. I guess I am puzzled by you singling him out.

      What is your intention in wanting Jared to answer you specifically right now instead of you simply reading what he has already shared and said on the matter? Perhaps you would like us all to open up and share details of how and why we are here?

      Why are you concerned with whether or not Jared has an answer from God about this covenant? It should only matter whether you got your answer, should it not? It does not matter to me if you have an answer or not, or whether Jared has an answer or not, or whether Donald Trump has an answer or not. I have my answer and anyone else who feels inclined to join in, I will welcome them and strive to support them in whatever weak and fumbling way I can. Unfortunately for everyone here, I really do have issues but my heart is sincere.

      I am pleased you are praying for him and others. I hope you include yourself in those prayers, too. You do not need to let me know what you are or are not doing. I believe for each of us, our words and actions relay that information. And your words and actions will not cause me to care less about you. The struggle is real for us in this moment. Very real. God bless. Lori

      Delete
    2. I am also sorry if you feel I am being rude here and butting in on your convo with Jared. I simply had my questions for you based on what I am reading. I hope you can forgive me and are willing to engage in a convo with to help me understand your perspective and concerns. I am sincere in my search for Christ and Zion, and I believe you are as well.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. You haven't offended me.

      To be honest, I wasn't raised LDS, but I am what you'd call an investigator.

      i started investigating the mainstream LDS church after I lost my mother, and my father had a stroke, and I also investigated the reorganized church, and I'm interested in Denver, Jared, and the rest of you in this small remnant movement because Jared and Denver have convinced me that the mainstream LDS church can't possibly be God's church.

      I believe God used Jared and Denver to do that.

      You're the only Mormons left that I'm not certain I understand, and Jared seems to be the only one standing all on His own (unless he actually is standing with Christ because of some personal revelation he's received, and if he is I believe Denver is probably a fallen prophet, and the rest you are most likely a fallen people.)

      Delete
    5. Thank you for sharing a bit of your story. Investigator = cool bean. :)

      I am sorry for your loss and I hope your father has been able to experience some good recovery. It can be a long time though. My father passed when I was only 20. I am sorry you have experienced the loss of a parent. It is painful.

      I don't even know what to offer about us as a group in this moment. We are still sorting ourselves out, though I would definitely say our hearts are true to what we believe and are filled with hope for Christ. I think it will be a tricky matter to discern Christ in our midst unless one is firmly grounded in scripture.

      From my perspective, folks have felt Christ pointing them toward one proposal over all the others. Unfortunately we are not all feeling it is the same one. It is what it is, and I agree with them all for the sake of not disputing anyone.

      Denver is not fallen, in my thinking and heart. He could fall, and for that we must each learn to discern and be watchful while not putting him up on a pedestal. Denver does not want us doing that anyway. It isn't about him, and that is what he declares, repeatedly, for years now. It is about Christ and His work. Would we have a message without a messenger? No, but it should never become about the messenger for that means we’re not looking to Christ. Would we be here with a covenant if not for Denver? No, but if all we do is talk about Denver and point to Denver how will others truly recognize we are Christ's? I think of Nephi stating "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” (2 Nephi, 25:26)

      I try not to hold others up to whatever stick they say they use to measure by. I fail in so many ways as a Christian myself. If I can simply love and accept others I will not stand condemned before Christ. But if I become accusatory I can expect others would be right to return the same. Natural law stuff. I’ve never come across an account in the scriptures where someone was condemned for loving too much. Think Anti-Nephi-Lehies.

      I think Jared is doing a good work here in the group. He might be causing some heartburn, but no one would mistake that he desires to follow Christ.

      Perhaps Jared is doing exactly what Christ wants him to and is still in support of the message that has come through Denver? Perhaps we all are? But you are correct that he does seem to be on his own, but not completely. I would be 100% okay with accepting his proposal. It is the foundation upon which we should all be building our lives and fellowships. Denver has even pointed that out in his writings, blog, and talks. The original Christians all agreed on the doctrine of Christ and law of Christ from His sermons. They were diverse in other ways. That is how I see this covenant family. We’ve got our families and fellowships, with their unique needs and issues, but those two foundation blocks are what bind us to each other.

      But there are lots and lots of folks who believe we need to also share the message that has come through Denver, and that’s where Jared disagrees.

      I feel like if we can agree on something basic and crucial for now and figure things out later, Christ is so good and is willing to work with us, but we’ve got to humble ourselves as a group first and show that uniformity of love Christians ought to have one with another.

      There are some different interpretations of things Christ meant in His answer to us. Hopefully we'll get ourselves sorted out. I hope you find the answers you are seeking, too. Thank you for your kindness toward me.

      Delete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we stressing you out, Lynne. I'm sorry. I think people are just trying to communicate and understand all this. Lori

      Delete
  47. Adrian I realize you are doing your best to try and think of a logical solution to all of this and you don't want to respond because you don't want to dispute, but I have a few questions for you:

    How are you defining dispute? So, if I respectfully disagree with the contents of the Lots document (which I do), am I disputing? Am I now considered in opposition? Is that why my questions have been ignored, because people believe that if they engage in a dialogue with me online they would be considered disputing? I genuinely asked questions trying to understand this groups ways but they have gone unanswered.

    Maybe you and I define dispute differently.
    Q

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Q,

      This is a very good question and worth discussing. I’m sorry I haven’t responded sooner; I just saw your comment.

      The Prayer for Covenant says this document is “a unified statement of principles for us to adopt.” Denver asks: “that we not be required to provide a statement of principles, but the people be left to govern themselves” thus implying this statement should consist of principles by which we intend to govern ourselves.

      This is what the Lord has asked. I realize some have “added to” these requirements to make this document into something other than what the Lord has specified, or alternatively have presumed it must be made to suit other purposes than those the Lord has given. For example, some have proposed this be used as a missionary tract, which is quite a different purpose than a guide and a standard.

      The assignment is really quite simple. It is, in essence, “If you want to be my people, write up a set of principles you can all agree on, and intend to live by.” This should have been a light thing. The Lord said if our hearts were right, it could have been done a long time ago. And taken that way, it really is a light thing; the Lots group got it done in seven days. The Lord made it clear this is NOT a years-long assignment. It should be simple and easy to agree on basic principles we all accept.

      The Answer says these principles must be adopted by the mutual agreement of the Lord’s people. To me, if we “adopt” principles, it means we agree with them and intend to abide by them.

      That being the case, I am using “dispute” as objecting to the principles presented and refusing to abide by them. Such objections can take several forms:

      Disagreeing with the principles themselves. For example, “I disagree with the principle of baptism and therefore will not accept this document.”
      Finding falsehoods or misrepresentations in the document. For example, “Statement XYZ is false and incorrect, and must be corrected before I will agree with it.”
      Refusing to abide by the principles in the document. As in, “I object to this statement to the point that I refuse to be governed by the principles it contains or accept them as a standard.”

