Saturday, March 31, 2018

An Invitation

Some have suggested that Wisdom has not been a part of our proceedings in fulfilling the assignment of coming up with a statement of principles. As it happens, we have Wisdom's council right before us, but have not put two and two together.

DEFINITION OF 'STATEMENT'
Account
Affidavit
Allegation
Announcement
Assurance
Charge
Comment
Description
Explanation
Presentation
Proclamation
Remark
Report
Testimony
Word

FROM D&C SECTION 89 (RE 31):
“Given for a principle…”

In other words, the Word of Wisdom is a “statement” (word) “given for a principle” [statement of principle(s)]. If we can consider it as a guide and a standard for how we put together our own 'statement,' then we would do well to look closely at its framework and history. Here are a few things I have found in the Word of Wisdom, but there could be others:

It is adaptable - "adapted to the capacity of the weak, and the weakest of all saints who are or can be called saints."

The council given to us in the Word of Wisdom has been customized to make sure it is understood by the broadest common denominator (the weak and the weakest). But at its root, the Word of Wisdom is "a principle." In the case of the assignment given to us, it would seem obvious that we have the permission, if not the commission, to adapt it to the audience which it is to be directed: those who know nothing of this work. I think this could mean that the language is such that it appeals to a wide group of people and cultures. There are those among us who could give great input as to what would appeal to their particular tradition.

In the case of Ammon, he tuned into the language of Lamoni, then let him ask the questions. He didn’t tell Lamoni to pull out his copy of the Brass Plates and quote it, although Ammon surely drew from it to put it into a language Lamoni understood. Once Lamoni got the general idea, the Lord took it from there. Perhaps that is something to emulate.

It is responsive - The Word of Wisdom is given “In consequence of evils and designs which will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days.”

While the purpose of the Word of Wisdom might be thought of as a response to Emma’s request to clean up the meetings, we are told that it is actually a response to the condition of the “hearts of conspiring men” in the last days. The Answer and the Covenant speaks of our hearts as well, in that if they are “right” before God, then it will be a “light thing” for the Gentiles to raise up the tribes of Jacob and begin to restore the preserved of Israel. Perhaps if we petition God, They, too, will respond to us.

It is not constrained - “to be sent greeting, not by commandment or constraint…”

We may look at our task of creating a statement as something we were commanded to do. Or we may think there may be only one possible statement, and if others don’t come on board with what we deem is the right (singular) statement, we are not in mutual agreement; thus, constraining others to see it our way. However, if we use the Word of Wisdom as our template, the statement will be “sent greeting.” In other words, it is not to be this imposing list of “to do’s” in order to be a part of a group who claims to know God; but rather, it will be an invitation. If we are sending out an invitation to folks, I would think they would be completely turned off by a list of demands. Instead, we could focus on the “thing” we have in common, which is hopefully the “light” of Christ. I’m sure this could be expressed in a myriad of ways. But again, there are many in our midst who could give valuable input as to what might be inviting to their particular tribe or other interested groups.

It is revelation – “…but by revelation and the word of wisdom…” and “…I have warned you and forewarned you by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation…”

God needs to be involved in this process, and what They give to us may even be something unexpected and not seen before (“revealed.”) This means we need to clear our heads of any expectations of what the statement has to look like. When Emma asked Joseph to inquire of the Lord, little did they know that it would be such a revelation! Not only does the Word of Wisdom address the particulars in staying healthy, but is also to benefit the saints in these last days (us) and also the saints in Zion (where we aspire to be). We have the means of knowing the “order and the will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints” through the Word of Wisdom. This is no small thing, as following Their standard will lead to “great treasures of wisdom and knowledge, even hidden treasures…” Who knows what God might reveal to us in the process of filling this one assignment!

My Invitation
This is pretty much coming to me as I type, but if we can mutually agree that the Word of Wisdom is our template for creating a statement of principles (as has been demonstrated), then I would suggest that we can divide our task into different areas like I just did, and have those who feel drawn towards these areas contribute their experience and ideas.

Or… we could divide it into the Seven Pillars of Wisdom: Prudence, Knowledge and Discretion, Fear of God, Counsel, Sound Wisdom (Common Sense), Understanding, and Power
Or even the Seven Sacraments (drawing on Catholic tradition): Baptism, Confirmation (Baptism of Fire), Repentance, Anointing/Healing, Holy Orders, Marriage, and Eucharist (Communion Meal/Feast).

A “light thing” doesn’t just have to do with the ease of how it comes together, but also the feeling one has when working on it. This task can be a light and fun experience, rather than drudgery and frustration. And who knows… maybe the Word of Wisdom was given to us for this very task for us in the “last days,” as a standard to guide us as we serve and do His work.

Feel free to use the comments below to give your input.


---Doug Larson




From the Word of Wisdom:
“…adapted to the capacity of the weak, and the weakest of all saints who are or can be called saints.”

------

From Ether 12 (RE 5):
“Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.”

-------

From Proverb 9 (RE 1:39)
He that reproveth a scorner (mocker) getteth to himself shame (shall mourn): and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Are we mockers or wise? Are we going to bring shame or are we going to increase in learning and become ‘strong’?

Here is a relevant link:

-Doug Larsen

130 comments:

  1. I appreciate what you shared here, Doug. I don't know what the final outcome will look like, but I believe it has to appeal to people from a wide range of backgrounds/traditions. We're not just speaking to white Americans. Our link to other traditions from around the world is through the ancient religions that have been watered down through the ages. But The Lord's sheep hear His voice. If this statement has a set of principles that resonate with them (that they can actually comprehend) then they will be more likely to seek deeper. This isn't time to attempt to set up a new New Testament church. A New Testament statement will be white noise to all the billions of people out there who don't know of the work now underway. I don't believe we all know of the magnitude of the work now underway. We have to be open to hear the Lord's part in this because He is to lead us every step of the way IF we are His sheep.

    Another point to consider (that I've heard from someone wiser than I): Where did Joseph Smith leave off before he was murdered? What was his last set of teachings? In the King Follett discourse he moved past faith, repentance, and baptism as the first principles of the Gospel and redefined them. Let's start from there.

    We just heard deep truths from Denver about God. What was good about Mormonism? What called out to me wasn't that they taught nice fluffy sermons. It was the deeper truths they used to teach that resonated with my own personal revelation. Let's not forget Christ but let's include the full picture. That may require us understanding the full picture first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin,
      Not only will it be white noise, but it will turn off many. Because the language has been hiijacked, people associate it with the institutions. In the case of the Book of Mormon, for example, many outright reject it because they associate it with LDS, Inc.

      I think we can look to the King Follett discourse and other places to get some ideas of what might work. But first our hearts need be focused not on fulfilling an assignment, but why we have the commission in the first place. I would love to discuss this with whomever is interested.

      Doug

      Delete
  2. Further (updated) commentary and conversation can be found at http://agreetingandinvitation.blogspot.com/2018/03/greetings.html. Hope to see you there.

    Doug Larson

    ReplyDelete
  3. Doug,

    Men must come unto Christ by the actual execution of the words Christ established by his own mouth - the Sermon on the Mount - in both Judea and Bountiful (1 Nephi 13:40-41).

    There is no other name given, nor way, nor means, by which salvation can come unto men.

    And no document will be agreed to as a G&S other than The Rock of Jesus Christ.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christ is the name and the way, but many have come to Him already without the document, so we know it is possible. Why exclude those who would come to Him if He was presented (manifested) in a way they understood?

      Delete
  4. Doug,

    There is no wisdom in expending effort to produce something that you know before you begin will not be accepted and can therefore only produce division.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jared,
      There is a difference between diversity and division. If the Lord has accepted the sundry approaches of individuals and groups (as is testified in the scriptures) then I have confidence He will continue to do so. Even if not, it is worth the effort for me, anyway, to ask. Come along, or not. We all have freedom to choose.

      Doug

      Delete
    2. Doug,

      In the context of the singular statement of principles the Lord has required the body to mutually agree upon, diversity is synonymous with division.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  5. The principles that work for you and your fellowship may be different than what would work for someone else.

    I wouldn't come to your fellowship and tell you how do things. Likewise I would hope you would have equal respect for mine.

    The way you worship and practice your faith my be different from mine. It most definitely will be different from Native Americans, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims. Those who know nothing about the work. I believe we should allow diversity rather than try to dictate conformity.

    Tyler Kelly

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

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm assuming that each family and fellowship wants to govern themselves. No one wants an outsider telling them to wear white shirts and ties etc...The gentile way is to control and compel others to be like ourselves.

    What if "being wise in word and kind in deed" means to require no less or more than our Lord requires? What if it means to leave room for diversity? What if it means to leave room for the Lord to guide people by His spirit?

    Tyler Kelly

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doug,
      you put forth the idea to listen to Wisdom. In the talk this past Sunday it was made clear that Wisdom points us to Her Son. He is the way, the truth, and the life. If She points all mankind to Her Son then I believe it would be "wise" to follow His Doctrine and also His Law.

      If we mutually agreed on these two teachings it would not prevent individuals or fellowships from adhering to other guides and standards. It would make things light and allow for the diversity like Denver spoke about in his second Christian talk.

      Delete
    2. Yes, and the ultimate expression of the doctrine and law of Christ is love... Love for ourselves, love for our families (living and dead), and for all nations and cultures.

      Wisdom tells us we should "adapt" the message of love to the language and understanding of people. If that is done in fellowships, great. If it is individual, that works too. For the Father of Lamoni, he saw Ammon's love for his son, and it encouraged him to "call on God" for himself, where he received a personal witness of Christ.

      If you look closely at the Sons of Mosiah, they came up with a statement of their own before going into the land of the Lamanites, then acted on it, according to their gifts and desires. Why couldn't we try something similar?

      Doug

      Delete
    3. Basically, the sons of Mosiah and Alma honed in on love (through fasting and prayer), then they went out and lived it. Once the Lamanites saw love manifested, they wondered about it, which was the cue for Ammon, Aaron, et al to point them to the Lord (which is what Wisdom does, right?) But clearly the 4 understood and spoke to the culture of the Lamanites. They knew about the Great Spirit. They knew how diligence to the king's commandments and loyalty were important. This is how love played out for them.

