Saturday, March 3, 2018

A STATEMENT OF SUBMISSION

Several people have asked the scriptures committee to just go ahead and publish the “lots” statement of principles as part of the new scriptures.  Frankly, there are some on the committee that feel we should do so.  After all, the “Lots document" has gotten more support than any other document to date.   The problem is that there is at least one other document, and there may be more, that appear to satisfy the Lord’s requirements.  And, we know that there is support for those documents.  Exactly how much support we can’t say.  This puts us in an uncomfortable position.  Can we ignore the wishes of a minority whose size we don’t know?  We don’t think that is a good idea.

However, there appears to be a solution to this logjam.

On February 9th a group proposed a new vote on a statement of principles, and asked the scriptures committee to agree to publish whichever statement of principles (guide and standard) was chosen using that voting process.  After considering the matter, the committee believes that the proposal provides the best opportunity that has been presented for all of us to come to mutual agreement on a guide and standard. 

We frankly can’t see much downside to this proposal.  If, as many believe, there is overwhelming support for the “Lots document", then this vote will put that question to rest once and for all.  If, on the other hand, the vote reveals that there is still a widespread difference of opinion regarding which G&S is best, then this vote will reveal it.  In either case, another vote clarifies the matter for all to see.

But the proposed vote has another huge advantage. It gives those who may prefer a document other than the majority’s choice the chance to stand up at the conference and voluntarily choose to not dispute.  We think that the setting for this vote is important.  We believe that in a conference, meeting together to hear the word of the Lord, hearts may be softened and there may be a unique opportunity for the Spirit to help us come to unity on this matter.  We don’t believe that this vote will lead to further dissension; we trust that the body of believers desires to obey the Lord’s command and is anxious to finish this assignment.  We believe that given the opportunity to do so the great majority will choose unity over disputation.

Which brings us to the final advantage of this proposal.  Let’s say that the conference can come to near unanimity regarding a G&S, but that there are a few who remain opposed.  This vote gives us a way to try to lovingly persuade those in opposition, but it also gives us a way to move forward despite that opposition. 

This committee takes seriously its obligation to produce a set of scriptures acceptable to the Lord.  We feel confident that this approach is acceptable to the Lord, given our weakness as a people.  The scripture committee agrees to publish whichever guide and standard is chosen by this vote.  However, there are many opportunities built into this process which allow the people to stop the process if they choose. If no one submits any statements of principle that they wish to be considered for inclusion in the scripture, the vote comes to an end.  If there is no clear majority preference of any particular G&S, the vote comes to an end.  If at the conference the minority does not vote overwhelmingly to accept the majority’s preference, the vote comes to an end.  If there are a few remaining dissenting votes, but the majority decides not to adopt the guide and standard anyway, then the vote comes to an end.  No one should feel this vote is being forced on the conference; at every turn it will stop if the people choose not to go ahead.

We invite you to ask the Lord for yourselves if this approach is acceptable to him. If the Spirit confirms to you that this process is acceptable to the Lord, please use your influence to support it.

132 comments:

  1. I absolutely support such a vote to see where we currently stand.
    However is there a way for those who are unable to attend the conference physically to be involved in the process that takes place there online as well?
    This test is probably 10% about “the document” and 90% about our desire to be one.
    And as one who has submitted a G&S proposal, I commit here and now to fully support whichever is chosen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,

      If someone is unable to attend the conference, they can ask someone who is there to stand as their proxy. It seems like a more personal and accountable way to be involved.

      Gordon Platt

      Delete
    2. Gordon, I have some questions about this proxy solution.

      1. By our count, the large majority of the movement will not physically be in attendance at the conference. Best case scenario, if each person is a proxy for multiple people, how do they “stand” for more than one person, let alone multiple people?

      2. What about the many people who don’t know anyone who is going to physically be at the conference? How can they be expected to fairly cast a vote?

      3. How can a proxy be expected to make multiple votes for multiple people as a last minute decision, since the results of the preliminary vote won’t even be disclosed until at the conference? This would assume the proxy will be available during the meeting to receive and respond to multiple correspondences of many varieties. Is this a potential distraction to all in attendance who are proxies, which could potentially be everyone there? Might the people who make the sacrifices to be in attendance wish to be focused on the conference, rather than spending large amounts of time discussing and explaining the GS matter to those for whom they are proxy?

      4. What about the vast number of people who don’t even know about this proposal because they no longer monitor this blog due to various reasons? Is it possible they may feel their voice doesn’t fairly count if they learn about this solution by listening to the conference live from home? How are they expected to suddenly participate in the matter whatsoever?

      I am just trying to understand how this proxy solution gives a fair voice to every covenant holder worldwide.

      At the very least, allowing for a real-time vote online as well as in person would seem to eliminate some of these issues, as well as allow each person their own voice in the matter.

      Delete
    3. Cherry Ann,

      I am not opposed to real time on-line voting. Because I am old and technologically impaired, I prefer a 3-D solution. Nevertheless, I am happy to accept, and I think everyone who is involved in making this proposal is happy to accept, on-line participation. How about you spearheading that effort? I mean that offer sincerely; please help make us make this happen.

      Having said that, proxy voting could happen in this way:

      1-One person stands as proxy for only one other individual. There will be 500 or so in attendance at the conference, that's 500 potential proxies. We won't need more than that. Most people are either sick to death of this process or disinterested.
      2-We can facilitate non-attendees and proxies getting together by asking for volunteers who would be willing to stand as proxy. We can create a place for them to get together.
      3-Again, one person one proxy. The proxy has no responsibility to explain the various G&Ss to their principal. That responsibility devolves to each of us individually.
      4-We are asking you for your help, you, Cherry Ann, to get the word out. We have more than two weeks to let people know before the vote even starts, and then another week of voting. There are only 2000 of us. We can make this happen. The Lord has warned us not to delay.

      There are difficulties, yes, help us overcome them.

      Gordon

      Delete
    4. While I appreciate the desire and intention to facilitate a voting process that is inclusive, I am unwilling to give another the responsibility to speak for me in the form of a vote at the next GC, should I even choose to vote, as I believe I would be surrendering my agency to another. In the United States political system, no one is permitted to vote on behalf of another in an election, correct? I feel it unwise to implement such a practice in this situation.

      Providing a vote online, as has been done before, would seem the optimal solution, in my opinion. And simply voting now would also seem good. Why even wait for the conference? If most feel the matter is mostly decided already, initiate a final vote this coming week.

      Delete
    5. Lux,

      We need a little time for people to submit their documents. Then, in the week before the conference, the voting for G&Ss will take place on-line. We think the voting that happens AT the conference needs to take place in that setting so that we can maximize the influence of the Spirit in the process.

      As I said to Cherry Ann, we are not opposed to real time on-line voting for non attendees, but we need help to make that happen.

      Gordon

      Delete
    6. Gordon, has anyone submitted a potential statement? I guess it will be posted here? I'm not exactly in the know about anything, but I would assume most have either accepted one of the already written statements or are just plain tired of writing. Thanks for answering.

      Delete
    7. Lux, no one has posted anything yet of which I'm aware.

      Gordon

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. “If no one submits any statements of principle that they wish to be considered for inclusion in the scripture, the vote comes to an end.”

    Would above stated submission happen at or before the conference? Sounded like it would potentially happen right before the vote?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any statements of principle that you would like to have considered for inclusion in the scriptures can be submitted immediately to guideandstandard.blogspot.com. The actual voting will begin one week before the conference and will continue until the evening before the conference.

      Gordon Platt

      Delete
  4. "But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands."

    This "process" is intended explicitly to justify before men the placement of a guide and standard in the scriptures without fulfilling the Lord's requirement of unanimity, thus defrauding the Lord.

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

    If we do not accept his requirement for unanimity and do not do what he has required, then apparently we do not desire to be his people, indeed. We would be his people in words only, another group in a historically overpopulated collection who say they are his with their lips but do not do what he says to do, thus showing our hearts are far from him.

    If the Lord severed the priesthood of all who put up their hands for the GAs after Denver Snuffer's excommunication, might there be consequences to not raising one's hand in opposition to this "process?"

    I oppose.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Lord never said He required unanimity. You are trying to pull a fast one here. By doing so, you are trying to defraud the Lord as you have accused others of doing.

      Delete
  5. This is the true state of affairs of this people with respect to this assignment.

    The guide and standard conflict has been solved.

    1. I shall not yield on the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ.
    2. I shall 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. If the people abide the Lord's requirement that the guide and standard be adopted by mutual agreement, then The Rock of Jesus Christ shall be adopted.

    If any choose to dispute the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles as the guide and standard, then we will wait until such disputations cease.

    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.

    This makes it possible to fulfill the Lord's requirement in righteousness.

    This solution has already been implemented. It does not require anyone's acceptance, agreement, cooperation, or buy-in.

    This is where you truly stand.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The guide and standard conflict has been solved.

      1. I shall not yield on the adoption of The Lot's Guide and Standard.
      2. I shall 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. If the people abide the Lord's requirement that the guide and standard be adopted by mutual agreement, then the Lot's Guide and Standard shall be adopted

      Delete
  6. To the brother of fixed disputation!
    You claim to profess Christ Jesus but your words say otherwise, and those can be judged.
    When I took the covenant, after reading it probably 50 times, I recognized it as being from the Lord to “a people “and accepted it in fear and trembling as a part of something beyond myself and the Lord, but myself, others and the Lord and the opportunity it represented in the earth’s history. The emotion of pride wasn’t even on the list of what I experienced that day nor since.
    In my view, if we have any hope to be involved in the establishment of New Jerusalem or reside in Zion, it will be because we “know the Lord”. Those who know the Lord will we have many covenants both personally and as a “people”. When the Lord promises a person or a people, it’s a covenant.
    And for the record, I follow the Lord only!
    HOWEVER, most of my knowledge of the Lord began with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, King Benjamin etc. also Joseph Smith and now Denver. I don’t follow any of these people, but I sure do study their words and have benefited greatly from them; I believe they came from the Lord. Probably the “people “of the Cities of Enoch and Melchizedek benefited from the teachings, words and writings of the prophets also, including Enoch and Melchizedek of their day.
    If a person disputes all the words of men, where did they get the words of Christ as we have them? Do they dispute Mathew, Nephi, Joseph Smith? Or is it just Denver’s words they dispute? If it’s Denver’s words such as in the covenant, why would they want to be involved in this other than to breed contention.
    If a person or group offers a recommendation for a G&S, it will move forward on its own merits or it won’t.
    A disciple of Christ does not use compulsion. Disciples of Christ do not demand and hold hostage others to force them into believing as they do. The Lord in my view wouldn’t condone a cyber bully, that’s the advisories method.
    Brother disputation, you’re not the only person on earth, or the only one to ever have received a revelation or have a legitimate definition on a matter.
    This where you truly stand.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Who is being compelled?

    The choice is simple - you either do exactly what the Lord requires, or you do not do what the Lord requires.

    You get to do whatsoever your heart wishes in this matter, whether you wish to serve God, or to serve him not.

    It remains a fact that you can't do whatsoever your heart wishes in this matter and simultaneously fulfill the Lord's requirement.

    Your choice is therefore between fulfilling the Lord's requirement and not fulfilling the Lord's requirement.

    You are as free to choose now as you were before November 27, 2017 when the solution to the assignment was implemented.

    The only question being answered right now is do you indeed desire to be the Lord's people? If so, then accept and do as he has required.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue is not a document - or agreement by the people to a document.

      The issue, is a people who supposedly became free, who, in a very short few years find themselves squarely back in a position where a group of men are deciding for the people what the people may, and may not, have for themselves.

      At issue is the meaning of the people’s voice and their right and ability to “govern themselves”.

      The scripture committee should step aside and allow the people to conduct the people’s business with respect to the GS.

      For nearly a decade we heard the teaching of an appointed teacher telling us to be free! Be free! Instead, it has taken a very little time, and we are squarely back where we began with a group of unappointed men deciding for us, what will and what won’t be among us. Virtue says, be kind, don’t make waves, diplomacy is the answer. Righteousness says, teach correct principles then get the hell out of the way and allow the people to govern themselves.

      My voice has been lifted for the last time regarding the GS. If my voice meant nothing in the last several votes, it will mean nothing in the next, and the next, and the next. The voice of the people has been rendered a travesty.