      Hopefully, such objections are based upon sound scriptural reasoning and understanding. The scriptures are currently our first and best arbiter of truth.

      I realize there are other forms of disputes that have nothing to do with the document presented. Some simply want a different document. Others want many documents. Yet others want to take a few years to let this develop organically, and so forth. In my opinion, none of that has anything to do with the present question. If we are incapable of stating, right now, some simple principles we agree to abide by, there is no way in Hell we can be the Lord’s people. (And we’re already in Hell.)

      When I read through the Lots document, I find it an accurate, scripturally sound, truthful statement of the principles we have all ALREADY EMBRACED by virtue of having taken the covenant. I find it entirely adequate to fulfill the Lord’s command, as written. And I find it wise in word and kind in deed to bless, benefit, and inform those who will come after and who are just starting on this path. I do not object to governing my life and conduct by the principles contained in it, because they are true.

      Delete
  48. The quick and decisive test of any of these proposals is to ask "can this proposal result in the adoption of a document whose adoption is known to be disputed?" If the answer to this question is yes, then the proposal cannot be relied upon to fulfill the Lord's requirement. We know such proposals are wrong because their outcome cannot be known to fulfill the Lord's requirement. There is no need to consider the rationales of their proponents, as they don't matter; only the outcomes do.

    The proposal by Gordon Platt, Jeanene Custer, Donald and Christy Danner, Paul Durham, and Others fails this test, as it explicitly proposes to adopt even documents whose adoption is disputed after all is said and done. Therefore, this proposal is wrong. There is no need to consider their rationales, as they don't matter.

    The proposal by Adrian Larsen fails this test, as all that needs to happen for a disputed document to be adopted despite its adoption being known to be disputed is for those who dispute the adoption of that document to not show up to one of the mandated voting / mandated arbitration meetings at the conferences. This can occur, as not everyone has the means to attend the conferences. Therefore, this proposal is wrong. There is no need to consider Adrian's rationales, as they don't matter

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. There are more ways than just the mentioned method by which Adrian's proposal is known on its face to potentially, or even guaranteed to fail to accomplish what the Lord requires of us. For example, if the Lottery person and the SC person do not agree with the Lord that the Lord curses all men who trust in men, despite Question 2 in the covenant wherein we agreed to self-correct by reference to the scriptures, then a scripturally-based objection to the Lottery document - that it leads men to trust Denver Snuffer - will simply be overlooked as though the scripture didn't exist. And then the disputed document gets adopted, and the requirement of the Lord dishonored.

    Since the fact that the Lottery document would curse, harm, and misinform others by bringing upon them the curse of the Lord for trusting Denver Snuffer is in fact a known scriptural objection (there are others) to adopting the Lottery document, and this objection has not resulted in any changes to the Lottery document, we have reason to suppose this, and other scriptural objections, to the Lottery document will not result in any changes to the Lottery document, and that Adrian's proposal would lead to the Lottery document's adoption in any circumstance, which entails dishonoring the Lord's requirement.

    Again, the simple test of these proposals is "is it guaranteed to do what the Lord requires?" This test is conclusive for any covenant participant who indeed does desire to be one of the Lord's people, for, as he said, "accept and do what I have required." We don't want to take a chance on merely appearing to do, but in reality failing to do, what the Lord requires. Only a fool will trifle with the souls of men, said Joseph. We would be foolish to trifle with the souls of the body by these unsound, unsure, uncertain methods.

    Only one of these proposals does guarantee the result of producing mutual agreement upon a guide and standard document, and this is known on scriptural grounds, and we have agreed by covenant to do it anyways.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  54. Hi Q,

    This is a very good question and worth discussing. I’m sorry I haven’t responded sooner; I just saw your comment.

    The Prayer for Covenant says this document is “a unified statement of principles for us to adopt.” Denver asks: “that we not be required to provide a statement of principles, but the people be left to govern themselves” thus implying this statement should consist of principles by which we intend to govern ourselves.

    This is what the Lord has asked. I realize some have “added to” these requirements to make this document into something other than what the Lord has specified, or alternatively have presumed it must be made to suit other purposes than those the Lord has given. For example, some have proposed this be used as a missionary tract, which is quite a different purpose than a guide and a standard.

    The assignment is really quite simple. It is, in essence, “If you want to be my people, write up a set of principles you can all agree on, and intend to live by.” This should have been a light thing. The Lord said if our hearts were right, it could have been done a long time ago. And taken that way, it really is a light thing; the Lots group got it done in seven days. The Lord made it clear this is NOT a years-long assignment. It should be simple and easy to agree on basic principles we all accept.

    The Answer says these principles must be adopted by the mutual agreement of the Lord’s people. To me, if we “adopt” principles, it means we agree with them and intend to abide by them.

    That being the case, I am using “dispute” as objecting to the principles presented and refusing to abide by them. Such objections can take several forms:

    1. Disagreeing with the principles themselves. For example, “I disagree with the principle of baptism and therefore will not accept this document.”

    2. Finding falsehoods or misrepresentations in the document. For example, “Statement XYZ is false and incorrect, and must be corrected before I will agree with it.”

    3. Refusing to abide by the principles in the document. As in, “I object to this statement to the point that I refuse to be governed by the principles it contains or accept them as a standard.”

    Hopefully, such objections are based upon sound scriptural reasoning and understanding. The scriptures are currently our first and best arbiter of truth.

    I realize there are other forms of disputes that have nothing to do with the document presented. Some simply want a different document. Others want many documents. Yet others want to take a few years to let this develop organically, and so forth. In my opinion, none of that has anything to do with the present question. If we are incapable of stating, right now, some simple principles we agree to abide by, there is no way in Hell we can be the Lord’s people. (And we’re already in Hell.)

    When I read through the Lots document, I find it an accurate, scripturally sound, truthful statement of the principles we have all ALREADY EMBRACED by virtue of having taken the covenant. I find it entirely adequate to fulfill the Lord’s command, as written. And I find it wise in word and kind in deed to bless, benefit, and inform those who will come after and who are just starting on this path. I do not object to governing my life and conduct by the principles contained in it, because they are true.

    One other thing I would add: These principles are universal. ALL who would be called the Lord's must abide by and do these things, regardless of their background, heritage, culture or prior religious beliefs. These steps cannot be laid aside, skipped or neglected. It is a kindness to make them known clearly and forthrightly to anyone who seeks to follow the Lord.

    Adrian and Tausha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adrian & Tausha Larsen,

      Functionality matters too. You are correct, the principles described in most of the documents proposed are true principles. Just because principles are true, it doesn’t necessarily fulfill the intended function. You have framed the principles as true and something you will live by, and that’s all good, but it doesn’t do much to describe governing ourselves at all.