      Recall also when the Lamanites were killing their brothers and were so flabbergasted by those who threw down their arms, that they instantly joined them. Love begets love. But there are many ways it can manifest itself. Because if God is love, and God is in and through all things, then everything is a potential tool for Him to manifest Himself. Why would we limit ourselves and set up stakes for ourselves, others and God?

      Delete
    4. How much adapting is required to understand "give to every man that asketh thee, and of him who taketh away thy goods ask them not again?"

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  9. Can one really improve upon the statement of principles - the Sermon on the Mount - given to us by the founder of peace, even Jesus himself?

    Wouldn't it be wise to demonstrate that Jesus's own guide and standard - the Sermon on the Mount - is somehow deficient before presuming to improve upon it or setting it aside for a declaration of one's own wisdom?

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a matter of improvement, it's a matter of comprehension. There may be cultures where sharing all things is not a big issue, but others who don't comprehend the principle. Care must be taken to make sure they understand in a way which won't scare them off.

      We have some examples of what works. The Ammonites didn't have all things in common to start
      They were drawn in with a different point of Christ's doctrine (strict obedience). But they eventually got there.

      Thus far, what we have done has not worked. There is nothing in the A and C prohibiting me from exploring this possibility. Others can join in a discussion, and I would love them to do so. But let's do it over at the other site. If it isn't your thing, no worries.

      Delete
  10. I remain unpersuaded we have tried to observe the Sermon, Doug. And I am unpersuaded that it is wisdom to lay aside the commandments of Christ. As long as the words "give to every man that asketh thee, and of him who taketh away thy goods ask them not again" can be understood, the culture doesn't matter. Salvation consists of believing and doing all things whatsoever the Lord God commands. And it is the function of his priests to teach men his comandments, not to obfuscate or omit any of them lest anyone should be offended by conflicts with their culture.

    After all, there is no other way to Christ but by the gate of repentance and baptism, and from thence following the strait and narrow way defined by strict obedience to his law and commandments.

    It seems to me that failing to do what Christ commanded in the Sermon is why the ancient Jews and Nephites were trodden under foot of men as salt that had lost its savor. That is, after all, the covenant curse for failing to obey the commandments of God.

    It seems to me that failing to do what Christ commanded in the Sermon is what got the nascent LDS Church condemned. It seems their loyalty to Joseph Smith, a true prophet, was not an acceptable substitute for obedience to the law and commandments of Christ.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm on board with you, Jared, with living the doctrine of Christ. I think if we all did that, then this whole statement thing would be a breeze.

      Would you be open to the idea holding off with declaring a statement until we purposefully engage in the doctrine of Christ, individually or collectively or both, then seeing what comes of it? I'm sure you are already doing it, but maybe there is something to focusing in on it together, like the sons of Mosiah did.

      If that idea doesn't work for you, could you paint me a picture? Imagine you have been called by God to go preach in, say.... Mexico. How would you employ the Rock of Christ in your approach to them? The more specifics you could provide the better. Like would you go door to door? Would you have copies of the Rock of Christ to hand out to people or would you just go by the Spirit and see how you were guided? Would people be convinced just from the words of the Rock of Christ or would it be by how you employed them?

      Now say you got a call to Hopi land. Would you use the exact same approach or something different?

      These are the practical things I think about in wondering how this can come about. It's easy to point at a document or statement and put it on the person I'm approaching to do the work, but it's another thing to attract them to the doctrine, so that they will be interested enough to want to find out for themselves.


      ---Doug

      Delete
    2. Doug,

      If you do not have power and authority from God to teach his word, then all you can do is either repeat his words verbatim, or you can try to sell the gospel. Selling the gospel is a losing proposition, because the commandments of Jesus Christ run contrary to everything we are and everything we have in this world. The law and commandments are pure and utter foolishness to the unbelieving. Nobody will buy it: "Give to every man that asks? Don't ask for my stuff back from anyone who takes it? Yield without a fight whenever I'm sued? Turn the other cheek without reviling my assailant when I am struck? Don't save money for the future but give away everything I don't have an immediate need for? That's crazy!" That's why those who make their money from preaching the gospel must adulterate it or else nobody will pay them.

      When God sends you forth to preach because you have been obedient to his word through your faithfulness in every trial, with him having written his law in your heart such that his law is before your eyes at all times, and you ponder it moment-by-moment, understanding the problem God has solved by his law, then you teach what he tells you to teach and he backs you up by the power of the Spirit to those who believe your words.

      You simply speak, and if they do not believe, then they go their own way, having failed the first test of the gospel which is to believe the word of God.

      If the Lord has not written his law in your heart and given you license to innovate, you really should restrict your teachings to repeating his words verbatim while executing them as they are written - that is to say, literally, at face value.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    3. The priestcrafters adulterate the doctrine to "attract" people to it, to avoid offending people, and so on. Once it's adulterated, is no longer Christ's doctrine.

      Hence, this:

      JST Matt 5:21-22

      Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so to do, he shall in no wise be saved in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it be fulfilled, the same shall be called great and shall be saved in the kingdom of heaven.

      For I say unto you, except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


      The acceptance, practice, and teaching of the Sermon answers all the covenantal obligations.

      I will not yield from the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    4. This is a very insightful and useful answer, Jared. Thanks.

      So then, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if the law is not written on our hearts, we must quote the Lord only so as not to misrepresent Him. (Sounds reasonable to me). If the law is written on our hearts, then the Statement is moot because we ARE the statement, and the Spirit is in constant communication. If adaptation is required, we will have the ability to sense it and use His power to do the convincing.

      Would you then say that if our focus was on having the law written on our hearts, then the other issue would take care of itself?

      Doug Larson

      Delete
    5. Doug,

      I would say if our focus was on the practicing and teaching of the law and commandments of Christ as found in the scriptures - the Sermon on the Mount - not trusting in men, then the Lord would write his law in our hearts and make his covenant with us, and we would become one in Christ, obtaining his heart and his mind. Seeing eye-to-eye, we would come to agre in all things in the process of time.

      And it is by believing and doing the things contained in The Rock of Jesus Christ that we obtain these things. It is his gospel.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  11. Um......how bout for now we just translate the mutually agreed upon statement into their language and allow them to teach their own people those principles...

    Our part in all this is just that....one part. We weren't charged with producing a different Statement of Principles for various cultures that we can't even begin to relate too yet; This small group of believers was simply assigned to capture the teachings God has revealed through His servant(s) in our day IN THIS PART OF THE VINEYARD so that our bus station could serve as a rest area for the many peoples who will pour in prior to a gathering in Zion. When they arrive, we can learn from their records and all will be able to see the commonalities between their understanding and our own. It won't be guesswork. This happens in small steps and not all at once.

    Again....please.....take a deep breath here folks. We have a long way to go and many other projects to complete. Let's just take it one step at a time together without contention and not get hung up on the light things so our hearts can unite. Our minds will come in due time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jim,

    The Lottery document is not mutually agreed upon, and never shall be.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1st comment -You are not excused from writing a statement of principles that I have required at your hands. I forbade my servant David from participating, and again forbid him. But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people (His People).
      Who are they?
      It is not enough to receive my covenant, but you must also abide it. And all who abide it, whether on this land or any other land, will be mine and I will watch over them and protect them in the day of harvest, and gather them in as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. I will number you among the remnant of Jacob, no longer outcasts, and you will inherit the promises of Israel. You shall be my people and I will be your God and the sword will not devour you. And unto those who will receive will more be given until they know the mysteries of God in full.
      But remember that without the fruit of repentance, and a broken heart and a contrite spirit, you cannot keep my covenant; for I, your Lord, am meek and lowly of heart. Be like me. You have all been wounded, your hearts pierced through with sorrows because of how the world has treated you. 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. When I appear to you, instead of confidence you feel shame. You fear and withdraw from me because you bear the blood and sins of your treatment of brothers and sisters.

      Delete
    2. Cont.
      To be His people, we must abide in His Covenant
      First: Do you believe all the words of the Lord which have been read to you this day, and know them to be true and from the Lord Jesus Christ who has condescended to provide them to you, and do you covenant with Him to cease to do evil and to seek to continually do good?
      Second: Do you have faith in these things and receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern you in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words, thoughts and deeds?
      Third: Do you agree to assist all others who covenant to likewise accept this standard to govern their lives to keep the Lord’s will, to succor those who stand in need, to lighten the burdens of your brothers and sisters whenever you are able, and to help care for the poor among you?
      Fourth: And do you covenant to seek to become of one heart with those who seek the Lord to establish His righteousness?

      Figure it out for yourself. Has mutual agreement been fulfilled? Only His people have to agree.

      Delete
    3. His people are those who accept and do as he has required.

      Those who do not wish to be his people do not accept and do not do as he requires.

      Each man is his own judge in this thing and can figure out if he, himself, indeed desires to be one of the Lord's people.

      Right now, we are all on trial - to see if we each will accept and do as the Lord has required of us.

      The only figuring any of us need to do is whether we will accept and do as he has required.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    4. Jared,

      I suppose that is up to interpretation, but my comments above would apply to ANY statement of principles.

      Delete
    5. Jared,
      Are not the things He requires listed out in the above Covenant, or does He require something different from you?

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

      Delete
    7. Jim,

      That the Lottery document is not and never shall be mutually agreed upon by the covenant participants is not up to interpretation.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  13. 1 of 2

    To: The People

    A government with no government requires its citizens to be self-governed. The success of the Governing Principles project depends on mutual agreement. The words written must fit the condition of no disputations and all willing to govern themselves by it, in order to be mutually agreeable. When it is mutually agreeable, we will not only need to adopt it as a guide and standard, …God will PROVE US against it, expecting sweet fruit, or we will be burned with the rest of the vineyard. The Lottery document does not represent that for me, disqualifying it from my mutual agreement to not dispute, and to be governed by its contents.

    Interestingly enough, although I have avoided an online confrontation with Jared Livesay about his document (Doctrine/Law of Christ), it seems as if “receiving greater light” …has far greater growth potential WITHIN the Doctrine/Law of Christ, than any of the competing documents. The giver of all light is the source of the Doctrine/Law of Christ. It provides freedom for all men, both for ourselves and those not yet aware, …the freedom to govern ourselves, …while gradually providing room for light to grow.