      Steve VanLeer

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brother, and I mean that! Brother Jared,
    Do you, and I mean this sincerely, view your position, attitude and words on this matter worthy of the Lord or as a benefit to the establishment of Zion? Because if this is how you see things being done in Zion then there is a problem.
    As we used to say in the mission field back in the day, perhaps it’s time for some self-inventory?
    I plan to spend the Sabbath day tomorrow doing so myself.
    Maybe we all should!
    I apologize for my attitude, I will now go and repent!

    ReplyDelete
  10. What discussion has taken place since 11/27/2017 has been concerning how to best appear to men to do what the Lord requires while not actually doing what the Lord requires - that is, how to make "the voice of the people," or "overwhelming majority," or "supermajority" appear to be mutual agreement when there is opposition.

    Openly conspiring to defraud the Lord is not the conduct of people who indeed desires to be his people.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find myself dumbfounded that this people can so easily roll over to the very same stuff with respect to government among us that most of us left the LDS organization to be free from...? Our voice meant nothing there. All indications are, our voice means nothing here either...? How can that be? How can we allow that malignancy to appear again so soon after becoming “free”?

      Steve VanLeer

      Delete
    2. My position has nothing whatever to do with my feelings about the brothers and sisters who occupy places on the committee. I love them, and I am grateful for their wonderful contributions to the restoration of the scriptures. I love what they have done. I am grateful. My position is not to be unkind to any one of them or all of them together.

      The people must be able, and allowed to conduct the people’s business, by the voice of the people unimpeded by decisions made by any other man or men. If the voice of the people is allowed to be then judged and either permitted or not permitted by a man or men, we are right back where we began

      All of this has little to do with which document is eventually adopted. If the issue I am pointing out is allowed to persist and survive among us, we are all right back in the hot pot of the roots of hierarchy.

      Steve VanLeer

      Delete
    3. If its required of me to vote on some document 20 times to work through the issues of establishing understanding and consensus all in the hope of Zion I’m doing it!
      Probably we should assume the best intentions in others not the worst. And consider the possibility that our position and view of things may be faulty.
      But then again, I have some repenting to do on that matter.

      Delete
  11. You agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the covenant by agreeing to them. Thus you voluntarily forfeited the ability to do otherwise than the covenant requires and act consistently with your agreements.

    Mutual agreement is the condition for success in this assignment.

    Anything else is failure.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is one who would require forfeiture of agency and absolute compliance. He and his doctrine were rejected and cast out. That tired Doctrine is still rejected by the God of heaven.

      Delete
  12. And I wonder how it is that you do not see that you are yourselves implementing the same rule of governance that you decry the LDS for - you are showing yourselves willing to compel the minority to accept that which they do not agree to and, indeed, dispute against.

    The Lord's merciful requirement for mutual agreement in this thing was freedom from the tyranny of the majority. But it seems we do not want freedom from the tyranny of the majority. It seems we want "majority rules" and are willing to defraud the Lord to obtain it.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  13. Attributing compulsion upon the souls of men to our Lord is evidence of the very evil of your doctrine. You provide necessary opposition, but your teachings are dark and evil.

    The evil one continues to desire the destruction of the agency of man - and he has agents to assist him in the preaching of that evil doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The solution to the GS dilemma and the more important issue of forfeiture of the people’s voice is simply to have the voice of the people ratify the chosen document at the conference and have the scripture committee comply with the wishes and voice of the people.

      No one is cast out. No one is not loved or not considered. We continue to love and gently persuade and teach true principles. Some may never be persuaded. Some have said they simply won’t be persuaded. That’s ok. God’s system does not allow for hostage taking. And it does not and never will include compulsion. All are free.

      Steve VanLeer

      Delete
  14. 1 of 3

    For months I have stayed quiet. While I don't agree with Jared's premise, I am against voting…period. If I voted (even "against" it) then I would be giving credence to the idea that "voting" is the way to push forward an initiative. No I will not vote. I will abstain because I believe that no amount of voting or trying to legislate in a particular document is going to work. It will divide the people, pure and simple. I think there are MANY people who feel the same. That is why the voting numbers have dwindled since we started doing it last June 2017.

    We have marred this entire process with our carnal efforts trying to impose our will on the Lord and need to repent.

    We have created at least 3 artificial constructs that we are working from:

    1. The idea that a document to "replace D&C 20" MUST BE PUT INTO THE NEW SCRIPTURES. Why does this Guide & Standard, Governing Principles, et al have to be put into the scriptures? All He said was, "When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow." But He did NOT say WHERE it needed to be added. It is an assumption that it needs to be added into the scriptures. What if it just needs to be added to the library of documents He will have us keep or something else completely? Are you sure there is not more being read into this than what He has actually commanded?

    2. People keep putting an artificial timeframes on this. I have heard since the very beginning that we needed to have it by the July 2nd vote, then before the September 3rd conference, now before the March conference, always with the implied scarcity mindset that there is not enough "time". We act hastily when we feel we are under a time pressure. I agree that the Lord may ultimately (like in Section 124) put a timeframe on this, but until then, we should stop putting our own false timeframes on it.

    3. That we need to "vote" in order to "adopt" a statement of principles. Voting is a "democratic process" that imposes the majority's will, or mob rule on the people. This process only works for a Telestial state and not for what we are trying to move towards in faith in establishing a bridge towards a Terrestrial order. Voting on this document to be "enforced" upon anyone that comes into this movement will create a "false start" as well. Well intentioned, but ultimately not what the Lord will do. Let's keep working amongst each other, seeking the truth, removing the false constructs (ie. unbelief) from our heart/mind that we have to get this done before some "event" (like a conference or something). We do not need to implement the LDS 2.0 version of Common Consent, where we ask "All in favor? Please so manifest." God and the angels will know by the fruit we produce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Since the A&C was based on a petition about the scriptures, and is all about the scriptures, and references additions and corrections to the new scruptures throughout the answer, I think the burden of proof falls to you to prove the G&S “being added” refers to being added to some other unnamed library or some other collection other than the new scripture set. The context of the answer is clearly the new scripture set. But I’m persuadable if you have any evidence to support the Lord had reference to something else.

      Delete
    2. 1. I agree with anonymous above regarding the assertion that we don't know "where" the GS is to be added. Clearly, the entire petition for an answer was regarding the Lord's acceptance of the scripture. This is stretching.

      3. Creating an artificial time-frame? The Lord said it was easy and could've already been done quite some time ago. We are only delaying because some few find it obligation to always oppose without any substance to what it is that they object to. Oh, reasons are given, but it's the merit of the reasons I speak of. I saw Adrian Larsen ask for an explanation for opposition to the Lots content, based upon scripture and not opinion; multiple times...and no one yet has shown what is in error with the Lots according to scripture.

      3. We need to stop thinking that voting is just a gentile Babylonian thing. Where do the scriptures tell you that? Just because something gets used in this telestial world, doesn't mean it has no merit. Voting is merely a method wherein the thoughts and position of people can be found out. Where I get to express my position on equal footing with all others. It makes one accountable to God for their position.

      The decrease in voting over time is foremost because the later voting required the covenant, and MANY dropped out after September. There are fewer people with the covenant. That's a fact. Also, the voting has dropped because many have already felt the work has been done and they are standing by that. Finally, the voting has dropped because the people feel frustrated that no matter how they express their vote, the SC continues to just move forward with whatever they're going to do.(as Steve Van Leer seemed to point out) So they feel it is of no real value to keep voting.

      Finally, majority does not always mean mob rule. This is not the description given in the Book of Mormon, and we ought to be careful that we continue to twist this topic to serve our purposes of opposition.

      How will you ever assess the feelings, desires and even unity of a people who are spread across the world if you do not offer a means to collect that information. That's all voting does. BTW, we VOTED in Boise on Saturday, in the grove of trees in the park to accept the scriptures. What? Was that terrestrial? If that was good enough for the Lord, what's the issue now. Oh, yes, and we voted on the exclusion and inclusion of how many different items in the scriptures before that? And yet, the LORD accepted those scriptures that came about in content and our agreement through VOTING.

      This argument is feels to be just a way of trying to continue to stall, while sounding as if one is standing on a higher spiritual plane.

      Delete
  15. 2 of 3
    Something to consider:

    "The task of Zion is far more daunting than the foolish imagination of the human heart. If we soberly assess what is left to be accomplished, we would all repent and cooperate with one another, lending whatever strength we have to the task. We would stop fighting and opposing one another, and ask what we could do to aid.

    No institution exists with the capacity to accomplish Zion. It will be so entirely foreign to this world that the people who come there will be required to adopt a new society, new way of thinking, different way of interacting, entirely new law, a form of government that does not presently exist, an order to their lives that alters everything, and a form of righteousness that is only possible for a society with a new structure.

    Much of the sinfulness of mankind is due to the way our society, government and economy are organized. If mankind were reordered, a great deal of what is broken inside the individual would be fixed by a new environment. But it is an "all or nothing" proposition. Half-measures will fail. The restoration did not reach a conclusion. It began, halted, and has been receding ever since. The objective was Zion. But Zion is all or nothing. Taking "some" of the attributes without the rest of it, is doomed for failure.

    Zion will have "all things in common" but only as a by-product of a larger construct. Without the rest of the social structure, implementing "all things in common" is only a curse, not a blessing…Zion will not begin with people attempting to "have all things in common." Zion will require a new government, new social order, new way of life, an altogether different society from what now exists. It will not be just adopting some new magic economic rule like "have all things in common." (Denver Snuffer, All or Nothing, http://denversnuffer.com/2016/10/all-or-nothing, October 27, 2016)

    We need to think about this completely differently.

    "There will be a "kingdom" established in the last days to fulfill the prophecy of Daniel. But the initial approach taken in Nauvoo was a false start, and appointing Joseph Smith as a "king" aborted the endeavor." (Denver Snuffer, All or Nothing 4, http://denversnuffer.com/2016/11/all-or-nothing-4/, November 2, 2016)

    Trying to "vote" or "legislate" a Guide & Standard document to be put into the scriptures will be a similar "false start". Let us avoid this mistake. Voting sets a precedence to the heavens that we want more of what we've already got. Mutual agreement and adoption of a document will come naturally versus forced.

    A document will be written to satisfy the Lord's command. It will not need to be voted on because there will already be mutual agreement around it. Mutual agreement between people does NOT require a "vote" between people to ratify it. That is Telestial man's way. The Lord's people coalesce around the truth because the Lord's "sheep hear [His] voice". No need to enforce it by voting it in.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 3 of 3
    Lastly:

    "It should be clear from the prophecies that this work will start with a small group chosen to begin the work. A temple and rites will provide the legal, cultural, and covenant foundation for a new society. These people will learn how to become the "kingdom of God" and will learn His ways and to walk in His paths. When they know how to live in peace, and have obtained the original Holy Order, others will be invited to join them and learn how to live according to a new, higher way of life. The challenge of teaching new people this new way of organizing society will be daunting. The community will struggle together to learn how to overcome the social infection that comes from Babylon anytime a new family flees Babylon and comes to Zion.

    As the group grows, they will increase their aptitude to assimilate new members. Skills will be gained in helping people overcome the world. The infections from Babylon, the Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans and all modern world governments will be eradicated. People of the New Jerusalem will learn a godly way of governing and holiness of character.

    As the New Jerusalem grows, eventually it will divide, and there will be another group established nearby where both communities will be able to take in new families and teach them of the Lord's way.

    Everything will need to change before the prophecies can be fulfilled. All the culture, law, social arrangements, ambitions, economies and pride of the nations will need to be rejected by the group. The new way of life must be organized after the original pattern taught in the beginning. The "rights belonging to the fathers," which Abraham obtained as an inheritance from the first man Adam, will be recovered and lived by the those occupants of the New Jerusalem. They must not only say, but do, what is asked of them by God. His purpose is to make mankind joyful, which cannot be attained by wickedness. "Wickedness never was happiness." (Alma 41:10.) (emphasis mine)

    When God gives mankind this opportunity, they are rarely interested. The last time God offered, the opportunity was spoiled by "jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances." (D&C 101:6.) Even people who think they would like to see Zion, fight against the truth now being rolled out in plain sight. They err, and prize delusion over active engagement with God.