      If the functionality of the Governing Principles is to "govern us," as you have stated from the A&C, then it is “the law” that should go forth to govern all the Earth. Consider the proposed documents in that light, and you will see what I am seeing, ...all of the current documents are insufficient in that capacity. If I described a tire by it's shape, it's material, and it's color, ...the tire might be the best tire there ever was. However, no matter how good a tire it was, ...it would still be a horrible “steering wheel.” Likewise, the current proposed documents are being evaluated as a tire, when it was meant to be a steering wheel. Functionality matters!

      Some might make the argument that it's just a “statement of principles,” …not a law. I'd respond by saying, ...to a self-governed people, principles are exactly the same as laws.

      Conclusion: The function of this document has not been thought through very well, in the proposals on the table, …and ought to go back to the drawing board with the Kingdom of God in mind. From Zion comes the word, and from Jerusalem goes the law, and the governing principles seems to appropriately fit with that description. None of us knows a thing about writing something of that nature, as we all come from the kingdoms of bondage. We need a new mind before quickly jotting a few notes down and calling it good. Most don’t seem to understand this, so I’ll be clear, “We are the work!” We are incomplete, despite the opinions claiming it is enough.

      Rob Adolpho

      PS: If to you, dispute is to "object the principles presented and refusing to abide by them," as you've defined it, ...those who control the majority, ...also control the principles presented. And therefore the opinions of the majority are able to decide who is or isn't "disputing." Doesn't that seem precisely like what the LDS do at general conference?

      Delete
    2. Hi Rob,

      Thank you for sharing this insight. I can see your point, and agree that it really comes down to the purpose of the document. Here are the items that lead me to believe the current document under discussion is indeed an adequate steering wheel.

      First, the Lord said it is a light thing.

      Second, he said we could have already done it if our hearts were right. He did not mention our heads, but rather our hearts. I take that to mean the problem is not with our knowledge, but rather with our lack of humility.

      Given the fact that we know almost nothing about the kingdom of God, and that we can only write about things we already understand, I do not see how the Lord can possibly intend for us to write about higher things that have not yet been revealed to us. Clearly, our current state of knowledge, last year, was enough for this statement. Therefore, I conclude it is to consist of things we already know.

      Likewise, the law that will go forth has not yet been revealed. We can only govern ourselves by the things we already know, most of which are in scripture and well outlined there. Therefore, I conclude the only contribution we can make, above and beyond scripture, is to provide a guide for how to apply the things the Lord has asked of us. Like the Doctrine of Christ, priesthood, ordinances, etc. Other than that, we can point to the Lord's words in scripture as the law. The Lots document does exactly that.

      So that's my take on the purpose of this effort. I think the assignment makes the purpose clear. Just my 2 cents.

      Having said that, I do understand and respect where you're coming from. It appears you want the document to do more and contain more. I agree that is a worthy goal, but don't think we're equipped to provide more at the present time. This is a kindergarten primer for the new kids, not post-graduate studies for the experienced.

      Love to you guys!

      Delete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Adrian says: "When I read through the Lots document, I find it an accurate, scripturally sound, truthful statement of the principles we have all ALREADY EMBRACED by virtue of having taken the covenant."

    In the light of Adrian's proposal, this is understood to mean he discounts the scriptural objection to the Lottery document that, because it leads men to trust Denver Snuffer, the Lottery document curses, harms, and misinforms those who as yet know nothing concerning the Lord's work now underway.

    Adrian is saying that by entering the covenant, one already by their deeds evidenced that they trust Denver Snuffer, thus to make the objection that the Lottery document leads men to trust Denver Snuffer is simply hypocrisy. Adrian has phrased this differently at times, using the word "illogical" in the place of the intended meaning of "hypocritical."

    In fact, it may or may not be the case that by entering the covenant any particular individual demonstrated trust in Denver Snuffer. Nevertheless, the Lord has said, and we have agreed by covenant to self-correct wherever we are in conflict with the scriptures, that "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man." Therefore, those who presently think we are able to trust Denver Snuffer without being cursed have agreed by covenant to self-correct.

    The Lottery document leads men to trust in Denver Snuffer, as it consists mostly of Denver Snuffer's words, thus leading men to look to Denver Snuffer and not the Lord Jesus Christ for a guide and a standard, or for principles.

    A word on the argument from hypocrisy - this old tool of the devil has been around long enough to earn a Latin name: the argumentum ad hominem: tu quoque.

    We recognize the argument from hypocrisy used as a tool of manipulation and therefore being from the devil when the poor teenage girl is manipulated by her older, more experienced boyfriend in the back of his parked car - "Come on, Suzy, you've already let me touch you in such-and-such a place, you can't say no to going further now; it won't be so bad, and, heck, you'll like it!"

    Likewise, we recognize the argument from hypocrisy being used as a tool of manipulation and therefore being from the devil in Adrian's argument against the Lord's words (paraphrased): "You have already trusted in Denver Snuffer by entering the covenant, so you shouldn't object to leading men to trust in Denver Snuffer, because to do otherwise makes you a hypocrite." The truth of the Lord's words is completely ignored in preference to a Satanic focus on the alleged sin of the one repeating the Lord's words.

    Adrian's argument, if we hearken to it, denies us repentance. Just because we may have sinned in something it does not follow that we must continue to sin in that thing, neither does it follow that we should not cease to sin in that thing and teach others not to sin in that thing.

    Second: Do you ... receive the scriptures ... as a standard to govern you ... and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words, thoughts and deeds?

    Third: Do you agree to assist all others who covenant to likewise accept this standard to govern their lives...?

    If we desire to do what we have covenanted with the Lord to do, then let us do what we have covenanted with the Lord to do.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, did you just quote Denver Snuffer?

      Delete
    2. Adrian Larsen writes: "Wait, did you just quote Denver Snuffer?"

      I reply: "Once again with the argument from hypocrisy, Adrian?"

      If I did quote Denver Snuffer and not the Lord, then this covenant people are all indeed a lost, fallen, and cursed people.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    3. So it’s quoting the Lord when you do it, but it’s trusting in the arm of flesh when the Lots document does it? Just trying to understand how this game is played.

      Delete
    4. Adrian,

      Are you taking the position that what I quoted is Denver Snuffer, and not the Lord?

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    5. Jared, please, this is doing no one any good. Please. No one is being persuaded by any of this. Go in peace.

      Delete
    6. Blair,

      You may not be persuaded by scripture, but others may be. Every covenant participant has agreed to both be corrected by scripture and assist others to correct themselves by reference to the scripture.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    7. Jared, I have been plenty persuaded by scripture in the past, and hope to always be persuaded by scripture. The last time I looked at the count, this post had over 140 comments. You have generated more of them by far than anyone else. If you haven’t persuaded them by now, it ain’t gonna happen. All you are doing is drowning out other voices and constructing a wall of comments that dissuades others from expressing their views, their understanding of scripture and the truths they have learned from the Holy Spirit.