    The concepts of celestial light in the King Follet Discourse has greater growth potential within the Doctrine/Law of Christ. Joseph Smith has greatest relevance in the Doctrine/Law of Christ. Denver has greatest relevance in the Doctrine/Law of Christ. More importantly, Christ, Joseph and Denver have taught things that are yet unrevealed to us, that cannot be revealed except through the Doctrine/Law of Christ. Although Jared’s online personality doesn’t provide popular allure of vanity, elitism, and cliques, …the principle is sound. If this project can produce a people who are self-governed, where light can increase and fill us all, then we will be prepared to do more. Otherwise, …well, …you know!

    I like Kevin Gillman’s perspective of King Follet offering greater light, because it aligns with my own idea of light leading us out of darkness, and greater light directing lesser light. To those who think in terms of light, like Kevin Gillman, we would recognize that no one voted any of us into this movement. Rather, everyone elected to come because of light, despite the negative repercussions we would suffer for choosing the greater light. It’s an easy fit to see that with greater light, we all have greater capacity to sacrifice. When we are filled with light, we are willing to sacrifice all things. Without the light, there would be no motivation to sacrifice, and we would remain in the world, digging pits for our neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 2 of 2

    I don’t like Jim O’Rullian’s opinion that the Lottery document is kind and covers the needs of those not yet aware of God’s work underway. The Lottery leaders have exhibited an undesirable precedence of using a vote and the voice of the people, to govern over another, taking the liberty to speak for the majority on “my” behalf, …or giving me the option of suffering the group shunning. I cannot support his efforts in this direction, in opposition to self-governance. I hold no animosity for their mistake, but the Lots will never be mutually agreeable to me, not only because of it’s contents, but because of its precedence of compulsion.

    But, Jared’s concept has been, and is, resting upon my mind these past few months. Considering his view, it makes room for greater light to gradually win out. It allows the potential of light to cleave to more light, as we the people reconcile to the Doctrine/Law of Christ. It doesn’t force those who are young to drown in the depths of more light, allowing them to keep the Doctrine/Law by degrees, until they gradually understand greater things. To me, Jared’s concept creates a unique environment, allowing truths like Holy Order/ Wisdom/ and Temple stuff to be deeply rooted in us, to grow, increase and produce fruits.

    I have been looking deeply into the Doctrine/Law of Christ as of late, as the only Governing Principles to provide space for light to grow in me. I am not certain that what he has written, or re-quoted is right, but I am investigating, and moving in that direction.

    Good-lookin-out! …Late!
    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
  15. A few simple thoughts…
    We take The Doctrine of Christ and His Sermon(s), found in NC 3 Nephi 5:9-15 and NC Mathew 3:4-34, to be our guide and standard. (The focus is the content of these scriptures and possible others, not the language I have used here.)
    “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.”
    For those who know nothing of his work under way: Isn’t the most kind and simple, yet direct message, that salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Isn’t that the work now under way? I see this as kind to those that follow because it displays the simplicity of the gospel, and leaves out organizational oversight and control which so many have lived under for a long time dictating to them how and what to worship. And if someone needs further instruction it can be found in the scriptures, and by petitioning the lord directly seeking further light and knowledge. This would preserve diversity of fellowships, while standing upon the principles that if followed would produce Zion and lead to salvation, without establishing a how to guide that some have felt would step over the line into controlling others. Then any who wish to add things that are specific to them, their family and their fellowship can do so.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You are only a participant, if you are one of His people. You are only one of His people if you abide, meaning (are currently living and fulfilling) the terms of the Covenant you received through Denver from God. Read those requirements above and determine if you are truly a participant. If not, your participation is null and void until you do fulfil the requirements. No vote is necessary for God. He sees our motives, hearts, sacrifices and capacity and desire to love and become one. So the question is which document has His people chosen? I will leave that open for your discernment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I wonder if this video may help describe what Jared has been trying to get at here?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5fC0NBW85Q

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here are the people of God:

    LDS 2 Nephi 30:2 "For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel."

    To believe in the Son of God entails obeying his law and commandments - the Sermon on the Mount.

    And again, here are the people of God:

    LDS D&C 29:12 "[T]he whole house of Israel [is] even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else."

    Unless you repent and keep the Lord's law and commandments, even if you enter into the Snufferian Covenant, you have nothing from the Lord but empty words. And if you want his covenant, all you have - all you had - to do was repent and execute his law and commandments: the Sermon on the Mount. Those who enter into the Snufferian Covenant now must not only do all that the Lord said to do in the Sermon on the Mount, but they need to do everything else the Lord commanded in the Snufferian Covenant on top of the Sermon.

    Nobody need enter into the Snufferian Covenant to become one of God's people and, in fact, those who do enter the Snufferian Covenant probably will be hindered from becoming one of God's people - because they will be taught to trust in Denver Snuffer instead of taking the Holy Spirit alone for their guide by people hawking the Lottery document or a similar document which takes Denver Snuffer's words for a guide and a standard.

    Being blunt: entering into the Snufferian Covenant is neither necessary nor sufficient to receive the Lord's covenant and become one of his people. Only repentance and obedience to the Lord's law and commandments is both necessary and sufficient to obtain the Lord's covenant from the Lord and become one of his people.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And those who solicit others to join the Snufferian Covenant do so without authorization from the text of the Snufferian Covenant. Why do what you weren't asked to do? Why add to others' burdens? Why not merely tell them to repent, be baptized, and keep the law and commandments of God, that they may obtain his covenant for themselves from him?

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  19. Ok, I get what you are saying, but I consider the Covenant from Denver a Covenant which is currently being offered to us from the Lord to gather those who will prepare the Earth for the 2nd Coming, and to become a member of the remnant of Jacob. If you follow the Covenant language, by not believing the words spoken that day, you disqualify yourself from being a participant in presenting or supporting a G&S. According to the language of the Covenant you are not His people from whom He requests the G&S. And so goes for anyone not believing the words spoken by Denver as coming from Christ or not abiding in the Covenant, they disqualify themselves from being His people. Whether or not the body considers this as such, the Lord surely does, so in my view you are spinning your wheels. Those who are His people by their actions have spoken, so the attenpt to continue is a moot point.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "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" (A&C, p. 3).

    And, to address your implicit point, that those who dispute the Lottery document are not the Lord's people, and that those who agree to the Lottery document are the Lord's people, I say this pursuant to Question 3: "You have become your own adversaries, and you cannot be Satan and also be mine. Repent, therefore, like Peter and end your unkind and untrue accusations against one another, and make peace" (A&C p. 2).

    Your accusation against me is untrue: I have already said I believe the Snufferian Covenant to come from God.

    The Lord alone, and not men, is the judge of one's faithfulness to the covenant. Do not sit in Satan's seat to persuade others to defraud the Lord in the matter of the G&S by falsely dividing me from the number of the covenant participants.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jared,

    I don't want this to come off the wrong way, so I'll preface what I am writing with a plea to see that I am trusting you with a bit of vulnerability. It hurts me to read you use the term "Snufferite." I have developed a love and gratitude for all of his work, giving me clarity in knowing God and Christ, so that I can have the relationship I have with them. I didn't realize how this would effect me, but it really hurts to see you treat him so casually. I can take a lot of crap, and I'm sure he can too. But, for some reason, I find it difficult reading what you wrote.

    Please forgive my request to ask you to be sensitive regarding this subject.

    Mahalo,

    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rob,

    I didn't use the word "Snufferite." I said "Snufferian Covenant," it being shorter than continually writing out "the covenant offered through Denver Snuffer," and I need some way to distinguish this covenant from the true covenant God makes with those who obey him in all things.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if you have a shorter descriptive term to divide the covenant delivered through Denver Snuffer from the true covenant that God makes directly with those who repent and believe in his son, Jesus Christ, I'm all ears.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    2. I think I'm not sure of the differentiation you are making. So before I make a suggestion, maybe you can clarify what you call the true covenant, as opposed to Denver's covenant.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    3. And you're right, I mis-quoted you. "Snufferian" was what I meant to write.

      Delete
    4. Rob,

      When one repents of all one's sins in the sincerity of one's heart and does the commandments of the Lord with full purpose of heart, the Lord puts one under covenant. It is direct from heaven and does not come from mortals.

      The Snufferian Covenant is, like an earthly temple and its rites, a substitute for the heavenly covenant which one would obtain were one to repent of all one's sins and do all things whatsoever the Lord God commands. Like the earthly temple and its rites, the Snufferian Covenant directs us back to the gospel: the law and commandments of the Lord, as per Question 2 (paraphrasing: do you accept the obligations set forth in the Book of Mormon, the Sermon on the Mount, as a covenant, and will you really do it, unlike those who came before you?).

      It is obtaining the covenant from heaven that makes someone one of God's people. That covenant comes by repentance from all sin and obedience to the words of Christ in all things, which, for those who have entered the Snufferian Covenant, includes executing the obligations set forth in the Snufferian Covenant.

      It is a mistake to think that merely entering the Snufferian Covenant makes one one of God's people. The Jews made the same mistake about the Law of Moses, along with their temples and rites. And the LDS also made a similar mistake.

      These are they who obtain the Lord's covenant: "All you who have turned from your wicked ways and repented of your evil doings, of lying and deceiving, and of all whoredoms, and of secret abominations, idolatries, murders, priestcrafts, envying, and strife, and from all wickedness and abominations, and have come unto me, and been baptized in my name, and have received a remission of your sins, and received the Holy Ghost, are now numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel."

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  23. Jared,

    I get the source of what you call the "True Covenant." But, I'm confused at what you're calling "Denver's Covenant." Above, it sounds as if you are describing how people "take" the covenant, rather than addressing what's not true about "Denver's Covenant."

    You made things even more confusing when you added your precept of what a temple is, and how it functions, according to the heavens. An Earthly temple and it's rites was intended to do on Earth, as it is done in heaven. However, you have equated the Earthly temple as a failed substitution for the real ascent? Maybe? (I really don't understand what you're saying here so I'm guessing).

    I am starting to understand your point, that you equate the law of Moses to the Denver Covenant. I don't agree that they are the same, but we can disagree on this matter.