    He offers again. But whether mankind is any better prepared, or more willing than before remains to be seen. It will require all from us, or we will be left with nothing." (Denver Snuffer, All or Nothing 5, http://denversnuffer.com/2016/11/all-or-nothing-5/, November 4, 2016)

    "The kingdoms of men, ancient and modern, have and do control how men think, engage in commerce, regulate property, tax, govern, make war and interact. Zion will make a complete overthrow of these systems. Other societies will be "ground to dust" because the way of life in Zion will appeal to all peaceful men. Men of peace will abandon the other false systems and join Zion.

    It would do little good to teach the religion of Adam to men if they are not willing to live like Adam. Adam did not question, doubt or rebel against God. He intended to live by every word of the Lord, even when he did not understand "why" something was commanded by the Lord. Adam suspended judgment, and obeyed. Few men are like father Adam. It is doubtful many living today will find it appealing to suspend judgment about a commandment if the Lord does not explain "why" something is to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 4 of 3 (LOL)

    "
    When the Lord establishes the foundation of the New Jerusalem, it will require the sacrifice and obedience of the residents. Even if the foundation for that city is laid, if mankind is unwilling to be governed by God, learn from Him and trust His guidance, it is doubtful it will become Zion." (Denver Snuffer, All or Nothing 6, http://denversnuffer.com/2016/11/all-or-nothing-6/,

    "If mankind understood the intelligence that God will return to the earth they would be eagerly asking how to help. Zion will not be a place for proud men to pontificate about man's learning or their conjecture about the meaning of scripture. It will be a place to learn of God's ways.

    This can happen in our day. Or not. One day, some few will be guided by the Lord to accomplish it. But the choice of allowing it to happen is left to us. The journey begins by living the way Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at Bountiful.

    Every one of man's institutions are corrupt. They are led by men and women who rule against the best interests, even the will, of the people over whom they exercise control. They abuse authority and their subordinates lord it over their minions.

    The kingdoms of men will be ground to dust because all peaceful men will choose to live above their laws in Zion. There will be no commerce to be taxed, but only labor to feed and clothe one another. No legal agreements because people will honor their promises to one another. No police, no lawyers, courts or prisons. They will "deal justly with one another" never asking for mercy, or pardon for failure. To deal "justly" requires every citizen to hold themselves to the rigorous standard of "justice" instead of the lax standard of "mercy." Even as they hold themselves to a standard of "justice," they will show "mercy" and "forgiveness" and "charity" to others. "Justice" is only to be applied internally to make us deal fairly with others. Externally, every man expects to allow his neighbor the kindness and mercy he hopes the Lord will show to him in the day of judgment. (Denver Snuffer, All or Nothing 7 - Conclusion, http://denversnuffer.com/2016/11/all-or-nothing-7-conclusion/, November 8, 2016)

    The "democracies" of today's societies use voting as a means of enforcing legislation over each other. I hope and pray we can move beyond "voting" to legislate each other with a "majority rules" mentality and begin to think of something beyond our current worldly constructs. It requires light and revelation from heaven.

    Chris Chandler

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this, Chris Chandler, every word. Let us pray for one another as a family of covenant to hear the wisdom in what you have shared.

      Delete
    2. I also appreciate this post, Chris.

      Delete
    3. Chris,

      I appreciate what you're trying to say. Obviously, you quoted Denver for most of it, and I agree with his teaching. But I think you're using his teaching to make a connection to your point that isn't merited. I think you are just making too much of how complicated this has to be.

      The document is to help people outside of Zion to prepare to get there. We aren't even close to Zion yet, and we weren't close when the assignment was given either. We aren't going to have at our employ with 2,000 of us, what will be at the disposal of a small handful in the Holy Order when Zion starts.

      If we wait until we are successfully residing in Zion, all living the Sermon on the Mount perfectly, and joined in with that small group who first start with the Holy Order...we will have missed the point of the whole GS document. It is not the end all of Zion. It is for fellowships and individuals to have some basic information to get them started in the right direction. It is not the document of the Holy Order.

      I really do appreciate the heart and intent of all those who oppose and keep making this so challenging. But I just do not get persuaded that the Lord intended this to be so hard to agree upon. And I do not believe He has any problem with us using voting as a means to assess what people desire.

      Delete
    4. I too agree that voting is not the method of approach to produce anything more than added division. Anonymous speaks boldly about the question Adrian asked, claiming that it went without a response, when the question was framed in a way to fence in any response. I did respond, and had a great conversation, when Anonymous claims no one did. But my response extended the view outside of the framed view, so I guess that didn't qualify for him/her/Batman/Superman/or whoever that caped crusader is/ anonymous.

      I appreciate the emphasis upon Zion, instead of some random assignment, an exercise of sorts, etc.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  18. Chris
    I would agree that there’s a good chance not much voting will be going on Zion. This isn’t Zion. We are working towards Zion.
    So the question is, do we just wait until everyone gets it together for the big jump? Or do we take small steps together working towards Zion? Something to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, agreed, we are NOT Zion. Only the Lord gets to make that pronouncement. Further, I don't think we wait until there is a "big jump". I think this idea of rethinking things and continuing to discuss between us is the "small steps" we need to take. More importantly, it requires relationships. That's one thing we don't have. We have heard the words of the Lord, but that doesn't mean we all understand one another or the same thing. There needs to be more work done between us I believe. Would like to get to know you for that purpose...if you're open you can contact me directly at bhajichris@gmail.com

      Delete
  19. Gordon,

    These two statements seem mutually exclusive to me. Could you please clarify:

    "This vote gives us a way to try to lovingly persuade those in opposition, but it also gives us a way to move forward despite that opposition."

    "If at the conference the minority does not vote overwhelmingly to accept the majority’s preference, the vote comes to an end."

    Any legitimate vote is held to decide the matter else why bother voting in the first place. Anything else would more aptly be called a survey or an opinion poll. The SC needs to decide what type of effort this is and then as you state, agree beforehand to uphold the outcome.

    It is overwhelmingly clear at this point what the voice of the people is on this matter, but I am understanding and sympathetic to the desire of the SC to settle it in THEIR minds and if another vote is required to do that, then I will labor with them and add my support and participation. After all, if the document that was prepared by the lots process is indeed meant to take up residence in the RE, then it will continue to so manifest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim,

      There are 3 stages:
      1-On-line voting in the week before the conference.
      2-A vote at the conference asking the minority to support the majority's choice.
      3-A second vote at the conference asking if the assembly wants to adopt the chosen G&S, even though there are a few holdouts.

      This process can be stopped at the first conference vote if there is a large minority that remain opposed (I believe we said we had to achieve "near-unanimity" as our standard). But if there are only a few holdouts, then after inviting them again to come along with the majority, in the second conference vote the assembly will be asked if they want to adopt the G&S despite the few that remain in opposition.

      Bottom line: a large minority can stop the process, a small minority cannot.

      We commit to you that the entire process will be done in a spirit of patience and love. The minority will not be abused, folded, spindled or mutilated in any way. We will appeal to their better angels, and simply ask them for the sake of unity to join with the majority. I think most everyone will come along.

      I wouldn't describe this as merely a survey or poll since the result of the process, if successful, is the actual adoption of a G&S. Thank you for being sympathetic to the SC, they're in a tough spot.

      Gordon

      Delete
  20. Forgive me if this was already suggested but could we just create an online voting poll to bypass the whole proxy thing?

    I would suggest offering the opportunity for folks to present their thoughts or proposals at the conference should they choose and then allow for the following week after conference for folks to submit their votes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephanie,

      On line voting to avoid proxy voting is acceptable to me, and I believe the others who proposed this vote. If that is the desire of the people we will do our best to make it happen. Folks who oppose the majority's choice at the conference will indeed have an opportunity to present their thoughts (see the final step in Feb. 9th proposal). We feel however that the conference setting provides the best location to have a successful vote, we are therefore going to try to complete this vote at the conference.

      Gordon

      Delete
  21. Me I also suggest we take time at the conference to hold prayer for those amongst us dealing with various illnesses challenges at this time?
    There are so many within this movement who are the only ones in their family coming to these conferences. They need our support.

    I have concerns that we don't pray enough for one another. We need to pray for our youth, widows and singles as well. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  22. If poligamy is the great rorschach test for Mormonism, the Guide and Standard sure is for this movement.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jim:
    You say, “It is overwhelmingly clear at this point what the voice of the people is on this matter”.

    It is in your mind. It is in Steve’s mind. It is in the minds of a great many I have spoken to. It isn’t in my mind. Allow to explain again why it isn’t clear to me. I have gone back and reread the language you and others used before deciding to move forward on the lots proposal before I voted with the 87%? to move forward with the proposal. What did I agree to?

    1- To irretrievably set aside the August 5th document? Not in my mind.
    2- To use the August 5th document as no more than a source for a new document? I didn’t think so.

    I saw nothing in the language then to suggest either of those conclusions. I did not think my vote in either case was a vote to set aside the August 5th document which I also voted to support. I did not think the chronologic newness of the lots document automatically erased the prior vote I had made. I always assumed a head to head vote or at least a conference acknowledgement would be required.

    Then the process proceeded. The 7 produced a document. Many testified as to the help they received from heaven, testified of revelation received, and even strongly suggested that Denver approved the document, speaking for him where he would not speak himself publically. Another vote was taken to support the document. I can no longer find online the language for that vote. I believe I voted to “support” the lots document. What does that mean? What did I agree to?
    1-Did I agree to accept the lots document to the exclusion of all others?
    2-Or did I show support, encouragement and agreement with the 93%? That’s how I saw it.

    I always imagined that I might support in exactly the same way perhaps dozens of documents, willing to adopt any of them as a guide and Standard.

    So is it fair to say, “It is overwhelmingly clear at this point what the voice of the people is on this matter”? Am I the rare exception? Can you say with any confidence that the 300+ some odd people who voted to “support”the lots document did so believing that their vote to support would be interpreted as a de facto vote against any and all other documents? Is the language in your emails really there to justify the strong wording, “It is overwhelmingly clear at this point what the voice of the people is on this matter”.

    You are a wise brother. You impressed me on August 5th as I have told you before. Your willingness to go through another vote and even support it if only to settle the matter in the minds of the committee and find clarity with regards to the voice of the people, is a manifestation of your wisdom.

    McKay

    ReplyDelete

  24. Steve,
    You said,
    “The issue, is a people who supposedly became free, who, in a very short few years find themselves squarely back in a position where A GROUP OF MEN are deciding for the people what the people may, and may not, have for themselves.”

    I am in complete agreement with this statement BUT no group of men can decide for the entire body, not the SC or the lots group of men. You think the people have clearly chosen the lots document in preference to other documents whereas I think the people have voiced support for the lots document, not chosen it to the exclusion of others.

    An analogy. My friend says, “I’m thinking about running for President”. Could you support my candidacy?” I say, “yes”. Not knowing whose running against him, did I just vote against the opposing candidate assuming my friend gets the party nomination? Not in my mind I didn’t. I just said, “great idea friend, run for President, I support you”

    If I believe, as you do, that the people voted to put the lots document in the White House, then we’re done. It’s over. The SC needs to just publish. Could you do a little active listening here and see this from the point of view of the scriptures committee?

    You and I see this differently. Your opinion of what the lots process was deciding was informed not only by the emails I had access to but also hours of private meetings, dialogue and discussion. Apparently in your mind the vote to support the lots document was the Nov 5th election. I did not see it that way. Am I alone in my perceptions? The actual language in the emails published on guideandstandard.blogspot.com leads me wonder how many are like me voting to support a friend in contrast to voting against the opposition candidate. You think Nov 5th is behind us. I think it is still future.

    I think the language the lots proposal made public was elastic enough that a vote to clarify is needed. Will you allow a vote to settle in everyone’s mind the matter?

    McKay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McKay,

      Since you’re my good friend and I know you won’t take offense, I'd like to comment on your responses to Jim and Steve.

      Since much of what you said is based upon how things were “perceived,” I think it's important to try to be precise about some things, just to help balance out why Jim, Steve and others may feel as they do.

      You brought up the 87% vote and your “intent” behind how you voted, as well as your intent behind the final vote to accept the actual Lots GS, too. I’d like to speak to those two issues.