      Delete
    8. Blair,

      If the spirit someone listens to contradicts the scriptures - for example, by telling them they can, or must trust Denver Snuffer, when the Lord said he curses those who trust in men - it isn't the Holy Ghost their "truth" comes from.

      And I don't have to persuade you, Blair. All I have to do is tell you the truth by persuasion (as opposed to by authority or manipulation).

      It's easy to get me to shut up. Do not try to get me to do anything other than exactly and only what the Lord commands, and don't try to get my buy-in to evade his requirements, sayings, teachings, and commandments, nor try to get my cooperation in a conspiracy to defraud the Lord, nor try to get me to agree to curse, harm, and misinform those who as yet know nothing concerning the Lord's work now underway.

      Indeed, had y'all not done these things, and were you not currently engaged in these things, I'd have nothing to say to you.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  59. There may be people present at the conference in March and beyond who have not received the covenant. We might want to take that into consideration with these various ideas.

    I think it might be better to plan a separate conference for deciding together, if it is indeed felt a conference is required, since none who have not received the covenant are permitted to participate.

    And one thought more. How can we reliably use the scriptures to correct ourselves, to determine correct steps forward, when we seem to have begun interpreting various verses and accounts differently? Did not Joseph have this difficulty in trying to find a church? We appear rather a mess...I see a lot of people interpreting scriptures, Christ's Answer, and more, but no unity yet.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Lori,

    The rule of scriptural interpretation is to take it all at face value. That's how we deal with people whom we love and believe: we take them at face value. If therefore we love God, then we believe him, and take his words at face value. That is the principle which underlies Joseph's teachings on scriptural interpretation.

    "Everything we have not a keyword to, we take it as it reads."

    "What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads."

    Joseph also put, in an early FAQ for the Church, the following enlightening questions and answers.

    First--"Do you believe the Bible?"

    If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.

    Second--"Wherein do you differ from other sects?"

    In that we believe the Bible, and all other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jared. Those are good quotes to have from Joseph. It is just getting a little thick for me here. Ha. I don't think I can see clearly intentions anymore but need to try and trust we all still want what is right and good. The atmosphere is thick though.

      Delete
  61. Hence the saying that we must repent, or change our minds to believe all the words God has spoken at face value, instead of justifying our disbelief and disobedience by interpreting his words other than literally, and we must become as little children, wholly trusting in him and believing in his words uncritically, and be baptized, or we can in no wise receive the visitation of fire and of the Holy Ghost, the Father's testimony of his Son, and the remission of sins which is obtained thereby, with the mighty change of heart.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  62. 1 of 3

    Two ideas were shared today in response to Adrian Larsen’s comments that I felt inclined to respond to. I share the below thoughts in the spirit of giving another perspective to consider as people read and evaluate the matter at hand, and not in the spirit of contention. Offering another choice in how to look at it, so to speak, with no desire to begin a back and forth discussion on the matter.

    The first concept was regarding the functionality of the Lots Guide and Standard not being sufficient to meet what God is asking of us regarding the Kingdom of God and Zion. I believe that deciding whether the functionality is sufficient is actually determined by what one believes the purpose of the GS to be.

    In my perspective, the GS (statement of principles) was never intended to be all- encompassing. Meaning, it was not intended to cover every possible currently understood aspect of the gospel, or every future aspect pertaining to governance in God’s kingdom. The restoration scriptures serve to adequately fulfill the current needs of being the standard by which we guide and correct ourselves (something we haven’t yet proven capable of doing, but have covenanted to do), and the revelations that will yet come (including further scripture) will serve to meet the future needs that develop as Zion is established, etc. In other words, the GS was not intended to serve as a replacement for the scriptures (covering every principle found therein or every principle taught by Joseph in his lifetime), nor a complete statement of what will yet be required of those dwelling in Zion.

    As we were told in the March 2017 St. George Conference, there are many things pertaining to Zion (the laws of the Sabbath, the feasts and festivals were named as examples), that will yet be revealed…”commandments, not a few.” There are many things that will ONLY be made known when Zion exists because ONLY those who qualify to be there will be worthy to receive them. They just aren’t relevant yet. Thus, this GS cannot, IMO, be intended as the law or guide for the kingdom of God as it exists in Zion…even if some of the principles found therein will ultimately overlap, as they are eternal in nature.

    Part 2 below:

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2 of 3

      The required GS is for those “who know nothing as of yet of the work now underway.” I never saw this as meaning it was to be the written law of the Kingdom of God. The fact that it was a light thing, that could have been accomplished already, even before we received the covenant (had we been willing), bears out that this is not intended to be “the” guide, or law, that pertains to the governance of Zion. We are just scratching the surface of even slightly knowing what that will look like and are far from being qualified ourselves. And as Adrian touched on, there is nothing to suggest that this GS is supposed to take years and years before we can complete it, waiting for our knowledge and experience to catch up, so the GS can be written as specifically relevant to those dwelling in Zion, as a law and guide for them.

      Now, the GS can and should function to lay a foundation for those who are preparing for and seeking to establish Zion. But the “law” required for that preparation, is actually already found within the Sermon on the Mount. This law, the Sermon on the Mount, or Law of Christ, was recently described by Denver to be “the blueprint of Zion.” (Jan. 7, 2018 fireside, DS).

      The Lots document directs the reader to study and live the “Law of Christ,” and therefore, includes this necessary foundation in order to "function" to help prepare one to participate in and dwell in Zion.

      I see the Lots GS, not as the "tire," but as a perfectly good “steering wheel” for the task at hand, in guiding fellowships and those who know nothing as of yet of God’s work now underway, in how to function and navigate to prepare themselves to be gathered into Zion, if they will. It provides a "guide"…steers or points them to Christ, His doctrine, and His law; and it gives a "standard"…proper instruction in the performance of required ordinances that cannot be changed and in the use of priesthood in this dispensation, (until things change in the Millennium/Zion regarding such). (Sidenote: Both the "guide" and the "standard" portion are required to make a satisfactory document...this is why I do not believe as some, that the Sermon alone is sufficient...even though it is absolutely essential).

      Again, determining if the Lots GS is truly "functional" is based upon the perceived objective or purpose of the GS. If the purpose is seen as a guide and standard that goes hand in hand with the scriptures to inform and prepare those seeking Christ and His kingdom to be able to ultimately find Him and be gathered by Him to Zion, where they will receive further relevant instruction later...then I believe it is sufficient as written. I believe the Lord DID declare to the seven Lotsters that it WAS sufficient, therefore, I lean toward believing the purpose of the GS is to "prepare" us for the further light we will receive in Zion, and is not required to currently be written as if it is the final law of the Kingdom of God upon which everything in Zion hinges.

