Thursday, March 1, 2018

Another G&S Proposal

From John Dutson


A NEW CONCEPT FOR THE - Statement of Principles/Guide & Standard!

This is offered in the sincere desire for unity of our people and for no other reason!

If wisdom isn’t seen in it I will let it fade away without debate, but I believe it has great merit. This isn’t something I dreamt up last minute, nor on my own. I have been working on this for over 5 months and believe it can provide the compromise we need through flexibility.

The idea is to change the whole approach to the Guide and Standard - Statement of Principals challenge.

The new scriptures would have just THE one page (see page below), with references maybe that would include front and back of the ONE page.

The proper references and their order for each standard are the critical additions that would need to be made to this.

The key to the Statement of Principles/Guide and Standard is to let “the 7 standards” listed such as the Doctrine of Christ and the Sermons on the Mount and at Bountiful stand on their own, therefore, they do NOT need to be rewritten in whole or part in the statement, just the references to them would be shown.

It needs to be very simple and flexible. Therefore, this idea will separate the procedural matters, the “how to” items of a fellowship and move them to a separate and non-scriptural Fellowship Guide, each fellowship can write their own. This would support fellowship diversity and could be very unique to differing cultures or groups, as long as they conformed to the accepted statement of principles and the 7 standards.

I know there are individuals guided to inspire the hearts and minds of specific groups, as they should be. Those documents don’t need to be included in the one-page Statement of Principles-Guide and Standard but would be done via a separate statement for the specific purpose.

It appears we are at an impasse on this as a people and need help or we will fail. Give this concept some serious consideration. It is after all just one page; but A WHOLE NEW APPROACH!"

So here it is..

We as a people, disciples of Christ, seek as individuals, families and fellowships to follow Christ and “equally walk truly” in His path back to the Father by abiding the teachings contained in the scriptures and revelations provided for our day.
“What do we need to do to enter God’s pathway of endless progress? Jesus answered and said, The pathway is before you in me, I teach and display what the Father wants you to witness and believe. In the name of Father Ahman I testify to you, He who hearkens to my testimony, and trusts him who sent me, there is no end to his potential progression. His progress will not cease, for I demonstrate the pathway of eternal lives.”
Therefore, we seek to become His disciples filled with faith, hope and charity. A people of one heart and mind. People whose lives can reflect the two great commandants.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”.
Lives guided and maintained by virtue, by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness, and pure knowledge, without hypocrisy, and without guile. We seek His presence, to be His people, to abide His covenant, and for the establishment of Zion in preparation for His return.
We in faith receive the scriptures, current revelation and in particular, “The Book of Mormon” to “correct ourselves and to guide our words, thoughts and deeds”. From these we have adopted the following seven standards.
1.The Doctrine of Christ as given by the Lord at Bountiful. see (3 Nephi 11:32-40) see also (2 Nephi 31:2-21, 32;2-9) 
2.The law of Christ as given by the Lord in the Sermons on the Mount and at Bountiful. see (3 Nephi 12,13,14, Matthew 5,6,7) see also (Mosiah 2:9-40, 3:2-24)
3.Fellowships. See (references to follow and fellowship Guides)
4.Priesthood Ordinances. See (references to follow)
5.The Answer and the Covenant as given by the Lord to His servant. See (references to follow)
6.The Holy Order. See (references to follow)
7.Zion. See (references to follow)

12 comments:

  1. I like it. I remember a while back how Rob and Q kept reminding us about the wisdom in going with a lowest common denominator approach.
    I believe this is exactly that.
    It highlights the Doctrine of Christ; it highlights the law of Christ and points toward the progression up to the presence of the Father that we all seek.
    Hopefully it will fulfill the requirement of the Lord in being unifying.

    -Edwin Wilde

    ReplyDelete
  2. I register my disputation of the adoption of this proposal

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  3. I register my support of the adoption of this proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This will never end. Unanimity has empowered an obstructionist. Unanimity cannot work in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I’d support this. But it doesn’t seem to matter. They way it stands, hundreds of supporters are nullified by one disputer. Or one rejection.

    However this is a solid proposal, and the issues we currently struggle with don’t take away from it. Thank you John.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John,

    I commend you in your sincere desire to help resolve this issue. I can see that you have put a lot of thought and pure intent behind trying to help us all succeed in this matter. I like the brevity and I like the topics that you deemed pertinent, but I feel for all intents and purposes, though the form is modified, in reality, it is not much different than what we already have approved. (except allowing each fellowship their own fellowship guide).

    May I point out why I am not as enthusiastic about this resolving our situation:

    1) While your one page document is simple enough, it still requires "references" to be made in order for it to serve the intended purpose of the GS. (Don't get me wrong, it should have the references, otherwise, it wouldn't be informing anyone as required).

    But those references, that aren't included yet, put us right back where we have already been in the past.

    Who decides what references have merit and which do not? This was always the core source of so much debate in the past ( the content)...it was resolved through the Lots...and this proposal, though on first glance appears to avoid that because you present just one page...still has the "content" as a major item that must ultimately still be resolved. What references? And there begins the debate all over.

    IMO, this is ultimately just another way of doing what the Lots document has already accomplished...though in different packaging. For the Lots, "quotes" were used within the GS document to give explanation. You are suggesting using "references" to inform. But the truth is that those references are ultimately just pointing people to read those quotes. Isn't that a mere technicality?