      As has been stated, the purpose for the vote that garnered 87% was to just get PERMISSION (agreement) of enough people in order to proceed with using the Lots proposal as a means for completing the assignment, without anyone “imposing” their idea upon people without at least the majority consenting to the idea.

      Great care was taken by Jim O’Rullian and James Fargo in the detail of what they presented to the people for that proposal. Interestingly, such a proposal and effort to unite the body and garner their permission was needed BECAUSE pretty much everyone presumed that a new solution WAS REQUIRED because what had previously done up through August hadn’t succeeded in convincing the SC to go ahead and publish anything. If any of us remotely thought that the August document was REALLY going to be resurrected, (as disappointed as many of us were), those involved in new efforts to find a solution, would NOT have even bothered with the excruciating labor.

      Remember, it was ALL based on the direct statements by the SC in August, and again in October, found on this blog, that their hands were washed of responsibility over the GS, and that the body would have to figure it out and someone/group would have to convince the rest of the body to go along with something. (I can find the direct quotes...I've shared them previously). So if you were genuinely thinking the August 5th was still going to be resurrected as the rest of us were working feverishly to fulfill God’s request; then you were privy to knowledge the rest of us didn’t have. All we had were the statements you all made publicly. Which meant, we all HAD to find another solution. So we went about working on it.

      Interestingly, as a side note of relevance: those of the movement who were the most disturbed about not using the August document, went to the effort to create a website and ask for a petition to be signed, begging for the SC to reconsider publishing it. In the end, most, if not all of those people ended up abandoning their support of the August 5th, in favor of the “Nonmancaaf” document.

      Regardless, I wanted to refresh people’s memory of PRECISELY WHAT people voted for when the voted to support the Lots proposal, since you referred to the intent of that voting.

      (part 2 continued below....)

      Delete
    2. part 2...

      On November 1, 2017 a post was made by Jim and James on this site with 3 links that explained in varying degrees of detail what the Lots proposal entailed. It can be found here. http://guideandstandard.blogspot.com/2017/11/update-on-proposal-using-lots-call-for.html
      A precise outline was given as to how everything would proceed…even down to getting the document sustained by mutual agreement. In other words, Jim and James were notifying the body that if you vote to support this proposal…here’s what you’re agreeing to by that vote. It wasn’t just an idea…it was actual detailed steps, all the way to adoption, as long as people agreed they liked the final document produced.

      After detailing all the steps, the final step of “sustaining” the document stated:

      "Sustaining Vote:

      • The statement will be presented to the body for adoption by mutual agreement.”

      • If adopted, it will be added to the RE scriptures."

      87% of the covenant holders agreed to support this effort as outlined. That right there meant they agreed to allow a group chosen by lot to create a document; that if the body liked and remained within the guidelines agreed upon, it would knowingly, and was anticipated to be presented to the body for adoption by mutual agreement. Following which it would be added to the RE scriptures.

      The 7 Lotsters then followed the agreed upon proposal in how they did their work.

      Once they had complied with the requirement to present it to the Lord, as agreed upon by the people in the proposal, all they had left was the sustaining vote.

      Now, to you that may conjure up visions of having to raise your arm to the square in a general conference in front of all your peers. But nowhere did the proposal say HOW the sustaining for adoption would take place. Nor were we told by the Lord HOW that was to look…just that it was to be accomplished. It was up to the body, unless otherwise instructed by the Lord. (which to this point, if He’s instructed anything, it hasn’t been made public). The approved Lots outline just said that the final GS would be “presented to the body for adoption by mutual agreement.”

      The 7 chose to use a final vote to allow the people to either express their sustaining, or lack of sustaining, pertaining to the adoption of the new Lots GS. A vote taken in this manner would allow privacy to be maintained, as well as reach every interested party without discrimination as to where they reside in the world, or their ability to attend a meeting. No matter where they lived, their voice would be heard equally. It would also be precise, and open for all to see the results. (transparent)

      (part 3 continued below...)

      Delete
    3. part 3...

      Here was the EXACT wording used in that week-long vote. After answering if the individual had received the covenant, each person was asked:

      “Here is the document compiled by seven people drawn by lot.

      http://bit.ly/GuideandStandard - http://guideandstandard.blogspot.com/2017/11/update-on-proposal-using-lots-call-for.html

      “Do you accept this Guide and Standard, and support its adoption?"
      Yes
      No

      If they answered no, they were then asked the following:

      "Although you may disagree with this being your preferred Guide and Standard, will you agree at this time to adopt the document as presently written, as a guide and standard for those that desire to be the Lord’s people?"

      Yes
      No

      When you realize that the initial vote to use the proposal included the clear explanation that the plan was to take this all the way to adoption…and then realize that the final sustaining vote was also worded to include their “acceptance” of this Guide and Standard, as well as its “adoption,” then perhaps you can understand why so many feel that the 93% approval reflected the acceptance and adoption of the Lots Guide and Standard and the willingness of the people to move forward with that. The proposal also stated that the scripture committee would publish the Lots GS afterward. People anticipated this with the completion of the successful vote. On top of the 7 going to extra mile for 40 days of further outreach…connecting to almost 100 additional non-voters. (over 500 total…more than August).

      Whereas you feel this is all vague, to me and many others, when a document is presented to us to “accept” and sustain its “adoption”--- We are NOT thinking about a bunch of other possible past or future options…We’re thinking…”YES, I agree to this right here and right now!”

      Many people voiced frustration to me that, “This better be the last time we’re voting.” Many, many people. The vote was for adoption. It had been presented to the body with that intent from the inception of the proposal. Had the 87% who agreed to attempt the GS through lots, NOT been happy with the resulting document…then they could have voted “NO” in the final vote for acceptance and adoption. It would have been dead. Instead, the percentage of approval INCREASED. Even some who weren’t jazzed about the concept, ultimately saw the finished document as one they were willing to adopt. None of the effort was exerted to “just to end up with another document that could be thrown into a never-ending pool of voting.” It was ALWAYS precisely worded to find a real solution…an end to the assignment.

      In the end, I will do as Jim has said and go ahead and vote. But honestly, it seems like, based upon what you wrote, that you have had in your heart all along since August that there would NEED to be another vote between documents; and so here we are…doing exactly what you all intended, or thought best, all this time. It just doesn’t feel like what the body decided, but is a perspective that you all won’t let go of as “needing to be done.” Alas, now that I’ve had a chance to make my perspective known, I won’t obstruct your efforts. I’m a team player, even if outspoken at times. And a long-time friend to you!!! I’m sure it’s difficult to walk the line you’re having to walk. I just felt it important to clarify how many of us see this whole thing as having played out. I may still have some procedural questions and concerns I’d like clarified…but I’ll participate in the vote and encourage those I know to do so, also. Despite the frustration of not interpreting the language the same…may we all just come together and work this through to completion however is deemed necessary for peace.




      Delete
    4. Karen,
      Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, thank you for all the hard work you and others have done on the "lots" statement. And thank you for being willing to go the extra, extra mile (Matt. 5:41). Please let us know what your procedural concerns may be.
      Gordon

      Delete

    5. Karen, my friend indeed

      I accept your synopsis as an accurate retelling. I will try another tact. Let’s looking at this thing practically.

      When we made the lots proposal (I was one of the seven contributors) we said, “When the Lord’s approval has been received, the Statement of Principles is presented for a sustaining vote and inclusion in the RE Scriptures.”

      We all imagined the Lord would accept the document through a revelation by his servant David before it was presented to the people “for a sustaining vote”. That didn’t happen. Instead Denver declined even taking it to the Lord. Shalyce received a revelation which was published saying the lots document is “sufficient” but more was required according to the revelation, namely,

      “Present it to the people. Present it to my servant David, and you will know what you are to do.”

      So, Karen my friend, what are we to do? Please answer. The revelation to Shalyce that is brought forth as the Lord’s acceptance of the lots document says we will know what to do. So what are we to do?

      The position you have taken, Jim, Cherry Ann and others is that the SC should publish. But they won’t set aside the August 5th document by executive fiat. All arguments to date have failed to change their minds. So what are we to do? The Lord is being quoted as saying we will know. Do we know?

      This proposal, carrying out a vote just before the conference and asking for a show of mutual agreement is the only proposal that has the backing of the SC. They are on record as saying they will publish with the scriptures whichever version is chosen by this process (assuming a few things). Gordon and I and the SC and many others imagine we know what to do. Maybe we do. What about you? Do you know what to do?

      Adrian has made a proposal but has not asked the SC to agree in advance to publish the lots document if the process he outlined is carried out. He could but hasn’t. But for now those who are supposed “to know what you are to do” have only one solution that gets us to score. Recapping the game so far does little to get us over the goal line.

      So, I will welcome any effort Adrian or others want to propose if they think our proposal is uninspired but invite them to do as this group has done, namely, get the SC to agree to the process first. Perhaps others feel they “know what to do” and should make proposals as the SC has invited. If not, if you don’t know how to proceed support this effort as Jim has agreed to do if only to settle the matter in the minds of the SC.

      I join with Gordon in thanking you for your helpful input.

      McKay


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

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

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

      Delete
    9. McKay,

      I had posted a three-part answer to your question to me, but you can see I have deleted it. It wasn't contentious, and I thought it was pretty logical, and I even agreed to go along in the end, but upon awaking this morning, I realized that I just don't even want to go there in my approach, anymore...defending and repeating, and explaining a position. Proving a point. Finding flaws in what the other person is saying, to confirm my own views. It feels pride oriented on my part and doesn't allow those of you who are doing your best to still figure out a solution that you feel can be valid for all involved, to be appreciated for the efforts you're putting in to this. It casts a tinge of accusation to keep focusing on how our opinions have differed, or how perceived governance has occurred. It divides...because there's always this bottom line tone of inferring, "I'm right and you're wrong.", when any of us engage in that. I want to repent of that attitude. Not only is it wrong, but It's not going to get us where we all want to be. It isn't keeping the covenant to correct myself by the scriptures. I've been gently chastised by the spirit this morning, and I appreciate the patience with which the Lord has dealt with my weakness; as well as the patience from any of you that rub shoulders with me.

      So, all I'd like to say is that I will support your efforts with a purer heart and intent than I have exhibited. And that I do not desire to accuse either the SC, or those involved in promoting this proposal, and realize everyone is doing the best they can in these matters.

      Much love for you all,

      Karen

      Delete
    10. Thank you my sister Karen!

      Gordon

      Delete
  25. "This process can be stopped at the first conference vote if there is a large minority that remain opposed (I believe we said we had to achieve "near-unanimity" as our standard). But if there are only a few holdouts, then after inviting them again to come along with the majority, in the second conference vote the assembly will be asked if they want to adopt the G&S despite the few that remain in opposition.

    Bottom line: a large minority can stop the process, a small minority cannot."

    The Lord requires mutual agreement, meaning unanimity (we know we have unanimity / mutual agreement by none disputing the adoption of a proposal).

    What he's apparently going to get, instead, is "near unanimity," which means not unanimity, which means not mutual agreement.

    Who here truly thinks the Lord our God shall be deceived by this fraud?

    Or who thinks that the Lord our God does not mean exactly what he says?

    Or do you believe instead that you shall be able to willfully disobey his requirement as you have openly purposed to do, and he will accept a corrupt offering?

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Log, you are not more important than anyone else. Others have said they won't accept your proposal, but you seem to think that is of no importance. Nothing can be unanimous.

      Delete
    2. I disagree with your definition of what you think the Lord meant by "mutual agreement." I don't believe the Lord meant 100%. That percentage is impossible. The fact that no one even knows what the exact number of people involved in this movement even are, is the biggest reason that 100% is impossible.

      The other fact is that currently there is both good and bad branches being grafted in, and not all will survive or be counted as the Lord's people.

      But, I'm not really sure if Jared Livesey is just trolling this blog or if he is serious.