      Part 3 below:

      Delete
  64. 3 of 3

    The other issue I would like to address is concerning the view that using quotes of Denver Snuffer in the Lots document is an offense to God, leads men to trust Denver, leads people away from the Lord, and that it contradicts the scriptures to quote him, and therefore, must be rejected and disputed as a qualifying document.

    I would like to state the far from contradicting scripture by quoting D.S., we are in reality, confirming precisely what scripture teaches.

    3 Nephi 21:10-11 teaches of the last days servant, often referred to as the “marred servant.” The Lord Himself clearly taught that this servant delivers His words. And concerning the words this servant delivers He states: “…whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause HIM (the servant) to bring forth unto the Gentiles…they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant.”

    For at least 93% of us that entered into this covenant offered in September, we believe the Denver Snuffer IS this servant being spoken of in this particular scripture. We also believe that the degree to which he (D.S.) was quoted in the Lots GS was not in a form of idolatry, but were quotes pertaining to relevant matters that informed and shed light on required information to be understood by those seeking to know more, if they are to conform to the instructions of the Lord in our day. We see the quotes as instances where Denver was in fact, delivering the words of Christ. We do not see this as pointing people to Denver. We see it as conforming to the word of God delivered by His own mouth in the BofM…to identify those who speak the words of Christ in our day, and to believe those words. Not only does the BofM confirm the legitimacy of the words of Christ delivered by this servant, so do many other chapters in the scriptures (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the D&C for starters).

    To refuse to help others who know nothing of the work the Lord now has underway, by exposing them to the words of Christ being delivered by the mouth of His servant, that was prophesied by the Lord’s own mouth to arise in our day…knowing that all Gentiles who reject these words shall be cut off…is a most uncharitable approach to our fellowman. Knowing that the opportunity to learn of and receive God’s offered covenant in our day, and be numbered among His people, is contingent upon first hearing the words of Christ delivered by this servant, and then being required to determine whether one believes the words or not in order to be numbered among His people….it would be anti-Christ, IMO, to knowingly withhold a person from exposure to the direct words being delivered by this servant in our day. For they ARE Christ’s words, not Denver’s. And it is to Christ that we are devoted.

    It just does not hold water to most of those who received the covenant that we are offending Jesus Christ, or turning people away from Him and toward Denver, when we quote the words that he was given by the Lord to give to us. And it truly does NOT contradict scripture to do so. It may not be your preferred document. It may state more than you wish…you may wish only for the Law of Christ to be given as a guide, but the Lots GS does not teach untruth, it does not turn people to man, and it is sufficient to meet the requirements the Lord gave us for this task.

    I mean no offense to those who hold other opinions, but in fairness to those seeking to make a determination of where they stand on this matter, I felt that one more effort should be made to address recent talking points and offer another perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  65. When angels from God appear to men and women, they quote scripture.
    God's servants quote other of God's servants.
    Christ quotes the words of God's servants.
    God's servants quote Christ.

    The Lots document follows the same pattern. It quotes the words of God's servants, which are the words of Christ. How can anyone dispute it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh someone will..... just wait. There is never a time when an opposing view doesn’t exist.

      Jared may serve first. I bet he loves tennis. Jared, do you love tennis? The back and forth and back and forth reminds me of tennis. I only wish though, like in tennis, there was more “service” and “love” in all the back and forth. :)

      Delete
  66. Karen,

    These scriptures...

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

    JST Mark 9:44 [Thus saith the Lord by his own mouth:] Therefore, let every man stand or fall by himself and not for another, or not trusting another.

    ... teach the opposite of your doctrine. I have no doubt you have accurately represented the views of the vast majority of this people. Those views are in contradiction to the words of Jesus Christ and so we can know those views to be false. We all agreed by covenant to correct ourselves and allow our thoughts, words, and deeds be guided by the scriptures, and to help all other covenant participants do likewise. Therefore, those who hold the view that Denver Snuffer may be trusted, or even must be trusted, have agreed to correct themselves and to help others correct themselves in this matter and align themselves with the scriptures in thought, word, and deed.

    To teach or lead men to trust Denver Snuffer, according to the scriptures, brings upon them the curse of the Lord, all claims about a "Davidic Servant" notwithstanding.

    Because trusting Denver Snuffer brings upon men the curse of the Lord, those that trust Denver Snuffer go to hell, thus they are destroyed.

    Leading men to destruction is to murder them, said Alma in the Book of Mormon.

    Murdering men is neither blessing, nor benefitting, nor informing them.

    It is, in fact, the opposite.

    You are entitled to whatever opinions you'd like to maintain, of course. I simply have the covenantal obligation to assist you to correct yourself - you and the majority you represent - by reminding you of your agreement and the words of the Lord you are contradicting.

    And we have a responsibility by the law of God - for who desires to be led to destruction? - to dispute, instead of consenting to, the adoption of the Lottery document, which would murder God's children by leading or teaching them to trust Denver Snuffer.

    If you - any of you - wish to fulfill the Lord's requirement and the purpose of the guide and standard, you will dispute the Lottery document and adopt The Rock of Jesus Christ, which consists of the instructions of the Lord.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jared, your entire argument hinges on your OPINION that quoting the words of Jesus Christ, as delivered by one He sent EQUALS trusting in the arm of flesh. You state this repeatedly as established fact, but you’ve got it all wrong.

      Will you please point us to the scriptures that inform us we should not receive or quote the words of the servants Jesus Christ sends us, because this very act is the definition of trusting in the arm of flesh? You state repeatedly that this is the case. Can you back up your opinion? Until you can do so, we cannot reach the conclusion upon which you so strenuously insist.

      And you know what? I think trusting in the arm of flesh is something completely different than you. Like, for example, attempting to establish your unsupported opinion as fact, and threatening all who disagree with damnation. That, to me, is trusting in a man (you.) Further, anyone who uncritically accepts your opinion without scriptural support is also guilty of trusting in a man (you.) Therefore, unless you can support your idea with scripture, you are evidently cursing people.

      Again, to be clear, and to prevent continuous circular arguments, Jared:

      Please show specifically that quoting the words of the Lord as delivered by one He sent, is the definition of trusting in the arm of flesh. If you cannot do so, your efforts to advance this opinion are at best, deceptive.

      (Continued)

      Delete
    2. Now, in the interest of integrity, I will support my view with scripture.