    2) Left unresolved in your proposal, and opening another l can of worms is, WHO will put these undecided references (quotes) together? This was already resolved through the prior Lots effort; very equitably and with the Lord's manifestation, I might add. And in the end, the content of your proposal will ultimately be almost the same, with references to quotes, rather than just the convenience of being able to read the actual quote.

    (1 of 2)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (2 of 2)

      3) How will this proposal and the resulting document with its references attached be accepted by the people? Another vote? Do you feel another 450 + covenant holders that participated in November, want to vote again? Many of them feel they have already finalized their vote and the Lord approved it. And what of those in this movement won't accept any form of voting and have based opposition upon that already? What if only 150 bother vote? Will you go find the missing 300? What if they say they are sticking with what they already voted upon?

      4) 93% of the people have already shown they are very agreeable people. There's not the existing division that some would like us to believe there is. It is consistently the same individuals who find issues with each GS or solution. How will your proposal pacify them any differently than what has already been achieved by the Lots proposal and the efforts to reach out that were done there? Just trying to be a realist here.

      Of those who opposed what was already done, some said it was because what was presented wasn't an original revelation, some because it quotes Denver, and so forth. I do not see how your proposal will do anything more to resolve the issues of those who have already expressed opposition to what has been done. Is this an original revelation? No. Will the references include quotes of Denver? I would hope so. Thus, you will still have those who are forever opposed.

      I hope you do not see this as attacking you. I laud you effort. I really do. I just do not see how it is fundamentally different. Even under the fellowship item, you acknowledge there needs to be references given that are common to all. There is nothing that I see in the current Lots GS that truly inhibits any fellowship from having individuality. Those things expressed within the Lots GS are all scripture and things we have all already agreed upon. There are not a bunch of rigid controlling items given to fellowships other than those items that the Lord gave us already as instructions.

      Bottom line, I see the work as being done. I see this as different wrapping paper on the same package, and not able to resolve what has been the underlying issues of difference among those who have opposed past GS documents. I thank you for your honest attempt and desires to do something, though. It takes a lot of courage. I respect that greatly!

      Delete
    2. (2 of 2)

      3) How will this proposal and the resulting document with its references attached be accepted by the people? Another vote? Do you feel another 450 + covenant holders that participated in November, want to vote again? Many of them feel they have already finalized their vote and the Lord approved it. And what of those in this movement won't accept any form of voting and have based opposition upon that already? What if only 150 bother vote? Will you go find the missing 300? What if they say they are sticking with what they already voted upon?

      4) 93% of the people have already shown they are very agreeable people. There's not the existing division that some would like us to believe there is. It is consistently the same individuals who find issues with each GS or solution. How will your proposal pacify them any differently than what has already been achieved by the Lots proposal and the efforts to reach out that were done there? Just trying to be a realist here.

      Of those who opposed what was already done, some said it was because what was presented wasn't an original revelation, some because it quotes Denver, and so forth. I do not see how your proposal will do anything more to resolve the issues of those who have already expressed opposition to what has been done. Is this an original revelation? No. Will the references include quotes of Denver? I would hope so. Thus, you will still have those who are forever opposed.

      I hope you do not see this as attacking you. I laud you effort. I really do. I just do not see how it is fundamentally different. Even under the fellowship item, you acknowledge there needs to be references given that are common to all. There is nothing that I see in the current Lots GS that truly inhibits any fellowship from having individuality. Those things expressed within the Lots GS are all scripture and things we have all already agreed upon. There are not a bunch of rigid controlling items given to fellowships other than those items that the Lord gave us already as instructions.

      Bottom line, I see the work as being done. I see this as different wrapping paper on the same package, and not able to resolve what has been the underlying issues of difference among those who have opposed past GS documents. I thank you for your honest attempt and desires to do something, though. It takes a lot of courage. I respect that greatly!

      Delete
    3. My apologies for double posting. Computer glitch.

      Delete
    4. Thank you John....Likewise, I am also grateful for your good heart and effort.

      Delete
    5. Obviously, I degree with your assessment. To me the difference between this and the Lots group document is significant. But if that can’t be seen, then it isn’t.
      Adding the references would be an exciting and enjoyable process in my view. We need to learn how play together nicely or abiding the covenant “as a people” is hopeless.
      That said, I did vote for the lots document and would support it.

      Delete
    6. John,

      Thanks for being gracious with my assessment. I appreciate that. It's no fund having people pick apart an idea.

      I will just say that I agree with the "playing together nicely" point you make. I just see it as 93% of us have repeatedly shown that we are already willing and trying to play together nicely. That doesn't mean the others are not trying if they disagreed...I'm just saying that 93% have put their money where their mouth is and they agreed to a process and way to determine content, and to determine who would compose it already, and that was their genuine effort to show the Lord they were "easy to be entreated," and could get along.

      To have to do the same thing again in order to create the required references is just like reinventing the wheel. Hope that makes sense. But even if it doesn't, I really appreciate your positive attitude toward everything. I saw your comment on the latest SC post supporting their submission. I believe your kind and willing spirit is a great example and just what the Lord desires of all of us. Thank you.

      Delete