      Delete
  26. I support whatever will unite us. I like the idea of standing together in the Conference and letting our love for the Lord and for each other guide us together to sustain an acceptable G&S that can be included in the new scriptures. I don’t understand the issue with voting. How else can it be done? We cannot draw this thing out forever. Time is short. We need to become one, further pursuits from random groups just continue to divide us. These divisions are not productive to the whole. At least this is a path forward to a possible resolution.
    I pray we will sacrifice our own desires for the good of the whole, and unite behind one G&S, whichever that will be. I agree with the above statement by John Dotson, it is 10% about the document and 90% about becoming one. I will also fully support whichever G&S that is chosen. If we are following the promptings of the Spirit, we should be in alignment with each other. Let’s fully prepare spiritually to be led according to the will of our Lord. Becoming one with Him will result in becoming one with each other. I love you brothers and sisters. God bless us in our humble efforts to please Him. No one has to feel excluded, it’s just a G&S folks.
    Love, Lisa

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Lord: "If a man love me, he will keep my words... he that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings."

    Also the Lord: "I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people."

    You: Mutual agreement is impossible, therefore we will give the Lord near unanimity.

    Thus we see there is at least one who is not loved in this process: the one whose requirement shall go unfulfilled by this people.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  28. Soooo, it sounds to me like what is being planned (?) is not unlike what the Nonmancaaf Swhafugs group recently invited us all to do in selecting a statement from among all offered, or listing preferences. And why was it only a handful participated but now it sounds like a good idea? I'm just trying to understand what has really happened here and is happening.

    Why not ask them to re-administer that same vote before the conference?

    I do not understand the work involved, but it seems to me they already did it once and would therefore be more prepared to repeat the process.

    And why is there a request for more statements? I don't understand the point. Folks already have written or accepted what they want, correct? But maybe all previous proposals can be re-submitted?

    TIA to anyone willing to respond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Et Lux

      Several big differences between this vote and the NONMANNCAF vote
      1-We have the advance approval that the SC will publish the majorities choice. The NONMANNCAF vote from the beginning was exoected to be non-binding.
      2-Only those G&S which are submitted for vote between now and Mar 15th will be on the ballot
      3-This will be done in a conference with perhaps 500 people
      4-We will listen to any in opposition

      The request for statements is only out of an abundance for fairness.
      McKay

      Delete
    2. McKay, I assume by approval you mean the SC has given agreement to finally publish a statement? I'm still not understanding why they didn't say anything before...

      I understand the NONMANNCAF effort was more survey than vote. I guess I wish now more respect and cooperation had been shown. Maybe we would all understand one another better. Live and learn.

      Why aren't folks resubmitting their proposed GS? Or am I out of the loop?

      It would be at least good to gather and work on relationships. I know more than a few want closure and completion though.

      Opposition...is it genuinely hoped...I don't even know how to word my feelings. I am concerned people will either be too afraid to say they oppose still or anger/frustration will be so thick the Spirit will withdraw. I hope I'm just fretting over nothing, however. Lori

      Delete
  29. Since we've had several votes, the most recent a 40 day vote between all the documents written and submitted to date (of which only 80 people completed the vote and the Lots document received the majority), I am unsure that what you are trying to accomplish will actually get this accomplished once and for all. I realize that the SC is between a rock and a hard place. I realize that you are trying to listen to and respect all of the people. Since what you are suggesting has been tried before I will be surprised if many people participate. We have voter burn out. The last round of voting I put in some time and effort to try to rally people to vote, each time receiving the same answer, that, "my vote doesn't matter because I've voted before and no GS has been printed, why is this time going to be any different?". I can picture the dilemma that the SC feels that they are in with trying to deal with all of us, however, this is making me wonder what you know that we don't know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon.,

      If I know something you don't, it's this: the idea for this vote is inspired. I don't expect or even want you to trust me, however. Ask the Lord for yourself if this idea is an acceptable way, given our weakness as a people, to arrive at a G&S we can all support. If some have lost patience with this process (which I get) then only the very patient will end up making the decision. That doesn't seem all bad. However, one thing that is manifestly different this time is a PROMISE by the scriptures committee to publish the chosen document. We have never had that before, and it's a big deal. With a little (very little) good will we can bring this matter to a successful conclusion in the next three weeks. Please help us.

      Gordon

      Delete
  30. "So, I will welcome any effort Adrian or others want to propose if they think our proposal is uninspired but invite them to do as this group has done, namely, get the SC to agree to the process first."

    The SC has already agreed to a process via assenting to the covenant.

    "But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands. When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow."

    When we have an agreed statement of principles then the SC has been required to add it as a guide and standard, and not otherwise.

    And we know that we have an agreed statement of principles when none dispute its adoption.

    That's the process the SC has agreed to by covenant, as have we all.

    Any proposal which is given to circumvent my disputation of your proposals is not inspired of God.

    The only way to fulfill the Lord's requirement is by fulfilling the Lord's requirement.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since 11/27/2017, the only question before this people is do they indeed desire to be the Lord's people? If so, then they shall accept and do as he has required.

      Instead of accepting and doing as he has required, proposals have been put forth seeking how to best justify before men failing to fulfill the Lord's requirement.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    2. LOG
      Very telling how you quote endlessly the covenant that, by your public admission, you rejected before God and Angels as witnesses! And even then, just quotes and definitions that advance an agenda and doctrine.
      Your words I can judge; they bring darkness to my soul and poison to my heart so I will not engage them with any further consideration.

      Delete
    3. I didn't reject the covenant. To the contrary, not only did I accept it, but I execute it as written.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    4. My feelings exactly, John. Jared's endless posts have proved to be poisonous. Nor does his approach or engagement with others reflect the Lord's sermons and teachings. Endlessly quoting selected scriptures and twisting the words of the A&C utilizing them as a club to try and bash others over the head with them, has made a farce of Jared's engagement with others here. I believe he needed to be afforded the opportunity to show his true colors at this stage. Who can live peacefully and who cannot. Who would exercise compulsion and who would use gentle persuasion and love unfeigned. Who can safely be gathered and not destroy peace among the group. Who would place themselves above others, and who would seek to serve others. I want no part of Jared's "Zion."

      Delete
    5. “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.”
      http://logscabin.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-confession-to-my-readers.html

      Delete
    6. I repented of the lie, John. A lie I have found out I was not alone in having told.

      There is no exit from the covenant on the text as it is written. That is to say, the covenant cannot be repented of in the fashion you seem to wish to make me out to have done.

      My very next blog post reads as follows:

      I Get to Embarrass Myself Again

      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.

      http://logscabin.blogspot.com/2017/09/i-get-to-embarrass-myself-again.html

      I was standing and said "yes" when the officiator so instructed the audience, and therefore legally entered the covenant, from which there is no exit on the text as it stands.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    7. I also point out that no man's opinion of my covenant status before God matters. Only God's opinion of my covenant status matters.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    8. Log, You publicly wrote that you don’t believe that the answer to the prayer for the covenant comes from the Lord. So even if you stood and vocally said yes, all you have to do to NOT be a part of the covenant is to not live it or continually be able to answer yes to all 4 questions. Which you’ve already admitted that you don’t.

      So why continue to troll the rest of us.

      Delete
  31. Jared, I agree 100%
    I pray, literally, that your words and “apparent” attitude as seen online is not indicative of your heart.
    You see things in a way I do not naturally see, that’s a good thing, diversity of thought. But the constant drumbeat of absolutes is conducive to that of a self-righteous bully, not a disciple of Christ.
    I truly hope and pray your “words" are being misunderstood, but those words are stacking up in a way that shines a light on an agenda that I don’t condone or have any interest in being exposed any further to.

    ReplyDelete
  32. John,

    The words of the Lord are true, and we also must be resolute truth-tellers as well if we are to become what he is. If his word were not true, we could not exercise faith in him, for we could never be sure he meant what he said. He'd be just another liar in a universe of liars.

    I am speaking to you as though I were speaking to myself. The tone people get out of reading what I write is not mine.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  33. OK, I hope its all a terrible misunderstanding.
    It appears “your definition” of mutual agreement means 100% agreement.
    So, your saying we need 100% agreement, yet the God of Heaven had a third part in disagreement with Him. So, we need to be better than Heaven for a Guide and Standard?
    Also
    “Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless, benefit and inform them—so I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you.” (A-C Pg. 8)

    Yet you reject any proposal that forwards “anything” about the work now under way or wise in what “we” write

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The body isn’t fixed or permanent. There may be folks coming and going. Unanimity starts all over with even 1 addition to the movement. Most of us won’t even know if newcomers come along, so we could loose unanimity and not know it. Jared’s view doesn’t make sense to me despite months of attempts to understand.

      The clarified definition of Mutual Agreemnt on the other hand was about choice. Choosing not to dispute. Unanimity, majority, minority, those are all categories that happen after people make a choice. I think the choice itself is what does that natural separating.

      Jared do you accept the clarified definition of Mutual Agreement as posted by the scripture committee? From what I can tell, the clarification made no difference to your current perspective.

      Delete
  34. John,

    The Lord said: "The Book of Mormon was given as my covenant for this day and contains my gospel, which came forth to allow people to understand my work and then obtain my salvation."

    How does his gospel allow people to understand his work and then obtain his salvation? He tells us again: "All must come unto me or they cannot be saved. And how do men come unto me? It is by faith, repentance, and baptism, which bring the Holy Ghost to then show you all things you must know."

    It is the role of the Holy Ghost to teach men of the Lord's work now underway, and it is his gospel that must be obeyed to receive the Holy Ghost. This is why The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles contains only his gospel and nothing more.

    If his gospel is not believed and put into actual practice and the Holy Ghost is therefore not received, no matter what men think they understand, they still do not understand the Lord's work now underway.

    Thus The Rock of Jesus Christ blesses, benefits, and informs those who as yet know nothing of the Lord's work now underway by giving them the information necessary to obtain the Holy Ghost so that the Lord can teach them and lead them to every good thing, including his salvation, instead of leading those who know nothing of the Lord's work now underway to trust in men - yes, Denver Snuffer is a man - and remain in darkness.

    The Lord says: "I lead to all truth. I will lead all who come to me to the truth of all things. The fullness is to receive the truth of all things, and this too from me, in power, by my word and in very deed."

    That's his role. Ours is to give men enough information to receive the Holy Ghost that they may be led to the Lord. That information is the gospel.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well Jared, your stating the obvious, I mean duh.
    If we have any hope to be involved in the establishment of New Jerusalem or reside in Zion, it will be because we “know the Lord”. Those who know the Lord will we have many covenants both personally and as a “people”. When the Lord promises a person or a people, it’s a covenant.
    And for the record, I follow the Lord only!
    HOWEVER, most of my knowledge of the Lord began with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, King Benjamin etc. also Joseph Smith and now Denver. I don’t follow any of these people, but I sure do study their words and have benefited greatly from them; I believe they came from the Lord. Probably the “people “of the Cities of Enoch and Melchizedek benefited from the teachings, words and writings of the prophets also, including Enoch and Melchizedek of their day.
    If a person disputes all the words of men, where did they get the words of Christ as we have them? Do they dispute Mathew, Nephi, Joseph Smith? Or is it just Denver’s words they dispute? If it’s Denver’s words such as in the covenant, why would they want to be involved in this other than to breed contention?
    So your cheery picking quotes from Denver and flogging people with them and ignoring the rest, like the questions I posed to you above. So far all you have done is reconfirm your agenda.?


    ReplyDelete
  36. Jared, you appear to be caught in the trap of judging others heart. Just because your heart swelled with pride while taking the covenant last September doesn’t mean the covenant was evil as you apparently do, or that everyone is like you.
    When I took the covenant, after reading it probably 50 times, I recognized it as being from the Lord to “a people” and accepted it in fear and trembling as a part “of something beyond myself” and what the Lord had promised me personally. But something between the Lord, myself and others, as well as the opportunity it represented in the earth’s history. The emotion of pride wasn’t even on the list of what I experienced that day nor since.
    I’ve got to go, so I’m done with this discussion. In my view you’ve made yourself abundantly clear as to what you believe and your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous asks: "Jared do you accept the clarified definition of Mutual Agreement as posted by the scripture committee? From what I can tell, the clarification made no difference to your current perspective."

    The clarification solely made the task of publicly determining mutual agreement possible: when none among us choose to dispute the adoption of a proposal, then we know we have mutual agreement on that proposal.