      Christ teaches the principle that the message must be received as if from the one who sent it, not the one who speaks it:

      But when you reject my message, beware, because the message I was sent by the Father to deliver will separate you in the last day. He will divide you based on your submission to, or rejection of, his message. He has sent me to guide you, and he guides into endless lives, worlds without end. My message, therefore, is the Father’s. (Testimony of St. John, Ch. 9)

      Nephi teaches the same thing regarding his words. Christ claims Nephi’s words as His own:

      And if ye shall believe in Christ, ye will believe in these words for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me, and they teach all men that they should do good. And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye, for Christ will show unto you with power and great glory that they are his words at the last day. And you and I shall stand face to face before his bar and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 15:2)

      The Lord claims Joseph Smith’s words as His own:

      These commandments are of me and were given unto my servants in their weakness after the manner of their language that they might come to understanding…What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the Heaven and the Earth pass away my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same for behold and Lo the Lord is God and the Spirit beareth record and the [record] is true and the truth abideth for ever and ever. Amen. (D&C 1:5,7)

      Nephi taught Joseph Smith that those who will not hear Christ’s voice will be cut off. (His voice is delivered by the servants he sends)

      He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty second and twenty third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ, but the day had not yet come when "they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people," but soon would come.

      Therefore, if Christ sent Denver with a message, and that message is, by definition, Christ’s word, and those who will not hear it will be cut off from among the people, we have a DUTY and OBLIGATION to point to that message so people can hear it and not be cut off from among the people. In doing so, we are pointing to Christ, not a man!

      Pointing to Christ’s message, as delivered by Christ’s servant whom he sent, is NOT trusting in the arm of flesh. It is pointing to the words of eternal life, regardless of the fact that the words came through a servant, and the servant is still living.

      Joseph Smith was still living when he published the Book of Mormon. Was it trusting in the arm of flesh to accept that volume as coming from God? Was it trusting in Joseph Smith to receive that book as scripture? Of course not. Same goes for the 1835 D&C.

      I’m sorry, but your opinion that pointing to Christ’s messenger constitutes trusting in the arm of flesh is not only false, but dangerously so. In fact, I can’t think of a better way to keep people ignorant and damned than to insist they not seek out and heed Christ’s message, as delivered by His servant.

      Delete
  67. Also, this covenant offered through Denver Snuffer is not a part of the doctrine of Christ and is not necessary therefore to be saved.

    Not only that, the Lord in the A&C explains that this covenant offered through Denver Snuffer is utterly unnecessary if only the law and commandments of Jesus Christ in 3 Nephi 12 - 14 were actually executed: the Sermon on the Mount.

    "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."

    Therefore, this covenant - the one offered through Denver Snuffer - is not required; only obedience to the precepts of the Lord in the Book of Mormon is required.

    The Lord made doing what he said to do in the Book of Mormon part of this covenant offered through Denver Snuffer explicitly.

    Second: Do you ... accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant...?

    This is probably because "many of you are like those who reject the Book of Mormon, because you say, but you do not do. As a people you honor with your lips, but your hearts are corrupt, filled with envy and malice, returning evil for good, sparing none, even those with pure hearts among you, from your unjustified accusations and unkind backbiting."

    And what does the Book of Mormon say about following men? In addition to the aforementioned verses, Nephi had this to say:

    "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."

    In no version of the doctrine of Christ in the Book of Mormon are we to take men to be our guide or trust them. Nephi said as plainly as was possible that we are to take the Holy Ghost to be our guide, and mourned because his people were still looking to him for light instead and they must therefore perish in the dark.

    The Lord is consistent on this point: cursed is the man that trusts in man.

    And one does not turn to the Lord when one is busy looking at Denver Snuffer instead, and neither is one hearkening to the voice of the Lord when one is busy listening to Denver Snuffer's voice instead.

    We know by what words we must come unto Christ.

    1 Nephi 13:40-41
    40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

    41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

    Those are the words by which all mankind must come to Christ and be saved: the Sermon on the Mount. Denver Snuffer does not feature, and teaching men that he does is to lead them astray.

    We cannot plead ignorance in these things.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good God, Jared...Now you want to preach against the covenant as well? The Lord offers you a covenant (including rights to this land so a temple can be built) and you want to reject it as unnecessary? And you believe that we should teach others to do the same?

      I have no words. Utterly gobsmacked.

      Delete
    2. And yet, Log, Nephi extensively quoted from a contemporary of his father Lehi, named Isaiah. Nephi urged us to study the words of Isaiah diligently. Nephi and other BoM prophets, such as Jacob and Moroni, quoted other prophets as well. Are they damned for so doing? Does that constitute, by your reasoning above, trusting in man? Are we damned by reading 90%+ of the BoM which does not include direct verbatim quotes from Jesus? Are we damned by reading 95%+ of the Bible, which does not include direct verbatim quotes from Jesus?

      Aren't you subtlety twisting the true concept of only "following" the Lord, by suggesting we exclude the messengers He sends, for if we hearken and receive their messages this is, to you, the same as trusting in the arm of flesh?

      This is beginning to sound familiar...I think we've all heard this tune before. Yes, yes, not too long ago. By a friend of yours perhaps? He stole away many of our friends, and turned them against us.

      Do not be deceived by these subtle arguments that confuse and drive people away from God's servants/prophets/teachers.

      Delete
  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Adrian says: "Please show specifically that quoting the words of the Lord as delivered by one He sent, is the definition of trusting in the arm of flesh. If you cannot do so, your efforts to advance this opinion are at best, deceptive. "

    I respond: I am not advancing the opinion you attribute to me. This is the argument I am making.

    1. Cursed is the man that trusts in man, saith the Lord.
    2. Denver Snuffer is a man.
    3. Cursed is the man that trusts in Denver Snuffer.
    4. Leading men to trust Denver Snuffer brings upon them the curse of the Lord.
    5. Being cursed is a bad thing.
    6. We do not want to be cursed.
    7. The law of God, which is the law of the Celestial kingdom, is this: every last thing you wish others would do to you, do to others.
    8. Because we do not want to be cursed we should not trust, nor lead men to trust, Denver Snuffer.
    9. The Lottery document leads men to trust Denver Snuffer.
    10. By the law of God, the Lottery document (and any other like it) should be disputed and not agreed to.

    11. Salvation is a good thing.
    12. We want to be led to salvation.
    13. Christ is salvation.
    14. By the law of God, we should lead men to Christ.
    15. The way to Christ is by both believing and putting into actual execution his law and commandments as they are written.
    16. Christ's law and commandments are the written guide which leads to him.
    17. Christ's law and commandments are the standard by which our thoughts, words, and deeds are judged.
    18. Christ's commandments are the principles of the law of the Celestial kingdom.
    19. Christ's law and commandments are his guide and standard, and his statement of principles.
    20. By the law of God, we should accept, practice, and teach Christ's law and commandments and not dispute them.
    21. Therefore, we should accept, practice, and teach The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles and not dispute it.