    Still trying to pick-up what you're putting-down,

    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
  24. I freely admit, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and some things take a while for me to understand. Sorry bro,

    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rob,

    I'm saying that I need a way to distinguish between the Snufferian Covenant which is a covenant administered and mediated by a mortal, and the true covenant from heaven administered and mediated by the Lord himself to those who repent from all their sins and keep his commandments, making them his people.

    It's not that there's necessarily anything "false" about the Snufferian Covenant - it's simply a teaching tool designed to bring us to the real thing if we take it seriously and execute it as it is written, rather than trying to defraud the Lord because we don't believe what he asks of us is possible.

    Referring to the Snufferian Covenant as the Snufferian Covenant seems to capture the essential difference between them. If we don't balk at attaching Moses's name to the law and covenant offered through him, we shouldn't balk at attaching Denver's name to the covenant offered through him.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me see if I understand you here. You are differentiating between the covenant from heaven, and a covenant dictated by a mortal Denver. To you, the true covenant can only be given from heaven, and while the mortal covenant points to the true covenant, we ought not get bogged down by the mortal covenant, and go directly to heaven. Is that what you mean?

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. Rob,

      For those who have not entered the Snufferian Covenant, they may obtain the real covenant by believing the words of Christ as a small child would understand them, repenting from all their sins, being baptized by one of Christ's sent servants, and doing all things Christ commanded in the Sermon.

      For those of us who have entered the Snufferian Covenant, there is now no way to go directly to heaven for the real covenant except through doing all things required by the Snufferian Covenant, which includes the above, and more.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    3. The first paragraph I totally get. The possibility for a person to become a little child, repent, and be baptized, and do all Christ commanded is free and available to all.

      The second paragraph I don't get, "...there is no way to go directly to heaven fro a real covenant." Why is there no way for those of us to not go directly to heaven?

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    4. Because we agreed to do certain things when we assented to the Snufferian Covenant, such as adopt a G&S by mutual agreement, and help the other covenant participants to govern their words, thoughts, and deeds by the obligations established by the Book of Mormon, and additional unknown tasks in the future, and so on. We must now do all those things, too, or else we are unjust before God.

      We said we would, after all.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    5. Uh, ...it seems like agreeing to do more cannot conflict with doing the Doctrine/Law of Christ. Adopting to live the Doctrine/Law of Christ as Governing Principle reiterates that Doctrine/Law. Helping other participants only supports the Doctrine/Law. The Book of Mormon only improves our ability to live the Doctrine/Law. Future tasks would not conflict but magnify the Doctrine/Law. So if the Doctrine/Law are central, doing more does not conflict, as you seem to be portraying.

      The things you state seem to be included within the Doctrine/Law inherently.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    6. I am not saying they necessarily conflict. I'm saying you have to fulfill your agreements or else you can't be received.

      Before we entered the Snufferian Covenant, we didn't have any particular obligation to this specific people, nor did we have any business with the G&S, nor would we have had anything to do with anything else the Lord would have required of this people. Now, we do. And we must do it all or else remain shut out.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    7. Ok, I was under the impression that you were saying that they necessarily conflict, but you have cleared that up. You're also saying that the Denver covenant requires more to be fulfilled or your can't be received, but what I think you're talking about is addressing the current approach toward Zion. And if you don't do THAT, you cannot belong to Zion?

      I differ in my perspective, concerning not being received. The original, before the Denver covenant, was an invitation to those who sought Zion, and that hasn't changed. But, what seems to differentiate our circumstances from past circumstances is our approach. The failed approach is recorded in depth in scriptures, but the successful approach is vague.

      Are you saying that simply living the Doctrine/Law is sufficient to approach Zion? I believe it is sufficient to approach Zion, and that those who actually live the Doctrine/Law would qualify for Zion, again, not necessarily in conflict with things within the Denver Covenant.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    8. Yes, simply living the doctrine/law is sufficient to become Zion. And that is the original faith of Christ.

      When one understands that actually doing the works commanded in the Sermon is the doctrine, is the law, is the commandments, is the gospel, is the kingdom of God, is the will of the Father, then the successful approach to Zion is not vague, but well-defined.

      3 Nephi 27:8-11
      8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

      9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;

      10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.

      11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.

      And we can read 4 Nephi to see a society that obeyed the Sermon for a while, and how they fell by engaging once again in economics - buying, selling, saving up for retirement - and other forms of temporal inequality and were trodden under foot as salt that had lost its savor.

      Everything people say they want is on the other side of the Sermon.

      Want Zion? Keep the Sermon (JST Gen 9:21, cited below).

      Want revelations and mysteries? Keep the Sermon.

      Want the gifts of God? Keep the Sermon.

      The tradeoff is you will be made poor, you will be persecuted, you will be despised by those you do good to, you will hunger, you will be cast out of polite society, you will be reviled, and everything you seem to have in this world, including your relationships and possibly even your life, will be either taken or commanded to be offered up as a sacrifice.

      You will become everyone's slave.

      That is the price and the meaning of discipleship and salvation.

      JST, Genesis 9:21 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant, which I made unto thy father Enoch; that, when men should keep all my commandments, Zion should again come on the earth, the city of Enoch which I have caught up unto myself.

      Jared Livesey

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

      Delete
    10. Ok, ok, then what do you think it means that “more blessed” are they who heed your (those sent by the Lord) words? This conversation is really good.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    11. Those who believe on the words of a witness, and come down into the depths of humility - this means casting away one's riches, one's learning, and one's wisdom (meaning those principles and practices one does to prepare for one's temporal future), and becoming a servant of all - and is baptized shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost and receive a remission of their sins. From thence they are to walk according to the Sermon until the end shall come. These are more blessed because they will be more firm in the ways of righteousness through their struggle to make it to the tree of life, knowing good from evil by their own experience, having chosen the good, and having exercised mighty faith. On the other hand, if they should not make it to the tree, they won't reap as much condemnation as the eyewitnesses would.

      Alma 32:19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

      The multitude in 3 Nephi 12 were to be baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and could not sin after that without becoming perdition.

      2 Nephi 32:14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    12. So, I’ve been sitting on this last comment, wrestling with the idea that a contradiction exists, based on your concept of the “true” covenant and the “Denver” covenant. You have stated that they don’t necessarily conflict, but something doesn’t seem to fit. So let me see if I can ask a “gooder” question concerning “more blessed” are they who heed a servants words.

      “More blessed” for heeding the words of the servant gives relavance to both the “true” and the “Denver” covenant, as both were recorded by servants, in the voice of the Lord, the “giver” of the covenant. The only way for you to differentiate between the “true” and the “Denver” covenant is to claim that the “giver” is different. And that would require you to discern and judge the “giver” of the “true” covenant as different from the “giver” of the “Denver” covenant.

      So, can you tell me if you see the “giver” of the “true” covenant as a different from the “giver” of the “Denver” covenant. If to you they are the same, then we see eye to eye. If to you they are different, then we don’t see eye to eye. If the latter, the only proof of who is correct is our fruits. No matter what the situation, we must all be judged by our fruits.

      If you are willing to say it, can you tell me if you see the giver as different, or the same for the “true” covenant and the “Denver” covenant. If you’d prefer not saying, no response is necessary, and I’ll mind my own business.

      Nosy,
      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    13. Rob,

      There is a context to that "more blessed" that I see I have not adequately communicated and may not be able at this point to make more clear.

      However, I have already responded to Anonymous above (and many others) that yes, I believe the Lord gave Denver the words.

      However, recall the example of the two prophets in 1 Kings 13. The one was slain for hearkening to a message from the Lord via an angel to another prophet which contradicted the word of the Lord to himself directly. Just because a prophet declares something from the Lord does not mean his message is for you, or me, or anyone else.

      Sometimes, it's a test to see if you fear or trust the words of men more than you trust the Lord.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    14. So you're saying that you believe the words of the Boise Covenant were given to Denver, but only as an Abrahamic test, and those who entered the covenant failed that test unless they had previously received some clear personal revelation that the words Denver said were given to him by the Lord really were from Lord--Is that right?

      Than what becomes of this passage?

      "Charity...believeth all things."

      If you are a covenant participant, didn't you promise to accept that passage, and the body of scripture it's part of, as a standard to guide your life by?

      And hadn't you accepted it as such even before the conference, and even taught others that anyone who disbelieved anything he was told without having some real personal knowledge that what they were told was untrue, simply didn't have charity, and was therefore unsaved?

      And didn't you teach others that believing an authorized messenger was necessary for salvation?

      If Denver is an authorized messenger, and you had no personal revelation to the contrary, how could it be wrong for you to accept the words of the Boise covenant (which Denver said were given him by the Lord) as the words of God?

      How could that have been so serious a sin that God would withdraw His personal presence from you?

      That is what you're saying, isn't it?

      As Adrian Larsen asked you:

      "The following two statements clearly claim you have been in the Lord’s presence, which implies you have seen Him face to face:

      'The Lord had therefore cut me off from his presence, leaving me to be led by the Holy Ghost.'

      'Afterwards, I fasted and prayed and was baptized again, confessing my sin, in the hopes that the Lord might receive me again into his presence.'

      My question is simple: Are we to take these statements literally?—i.e. you previously met the Lord face to face, and that the covenant incident caused Him to deny you access to His presence?

      Is this what we are to understand by these statements?"

      Please answer these questions here.

      Delete
  26. Rob,

    The quickest - and, indeed, only - way to understand these things is to commit within yourself to go and do everything the Lord has commanded, and then do it. Then he will pour out his spirit upon you and you will gain understanding.

    1. If anyone hits you on one cheek, turn the other cheek to him without reviling your assailant (Luke 6:29; Matt 5:39; 3 Nephi 12:39).
    2. If anyone takes your cloak, allow him to have your coat too (Luke 6:29; Matt 5:40; 3 Nephi 12:40).
    3. Give to every person who asks you to (Luke 6:30; Matt 5:42; 3 Nephi 12:42).
    4. Do not ask for your stuff back from anyone who takes it (Luke 6:30).
    5. Lend to everyone who asks, do not ask for it back (#4), and hope that you do not get paid back (Luke 6:34-35; Matt 5:42; 3 Nephi 12:42).

    And so on.

    By faithfully doing his works which he has commanded us he gives us knowledge concerning his ways and his purposes.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand the concept of proving the words of Christ. I have no problem with the necessity for the words to not only be said, but proven, in our constant daily walk. We're good on understanding here. Obviously, for me, I got lots to consider about my daily walk. But point understood.

      Rob

      Delete
  27. So referring to the Covenant as a Snufferian Covenant sounds like something someone would say who is rejecting Denver and the Covenant. I get the same impression when someone refers to Denver as Snuffer. I read it all the time on the LDS frequented blogs. It does not indicate to me that you respect or desire the Covenant from Denver. If that is the case, by the Covenant language, you are not a Covenant holder, so why do you bother to engage the true Covenant holders. Realize your error, repent and become one in the Covenant, or go and
    preach to the bloggers who have not entered into this Covenant.

    The Covenant to me is comparable to this-anytime the Lord does something new, he sends a Servant to prepare the people to perform the work necessary. We are in the End Times timeframe, end of the Times of the Gentiles going into a new dispensation, certainly God has sent His messenger to begin the transition. You currently occupy the seat of a Pharasee, fighting against Zion. You don't have to be a part of this. Or if you want too, please do. You can't do both. You are lying if you are prentending. The truth is sometimes hard, I apologize for my directness, it is an inherited trait. Sorry, I can't spell either. Technical background. But dude, it's time to make a decision. I pray you will join us. Like Nephi, a humble man is teaching us. Did not his teachings of our Heavenly Mother convince you of his understanding of things beyond our present knowledge. To build the Temple, we must be humble and teachable. Denver is the teacher. Rejecting him is rejecting Christ. Good luck brother!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous,

    I absolutely regret trusting Denver Snuffer and entering the Snufferian Covenant. It ranks up there with the biggest mistakes of my life.

    That doesn't invalidate my covenant status, of which God is my judge.

    "Receive my covenant and abide in it, not as in the former time when jarring, jealousy, contention and backbiting caused anger, broke hearts and hardened the souls of those claiming to be my saints.... I say, Judge not others except by the rule you want used to weigh yourself" (A&C p. 9).

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I will refer to it instead as "the Davidic Covenant."

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    2. You say here that you absolutely regret entering the "Snufferian covenant," and that reminds me of something Adrian once asked you. Were you really admitted to God's presence before the Boise conference, and were you literally cut off from His presence when you entered the "Snufferian covenant"? Adrian asked you if you meant to imply that you literally had the experience of being in and then out in your "arise and awake" blog post and you just ignored him. Would you please answer him? Have you literally had such an experience? Please reply. Thank you.

      Delete
  29. I thought the original Davidic Covenant was an unconditional covenant. The Boise Covenant is conditional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, that's a good point. "Snufferian Covenant" distinguishes this one from that.

      JL

      Delete
    2. Well, there was the conditional covenant (the Sinai Covenant) that Moses administered....perhaps the covenant made in Boise could be thought of as the "Boise Covenant?" :)

      Delete
    3. sorry...I meant to include the Boise covenant administered by Denver?

      Delete
  30. This has been the most enlightening interaction I have seen thus far. I appreciate Jared and Rob for letting us in on it, and for engaging each other the way they have.

    Doug Larson

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jared

    Is your position not exactly what Rob Smith and Matt Crockett have been teaching for a while now? I think Drnver addressed them in his St. George conference address. The covenant God offered through Denver is essential for a Zion people. Pointing only to an individual covenant would thwart the purposes of God relating to Zion , according to Denver.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "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" (A&C p. 3).

    When we look at the Book of Mormon, we do not see any reference to the Boise Covenant as a condition of Zion nor of salvation. We do, on the other hand, see the keeping of the Sermon as being necessary.

    Apparently, the covenant offered through Denver is neither essential, nor necessary, nor sufficient for Zion, nor for salvation. It is not part of the doctrine of Christ.

    If the Boise Covenant were necessary, or essential, then we would expect to see a directive in the A&C to solicit people to join the Boise Covenant. There is no such directive in the A&C. There is, on the other hand, an explicit injunction to teach the lost sheep remnant of this land, and of Israel, the ways of the Lord. That is, we have agreed to teach the Sermon.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Everyone. I think it is wise to realize that some arguments are “of Christ” but are not really his way. If the arguments are self-described as disputations, then they are against Christ’s doctrine overall because they offend in that one point. The voice of the Lord asked us to, as between ourselves, we choose not to dispute. Which means, we must disregard all disputations. We do not cast out people, but we disregard the disputations. They have no place in the decision-making process. Only persuasion and love unfeigned is acceptable in the councils in order to follow the words of the Lord. No disputations are allowed for consideration in any vote or decision if we choose the Lord’s way. No matter how solid the reasoning, no matter what the covenant status or baptism status of the one disputing. They self-select in that particular decision to opt out by disputing. We are free to accept parts of the reasoning but must reject the disputing spirit. The words of the Lord are the same coming from a servant or a book or in person. There are equivalencies in language, and the Rock includes the Lord instructing on baptism, including baptism as one of the Beatitudes, and includes his later talk on Sacrament that he called the rock in 3 Nephi, and includes the Sacrament prayers Mormon left out that Moroni put in when he recounted and corrected the record of 3 Nephi from what was missing. Ignore the disputes. Accept non-froward persuasion to consider. Do not revile against the revilers. Peace and God bless. Imagine when all the disputers around the world come in before the angels remove the non-repentant. We will have to be made of tougher stuff and refuse all disputations as we go along, maintaining a broken heart. Love you all.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It could be said the Answer and Covenant is the same covenant as the Book of Mormon, restated in the Lord's own words. Every obligation is the same. Even the G&S requirement. King Benjamin made his own, too, as an example. We'd be doing the same thing, carrying the covenant to the remnant as required, teaching our children as the Book of Mormon asks of us. There is no difference. The whole Book of Mormon is the Sermon lived in lives.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I am surprised at how often men and women who should know better depart from the path. When men get a little revelation, they think themselves wise. When they fail to discern between the vain and the true, they open themselves to prideful, vain and angry spiritual guidance. They contend for the attention of others — becoming upset when they are not respected, and falsely accusing others who remain true to the Lord. I spoke about this and compared what was coming to what happened in Kirtland. (D&C 50:2-8) They leave the association of fellow believers and hurl vindictive at the flock. It saddens me to see this happening, even though I told you beforehand that it would.

    "A false spirit is not difficult to identify. It stirs up fear, anger, resentment, envy, jealousy and false accusation. It makes a man spread false rumors, and make accusations that are untrue and unwarranted. Too many of those who should be lending their strength to this effort are now laboring to undermine it, claiming to have a better path to offer. They want to divide the Lord’s sheep, for each to “find Jesus” alone and apar t— a plan which would prevent Zion and please the adversary who knows that if he can prevent Zion he can continue to falsely claim to be the god of this world."

    - Denver Snuffer, “Things that Keep Me Awake At Night”, March 2017

    ReplyDelete
  36. Someone asked me what I meant by dispute. I replied with the following: I mean the following with dispute:

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/dispute

    I consider it distinct from dissenting.

    http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/dissent

    There are some overlap in the definitions, which causes ambiguity and confusion, but I believe taken overall, the meanings can be distinguished.

    I believe we need to decide as a body which arguments have been presented in a disputatious manner. We can then choose to reject the disputation, even if we decide to accept the content of the dispute for consideration. In other words, if we choose not to dispute, then arguments advanced in a disputatious manner can be ignored in the voting, even if the ideas can be weighed in by the others. No person needs be excluded, only individual motions that are disputatious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian, you stated: "I believe we need to decide as a body which arguments have been presented in a disputatious manner."

      I prefer to discern that for myself rather than let others decide for me or tell me what is disputatious and what is not. I would not be interested in taking away that opportunity from others, either as a "chosen representative on an appointed committee" or via some sort of voting procedure.

      I feel it is one thing for others to use their brand of persuasion and quite another for someone to determine what I ought to think of that persuasion. I believe this is the burden we all must carry in this world.

      Delete
  37. It might be good for a body of women only to be chosen to decide what motions have been disputatious and unworthy of halting the rest of the body for. However, they could then summarize the content of the disputes without incendiary language so that the body could consider the ideas independently from them being disputes that stop the presses. Oh yes, remember the letter kills, and the spirit gives life. This way, if a person didn't intend to dispute, their idea can still get heard even if the women mistakenly decide their way of promoting their idea was disputatious.

    ReplyDelete
  38. And I should add, we probably shouldn't get in the business of barring someone from participating or offering other motions just because something they offered once was deemed a disputation/contentious. It's embarrassing enough to have your manner of motioning called into suspect, and we all can repent at any time. Hell, I've disputed in the past. I repent, too. We can move forward by condemning disputatious motions as a body, and avoid condemning people.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Further clarification was asked what I meant by dissension vs dispute by a friend and I answered: For this context: A dissension is a counterpoint offered in a persuasive manner, where the one motioning refuses to let their dissension arrest the body from deciding. The body could decide for majority rules or unanimity. If they choose unanimity, they work with the dissenters until agreement is made, and the dissenter who chooses to avoid disputing is willing to work with the body.

    A disputation is the opposite.

    If a body chooses majority rules, dissenters have no problem if they end up persuading all they can and still end up in the minority. If they aren't persuasive, they accept the body's choice, whether it is a mistake or not, and leave the judgment to God.

    ReplyDelete
  40. More: Q: So, you mean that a disputation to you is something like a filibuster to stop the body from deciding?

    Since your post could be taken as referring to Jared's argument, would you say that Jared is disputing? If so, how so?

    A: It could be a filibuster, but not necessarily. In a body who consents to filibusters as a procedural allowance, noone can be disputing by using it.

    I do not say whether Jared is disputing. He has said "I dispute" several times. But, he may be using the wrong word. I think a body of women should take the definition of dispute in mind and decide if any motion is a dispute based on the behavior, words, and/or effect of the motion. Content should be a separate consideration.

    Q: So, in other words, they do like what the vote at the conference did, submit to the majority? But a disputer does not submit to the majority?

    A: Depends on what the body decided at the outset of the vote. If all agreed to majority rules, a dissenter agrees they may be a minority and they accept it.

    If all agree unanimity is required, a dissenter realizes their argument holds the body temporarily, has a due respect for the fact they are holding things up, and wouldn't submit their dissent unless they felt it was important enough to hold off the decision. Then, if things go on too long in negotiations, the dissenter will reconsider and find out if the problem isn't with them. This may go on a long time, but the attitude is different than disputing. If they negotiate and come into agreement, it is with the understanding that although the decision is unanimous, it can be vetoed at a future time.

    If an agreement is stalled in a unanimous process, the dissenters and the body could agree they have a true dispute (this is a non-passionate, procedural decision). What I mentioned before could apply. A body could choose to reject disputes. A second option is available. A dispute can be recognized and taken to the Lord for revelation to decide the stalemate with light and knowledge. We haven't decided as a body how to do that yet. We don't know how to get revelation and verify it in a large group. Denver has, according to some arguments, been forbidden to be involved even to that point. That's why I mentioned the rejection of disputes based on the Lord's words about as a body, we choose not to dispute, to move forward.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Brian,

    That's not how mutual agreement works.

    Mutual agreement, in the context of decisionmaking, is synonymous with common consent, or universal agreement. And, where in the practice of common consent we would be asking if any oppose, or dissent, the Lord has made it so that we must choose to dispute. If you do not choose to dispute a proposal, then you agree with it.

    Thus, we do not need to ask who supports a proposal; agreement is assumed with the Lord's "clarification." All we need to do is ask if any choose to dispute it.

    Now, the majority can convince themselves that those who choose to dispute - by whatever definition they wish to apply to the word "dispute" - have somehow magically ceased to be part of the decisionmaking process, but that viewpoint is utterly without support in the A&C and it is utterly without support in the dictionary. In fact, that viewpoint transfigures mutual agreement into majority rules, which is not what the Lord requires. Mutual agreement, after all, is not an esoteric religious phrase, but a common modern legal phrase, meaning essentially that **all** parties must agree to a proposition or else the proposition doesn't happen.

    When mutual agreement, otherwise known as common consent, otherwise known as universal agreement, is the standard for decisionmaking, as the Lord has required of us in the matter of the G&S, the body does not make any decisions I, myself, do not make - and this statement is true for every individual comprising the body. And I choose to permanently dispute the adoption of the Lottery document, and every other document save it be The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

    So it's not like there is no way out of the G&S stalemate people keep saying exists. I have given you a way out which establishes the Lord's righteousness - the Sermon on the Mount - as our guide and standard. The Sermon on the Mount also happens to be the covenant in the Book of Mormon. And the Sermon on the Mount also happens to be the ways of the Lord, and also happens to be the path to the Lord himself.

    The majority of the body, on the other hand, can do whatever it wants. The body minus even one of us is not the body. It is simply the majority. The majority cannot fulfill obligations the Lord requires of the body. The majority can only defraud the Lord with respect to those obligations and seek to deceive men.

    And if a majority chooses to instantiate an all-women committee to serve as the bishop, or judge, of the members so as to move forward without even one of us, all that majority is doing is dividing itself from the body while instituting explicit hierarchy.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jared, Hey I am the original Anonymous who began the dialog about you and the Covenant. I think there was a little side conversation about disputes. I don’t think we are disputing. I am trying to help Jared get out of something he obviously doesn’t want to be in. Jared, I do appreciate your changing the Covenant name. That was helpful. So back to the Covenant language. The first part of the Covenant states:
    Do you believe all the words of the Lord which have been read to you this day, and know them to be true and from the Lord Jesus Christ who has condescended to provide them to you, and do you covenant with Him to cease to do evil and to seek to continually do good?
    You cannot keep the Covenant if you don’t believe Denver’s words came from the Lord Jesus Christ. I think you negate yourself by your admission that you regret making it. You are not locked into it, that would be compulsion. I think you are incorrect in believing you are bound to the Covenant by the Lord. Just repent for entering into it and you are free to do as you see fit. God would not lock someone into something against their will. I don’t see the point there. But I respect your position, if you cannot see that you are disqualifying yourself due to unbelief, or thinking you followed a man. That’s cool. I won’t mention it again. But we who have taken the Covenant in all sincerity regard it as holy, something that we are priveledged to take part in. This is not a place for people to disrespect Denver or the Covenant. There are plenty of places on the Internet where that would be welcomed. That is just the way I feel about it. Thanks for everyone’s input! It has been an enlightening conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous,

    God's opinion of my covenant status is the one that matters. You can try to persuade him I am not a covenant participant, if you like. You may not have a better chance of convincing him than you do me, however.

    Jared Livesey

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

      Delete
  44. Jared-Log, by your own logic and argument you should still be bound by all of your previously made LDS covenants. You rung those bells, too. Or, how is it that you determined that you can break or cast aside those covenants and yet are bound by new ones? If the other party isn't really God - God did not originate the covenant - then it is just invalid & pretend anyway, right? So which bells can't be unrung: your LDS-administered covenants or your Denver-administered covenant? One of the premises of this movement is that most of the LDS covenants were pantomimes - pretend, practice, but not valid & powerful, and therefore breakable. Have you since come to "know" that the covenant administered through Denver is valid? Answer the questions please.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous,

    Do you agree that God's opinion of my covenant status is the only opinion that matters?

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Want to change your tag to Socrates? Answering questions with questions is called evasion or prevarication, or self-righteousness for a mortal (presuming yourself to be teacher/superior and everyone else students/inferior) but I'll play: of course only God's opinion matters (does God have opinions?) but why would he reveal his opinion about you to me or anyone to anyone else? All we have to go on is your own words regarding yourself.

    So, in saying - "God's opinion of my covenant status is the one that matters. You can try to persuade him I am not a covenant participant, if you like. You may not have a better chance of convincing him than you do me, however." - you are declaring that you now know for yourself that God considers you a covenant participant and that the covenant is legitimate. You're obviously just not willing to go into the details of how you changed from not knowing to knowing. How about just stating that plainly and unequivocally? How do you know is a good question, though - because I presume you used to think you knew the same thing about your LDS covenants. Why aren't you willing to simply testify that you now know, that the knowledge came after your disingenuous "yes", etc.? I think everyone would be willing to accept your own testimony of your own experience. Why won't you share that at least? Or are you still where you were, totally uncertain, but still feeling obligated because you said "yes" instinctively or whatever?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ok, there are two different Anonymous folks here. But please respond to the question above, if you will. Personally to answer the question “Do I agree that God’s opinion is the only one that matters”? I believe God would say if you aren’t for Him you are against Him. Knowing the Covenant given by Denver came from Him (Jesus Christ), I think He would be disappointed that you would take the position you have. I am sure you.would say I cannot judge you or your actions. I will say that there is righteous judgment and I am secure in my knowledge of God and His Covenant. If I were you, I would not keep walking this tightrope. It is a perilous place to be. I would as an equal to you beg you to repent and become a true Covenant holder and begin helping us instead of hindering us. You have so much potential Nevertheless, the gathering will only include sincere faithful Covenant holders. I am pretty secure in that opinion. Only those who are humble and teachable who can live together in harmony will be able to be included. Otherwise, we will just repeat the conditions of Joseph Smith’s attempt at Zion. Just my thoughts, not disputing, maybe there is some disagreement and possibly some rightteous judgment here, that is all. I take full responsibility for it. We should all be working on our ability to be meek and loving toward each other, that is for sure. I still cannot understand why someone who initially made the Covenant then thinks they were duped, would believe they must stay in the Covenant. You cannot be a Covenant holder if you do not abide the Covenant. That is a condition of the Covenant. Oh well, beat that dead horse to death. I’m done now.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous agrees: "[O]f course only God's opinion matters (does God have opinions?) but why would he reveal his opinion about you to me or anyone to anyone else? All we have to go on is your own words regarding yourself."

    Since you agree only God's opinion matters, I will tell you how to obtain God's opinion on my covenant status so that you have more than my own words regarding myself and find peace concerning the matter.

    RE 1 Nephi 4:2; LDS 1 Nephi 15:11
    Do ye not remember the thing which the Lord hath said?
    If ye will not harden your hearts
    and ask me in faith
    believing that ye shall receive
    with diligence in keeping my commandments
    surely these things shall be made known unto you.

    After all,

    KJV James 1:5; RE Jacob 1:2
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

    RE Moroni 10:2; LDS Moroni 10:4-5
    And if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things.

    There are two common problems that stop people from getting answers:

    A) They are not diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are found in KJV Luke 6:20-49, LDS 3 Nephi chapters 12 through 14, and KJV Matthew chapters 5 through 7.

    B) They are not patient and do not wait upon the Lord for his answer.

    You have agreed that God's is the only opinion that matters concerning my covenant status, and you now have the means to obtain his opinion. The rest is between you and God, and it is not between you and me.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hi Doug. I just wanted to say that I really liked your thoughts here. Love, your sister in Christ, Becky Wolford

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Becky. While the discussion here has not really focused on the opening thoughts, it has been an excellent one, nonetheless. Maybe we can get to the idea about 'Wisdom' later.

      And to Anonymous who asks Jared why he does what he does, I believe it is to show us something. And for that I am thankful.

      Delete
  52. I was impressed to say. “I choose not to contend any further” and have therefore printed off a copy of the Lots G&S and put it in my scriptures.
    This isn’t about the G&S. This is about “CHOOSING” NOT TO CONTEND!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Log-Jared, still you prevaricate, obfuscate, and lawyer your way around answering very simple questions directly & plainly. Why should I ask God something about you when I can simply ask you? Are you not capable of answering for yourself? Why won't you answer openly and clearly explain yourself. Why won't you testify of what you know or don't know concerning the Covenant administered through Denver as well as the covenants previously administered to you by the LDS Church? Why do you persist in your self-righteous Socrates teaching method?

    ReplyDelete
  54. From the Anonymous who engaged Jared on his desire to continue in the Covenant,
    I loved Adrian’s latest post on becoming one. I do not wish to dispute or dissent, however some issues must be hashed out so that better understanding can be had by all. Even if nothing is achieved with the one you are discussing the issue with, those reading the material can gain a greater understanding from seeing other perspectives. I never wish to harm anyone’s heart, but straight-forward conversation can either help those involved to come to an agreement, or give either or both charity due to desires of either or both to love and respect one another dispite their differences. Love should be the last element of the conversation. So I just want to say that I have a great deal of love for all who will honestly air their differences without being mean-spirited or froward. Sometimes conversation in text, is difficult to tell the difference, so I always try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jared,

    I have been thinking through what you've been writing, and trying to understand what you are saying about the difference between the "true" covenant and the "Denver" covenant, that they don't necessarily conflict. I read your reasoning for the KJV as your source for the Sermon, I also read your reasoning. I'm kinda slow, when it comes to reading someone else's words, because it's difficult for me to get out of my own head, to put on the head of the author, so I can think through the author's thought process.

    Most of what I have read, in response to your comments here, is "reader response,” …rather than understanding your intention (author intent). What I mean is, those interacting with you read what you write, and then gauge their own emotions; And, rather than responding to what you wrote; they respond to their emotions of what you wrote. How people have responded to you isn’t necessarily an indicator of what you’ve wrote as much as it is an indicator of them, their hearts, and what they understand. My experience is that people prefer to engage with their perceptions of others, rather than investing the time to engage with the people. As we are all strangers, quick conclusions/assumptions/perceptions toss the baby out with the bath water. Relationships have been replaced by “franchise methods” to get people “on-board,” generating a massive momentum as justification for being acceptable, while dismissing the importance of hearing the voice of the Lord.

    That being said, I must admit, taking the “author’s intent” approach is not easy at all. And your writing personality makes it even more difficult, as most of us have associated the phrase “I Descent!” as your call-sign. However, that should not be used as a crutch or an excuse for us NOT to figure out what you’re saying. I have been engaging with you slowly, a little at a time, and I think I have a greater understanding that I want to test, against the “author’s intent,” to see if I understand. I’m pretty confident that I got it right, and the reason I am so confident is because I believe that it reflects my own heart. Here’s what I think you’re saying.

    The Doctrine/Law is all that matters. Within the Doctrine/Law, the Holy Ghost can increase the light in all who will be governed by it, as quickly as they reconcile to the Doctrine/Law. As we are all at different levels of light, only the Holy Ghost can progress any individual to recognize & receive more from a servant, or the voice of the Lord, until they receive directly from the Father. Any man, even a really, really good one, like Denver, …if the process is short-cut, is a chink in the armor, and will prove their doom.

    I know that there’s more explanation that could clarify, but I wanna see if I’m in the right direction.

    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
  56. Rob:

    "The Doctrine/Law is all that matters. Within the Doctrine/Law, the Holy Ghost can increase the light in all who will be governed by it, as quickly as they reconcile to the Doctrine/Law. As we are all at different levels of light, only the Holy Ghost can progress any individual to recognize & receive more from a servant, or the voice of the Lord, until they receive directly from the Father. Any man, even a really, really good one, like Denver, …if the process is short-cut, is a chink in the armor, and will prove their doom."

    Yes, that is the right direction.

    JL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1 of 2

      Jared,

      You can imagine my celebratory scream, "CHEEEYAAAAAHOOOO!" …when I read your response this morning. As I said before, I felt really confident that I did, but the suspense built over night, and I was left to wait, …and that made your response all the better.

      I realize my grasp is still yet surface, and the details of the content is still a work in progress in my mind, but the big picture is getting clearer. My wife and I have been wrestling the Doctrine/Law big picture view in comparison to the other proposals, the original, the Aug 5th, the Lots, and the acronym one, …and the Doctrine/Law is the only one that permits certainty to us as Native People, not needing to promote more vote, more franchise process, and more politicking to control the perceptions of people.

      Although there is little available, regarding Zion, written by Enoch and Melchizedek, what we do know is, both Enoch & Melchizedek preached repentance, and the people repented. The Doctrine of Christ can be summed up into one word, “Repentance.” You may have said it before, but I only came to the same conclusion yesterday that since God is unchanging, those who built Zion would have been commanded to do as we are commanded to do, which is to write a Governing Principles document in mutual agreement. Although the scriptures do not say it directly, having my heart set upon the Doctrine/Law, and looking back, all the scriptures seem to point that this is precisely as Enoch & Melchizedek did it.

      For those who would prefer something simple, it is simple. For those who want to do things their way, they are free to do things with their own flare. For those who seek a more sophisticated or scholarly approach, they can feel free within the bounds the Lord has set! Each relying upon the Holy Ghost as their immediate guide, and their fruits as their justification. Conferences will be less like LDS General Conferences, being filled with fruits of success/gifts of the spirit to be shared, more like a convention than a boring “talk-giving meeting, meeting, meeting! Fellowships will be free to adopt ideas, improve upon them, and share their fruits whenever they choose to meet. And the hearts of the people will maintain it’s uniqueness, while being one.

      Delete
    2. 2 of 2

      The concepts in King Follett, Pyramid Text, Hebrew Text, Ancient Christian, Nag Hammadi, Gnostic, Apocryphal & Pseudepigrapha have been of great interest to me, as they have great light within them, pointing to remnants of truth trapped within an ancient knowledge text that immediately gets retracted in each apostasy. The ancient Egyptian Pyramid texts offer much regarding being sanctified and the fiery ascent, and restoring the primordial (original) unity between men and Gods, for Gods to instruct men in person. The Hebrew Wisdom from Margret Barker not only teaches things related to Wisdom, it gives far greater insights to the design and functionality of the temple. The 40-day literature included the record of higher ordinances given by the resurrected Christ, before going to the other sheep. They include remnants of things Denver has taught within his papers of the Holy Order, and most recently on Wisdom. The Gnostic origins from Origen, and the ancient Christian-ecclesia, house churches, the male and female deacons, also offer greater light regarding fellowships. The reasons I find these teachings really interesting is not because they are “scholarly,” …but because they reflect traditional Native American and Polynesian cultures, and can easily be tied into principles described in the Book of Mormon. For me, I take the Book of Mormon as my authentication for these writings, and for aligning my Native American/Polynesian views. I refused to accept the other documents because they are closed to greater light. I was worried that an oversimplified document would set our sights too low, and that our conversations would reflect it, being too low, too mean, too vulgar, …resulting in our rejection of greater light to lead out. The other competing documents still represent that to me, but within the Doctrine/Law, I see the simplest of thinking permitted, and an incubator for the greatest light to fill us all up. And for this reason, I turn my attention to the Doctrine/Law as a Governing Principle for people to be governed by.

      Some things I want to address is why one sermon and not the other. You have written on that, and I have read it, and I am going through each sermon to gain a perspective worth discussing. Another is the statement you included that: “We accept, practice, and teach the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, as contained in the Book of Mormon…” In keeping with allowing the Doctrine/Law to instruct by the Holy Ghost alone, it seems as if the only thing we need to do is “accept to govern ourselves by the Doctrine/Law.” To practice it and to teach it is not for us to say, but would be directed by the spirit, wouldn’t it?

      Talk to me,

      Rob Adolpho

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

      Delete
    4. A law which a people claim to accept and do not obey is not accepted.

      And we have agreed to teach these things. See Question 3, and this:

      Teach your children to honor me.

      A check is honored when it is redeemed for the full amount it is written for. A check is dishonored when it is not paid out. Therefore, if we honor God, we render unto him all things he has required of us, and if we fail to render unto him what he has required, then we dishonor him. All this is a long way of explaining "to honor is to obey."

      Seek to recover the lost sheep remnant of this land and of Israel and no longer forsake them. Bring them unto me and teach them of my ways, to walk in them.

      His ways are his law and commandments; to walk in his ways is to keep his law and commandments.

      1 Kings 3:14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.

      Therefore we must also teach his law and commandments. And see the following, per Question 2:

      2 Nephi 26:27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.

      Therefore, we must teach these things.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    5. Jared,

      I’m afraid that I must point out to you what you have pointed out to me, which is the difference between the “true” and the “Denver” covenant (not in conflict). Christ has given both, recorded by the hand of His servants. And in our interaction we have concluded that His purposes are why He gave them. You have suggested that perhaps His purposes are to test people, to see if they follow a man. I, on the other hand, see His purpose as our current approach to Zion. However, in your last comment, it seems as though you are combining the two covenants into one. The “true” covenant is accepted by those who accept to be governed by the Doctrine/Law of Christ, while the “Denver” covenant is the bell that you cannot unring.

      In my last comment, I was addressing the Governing Principles project, referring to the “true” covenant, apart from the “Denver” covenant. I stated that, according to the “true” covenant (Doctrine/Law of Christ), all one needed to do was accept to be governed by it, and then produce the fruits. If we understand the definition of accept to be a consent to receive, then that would satisfy the requirements of the “true” covenant, and now all who consent must produce acceptable fruit, sweet fruit.

      However, you have combined the two covenants, stating that we must also teach it, and gather the lost sheep of this land, all inclusive in accepting, practicing, and teaching the doctrine. When referring to the Governing Principles project, all that is required of any, is to accept to be governed by the Doctrine/Law of Christ. And that would be congruent to your argument about the difference between the “true” and the “Denver” covenant, keeping them contained.

      As I see Denver as a legitimate servant of the Lord, I recognize the words in the Answer to the Covenant as the words of Christ Himself, and a new effort among this movement to approach Zion in our day. As the Lord’s plan of salvation is about progression, whenever the Lord condescends to give more, it is only additive, to what has already been given. In this case, the Doctrine/Law of Christ is the subject for the completion of the Governing Principles project, and NOT the “Denver” covenant found in the Answer to Covenant. The successful accomplishment of the Governing Principles project would complete the requirements of the “Denver” covenant, for those who elect to accept to be governed by that to now accept and be governed by it. However, without the mutual agreement on the Governing Principles project, the “Denver” covenant cannot be accepted, let alone performed, to produce fruits for the Lord to sort through.

      I am separating the two covenants, and directly focusing on the Governing Principles project. As an aside, I call it Governing Principles because it only becomes mutually agreeable by those who agree to be governed by it.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  57. Doug, the recent conference presented a preliminary quorum of believers’ vote on the Lots document, which won a majority. That may make it worthy of applying the good idea you uncovered in the scriptures about a “Word of Wisdom.” The Lots document has a preamble that sounds like the preamble in the Word of Wisdom. It may just fit the bill for consideration of a final vote later on. Maybe your idea for starting afresh is appropriate. But also, maybe the exercise at the recent conference puts some weight to considering the Lots document as a Word of Wisdom. The last step may be to hold a final vote, as well as decide as a body which proposals are contentious and should be rejected by the body (not saying yours is). I sent in some thoughts I tried to base on scriptures which may appear as another post on this site soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian,
      Great to hear from you. I can't say what will ultimately happen, but I have seen some amazing things in this conversation between Jared and Rob. It has helped me to reconsider almost everything.

      I keep asking myself, do I need this covenant "through Denver" in order to play my part? I mean, nothing is stopping me from living the doctrine of Christ outside of the covenant. And if I did that, I would not be bound by another's interpretation of what has been commanded to me, but would just listen to God through the Spirit which speaks my language specifically. Furthermore, it would show the true desire of my heart... that I'm not in it for the "blessings" or promises of the covenant, but just because I love others.

      I think it might be good for us to carefully read 2 Ne 9:41-42:

      "O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them."

      Perhaps the reason why the path is "narrow" and "strait" (deep) is that there is only room for one on it--you. Which means the He wants to deal with us directly, not "through" the "wise" or the "learned," etc. In fact, it's when we cast those things away that He opens up to us.

      How does this relate to the required statement? I'm not sure. Certainly there are elements of getting along which we need to learn. Whether or not they are necessarily encased in a covenant has yet to be determined for me.

      ---Doug

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

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

      Delete
  59. Rob,

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Help me out.

    JL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would it help if I said I'm killing all the birds with one stone?

      JL

      Delete
    2. When you say you're killing all the birds with one stone, are you suggesting that not only does the Doctrine/Law of Christ fulfill the assignment for the Governing Principles project, but that the way you have written it, the Doctrine/Law of Christ also replaces the need for the "Denver" covenant, simply adding: accept/practice/teach?

      If that is your recommendation, I don't follow your reasoning.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    3. I'm saying the acceptance, practice, and teaching of the doctrine / law / commandments answers all of the obligations arising from the Boise Covenant.

      That is, if we will actually accept, practice, and teach the doctrine / law / commandments of Christ, we will thereby fulfill the Boise Covenant and qualify to receive the Lord's covenant from heaven, for we will in fact have repented of all our sins and done all that we agreed to do.

      JL

      Delete
  60. Jared,

    Sorry for not being clear. I'm doing some searching concerning the Doctrine/Law of Christ, regarding the New Testament version of the Law, against the BOM version. I have read why you choose the Luke version, because it's short, it refers to those who aren't the disciples, but are commoners, ...and I am working on obtaining an opinion for myself on that.

    However, I have an opinion on the part that you have written, regarding the statement. You write: We accept, practice, and teach... prior to the Doctrine, and prior to the Law. Regarding the Governing Principles project, I suggest that it only say we accept to be governed by... I am differentiating being governed by, from accept/practice/ and teach because the Holy Ghost ought to be the only instructor, and all who simply accept to be governed by it can be instructed by the Holy Ghost how to accept it, practice it, and teach it. For this reason, a change is in order to not supplant the Holy Ghost by telling people what to do, once they agree to be governed by this Doctrine/Law.

    Does that make it clearer?

    Rob Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rob,

      It is not enough to say one accepts the doctrine / law / commandments - one must actually do it. The actual execution of the doctrine / law / commandments distinguishes hypocrites from the people of God. And because we have taken upon ourselves the Boise Covenant, we are not only obligated to execute the doctrine / law / commandments, but we are also obligated to teach them. Thus The Rock of Jesus Christ is for the people [the Boise Covenant participants] to follow.

      As to what the doctrine / law / commandments mean, and how to practice and teach them, that's between the individual and God - after all, one of the commandments is "judge not." That's where the Holy Ghost will instruct.

      Principles are rules of behavior which you do not ever break, under any circumstances. The commandments of the Sermon are the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom, and, if we aspire to build up Zion, they must also be our principles.

      "Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so to do, he shall by no means be saved in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it be fulfilled, the same shall be called great and shall be saved in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (RE Matthew 3:17)

      "Break not my commandments to save your lives, for whoever will save his life in this world shall lose it in the world to come" (RE Matthew 9:3).

      "[A]ll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets" (RE 3 Nephi 6:3).

      "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the Celestial kingdom, otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself" (RE D&C 40:1)

      "Behold, I am the law and the light. Look unto me and endure to the end and ye shall live, for unto him that endureth to the end will I give Eternal life. Behold, I have given unto you the commandments, therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets for they truly testified of me" (RE 3 Nephi 7:2)

      "Do my works and you will know my doctrine; for you will uncover hidden mysteries by obedience to these things that can be uncovered in no other way. This is the way I will restore knowledge to my people" (A&C p. 7).

      Jared L.

      Delete
  61. Jared, what is this about for you, truly? I need help understanding. I have spent much time reading, re-reading and pondering your words to understand why you say things you say in the way you say them. I think I am piecing your words together into an English Paper Piecing quilt slowly but surely.

    On April 2, @11:37AM, you stated, “I absolutely regret trusting Denver Snuffer and entering the Snufferian Covenant. It ranks up there with the biggest mistakes of my life.”

    Those are strong words expressing strong emotions.

    You have also written this, from your blog post “Awake and Arise!” on February 25, 2018:

    “And I found out to my horror what the Lord meant by "cursed be the man that trusteth in man." By saying "yes" to the covenant, thereby saying I knew the words Denver Snuffer put forth were from the Lord when I did not, in fact, know those words to be from the Lord, I broke a commandment and trusted in men.”

    Are you saying that in the moment when we were invited to stand and say yes by Denver (a man, not men, btw) at the Covenant Conference you did not know the Answer to the prayer for Covenant AT THAT TIME was of and from Christ but now you do? You have stated you do believe the Answer to the prayer for Covenant is of Christ. Did I get that correct? And is that a result of whatever happened the night of the Covenant?

    You continued, “The Lord had therefore cut me off from his presence, LEAVING ME TO BE LED BY THE HOLY GHOST.”

    You now feel demoted? You are as Cain after he murdered his brother Abel?

    With the first portion of the above quoted material, were you being literal or something else? I take things literally until I am taught otherwise. Is this why you say accepting the Covenant from Christ albeit offered through Denver is one of your biggest regrets in life? You lost something precious and yearn for (It) to be restored?

    Would you say it is similar to what Joseph experienced after losing the 116 manuscript pages and he lost his gift and privilege to translate the plates of brass for a time?

    I am sorry for your hurt and suffering. I do not understand but desire you be restored to wholeness and felicity of spirit. What have you learned you can do to repent so you are not so filled with regret?

    I can recall a lot of choices I regret in this life, yet by regretting them I am not appreciating all that I am and have learned as a result of them. I am here to learn and mistakes are a necessary albeit painful part of learning. I guess I do not believe in failure as the world defines it. All things work together for my good through Christ Jesus.

    Are you perhaps, potentially, projecting your experience onto the rest of the covenant body? If Christ has told you to only hearken and heed His doctrine and His law, is it right to dictate that to others? I am just seeking understanding with this.

    I am familiar with all the scriptures you have shared repeatedly. I feel you are sound in pointing to those things as a foundation. But I also know that just because Christ has told you to do something does not also mean I must do it unless He tells me to also. That is true for all of us and each of us, and applies across all areas of our lives. I still am content with such as a statement of principles. But some are told to resign from the LDS church, while others are to write a book which leads to their excommunication, and yet others are to stay in the church and serve. I know some have felt this Covenant opportunity is “not their deal.” That does not mean I am wrong, they are right, or vice versa. Christ’s gospel is not an Easter cookie cutter kit or one-size-fits-all t-shirt.

    Please help me understand what I am incorrect about here or what I did piece together accurately, and how I can be a support to you. Life is hard and I believe we are not meant to suffer or endure it alone, especially in Zion.

    Lori

    ReplyDelete
  62. Lori,

    If you want to know what you can do to support me - for you asked - you can accept, practice, and teach the law and commandments of the Lord.

    Then I would have more company.

    JL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think you have more company than you realize, but we have different ways of expressing it. Perhaps you are not yet as Job?

      It appears you are willing to express a great many things but struggle to engage with specific questions on them. I hope I have not wounded you further. I do not mean to. I just was puzzled very much why someone would express such strong regret over accepting this unique opportunity, especially when you have expressed to now know it is from and of Christ. (Unless I am mistaken.) You are an enigma to most here, methinks. And online interactions are difficult by nature.

      If I may ask one further question.

      On April 2 @10:09PM you wrote,

      “Apparently, the covenant offered through Denver is neither essential, nor necessary, nor sufficient for Zion, nor for salvation. It is not part of the doctrine of Christ.

      “If the Boise covenant were necessary, or essential, then we would expect to see a directive in the A&C to solicit people to join the Boise covenant. There is no such directive in the A&C.”

      Do the above words mean you are of the belief, opinion, and directive from Christ to persuade others *against* standing and saying yes to the Answer to the prayer for Covenant? To prevent them from experiencing the same regret you have expressed.

      Delete
    2. Lori,

      The words you ask me about only say what they say. They don't say anything other than what they say.

      I offered them as explanation for why I do not and will not solicit people to join the Boise Covenant without a direct commandment from heaven to myself. The Lord hasn't appointed us to do so. That's another reason to dispute the Lottery document, and any like it.

      "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name? Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?" (RE D&C 54:8)

      Non-solicitation does not imply opposition.

      JL

      Delete
    3. Okay. Thank you for helping me understand that. I appreciate it.

      And I am sorry if I have opened a can of worms here. I did not mean to, but wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly or get clarification after spending some time reading your blog. You have taken much time to explain yourself, and that is a good thing.

      Lori

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

      Delete
  63. Jared,

    As Adrian asked you elsewhere, when you wrote "Arise and Awake," did you mean to imply that you were literally cut off from God's presence when you entered the Boise covenant?

    ReplyDelete