    So I have chosen to dispute all but one proposal.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  38. John,

    If you believe the Lord's words, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man" then you should agree that teaching others to trust in men - yes, Denver Snuffer is a man - and not to trust in Christ alone is to curse them.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is, in fact, to curse, harm, and misinform them. I do not want to be cursed, harmed, nor misinformed. Therefore the law of God requires that I dispute any such attempt to curse, harm, and misinform those who as yet know nothing concerning the Lord's work now underway.

      And any who believe the Lord's words, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man," should do likewise.

      And any who believe the Lord's words, "I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands," had ought to give no support to any of these attempts to defraud the Lord of his requirement.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    2. McKay,

      C’mon my brother - equating a group of men who form an unappointed committee with the voices of over four hundred people speaking in unison is right on the verge of being insulting to common intelligence. But, I have been guilty of making foolish comparisons myself... so this one slides for you. Mine have been even worse.

      The Book of Mormon is clear that it is the voice of the people by which we ought to conduct our business. Twice, my own vote has been rendered meaningless by decisions made by an unappointed committee of men. I voted for the August 5th document and, as you know, I have been involved with, believe in, and voted for what has come to be called the Lots document. The voice of the people has been rendered null and without meaning in the case of both documents.

      The Lots process and document began in late September after it became clear that by fiat, the August 5th document would not be allowed to be included. The entire process began with one, then seven, then twenty seven, then within a couple weeks over a hundred had affixed their names to the truths suggesting a way forward. Soon, there was a merging of the truths given regarding unity and unification of the people, with the work, thought, and revelation of a group started by James Fargo and Jim O’Rullian who had simultaneously received and developed the Lots concept for allowing God to reveal seven who would compile the writings and ideas from the body to produce a document. Karen’s elaboration of the development of the process is wonderful. Look at that. Suffice it to say that over nintythree percent of the interested body were involved and approved both the process and the outcome. Close to five hundred people spoke. The peoples’ voice was overridden by a few who happen not to agree but also have a spot on a powerful committee. We ought not have powerful committees anywhere among us. If I am a lone voice
      Then I will say by myself, we don’t want or need any unappointed group of men deciding anything among us.

      Now I know there are those reading this that are shaking their heads saying - poor Steve - he’s off base - this is no way to get something done on the GS. I respond, there are bigger issues, more impactful to us all than which document we choose. I will not abide power among us that binds our collective voices contrary to our collective will. Not said with a great deal of diplomacy - I know. If we continue forward allowing what is happening without throwing down a check, we have travelled backwards not forward.

      This will surprise many - I began absolutely indifferent to which document was included, what I want is what the Lord ratifies (or has ratified.) I voted twice for two different documents. Both of my votes were rendered null by unappointed men.

      Tell me why anyone ought to believe another of their votes will mean anything? Will it be because the committee says it’s ok?

      Delete
    3. LOG, Who said anything about trusting in man?? Holy Sh@t fire dude!
      I’ll end with this
      We both accept Nephi, Mormon and Joseph Smith as men.
      Yet, as we have already agreed, all men are filled with darkness, especially in comparison to the Lord. However we both accept their words, when acting via the Holy Spirit, as from the Lord.
      You reject the words of Denver, at least in the covenant. I do not, I see them when acting via the Holy Spirit, as with the others, and from God.
      OK, that’s okay, you have that right and I respect that.
      Just please quit playing this game and acting your perceived part of Gods bully as though it will somehow atone for your perceived sin and mistake in taking the evil covenant. Please spare us of your screwed-up penance mission!

      Delete
  39. I meant to sign my name to the response to McKay above. I will comment briefly here and then sign my name to both this and what was written above.

    Suggesting the Lots process and document were tantamount to a perfunctory primary election as in the analogy you put forth, does not hold water. Every soul among the nearly five hundred who raised their voices and their votes in favor of the final Lots document believed, and believe, their collective voices would provide the direction of the people. It was, in fact, the election of the people’s choice. If anyone is unclear about what should be done from here, the answer has been given and is clear, and very simple, unless someone who believes they have power to ignore the voice of the people decides differently. The people have spoken - let it be done as they have asked.

    Steve VanLeer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve,

      I don't understand how you can claim the voice of the people on both Aug 5th and the Lots. It’s interesting to see that both the Aug 5th and the Lots documents are what the SC are conflicted about. No matter what, you are aligned to win, as you are aligned to both. The process of the Lots to lock in the votes based upon the process, despite the content of the document, and using the voice of the people as the justification, is the same compulsion the LDS uses. They could quote the same verses you quote, and justify their actions. While you speak in terms of percentages, they would weigh at you a far greater quantity of votes. Are you for the Aug 5th, or are you for the Lots? It seems as if you are for the Lots, so are you withdrawing from the Aug 5th? And if the Aug 5th document was published, would you have ever proceeded to argue a Lots effort? The SC is in between both of your documents. You, the Strong’s and O’Rullain’s added your voices to “both documents,” and both documents are in conflict.

      I cannot support either of them because its content necessitates an SC. In either of the two documents, nothing has been designed within them to remove the necessity for yet another SC. Despite which of the two documents wins, both will necessitate another SC for future efforts. The question of how a government with no government works without an SC governing is still unanswered. And the voice of the people has no idea that it is necessary.

      If this project does not take into account self governing, the voice of the people will continue to divide further, until you’re left with those who have elected themselves. The voice of the people is not a device to depend upon to always choose right. The “voice of the Lord”…IS THOUGH! After all, the voice of the people was the device also used by the Gadianton robbers, and all secret combinations that resulted in apostasy just as well. Take it easy on the SC. After all, your vote is why they face working through the deadlock.

      Given enough time, and enough poor reaction, people's true character will be unable to be contained, and desperation will cause atrophy. The jarring and strife of the early saints did not atrophy the “quantities” of people. Their recruiting efforts and financial welfare systems continued growing the LDS “voting” population. The atrophy was to THEIR MINDS! The quantities of the recruited LDS will continue to grow, and the voice of the people, in their ignorance, will continue to devolve and align with the political standards of the LDS today. While their numbers continue to grow, their minds suffer atrophy, when it ought to expand. I support an expansion, against atrophy. And that leaves me to stand alone, without “the voice of the people,” to depend solely upon “the voice of the Lord.” I recommend all wait upon the voice of the Lord to separate, rather than the devices of people to determine the outcome.

      You claim to be willing to stand alone. But, is it possible, in the argument that you have “the voice of the people” on your side, …for you to stand alone? A house divided against itself is not a house, let alone a house of order.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. This is not something to be won or lost as you think and suggest. This is an opportunity to unite in the Lord Jesus Christ. I really believe it matters little to our Redeemer which document we unite around as long as it is His word which He has given us, and He is at the center, at the beginnng, and at the end of all we do. The flaw is not the chosen document. The flaw exists in hearts that believe something is to be personally won or lost in this effort. You have aptly described the real flaw in the whole works. I believe “winning” as you suggest, has nothing whatever to do with which document is chosen and included. Winning, is allowing mutual agreement between a body who coalesce and unite around the Lord Jesus Christ, His instruction and His Redemption. “Winning” is pleasing Him and Him alone. And that means they choose not to dispute among them. There are yet many, (usually the very same ones), who choose to dispute and divide. A very great many have chosen to unite and mutually agree and not dispute among them as required by the Lord.

      I think the body is very clear about who it is that demands that they “win” the GS effort as if it were a contest to be won. I will not dispute with you Rob and I absolutely refuse to compete with you in this “game” you have constructed. If you need to “win” the GS effort - then I declare you the winner. Now let’s move on and let it be.

      Steve VanLeer

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

      Delete

    4. Great, Steve! I’m glad we finally agree on the winner. That’s one down and a couple of thousand more to go! Tee-hee!

      You're a funny guy, ...in your own way, of course. The winning I suggested had nothing to do with me, …it is “your” document winning over “your” document, since you voted in both occasions, and in both occasions spoke out that “THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN.”

      All this time I've been trying to see if we can continue working toward something that “I can agree to,” something that “I would be willing to not only say, but to do,” something that can include me and my family, without you tripping out on me. So if you are going to do as you say, and let me win, …then let’s keep working together until we are in mutual agreement. I would call that a win for the two of us.

      Sam Vaughn has proposed an idea of continuing in peace, without all this rubbish talk of making losers by winning over another. Let’s win together. Drop your document, chalk all the work up you’ve done up to this point to experience, and let’s figure this thing out. That way you don’t have to only say you don’t want to compete. By working together, we actually don’t compete.

      I get that you believe it doesn’t matter much to Christ which document is chosen, as long as it’s His word, that He’s given us, and He is at the center, beginning and end of all we do (I’m paraphrasing you now). I believe it does matter to Christ. Would you recommend I pay less attention to the Lord’s voice instructing me about Him, and defer to your belief’s instead?

      Brother, I am not motivated by guilt, and you don’t need to exhaust your Delta-miles on me for a trip. Guilt trips have never interested me. Put simply, if I win, getting what I wanted, then you and I would continue working until we agree. However, if you win, then the work ends, you print what you have pushed, you move ahead with your winning document, and I wish you all the best. Best of luck, and “Good Game.”

      Malama pono a hui hou
      (Take care of righteousness, until we come together again)

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  40. The voice of the people should be ignored. This is why.

    "You hinder and delay and then you say I require too much of you and do not allow you time, when, if your hearts were right and you prepared yourselves you could have finished this work long ago."

    "Yet 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."

    "But you have also scarred one another by your unkind treatment of each other, and you do not notice your misconduct toward others because you think yourself justified in this. You bear the scars on your countenances, from the soles of your feet to the head, and every heart is faint. Your visages have been so marred that your hardness, mistrust, suspicions, resentments, fear, jealousies and anger toward your fellow man bear outward witness of your inner self; you cannot hide it."

    And so on. More in this vein can be culled from the A&C.

    Mosiah 29
    26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

    27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

    The Lord in the A&C has made it perfectly clear that this people chooses iniquity at this time. The voice of the people should not be heeded.

    Regardless of all of the above, the Lord has mercifully granted that the voice of the people is not how the G&S shall be chosen. Mutual agreement is how the G&S shall be chosen and not the voice of the people.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  41. An additional citation is relevant: "I desire to heal you from an awful state of blindness so that you may see clearly my will, to do it."

    From this we see that this people is blind, neither knowing the Lord's will nor doing it. Even when this people understands the Lords will, for example, that they shall adopt a guide and standard by mutual agreement, they do not accept and do as he has required.

    The voice of this people is therefore unsuitable as a guide to any man.

    Luke 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jared, may I ask if you and your family are considering attending the conference being held in AZ this month? Perhaps it would be good to gather in person to develop and strengthen bonds of friendship? Perhaps greater understanding of one another could happen? I suppose I am hoping at least.

      Delete
    2. Lori,

      I do not know at this time that we will be attending.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    3. I understand Jared, and thank you for responding. I just want you and your wife to know you are officially invited. Haha. Seriously though, please know you are both loved and wanted at the conference should you feel impressed or able to attend.

      Delete
    4. Lori,

      I appreciate the sentiment.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  42. Can an unambiguous definition for "clear majority" and "overwhelming majority" be given? I believe this should be presented beforehand so that all are on the same page.

    I should also note that are some odd possibilities due to the inclusion of step 2 (requiring that the "overwhelming majority" of the minority who did not vote for the document in favor to state that they will accept it).
    For example take 2 hypothetical cases:
    1. A document gains 95% acceptance and has 5% who are adamantly opposed and will not accept.
    2. A document gains 75% acceptance, has 5% who are adamantly opposed and the remaining 20% who favored a different document but would support the majority chosen document.
    (Assume for the sake of this discussion that 75% is the mark for clear acceptance). By my reading of the proposal, case 1 would fail because a clear majority of those not in favor would not accept the majority's selection, but case 2 would pass, even though it had less support that case 1 with the same amount of adamantly opposed.
    I think it is good to include step 2 to allow people to express their support/non-dispute, but as I am typing this it seems that the acceptance criteria after step 2 should be a certain threshold of people in support of the document (majority + supporting minority) out of everyone rather than the threshold of supporting minority out of just the minority. Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimmy,

      During the first vote at the conference, the minority (and only the minority) will be asked whether or not they are willing to support the majority’s choice of G&S. There needs to be “overwhelming” support from the minority for the vote to go forward from that point. I can’t say what “overwhelming” support means, numerically. Or rather, I don’t want to say. I fear that if we put a number out there, and tell folks, “O.K., if 25 people are in opposition, then the vote comes to a halt,” then there may be some bad actors that will game the system in order to get to that number. Unfortunately, there seems to be a few in this movement that are willing to dispute anything and everything.