    This is close enough for my purposes at present.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Your step 9 is merely restating the same opinion you keep stating. It is merely an opinion, and it is wrong. Dead wrong. I asked you to substantiate this opinion from scripture, and you instead quoted no scripture but leaned on your faulty reasoning alone. This is the very definition of trusting in the arm of flesh, and it is indeed a curse to you. It's so incredibly ironic, but not surprising.

      Your circular reasoning is unconvincing and unproductive. Your attempts to lead people away from the covenant and the words of Jesus Christ delivered through His servant, are destructive.

      It appears your true agenda is to fight against the Lord's work now underway.

      I have no further interest in this endless argument. It is darkness.

      Delete
    3. Adrian,

      I don't need scripture to say that the Lottery document is comprised mostly - almost entirely - of Denver Snuffer's words.

      I don't need scripture to say that the Lottery document teaches men therefore to take Denver Snuffer's words for their guide and standard, thereby causing men to follow Denver Snuffer.

      I don't need scripture to say, truthfully, that following Denver Snuffer entails trusting him.

      I don't need scripture to say that the Lottery document would, if adopted, cause men to both trust Denver Snuffer and seek to him for light.

      All these things are true, and no scripture is needed to know they are true.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  70. This will never end. Religious contention is a hobby for some people. It will never reach a resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Just so that I understand this line of reasoning Jared...you are using the words of the covenant, which you say is unnecessary and damnable, as the basis for your persuasive argument against trusting the messenger commissioned to deliver it, and that too because you feel covenentally obligated by it to correct us?

    This has gone on long enough folks and I believe we are now at an all time low as we continue to entertain circular and non-constructive falsehoods parading around as gentle persuasion. I would invite you all to participate elsewhere in conversations which invite hope, vitality, and clarity of thought rather than confusion and the ingestion of bovine fecal matter. Don't add fuel to the fire.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jim,

    Every covenant participant has agreed to self-correct and to assist others in correcting themselves by reference to the scriptures. This logically entails not trusting Denver Snuffer, according to the words of the Lord in the scriptures, wherein the Lord said that those who trust in men are cursed. I but repeat his words and demonstrate the logical implications of those words.

    I did not say the covenant was damnable, only that it is unnecessary, and showed that it is unnecessary from the text of the A&C itself.

    One of the primary purposes of this covenant offered through Denver Snuffer is to point us all back to the things the Lord said to do in the Book of Mormon - the Sermon on the Mount - that we may actually do them.

    Your proposal to take the conversation elsewhere - to avoid me - does not further the accomplishment of the task the Lord has set us to in adopting a guide and standard by mutual agreement, but in fact defeats the accomplishment of that task.

    Is accomplishing that task what you are trying to do?

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous writes: "It will never reach a resolution."

    I respond: This can all be resolved in righteousness by adopting The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles as the guide and standard.

    If you still feel that you need to teach about a Davidic Servant, or tithing, or temple-building, or ordination, or ordinances, or anything whatsoever your heart desires, you will always be free to - within your own fellowship, at your conferences, wherever you please, to whomever is willing to listen.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This can only be resolved by surrendering to the strongman.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. A strongman is simply anyone whom you rely upon for directions, like a leader, a prophet, a manager, an employer, and so on.

      The Lord asks that we take him to be our strongman.

      Denver doesn't want to be our strongman.

      I don't want Denver to be my strongman.

      I want the Lord to be my strongman.

      The Lord's requirement that the G&S be adopted by mutual agreement means I don't have to settle for less than the Lord as my strongman.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  74. I will never accept your extorted document The Rock of Jesus Christ. There will never be unanimity on that either.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous writes: "I will never accept your extorted document The Rock of Jesus Christ."

    That is your choice - but it is an odd one as you have already agreed by covenant (Question 2) to do exactly those things the "extorted" document contains.

    As to extortion, well, it's not like I can make you do anything you don't want to do. It's simply that if you want to do what the Lord requires, then you will in fact do what the Lord requires and accept The Rock. I am not the one making you do anything in that circumstance - it would be your choice whether to do what the Lord requires or not.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  76. Given our current log jam, I took Rob’s suggestion to re-read Denver’s blog “All Or Nothing.” Part 7 was especially helpful for me and I invite others to read it if you’d like:

    http://denversnuffer.com/2016/11/all-or-nothing-7-conclusion/







    ReplyDelete
  77. "...and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

    "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

    D&C 1:14, 38

    Do we not hold a covenant from God by virtue of God first making a covenant with a man?

    Is such a man who made a covenant with God, which allowed us to also have a covenant with God, considered a servant of God?

    Are not the words of a servant of God, who holds a covenant with Him, delivered while on His errand in speaking publicly, stating that he will be accountable for what he has taught, therefore, ipso facto, the same as God's words?

    Do not be misled. Repeating the words of or quoting from a servant of God does not damn those who do so. Of course, there is always the potential for idolatry of man, which is a legitimate concern and sinful, and should be preached against vigorously as our allegiance is to Christ alone. However, God has granted unto man/woman their agency and they are accountable for their choices. We are to teach true principles and let men/women govern themselves. In the end, the Lord "confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers." (Isaiah 44:26)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Adrian,

    Also, you have reversed the burden of proof. It does not fall to me to show that the Lottery document must necessarily lead men to trust Denver Snuffer, although I have shown that it will, as the guide and standard is for us to follow, and to follow Denver entails trusting him. I also have heard from multiple sources that "without Denver Snuffer, we're lost!"

    Your burden is to show that the Lottery document cannot possibly lead to men trusting Denver Snuffer. "None but fools," said Joseph, "will trifle with the souls of men."

    Needless to say, The Rock of Jesus Christ cannot lead any man to trust Denver Snuffer, nor can it lead men to trust in any other living person.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous writes: "Of course, there is always the potential for idolatry of man, which is a legitimate concern and sinful, and should be preached against vigorously as our allegiance is to Christ alone."

    I respond: The simple solution, of course, is not to point to men, but to Christ and his words alone, and this legitimate concern never comes up.

    Hence, The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  80. Abinadi says this about those who hearken to the words of the Lord's prophets:

    Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

    For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

    Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed.

    And these are they who have published peace, who have brought good tidings of good, who have published salvation; and said unto Zion: Thy God reigneth!

    And O how beautiful upon the mountains were their feet!

    And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that are still publishing peace!

    And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those who shall hereafter publish peace, yea, from this time henceforth and forever!

    And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection.

    They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death.

    It is those who have listened to and heeded the words of the Lord's prophets that are counted as Christ's seed. It is those who will have part in the first resurrection and be heirs of eternal life. Including Denver's words in the Guide and Standard is evidence that We, who are trying to be God's people, are heeding the Lord's words given through His servant.

    This argument needs to stop. Are we publishing peace? Or are our feet stained with the blood and sins of this generation? What are we publishing?

    I agree with Jim. This forum has become toxic. It is the antithesis of Zion. The thing that makes this telestial world toxic is the people. Likewise, it will be the people who who will make Zion, Zion.

    I am sad to say that the comments on this forum have made even The Sermon on the Mount evoke negative connotations.

    Maybe discussions should take place elsewhere.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thank you Taushua...much gratitude. :)

      Delete
  81. Tausha,

    You can take your discussion elsewhere if you like, but as the requirement of the Lord is mutual agreement in this matter, going elsewhere renders the Lord's requirement impossible to accomplish.

    Is it your purpose to do as the Lord requires?

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Donald,

      The decision to honor or dishonor the Lord's requirement is a decision everyone gets to make for themselves.

      If people find the truth, plainly stated, distasteful, they won't like Zion.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  82. Also, Tausha quotes one of my favorite scriptures.

    "And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection."

    Those that keep God's commandments, in our case the Sermon on the Mount as it is written, are those that believe the words of the prophets. Those who do not keep God's commandments, in our case the Sermon on the Mount as it is written, though they may say they follow a prophet, do not believe his words, neither do they believe the Lord who sent him.

    That verse has a companion verse here:

    "But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection."

    Those who know the Sermon on the Mount and elect not to follow it as written, unless they repent, shall perish.

    A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such, said Joseph; that is, a prophet is only a prophet - the word means "spokesman" - when he is delivering the verbatim words of Jesus Christ, as in "thus saith the Lord...."

    Otherwise, he is not acting as prophet.

    And also even if a prophet acts as prophet, it doesn't mean you should follow their words - only if the Holy Ghost witnesses to you directly that you should (remember 1 Kings 13). And just because you should it does not mean others should. You don't get to make that call for them. You are not the Holy Ghost, neither are you the Lord.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can’t disagree with you here Jared...

      “You don't get to make that call.... You are not the Holy Ghost, neither are you the Lord.”

      I hope you will allow that others have received their answer and it may disagree with you.



      -kind regards

      Delete
    2. Meanwhile Tausha has a serious and valid concern in my opinion...

      “This argument needs to stop...
      I agree with Jim. This forum has become toxic. It is the antithesis of Zion. The thing that makes this telestial world toxic is the people. Likewise, it will be the people who who will make Zion, Zion.

      Delete
    3. Donald,

      If their answer brings them into conflict with the word of the Lord, for example, by saying one may, or even must, trust Denver Snuffer, it is not the Holy Ghost that they have been answered by.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. The conversation was about many things, first and foremost Adrian's false proposal to ensure the Lottery document gets adopted, and, secondly, the fatal problems with the Lottery document.

      Zion will not fail if we do not do as the Lord requires. It is we who will fail to obtain Zion. The Lord shall have a people that hearkens to him and him alone, and he means to have it, whether it's us or not.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  83. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  84. This argument does, indeed, need to stop, and here's how it ends.

    1. I will not yield on the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ.
    2. I will and do dispute the adoption of any other guide and standard document.
    3. You have no power to exclude me from the body of covenant participants.
    4. Therefore, if you abide the Lord's requirement that the guide and standard be adopted by mutual agreement, you will adopt The Rock of Jesus Christ, or you will have no guide and standard document.

    These are the consequences of abiding the Lord's requirement. You will either do this, or else the Lord's requirement is not fulfilled.

    The guide and standard test is simple: do you indeed desire to be the Lord's people? Then accept and do as he has required.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose I need hardly point out that not having a guide and standard document is also failure, but an honest admission of failure.

      Fraudulently adopting a document - that is, adopting it and knowing I dispute its adoption - is also failure, but one calculated to deceive men, for God will know his requirement was mocked.

      On the whole, I would prefer us to be honest failures rather than deceivers.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    2. Holy cow Jared, looks like a list of demands for hostages ....doesn’t feel anything like this:

      41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

      Delete
    3. Take care Jared....I’ve honestly said more than I wanted...so long.

      -kind regards

      Delete
    4. Jared,

      Here's another way it ends: The body simply recognizes that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, deceived and deceiving, attempting to establish false ideas by force, stubbornness, and arrogance. And having recognized this, they simply choose to ignore you.

      You can continue to breathe out threatenings and insist that not only are you a covenant holder, but you have the right to compel the behavior of every other covenant holder. But nobody has to believe you. Or even listen to any further repetition of your tired arguments. Nobody needs to respond to you at all. In the end, you may have power to disrupt, deceive, and destroy, but only as long as people give you the attention you so desperately crave. You you do not have power to compel others' behavior.

      "My way or the highway" has no place among Christ's followers. It is not taught in the sermon you claim to believe. It's astonishing that you still think your misguided tactic has any chance of succeeding. And it is an offense to all those who are, in good faith, trying to compromise, work together, understand one another, and seek unity.

      So yeah, there are ways this ends that do not involve you usurping the entire movement as a dictator.

      And don’t bother telling us we would disobey or offend God by ignoring you. At this point I believe it offends God that we keep paying any attention to you at all. You've made your intentions increasingly clear, and though patience and tolerance are virtues, righteousness trumps virtue in a straight fight every day of the week.

      Delete
    5. "There are only two ways: the way I lead that goes upward in light and truth unto Eternal lives, and if you turn from it, you follow the way of darkness and the deaths. Those who want to come where I am must be able to abide the conditions established for my Father’s Kingdom. I have given to you the means to understand the conditions you must abide. I came and lived in the world to be the light of the world. I have sent others who have testified of me and taught you. I have sent my light into the world. Let not your hearts remain divided from one another and divided from me."

      Remember:

      "Fourth: And do you covenant to seek to become of one heart with those who seek the Lord to establish His righteousness?"

      The choice to honor the Lord's requirement, and make his way, the one and only way, the way of righteousness, whereupon he awaits you, your guide and standard also is yours.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    6. And also remember: your chosen beliefs have no effect upon my covenant status.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  85. Your argument is based on the faulty premise that including any of Denver Snuffer's teachings in the Guide and Standard equates to trusting in the arm of flesh. You are wrong, plain and simple. Others have repeatedly pointed out your absurd logic. By insisting on excluding anything except your preferred document, you have set up stakes. By definition, you have damned yourself. Go ahead and issue your threats and warnings of damnation and failure to others. It's on you.

    You can shout the loudest and post ad nauseum your point of view on this blog, but that has only driven others away. Good luck to you in your lonely Zion. No one else has the power to exclude you. You have accomplished that on your own.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Question for Jared: Supposing (I don't know what will happen) the body does something with the G&S that in your view is fraudulent and damning. What happens then for you? Would you continue to attach yourself to a body you view as cursed, damned, and going to be destroyed? Or.... what happens then?

    ReplyDelete