      But here’s a commitment: we will follow the biblical injunction to establish the matter “by the evidence of two or three witnesses.” We will do our level best to find two or three wise, disinterested (not uninterested — disinterested) grey-hairs to stand as witnesses at the conference, and if they unanimously affirm that the minority has voted overwhelmingly in favor of the majority’s choice, then we will proceed. We will try to find individuals to fill this role that have proven to be wise, and temperate. Any nominations?

      Regarding your scenarios. The most important number in this process is the number of people in the minority that are willing to go along with the majority’s wishes. That number will be the test of our hearts. That number will show us if we are ready as a people to move forward or if we are stuck in Babylon. The support for any given document is relatively unimportant. The document is not the important thing; our hearts are what’s being judged here. Scenario 1 would deserve to fail, because the people could not be entreated. Scenario 2 would deserve to succeed, because it would show a willingness to be united. Both scenarios have 5% adamantly opposed, that’s true, but scenario 2 has 20% that didn’t get what they wanted, but for the sake of unity went along anyway. That deserves to be rewarded.

      We could use some help making this vote happen. Are you interested?

      Gordon
      gordoplat@gmail.com

      Delete
    2. Gordon,

      Have you identified the minority? Has anyone identified the minority? Has anyone asked them what would work for them? How do you know the majority of minority are in agreement of this plan? I find it interesting, that those on the majority side make a decision and then expect the minority to agree and if they don’t they are in opposition. At each vote beginning June 10, there has always been a 7% minority, were they identified at any of these times and did anyone talk to or work with that minority? At every vote, those on the majority side forge ahead to create a process for everyone, never ever really talking to the minority. When has the minority concerns ever been addressed?

      Q

      Delete
    3. Q,

      I cannot tell you the names or the number of the minority. I know that some (the "lots" group for instance) have reached out to those who they thought may be a part of the minority. And, if you will reread the Feb. 9 proposal, you will see that there will be an effort as part of this process both before and after the vote to reach out to the minority. I do NOT know, however, that the minority will go along with the majority's preference. I hope they will, freely, voluntarily, generously, but we proposed this vote precisely to find out IF they will.

      I don't know how to convince you of the motivation of those involved in making this proposal, so I will just say this. We care very much that EVERYONE gets a chance to stand up and be heard. We do not want to shut down anyone's agency. This vote requires no one to do anything they choose not to do. And, as I have outlined elsewhere, there are no less than 4 opportunities built in to this proposal for folks to opt out and bring the vote to a close. At every turn, if the people don't want this vote to happen it will not proceed. There are no overseers here. Only the people get to say what happens.

      I respect the rights of the minority, whoever they are and however many there are to believe as they choose, and to stand up for whatever they believe in. You are at liberty, Q, to believe as you choose and to propose and pursue any course that you think best. And by that same standard, I get to pursue the course i think best. And to try to persuade others to come along. I think this is a fair way to proceed. I think this vote finds a balance between individuals' agency and the group's duty to finish the assignment given to us by the Lord. I think the process for this vote is inspired, but please don't take my word for it. Ask the Lord for yourself. I have, and I believe that if the minority can find it in their hearts to support whichever document the majority chooses, that they will blessed for doing so.

      Gordon



      Delete
    4. I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out in the open by responding to questions and concerns, Gordon. It's not easy.

      The more I hear about this idea, though, the more uncomfortable I become. I will be very honest. I do not feel okay with proceeding. It definitely appears like certain folks are being challenged, like they have to defend themselves against others.

      Your last sentences to Q reminded me of exactly what an LDS church leader would say in trying to persuade me to do what he wants. Scary. I know you can only share what you believe Spirit has conveyed to you and I believe you have good intentions, but...holy shizzle. Ima kinda freaking out over what I am seeing. This is the beginning foundation for Zion???

      Delete
    5. Gordon,

      Thank-you for your response. So, it seems like you are saying, you don’t know who the minority are, but they will be made known at the conference and you are hoping they will go along with the majority. You believe this vote is inspired of God and you see this to be the best way to complete the assignment given. You believe that everyone has agency to choose, and you believe if the minority will support the majority’s choice they will be blessed. All in all, you are doing the best you can to unite the people. I hope I understand what you stated.

      I agree with you, the motivation behind the people who proposed this process, and any other process is based on their understanding of love, peace, unity, etc. I believe everyone, including Jared has good intentions.

      I also believe that everyone has a right to choose. God respects man’s agency. I don’t believe that anyone’s intentions are to shut down anyone’s agency. I’m not talking about agency, I’m talking about understanding. I’m not too sure why we have to wait for the conference to try and understand the next person. I’ve taken a lot of time to study and ask about voting, lots and majority. I just don’t come up with the same conclusion as you do. I don’t think I’m being prideful by saying this. I don’t think it is contentious to make my voice known about this.

      I believe, a “yes or no” vote doesn’t really tell us the “voice of the people.” To me the “voice of the people” refers to what their beliefs are and what they desire. I have talked to several people who voted yes to this document, some say they believe it’s revelation from God, some say they believe once it’s done they don’t have to look at it again, some say it really doesn’t matter, some say they just want this to be done, some say they supported it because they are friends with so and so, some say the document is “meh” but they will support it because they want unity. So, when you say you hope that the minority join the majority, what belief and desire am I supporting and joining?

      Is this the mechanism (lots, voting, majority) that will be pushed on the people every time a decision is to be made? If you believe this mechanism/system is from God, why not include it in the Lots document, so everyone knows what to expect the next time a decision comes around?

      I believe it is the Voice of the Lord that matters, not what the majority decide; therefore, I will do as the Lord commands.

      Q

      Delete
    6. Lux,

      Respectfully, when did you ever hear a GA say, "The church is going to adopt whichever proposal the PEOPLE choose. The decision is in the hands of the PEOPLE." I can't ever remember them taking that approach. Their approach is usually to dictate to the membership based on their privileged relationship with God. We suggest that folks go to God themselves if they want to know if this process is inspired. And the process, whatever else it does, puts the power in the hands of the folks. Is that the approach you see in the L.D.S. church?

      You are right about one thing, however. This vote will challenge everyone to stand up and be counted. Is that a bad thing? Is it unreasonable to ask folks to be accountable for their choices? Are the scriptures rife with examples of that very thing? "We ought to have to choose." Do you remember those words? Do you agree with them?

      If ever I have a family that I can surround myself with that is based on love, respect, and mutual sacrifice, it will come from this body of people. I treasure all of you; I want to find myself in Zion one day with all of you. I have no desire to offend or hurt anyone, least of all anyone in this movement. But we have a hard task ahead of us. We must come together in mutual agreement before we can move forward. This proposed vote is a way which can help us to come together. That is the sole reason that we have offered it to all of you.

      Gordon

      Delete
    7. Numero uno.

      Hey Gordon. First let me say I'm sorry if I offended you. I probably should have worded myself better. Q and Rob are so much better at communicating than I am, and I agree with everything Q just commented back to you.

      In my comment, I was specifically referring to this that you said: "Ask the Lord for yourself. I have, and I believe that if the minority can find it in their hearts to support whichever document the majority chooses, that they will blessed for doing so."

      I don't believe you intended anything nefarious with that. I accept that you are being genuine and trying to help others understand this proposal. It just came across differently to me, and that is my own issue. But I also know there is a lot of dark intimidation used in human relationships to get others to agree or obey. It is prolific in all religions. And yes, I have heard church leaders say such a thing to me more than once. It's like saying 'trust me, I know what is best for you even when you don't,' but there's this strange veiled threat underneath hinting that danger is afoot if I don't hearken. It’s also assuming what the speaker has said is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and if the listener hears anything different he/she got it wrong.

      As to asking for myself, why bother? I feel like I am never given time to consider and pray and study any of these ideas. It seems once an idea is posted to the blog, bam! It is immediately put into action without any discussion or tweaking. And each new idea seems to get more complicated. I don’t think I ever want to hear about voting ever again in my life, except I live in a country where everything is determined via votes and now I am in a covenant group who practice the same thing. Oh, dear.

      And the lots version apparently has the Lord’s backing, so why bother seeking an answer for myself? If I say He has spoken differently to me, then what? I’m opposing? I’m deceived?

      It’s like sustaining in the LDS church. Sure, I can oppose, but it won’t change anything. Should it? If my opposing had the power to truly stop something, leaders would quickly take away the opportunity altogether or ignore me by saying it’s just an offering of faith, prayers and support.

      Delete
    8. Numero dos.

      There has to be some greater way. We need more light. I don’t have an idea yet, but I would really like for us all to unite in our confounded condition and ask Christ for His Light to show us the way. I wonder if we are just trying too hard to lean on our own understanding of how to do something in our eagerness to show we can do this thing.

      I agree we are all accountable for our thoughts, words, and actions, to Christ and one another. It’s just that this sounds like it is going to be handled by putting some few front and center in front of a firing squad. I cannot imagine how intimidating such an atmosphere will feel to someone. It feels unfair and wrong, but I get the belief that face-to-face might help build bridges of understand move hopefully those few along to agreement.

      And yes, I definitely feel the struggle in trying to discern from among all these voices. To me, the choice is so simple: the doctrine of Christ and His law as He unfolded in His sermons. It’s the foundation of a Christian life, and I feel we Christians have done a poor job in studying and living them. Maybe we should begin with the basics? I could live with such a statement for now, until we, as a people, become enlarged with greater light to show us the Way, otherwise I feel to wait. It feels both kind to us and kind to others to state we believe in Christ and follow Him. And Christ also said the way to learn and understand more was to obey and follow Him, to do the things He did.

      Maybe I am still a baby in the gospel of Christ and all y’all are more mature and grown up. I’ll keep trying to stand and learn to walk with you, if you are willing to show me a lot of charity and patience. I’m sorry I can offer nothing more than a willing heart and hands. I won’t dispute any documents, but I also do not know at this time if I will be voting in this next round. I don’t think I am the one you all need to sort out in terms of opposition.

      And Gordon, you’re a good egg. Thanks for trying to help us all understand. Lori

      Delete
    9. Q.

      I think it's a good idea to try to understand others in this movement. And, I applaud your efforts to do so. I also agree that there's no need to wait for the conference to make that effort. But may I suggest that the proposed vote can help us to understand one another. If, as I hope, a large part of the minority agrees to support the majority's choice despite their own personal preferences, won't that help us to see their generosity. Would such a vote help us to understand that perhaps we are beginning to abandon our gentile pride? If we lay aside our own desires to accommodate the desires of others, would that help us to understand that we are beginning to love one another?

      A vote is an imperfect vehicle to bring us to perfect understanding, but perhaps it's a place to start. To my mind if the minority supports the majority's choice it communicates love, generosity, the abandonment of pride, and the desire for unity. That would be a good start.

      You are right of course that it is the voice of the Lord that matters. Please ask him to tell you if this vote is acceptable to him, given our weakness as a people. Please forgive the suggestion if you have already done so.

      Your brother, Gordon

      Delete
  43. Chris had quoted from Denver earlier: “Every one of man's institutions are corrupt. They are led by men and women who rule against the best interests, even the will, of the people over whom they exercise control. They abuse authority and their subordinates lord it over their minions.”

    Doesn't this affirm that at least Denver believes that there is something important in listening to the will of the people? Institutions don't listen to the will (voice) of the people. Let's not be an institution. How else do we gauge "the will of the people" without voting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 1 of 2
      American Indians believe in one circle, one hoop, a medicine wheel. Not one above the other. Native tribes didn’t incorporate a “yes or no voting system” until we were forced by the dominant (or majority) colonizing governmental system or culture. When we were first forced onto reservations, we made the best of it, utilizing our own system of equality. Initially, we struggled, but within 30 years, we recovered and thrived. Natives raised and sold more grain and cattle than their counterparts because they had learned how to cooperate.

      The success of the Natives frustrated the colonists into adding regulations and laws, to gain the upper hand. They implemented even smaller boundaries and stricter stipulations, that required Natives to kill their own cattle and waste their own crops, unable to compete by these new rules. The new circumstances set our people back once again, but this time it only took us 15 years to recover and thrive. Our tribes flourished even through the great depression. Our system of equality, while rudimentary, succeeded each time in recovering and thriving.

      The killing blow to the Native people happened when the majority/dominant/colonist culture forced and instituted the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934 (IRA). They enforced and redesigned tribal government, to reflect the colonist government, where voting, officers, and a grand council “governs” over the tribe. Although they used “Native titles” (like chief & council) for the names of the offices, …the structure was not our traditional structure of equality any longer. Chief & Council became reduced to an elected popular vote, and were no longer respected for their wisdom & knowledge, …holding the responsibility to disseminate wisdom & knowledge throughout the people. They were reduced to being the new boss on the block, whose hand was in the pocket of the federal government programs, and alignment with them is considered alignment with money. The new system, enforcing the Indian Reorganization Act, reflected the system of the majority/dominant/colonist culture, who knew nothing of the land, the animals, the mountains & rivers, and the heavens. They captured and bound the minds of the native people. To the colonists, this was “kind.” But, to us, it was the death-blow to seal the scattering of Israel to this day. Institutionalism was planted in the core of our tribes, and not only have we not recovered, but we have been spinning our wheels ever since.

      Rather than helping the situation, religious institutions created further damage. In the name of God, colonist priests finished the job of thoroughly institutionalizing the heart of the Natives. With government running the mind of the tribe, the colonist priests trapped the spirit of the tribe by teaching false traditions of unbelief, that opposed most of our Native belief systems of ascent, connection to land, animals, and heaven. We have been in complete bondage, both mind & heart, unable to be restored.

      Delete
    2. Part 2 of 2

      My doctoral dissertation is a part of a massive study called “The Brain Drain.” And my findings identified that educated Native people return to the reservation because of “relationships.” But, when asked what Native people would recommend to promote a more returning educated populace, …they all recommend more “government programs!” This is an indicator of thorough institutionalization. The reservation has been thoroughly scattered and divided by both institutions of the mind and the heart (government & religion). Institutions broke our one circle, and created hierarchy, winners and losers. Now, “majority rules” on the reservation, rather than wisdom & knowledge counseling and teaching. It seems to reflect what’s happening now, among us.

      The pattern and story of institutionalism is not limited to Native Americans. In 1840 American missionaries came to Hawaii and brought many religious, cultural, economic and political changes. That year a constitutional monarchy was established, stripping the Hawaiian monarch, implementing a government of voting, and since this time the Hawaiians have lost their lands and not recovered. In Hawaii, it is termed “The Great Mahele,” meaning “the great division.” The land was once an ahupua’a (an altar), whose fruits of the land was an offering to Akua (God). The vegetation, animal life, and people were all considered the fruits of the land. Since “The Great Mahele,” commoditizing their culture through tourism has been their only staple, unable to live off the land. Recovery seems impossible without the freedom from institutionalization. They have been spinning their wheels ever since. The majority rules in America. And with universal healthcare, maximized taxes, and debt enough to drown the Earth, how has that worked out?

      At one point both the Blackfoot and Hawaiian people lived by a system that was instructed by the earth and the stars. To us, “owning” the land, plants, and animals was a foreign concept, and still is. However, we have lost our wisdom & knowledge (our hearts and minds), by submitting to a process of men to make decisions on our behalf. I will not submit to this process of voting.

      If this process of voting represents the voice of the people, it does not represent the voice of my people: my immediate and extended family. I have my own voice and can speak on behalf of myself. I do not approve of using votes as a justification to speak for the whole, while ignoring the individual. This majority/dominant/colonist culture doesn’t care about relationships. They cared more about progressing their agendas and winning the competition, no matter what it costs in relationships.

      When Ammon and king Limhi wanted to know the “voice of the people” concerning the matter at hand, they gathered together and consulted with one another. This is the type of system that the Blackfoot and Hawaiians employed before the dominant/majority/colonist culture was enforced upon them. Relationships take time, work and effort. In order to gather and consult we need to have a relationship. It’s not like home/visit teaching of ten minutes a month. It requires talking story, long stories, and in-depth conversation, …the kind you would never find at a social event, rather in a personal setting, in familiarity, in homes. Institutionalization only isolates individuals, reducing any hope for relationships, suffering conversations to be limited to large conferences, building meetings, impersonal settings, where true feelings cannot be discussed.

      Q

      Delete
    3. McKay and Gordon,

      I left a comment addressed to McKay, but actually for both of you, way up higher in the thread. I think it will get lost in how long this thread has become, but I wanted to make sure you get it. It's right after McKay's comment asking for my input, and is identified with March 5th 10:02 a.m. Thanks. Karen

      Delete
    4. Q, ever since reading your comments, I keep wondering what was the knowledge and wisdom of American Indians and Hawaiians had which you reference. I feel like I need some good history lessons from you and Rob, and there is much I/we can learn from your lives and ancestral histories. I love this concept of one circle, one hoop, medicine wheel, earth and stars as foundational building blocks for families and groups. If you have any recommended readings, please share. I want to learn more. Lori

      Delete
    5. Q,

      What you said really resonates with me; with my understanding of Zion.

      I've really been concentrating these past few days on how we as a people can succeed here, and I believe our only hope is to learn from the medicine wheel you mentioned above. It is one wheel, not many, not one above another.

      We all need to be working on the same document, not competing documents. Zion has no spirit of competition, but that is what we have here. It is chaos, not order.

      You described the councils of your people. I believe that is what we as a covenant people must come to, or we will never be united.

      What you suggest will take time, but we've already spent a year and are further from mutual agreement than a year ago. If we came together in a council, working on the same document until it was done, not rushing to vote to accept, but taking the time needed, I think we have a chance of succeeding as a people. Otherwise, even if we choose one of the existing documents, I don't know that we will survive as a people.

      -Sam Vaughn

      Delete
    6. Lori,

      I highly recommend Hugh Nibley's "Promised Lands" article. It is found in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol 13 Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints.

      I think it is a good place to start for all of us to begin to understand, coming from the background we come from. It is completely relevant to where we as a people are right now, and is a great segue.

      I also would like to know more. I've learned more talking face to face with Rob and Q than I have found written down. We need more face to face :)

      -Sam Vaughn

      Delete
    7. Thank you for the rec, Sam! BYU.edu has it online so I will plan on studying it over the next couple of days. And I like everything you said to Q, and agree, especially how we may not survive this if we don't correct ourselves at this juncture. The idea of a council absolutely resonates with me, and taking time to work together. I will also study up on medicine wheels, to understand how they were created and used. Lori

      Delete
  44. We need to keep reminding ourselves that we are learning a whole new way of governance, it will not be easy, its going to be messy and difficult.
    I’m thinking we need more; “Lives guided and maintained by virtue, by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness, and pure knowledge, without hypocrisy, and without guile. We seek His presence, to be His people, to abide His covenant, and for the establishment of Zion in preparation for His return”.
    There’s a reason this has only been successful two times in history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, John. I do believe we, as a group, need more light. I at least do. I hope I am not the dim bulb shorting everyone out! Walking the talk of the sermons and scriptures is a challenge indeed. I've got a lot of stinking thinking to eradicate. Lori

      Delete
  45. No number of votes can turn a disputed document into a mutually agreed-upon document in this matter.

    If and when the SC places a disputed document in the scriptures while pretending they have fulfilled the requirement of the Lord, then we have failed at the assignment - not because the Lord's requirement for mutual agreement wasn't understood, but because the cost of accepting and doing what he required - adopting The Rock of Jesus Christ - was considered unacceptable compared to the cost of defrauding the Lord. As the SC have themselves said: "We frankly can’t see much downside to [defrauding the Lord]."

    The SC's explicit and self-declared inability to see the downside to defrauding the Lord, given that the Lord told us what the downside is within the text of the A&C - that the Lord shall give us tasks that we cannot fulfill - should give the covenant people of the Lord pause to consider whether they wish to participate in this fraud.

    After all, as Joseph said, salvation requires doing all things whatsoever the Lord our God commands, not merely some things, thus the covenant body cannot be saved if the SC succeeds at perpetrating this fraud as they have openly purposed, even if some individuals may yet be found faithful to the covenant.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not the one who made the rules, and we all agreed to the rules by covenant. This warning is a logical consequence of the truth of the Lord's words and the fact that to gain salvation as a body we must all equally do all things whatsoever the Lord commands. Our failure at future tasks is guaranteed by the SC's success at defrauding the Lord by placing a disputed document in the scriptures.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    2. And when they shall ask you if you will accept the results of the vote, or, in other words, if you will agree with them to defraud the Lord, then you have your opportunity to make your loyalties known to both God and men.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  46. Agreed on all points Lux. I'm biting my tongue here trying to restrain myself. Thanks for saying it almost exactly as I would have...

    As a woman (we are legion) who has been serially abused by so-called priesthood authority over the course of a long and eventful lifetime it gets to the point where, like a good bear dog up wind, I can smell something coming before anyone can see it.

    I smell bear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I can offer is that sometimes we need to speak so that we can either be reassured something is not so or let others see how we unconsciously carry damaging traditions with us wherever we go. I think men have a very different experience and perspective in religious traditions, which favor them in a lot of ways. But I also think we have many really good men in this covenant body, and for them I am grateful. They are like our Father of Lights, made in His Image. Sometimes I have a moment when that thought takes my breath away. There is nothing so beautiful and powerful as a righteous man of God. Well, maybe a newborn baby. :) Okay, so a righteous man and woman of God, together, as one. :) :) Zion!

      Lori
      PS--Good to hear from you, chica. Hope you are well and smiling much.

      Delete
  47. What if the REAL WORK taking place here is a “process” of development as a people learning a “new way” and not about the “chosen document “?
    What if many people were told, by the Lord, they should write a G&S or how it should be adopted? NOT JUST YOU!
    What if this really isn’t about a chosen document, but instead a process?
    The process of the Lord taking a diverse people from where they’re at presently, not only the group, but as individuals, and under His care and direction bringing them together as to become a “people”. As one.
    We are just at the beginning of learning new ways from God verses the ways of man and understanding and practicing a whole new way of governing ourselves.
    Should we all be inspired and capable of writing a G&S? How can we hope to learn to be Zion if not so?
    Does this have something to do with stripping ourselves of selfishness, pride, coveting and jealousy’s and coming unto Christ?
    Isn’t this about a process of development above all else? Isn’t this just us working through a new way? Aren’t we “ALL” poisoned by this world and most if not “all” of our ways wrong?
    I guess I am beginning to understand why it will be required for all to “know the Lord “who will abide in Zion.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I have one concern with this proposal, and that is the part below:

    3-Then, if they are opposed still, we will announce on Sunday the 25th that there remain three (or however many) opposed to the proposition that has otherwise carried by the nearly unanimous consent of the conference, and ask the conference if as a body they are willing to proceed/adopt the chosen statement of principles despite the opposition by three (or however many). If this carries by a clear majority vote of the conference, then it is adopted, and the chosen statement will be added to the scriptures.

    It seems to me that this part is trying to achieve by process what should be achieved another way. I may be way off on this suggestion, but… what if we replace this part with something more faith-based? What if instead of having this vote if the majority is still met with opposition after we have taken our opposing conflicts to the Lord to know His part, we take this situation to the Lord? We return and report. We say, “We have done everything we know to do to reach mutual agreement, and have gotten close, but still have not reached it.” And we ask for further guidance in the matter, even if it means, like the potter’s clay, we must scrap what we’ve done and begin again. I realize this may not be a popular idea with the questions of who does the return and reporting? And who can we trust to receive the true answer? But perhaps we can begin by all having this prayer in our hearts, and trust in the Lord to tell us His part, so that we don’t have to manipulate the outcome with processes.

    Sarah S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please disregard my comment above. Unfortunately, I am unable to delete it myself. I need to further consider this proposal, and what it means.

      Sarah S

      Delete
  49. The sole issue with respect to the G&S is what the Lord said it was: "Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required."

    At Phoenix, you'll apparently have your opportunity to declare your answer to the Lord's question.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete