Tuesday, March 13, 2018


Dear Everyone:

We are fast approaching the end of our goal to publish a new set of scriptures. At this point it seems very likely that the scriptures will be published before we are all in agreement regarding the assignment given to the assembly to produce and agree on a Guide and Standard.
For a year or so the scriptures committee has had the view that a single document would need to be mutually agreed upon and then published in the scriptures. With each rendition of the G&S, the lack of mutual agreement has kept us from feeling at liberty to publish them in the scriptures. Our initial, direct responsibility for a replacement for D&C Section 20 shaped our perspective and it has taken us this long to relinquish that view. We apologize that it took us so long. Looking back, this should have happened when the assembly determined that any G&S had to be put through a submissions process and approved by them. Though belatedly, we wish to entirely off-load every and all responsibility for the G&S to the assembly - where it rightly belongs. 
We now have a new view on the Lord's requirements that allows us to finally step aside. The Lord's words are, When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow. A statement of principles could be added in many ways:

  • handwritten in the blank notes section of the forthcoming scriptures.
  • typed on a sticky note and added.
  • glued in or just stuck in like a bookmark.
  • posted as a PDF for download, trimming and inserting in our scriptures.
We also choose to no longer limit our previously myopic view of the Lord’s requirement and to include this view of what it might mean to “add.” Up to now, the idea of being required to "publish" a G&S has kept this committee bound to the process.

This more expanded view has many practical advantages:

  • It eliminates the argument that anyone is writing scripture, since the statement can be added as an insert just like seminary notes.
  • It eliminates the tension for those who feel the scripture committee is ignoring the voice of the people and exercising control.
  • It does not limit in any way those who seek 100% unanimity around any single document.
  • It provides an opportunity for every individual to demonstrate personal accountability for the adoption of a mutually agreed upon G&S when they add it on their own to their scriptures.
  • If, as a people, through prayer and humility, we ever arrive at the point where everyone wants to reprint the scriptures with a G&S as a permanent addendum, that could still be done.
With regards to the current discussions of how to resolve the G&S situation, there are several unique proposals currently advanced. The responsibility to execute these proposals can’t be transferred to the scriptures committee. Anyone making a proposal must either execute it, getting others involved, or it will fizzle. Nor do we have any reason to choose one over another. We have posted the proposals and let go at that moment of any involvement. If others are advanced, we will simply post them. That's pretty much all we can or will do.

So far, we have only seen one of the proposals to resolve the G&S situation take any steps beyond posting an explanation. It rests with all those proposing different resolutions to coordinate efforts among themselves. This committee has no desire to act as referee, arbiter or event planner.

On February 9th a vote was proposed which showed potential to bring resolution to the G&S dilemma, and on March 3rd the committee agreed to publish whichever statement garnered the most support in that vote.  However, we have had second thoughts.  We now believe that the best course of action is, as we have said, to divest ourselves entirely of any involvement in the selection or publishing of a G&S. We apologize to any who have been inconvenienced by our ambivalence.  We understand that although the vote may not go forward as originally planned, the group making the proposal for that vote will make one more effort in Phoenix to see if the conference can agree upon a G&S.

The scripture committee


  1. I think that interpretation is brilliant. We are always better off paying very close attention to the Lord’s words and trying to take Him at His word. He said “add”, not “publish” or “print”. I think everyone, the SC included will feel better about our assignment if the SC is not required to publish our G&S to which we finally achieve mutual agreement, whenever that should happen, hopefully soon.

  2. Theoretically it will be possible to have a conference mutually agree on a single document and then the job is over except for the individuals job to “add” it to their own scriptures. Cool!

  3. Why didn’t I think of this? A new perspective on both the obligation of the Scriptures Committee role as well as the requirement of the Lord to add. What hasn’t changed is our obligation to write a statement of principle, mutually agree on it and then add it to our scriptures.

  4. I have always seen the Scriptures Committee as the final common pathway to adding the Guide and Standard to the scriptures. I guess the committee has too. Now the people can choose a G&S without any veto authority from the SC or any other body. Thank you gentlemen for figuring this out.

  5. Jared do you support this?

    From your view, does this address the fraud and conspiracies you referenced in many of your comments?

    1. Yes Jared--Do you support the scripture committee here? And do you have any words of enchoragement, praise, or gratitude you'd like to share here.

  6. This is absolutely ridiculous. I have several deep concerns and questions about this.

    If the criteria to “add” something to the scriptures does not include printing and publication along with the entirety of the volume, why print and publish anything at all? We could all just print off what portions we like and discard what we don't like and hope that those who know nothing as of yet of the Lord’s work now underway are lucky enough to stumble upon some covenant holder’s set of scriptures that happened to have the G&S glued into it somewhere….because it won’t be found in connection with the online version either.

    How can the scripture committee state that they are “off-loading the responsibility for the G&S to the people where it rightly belongs” while simultaneously deciding for the people what their new RE scriptures will contain? And that too without their consent?

    Will the assembly be given the opportunity to accept as binding this new burst of intelligence that has been visited upon the scripture committee? Will they be given the alternative of keeping with the original plan of having the G&S included online and printed somewhere in the RE or is this now just a done deal?

    Why does the scripture committee seem to value and accept the will of the people in some cases (such as voting which sections to keep or remove) but not others?

    It seems the only thing this will do is absolve the scripture committee of the one responsibility they do have a right to claim and that is to honor the will of the people with respect to the scriptures when we were asked to labor with them as equals.

    Am I the only one seeing what is going on here????????? I feel like I’m in the freaking Twilight Zone!!!!

    1. Yeah, it appears the scripture committee is looking for an out.
      Very disappointing!

  7. Yea! Now this is what I view as the actions of a truly neutral committee. Thank you for all your time, sacrifice, and service in compiling the words of Joseph Smith and restoring more perfectly the Old and New Covenants, plus the Teachings and Commandments. I feel you have done your part, now we must do ours. I am sorry for what we have put you all through. Lori

  8. "But equality among us is the only way prophesied for us to succeed. That does not mean we won't have "a mess" as we learn how to establish equality." (Opening remarks Boise Cov. Conf. 4th pg.)
    This is a bit of a mess, but I think we must go through this to learn how to establish equality and a new way of governing ourselves.

  9. Question: Did the Lord inspire the teachings given through Denver in the 10 Lectures?

    If so, what was the purpose of the Lord giving those teachings?

    If we can't receive those teachings with joy and gratitude and utilize them as He intended, did we receive those teachings in vain?

    What if the followers of Christ in the days after He gave his "lectures" on holy living refused to include those new teachings in their new scripture because they already had the earlier teachings and commandments from other prophets?

    So, are the most recent teachings about how to form fellowships and to successfully run them any less important than His teachings in the Sermon on the Mount? Are they the words of Christ or not?

    Do we receive them as such?

    Do the teachings in the 10 Lectures (from which the LOT G&S are mostly taken from, as well as the Lord's Answer and Covenant) help people to understand more fully how they - in our modern day - can better live the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount as a Community?

    Do the teachings listed in the LOT G&S help us to keep the Lord's ordinances as given?

    Do they point to the Sermon on the Mount as THE LAW that we are to keep?

    Why the resistance to this document which "blesses, benefits and informs" those who know nothing of this work now underway?

  10. The problem is this: the scripture committee decides what is printed in the scriptures. As long as the statement of principles is tied to the scriptures, it is tied to the scripture committee. They have always had the final say. If they had wanted the Aug 5 document published, it would have been published. If they had wanted any other document published, it would be published. And it must be so. Whenever any action is taken, someone always has to do the work. When it comes to publishing, someone submits the manuscript. That manuscript submitter is not a "strongman" just someone doing work. Now they wisely did not want to wield that power arbitrarily. It would have made their decision much easier had a document gained 100% acceptance. But alas that has not happened.
    So then they agreed to abide by the decision of the group at large via the online voting and votes at the conference. This was a step in the right direction. By that means they remove themselves from the decision. Yes, they still have to accept the mechanism that the voting takes. Again that does not make them a strongman, it just means they do the work to setup a method for people to voice their opinion. Yes, perhaps the mechanism proposed was not the perfect means of deciding (I don't know what a perfect system would look like), but at least they were no longer the ones anonymously meeting behind closed doors making the final decisions on in or out.
    But alas, it is apparently not to be. Some may say this a step towards being neutral, but it has a big flaw:
    They have now decided the final interpretation of what the Answer and Covenant means in regards to the Statement of Principles. And they admit that this is an innovation compared to what the text seemed to have said since we received it. Regardless of whether that interpretation is correct or not, that is THE interpretation we must all now accept.
    With the discarded voting system, this decision was at least given to the people. If for any reason, you did not want a document published (you want further light and knowledge, you wanted a different document, you like the document chosen, but want to delay because you did not feel that mutual agreement was met), you could meaningfully express that opinion. And people could meaningfully express their opinion that it should be published. Now that option is gone. If this is what the Lord wanted all along, well great. But if it is not, well where do we go? That's right we are right back at appealing to the committee to reverse their interpretation. As long as there are still people who think "add" does indeed mean publish/include in the online version, the scripture committee still retains significant power, no matter how badly they do not want it or how emphatically they say they don't have it.

  11. Jimmie
    You must have missed this line

    If, as a people, through prayer and humility, we ever arrive at the point where everyone wants to reprint the scriptures with a G&S as a permanent addendum, that could still be done.

    Let’s focus on mutual agreement first.


    1. McKay, I did not miss the line.
      The scripture committee still retains the final interpretation of what mutual agreement means. They still retain the final interpretation of when what they decide is mutual agreement is reached. If they don't feel that everyone has been reached out to (there could still be people out in Siberia without internet access who have not been polled who could still disagree) boom it does not get it get "added". Who determines that enough has been done? In this model it is still the scripture committee. Just like they decided that enough was not done with the August 5th document and enough was not done with the Lots document (or any other document for that matter).
      And to be clear, I do not envy the situation, I would not want to be in charge either. I do not see them as strongmen. I think they are honest. And I think they ultimately want to rid their hands of anything to do with the matter.
      All I am saying is they can't. It is literally impossible for them to do so. The best they can do is setup a reasonable system to let the people decide (I thought Gordon and other presented a reasonable solution). If the people choose wrong, well that is on them. But if they really want "the people" to decide everything, they can't hold back and say, well we think this is what "add" and "mutual agreement" mean, so work within that framework.
      Yes, I admit it is within their rights to setup whatever framework they want (again they have to pick something or literally nothing happens), I just point out that it is not "the people" that are charge in this current framework.

    2. To be extra clear, I stood by and do stand by the committees decision not to publish the Aug 5 and Lots documents. I merely point out that then, as it was now, they held the final decision.

  12. So - have we all agreed on what Mutual Agreement really means? "As between one another, you choose not to dispute". Is that really saying there must be 100% unanimity?

    Do we really believe that there was 100% unanimity among the people of the City of Enoch?

    Is it possible that means that those who choose to dispute are now no longer part of the group deciding on that particular matter?

    Why doesn't it matter that Denver has taught the importance of NOT disputing?

    If this is indeed the meaning of Mutual Agreement then this does not bode well for our future.

  13. How is it kind to those who know nothing of the Lord’s work now underway, to NOT publish a guide for them to follow? It’s convenient for all of us who DO know what fellowships are and how to function within one, to pick whatever GS fits our fancy and glue it inside our own scriptures. However, how does that help anyone who comes after us? This was the whole purpose for the Lord’s GS requirement in the first place!

  14. Might I also point out, again, that the SC already handed the assignment to the people to complete, as did the Lord, post covenant. The people already voted on the process, were all invited to participate in every aspect of the process, the people wrote the document, and roughly 95% voted to accept the document TO BE PUBLISHED into the scriptures. Not to mention the document being taken to the Lord for approval.

    At what point will the SC agree to publish what “everyone” accepts as an addendum to the scriptures? Must there not be ANY dissension? That will be impossible.

    This assignment has already been done. The silent vast majority of people in this movement expect that document to be published and have washed their hands of any further involvement. Whether they like it or not, the SC has the final power to fulfill the will of the people or veto it. There is no way around this fact, no matter the interpretation of “add” or “mutual agreement” or how amplified the voices of the few who disagree.

    I sincerely pray that the Lord looks upon the hearts of all involved and has mercy on all, especially those who have no power in the decision making in this matter. Though it’s unpleasant to admit, the movement at large is at the mercy of the SC in this matter. The SC can choose to accept the will of the movement or not, but the decision IS theirs.

    1. Amen, Amen, and Amen, Cherryann! To both your comments.

    2. Cherryann,

      I have a different point of view, but it is not backed by any numbers like you. You want to publish, but I consider this action to not publish, and continue having the conversations, the grace of God.

      The effort has spent a total of ten days to create the documents being voted on (collectively), and the rest of the year to promote it, while conversations have gotten rancid. Conversations have not centered on the creation of the product that produces mutual agreement, they have centered on quickly drafting a document and justifying the reasons it should be mutually agreeable. Pushing for mutual agreement has been the focus, when it should be the byproduct.

      The byproduct is loving your neighbor as yourself and the product is loving God. But, our LDS traditions have made the practice proving that they love God, because they gave cookies to their neighbors, they went caroling to their neighbors, they did home/visit teaching, they hug and shake hands at church, ...and they use those actions as evidence that they love God. But they only draw near with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him, and He cannot use that institution for His efforts towards Zion. Because they seek the byproduct to prove they have a product.

      Voting, majority, and campaigning is no different than focusing on a byproduct. None of them are concerned about the content of the document, putting the document in question. Instead, you have put people into question, in order to preserve your document.

      I'm sorry we don't see things the same. I am grateful that it wasn't published, as it has provided me more time to continue working with you. I find great joy talking with you and your husband, and would still love to continue talking to you further regarding the Governing Principles. However, if you publish this in the scriptures, you will go your way, and I will stay put, unable to say and do as I say and go along with the majority. I hope for more time to work things through.

      A quick way for this to end is for jarring, strife, and contention to rule out. However, I honestly think that this movement is going towards Zion, so all contention would do is remove those contending. Help a brutha out. Give the Natives a little more time. I think that there's more to be done that promotes governing ourselves, so that even the Natives can be free, and not be required to assimilate to you.

      Seeking Patience,
      Rob Adolpho

    3. Cherry Ann and Karen,

      “This assignment has already been done. The silent vast majority of people in this movement expect that document to be published.”

      If you are confident that the “silent vast majority” is in favor of the “lots” document, why not go the extra mile and support the vote that will take place at the conference to confirm your belief? It wouldn’t cost you much, and it would be a generous and patient thing to do. Someone in this process has got to do more than their fair share. Will it be you?

      From the Answer: “When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard.”

      The Lord did not use the word "publish." He said, "add." I am a big believer that words matter, and that the Lord chooses words carefully. So, if we can achieve a resounding unity at the conference, the first thing I am going to do after the conference is to have the chosen G&S (whichever one it is) printed at my local Kinkos, and then I'm going to add it to my personal set of scriptures. It is wasted energy to insist that others do the work for us when we can do it ourselves.

      Coming to unity at the conference would give me confidence that we do indeed have “an agreed set of principles.” And I wouldn’t need to wait for anyone to publish it for me. Whatever others may choose to do at that point, I would know in my heart that I had satisfied the Lord's commandment. If others interpret “agreed” differently, they will get no argument from me. Let them continue to pursue unanimity. I will assist them if I can. Gordon

    4. Though I didn’t agree with its necessity, I was willing to support a vote at the conference in an effort to bring a finality to this assignment. However, now it appears that THAT isn’t even going to amount to much since the SC has the ultimate veto power and has decided they won’t publish the agreed document at all.

      I have done all in my power to lovingly persuade and not contend in this matter, as have the vast majority of people in this movement. I know the need to “persuade the SC” one way or another has taken a large toll on MANY, too. It is difficult to persuade a nameless, faceless small group of select individuals who hold ultimate control over whether the Lord’s covenant people can complete an assignment from Him, when you don’t know who you are talking to and it feels that you don’t have a voice that they hear. We shouldn’t have to persuade them of anything in the first place, since this isn’t even their assignment!

      I am going to bow out of this discussion now as I feel I’ve done all I can to gently persuade those in control and help move this assignment forward. If there is a true way forward, I will do my best to support it. But pasting a version of a GS into my own scriptures after a symbolic vote among a fraction of the movement (those who have the means to attend the conference in person) is not actually moving forward, but a perceived copout to the Lord’s assignment. It does not comply with the command to be kind to those who know nothing of His work now underway. How is adding my own GS to my own scriptures going to help someone else down the road? It baffles me how this can be perceived as unifying at all.

    5. If there is a clear majority of the conference in favor of a given G&S. And if the minority can find it in their hearts to not dispute the majority's choice, that is not just symbolic. It's an important step toward unity. It's something to build on.

      And it's more. A show of resounding unity by the conference might also be sufficient reason for some to choose to decide that we do indeed have an agreed statement of principles. If some were to make that choice, I would hesitate to call their decision a cop out. That calls into question their honesty. It calls into question their hearts. We should probably give each other the benefit of the doubt. We are, after all, all here because we recognized the words of Christ when they were delivered by Denver.

      But, I admire your concern for those who know nothing yet of His work. If we can find unity at the conference, there is a way to take care of them without any help from the scripture committee. They do not have ultimate control. And we don't need their permission to do what the Spirit confirms we should do.


    6. Cherryann,

      I get that the SC seems to be in your way, and according to what you have written, in the way of what you consider the voice of the people, the voice of the majority, the largest group of people who find themselves agreeing. Your effort to change the minds of the decision makers makes a central institution of the matter. If they comply, then your efforts with their compliance would have successfully united the work of this project into a singular institution.

      You have probably the largest family among this movement that I know of, located in Boise, Idaho. Your fellowship, like you admitted, works and you know how to instruct others to do the same. Other fellowships don’t look like yours. They have a different emphasis than you do, and that’s not bad, just different. Are we supposed to all look like you and your fellowship? I don’t care to have you look like me and my fellowship. Some meet in a Seventh Day Adventist church and operate meetings like LDS meetings. Should we all search those types of buildings out and do the same as they? They’re not bad, you’re not bad, I’m not bad, but we are all different.

      Each fellowship must retain their freedom, allowing conversations with others to illuminate them as they come to an understanding. They must retain their independence from a collective group who decides for us all. If one weird fellowship wants to experiment on their own, “independent fellowships” preserves the rest of us from being associated with that. While the one weird fellowship can be corrupted, the rest of us are left unharmed.

      Once you have centralized a decision committee, who represent the voice of the people, who have the power to publish in the scriptures what they decide to publish, …you have centralized the fellowships, which will again result in correlation. When this movement becomes centralized, independent fellowships cannot be preserved, and will instead be cut-off from the whole, because assimilation is the centralized accepted behavior. To make matters worse, all you have to do to corrupt the entire thing is corrupt the central decision makers, and all of the fellowships can never achieve Zion.

      Independent fellowships initially represent chaos, …or matter unorganized. If Zion is God’s work, then He must give light to the creation of Zion, until they are organized. In our initial state of darkness, tares of foolish traditions of unbelief have been sown by the adversary. Only when the light of the heavens are understood, can we obtain the land, remove the tares, and restore the entire creation. It must come from Him. In our interactions with one another, if we are truly the stone cut without hands (and I believe we are), then independent fellowships can influence one another by the fruits which they bear. The fruits are enticing them to ask, “How did you do that?” And that is when we can find real mutual agreement, without compulsion, contention, and the frustration you are expressing here.

      There’s tons more to learn in THIS project, that is being tossed to the curb, based on frustration. I’d love to relieve you of your frustration by having a conversation with you, but that would be a lengthy conversation, and you and we are really far apart. If meeting interested you, to understand what I’m saying, I’d make the trip with my family. Or if you’re in town, I’d meet with you and feed you, and talk all night. Food and talking story always go well together.

      Rob Adolpho

      PS Please don't ignore me. I'm really not talking to anyone else but you, but you seem to not want to respond. I'm OK if you just want to vent. I'll not bother you, and leave you alone. I assume that if you are writing here, you want someone to respond to your expression. Although, I have witnessed that some come here to vent and take their frustrations out on those who stop them from getting what they want out of this. I don't believe that you are that type, and assume you are working this all through. So am I. So, please don't ignore me.

    7. Rob, I’m not trying to ignore you. I apologize if it came off that way. I really do appreciate your comments. I am just very busy, not feeling great at the moment, and don’t have the emotional or physical stamina or time to continue this months-long discussion. I have no desire to contend with anyone and do not want to be a source of contention in this matter, so I am trying not to.

      I’ll just say this: No one has yet been able to explain what it is in the Lot’s document that they disagree with. It is NOT about how I function within MY fellowship verses how YOU function in YOUR fellowship. EVERY WORD within that document is from Christ! WE ALL have ALREADY covenanted to accept the doctrines it contains!

      What is contained within the Lots document? Has anyone even read it lately? The doctrine of Christ, His law, the ordinances, the simple instructions we have already received regarding fellowships and tithing, and what the Lord has said regarding marriage. That’s it! It’s the bare bones of the movement!

      We ALL agree on the bare bones of what is contained here and with this foundation EVERY FELLOWSHIP IS FREE to build upon it as they see fit! I don’t see this as a confining document at all, rather a skeleton of what already unites every one of us, and a place from which we launch our uniqueness as fellowships. You are and will always be free to create the fellowship that suits your needs, as will I. And it should be this way! We have our agency for a reason and it should be celebrated!

      Read the document. Every word is from the Lord in scripture or through His servant. I don’t wish to make this issue a mountain when it’s really a molehill. I believe we agree upon WAY more than it appears. I also believe that MUCH is lost when communicating via a computer screen.

      I love you guys and am so grateful for your testimonies, your valiance to the Lord, your dedication to God and your desire for Zion. We are all on the same team!

      I very much look forward to fellowshipping together as one next week. Coming together in person does wonders for the broken-hearted—a healing that cannot come through a computer screen. Somehow, in some way, if we lean upon the Lord, we will all get through this.

    8. It's only a regurgitation of words. General conference was full of regurgitations. The principles, taken out of context, aren't wrong or inherently bad, but the composition is too low, too mean, too vulgar. And that has left us in jarring, strife, and contention. Truth is, what has been put forward doesn't even represent the energy that excited us when we first began our journey. The words may have been consumed by the study of scripture, Christ's words, or Denver's words, ...but they are not their words, as the Lots committee have regurgitated them, using their name in vain.

      The work has gone undone. The work I'm referring to is the people work, not the document work. The people are independent, but what you recommend is a vote that makes the people dependent upon decision makers. Take away the independence of fellowships, and you will simply begin another reformation, like Brigham Young.

      I suppose this is where people read what I write, and don't respond, thinking that not responding is not contending. And that's the problem, all the conversations that go undone. Talk to me about this. I can handle talking about the concern, rather than shutting down, using the silent treatment, and being frustrated.

      Against popular belief, I am not angry or frustrated with the process, like many of you. I believe I know where this is headed, and it is nothing short of Zion. But it will not happen by short-order.

      Rob Adolpho

  15. If the scripture committee doesn't want to continue, we should not say their hands are tied and force them to continue. Force is the tool of the adversary. Sorry people, but it is their choice to step back, whatever other opinions are of that choice. We need to stop using stop using compulsion and force on all sides.

    1. If this be the case then the SC must allow others who are not on the committee to step up and publish what the people voted to be included in the scriptures. Ultimately the SC HAS control over the final “publish” button. Either they keep that control or they relinquish it. But either way, the final call IS theirs.

    2. Anyone can publish the lots document and distribute it. We are each free to act. Someone took the liberty of publishing a very good brochure to be helpful to beginning believers. Please someone publish the lots document too, if it fulfils the requirements. Maybe I should or maybe you should.

    3. Publishing a document independent of the scriptures is not the same as adding it as an appendix TO the published scriptures.

    4. I think some are relying on the thought of a seal, or stamp of approval, by it being "officially" put in the scriptures. We should be done with that, shouldn't we? Haven't we had enough of that in the religious institutions? Do we want to make another religious institution? Or do we want to freely allow people to worship how, where, and what they may? I plan on adding several of the proposed documents as an appendix in my scriptures and maybe writing a testimony document of my personal beliefs with it. I don't feel the need for an official printing to tell me what is okay to believe.

    5. If we believe Shalyce's prayer, there is mutual agreement among a body. Those who agree should simply put the Lots document in their scriptures and move on.

  16. Man, I am so glad I was too lazy to be on the scripture committee.

    You guys are da real heroes.

  17. https://www.dropbox.com/s/s9yrwjq23eyny7y/2018.01.14%20That%20We%20Might%20Become%20One%20Fireside%2C%20Clinton%20UT.mp3?dl=0

    This talk above, "That we might be One" is highly significant.
    Once again, it is reiterated what the guide should be and how we can be one. I believe Denver used the example of (if it was a true principal) the people taught Polygamy based on the 'Constitution' rather than the spiritual and didn't back it up with volumes of scripture. Are we likewise focusing on the 'constitution' of fellowships and practices within fellowships rather than, once again, Christs own words of salvation. His Doctrine saves and illuminates. His teachings and Law inspire one to rise up becoming into Godhood. These fellowship/communities WILL NOT SAVE. Can we please agree to hold up Christs teachings as the Guide and standard to the World.

  18. 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? (as taught in the 10 Lectures by His servant David).

  19. 11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world...

  20. Please bare with me,

    If we can agree that the Doctrine of Christ and the Sermons are the Commandment and the Law or in other words, the Title of Liberty (Guide and Standard) to make all people free.

    And now it came to pass in the commencement of the twenty and fifth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, they having established peace between the people of Lehi and the people of Morionton concerning their lands, and having commenced the twenty and fifth year in peace — nevertheless, they did not long maintain an entire peace in the land, for there began to be a contention among the people concerning the chief judge, Parhoron. For behold, there were a part of the people who desired that a few particular points of the law should be altered. But behold, Parhoron would not alter, nor suffer the law to be altered, therefore he did not hearken to those who had sent in their voices with their petitions concerning the altering of the law. Therefore, those who were desirous that the law should be altered were angry with him and desired that he should no longer be chief judge over the land, therefore there arose a warm dispute concerning the matter, but not unto bloodshed.

    And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Parhoron should be dethroned from the judgment seat were called Kingmen, for they were desirous that the law should be altered in a manner to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land. And those who were desirous that Parhoron should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of Freemen; and thus was the division among them, for the Freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government.

    And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the Freemen and Parhoron retained the judgment seat, which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Parhoron and also among the people of liberty, who also put the Kingmen to silence that they durst not oppose, but were obliged to maintain the cause of freedom.

  21. Part 1 of 3

    From each American Indian Tribe, there will be people who desire to once again live the Law that was once lived by their people. There is currently a movement going on right now amongst many Nations, it is not only occurring amongst the Mormons. There will be prophet led “other sheep.” These people will be like this group, a remnant of where they came from searching for those who fellowship with angels and the Son and also God the Father. Those people will naturally be drawn to others who want to live this Law. Many of these Nations already have their Governing Principles. These people will be drawn to those who have a similar or Higher Law than theirs. Here’s an example from the Lakota Nation:

    One must question another irony in that the whites came to find religious freedom. They came to escape religious persecution. Yet they did not understand that they should have granted us the same rights. They became free…we became the persecuted and our freedom was taken away. This is not the way of Tunkasila. The Great Spirit knows no single religion as right and true. He sees the different religions as the spokes in a wheel and he is the hub, the Center…all spokes lead to him and are connected to him. He holds the universe together and the world turns on his axis of love, generosity, and equality. Amazingly, what happened then is still happening today as people around the world declare a holy war and they too cry, “God wills it.”

    If the old ones shared today the wisdom they garnered in their lifetimes they would likely explain that human history reflects man’s inability to find peace because in peace there is no need for power and man has not learned to live without power. They would remind us of the crisis all mankind faces in the path of destruction of our planet. Greed is killing our Mother. All ancient texts teach of a time of peace after a great travail. The earth is in labor trying to deliver a new and enlightened people that can understand oneness, equality, sharing and generosity. She has labored long.  Because we will not be born she is in great travail. We are all children of the Earth, all came from her womb for creation is present in all life if it is as simply defined as the nature that surrounds and sustains us all.  Many who are awakened now know…All must learn to walk a Red Road as a way of life.

  22. Part 2 of 3
    Community is a way of life and it encompasses people from near and far and it also includes those who do not live on our land. We see people, nature, the system of commerce and trade, and even ceremony as our community. We take great care to preserve our way of life which is demonstrated in our communities so whenever we gather for a ceremony, a business meeting, a council meeting or a social event…we are a community. We gather with the purpose of accomplishing our goals of course, but we also remain aware that community is a time of visiting and showing respect to our elders and seeing that they are well. We conduct our community affairs that set an example for any children who may be present.

    We behave with respect for all those present and we enjoy ourselves. We socialize, we laugh, we tease one another and we are relaxed in our approach to accomplishing our goals that were set for the occasion. We still get things done, but we have not ignored the community of all gathered there. In our own way, we keep negative aspects such as complaining and gossip out our circles. We present all things in light of possibility and options…versus finger pointing and criticism. Thus we build community and make it stronger…we do not destroy the bonds of our oneness.

    We strive to remember that what is business related is community related because business choices affect the community and the community affects business because all are intertwined and intermingled in a common web of togetherness. We plan for today, yet do not neglect to acknowledge tomorrow and see the vision of our children in the future. We make our final decisions accordingly. Traditionally, we would consider those of generations far beyond our children, our children’s children and so forth. We know our future depends on the strength of our community today.

    We must live by this Way because the future depends upon our decisions now, the awareness of the people, and the strength of each fiber of the web that is woven. We look to our ancestors for guidance and to those we trust to make every attempt to secure our people’s future. Community is our focus and our way of life. Community is our culture just as it has always been.

    We are all one. 

  23. Part 3 of 3
    Our way of life is simple. All decisions were based with the best interest of the entire Lakota Nation, and the people had a voice in all decisions. Our leaders were not better than the followers, the leaders understood they did not possess power over the people. It was understood that with the great responsibility to care for the people came many risks and possibility of death. Everyone was equal and none were left hungry, homeless or in need.

    Everything that was gathered and stored for survival was shared equally. The leaders did not horde or gather in abundance material things for just a few. Elite society warriors were trained and appointed to maintain order within the camp or during movement of the camp.

    We lived in freedom by hunting and gathering from the fruits of Mother Earth. Our time was spent in community, in ceremony, and in sharing our lives with one another, specially with our children. We lived not as a single family but as extended families where in all were our relations. This kept us strong because everyone took care of one another, there were no orphans. the barter system was utilized rather than the monetary system because there was no need to buy what Mother Earth provided for our survival. We stored up provisions for the winter, gathering medicine, berries, fish, and dried buffalo meat, as winters were lone and hard. 

    Within our culture we shared everything with everyone. If one discovered an abundance of anything…meat, berries, furs for pelts etc. that one took great pleasure in sharing it with everyone else. We gave gifts always, not just on special occasions. We gave away the best of what we had to others knowing they would probably give it away to another who needed it more than they did. It was not ours to keep as a possession but was given to us by the Creator to give to another. So contrary is the ‘getting’ of the western world to the ‘giving’ of our world that it cannot be comprehended by those who work to obtain a higher status of having more than their fellow human beings. If we starved, we all starved, if we feasted, we all feasted. We had no social hierarchy of the have’s and the have not’s. Thus, we were happy and we were free. 

    Our culture included art, song, and dancing to drumbeats that reverberated to the heartbeat of the Earth. We lived as part of the universe and honored the moon, the stars, the sun and sky and every living thing under the sky. We purified ourselves in ceremonial Sweat Lodges to be clean in heart, body and mind so the spirits of our ancestors could come to teach and heal us. We went on Vision Quests into the wilderness alone to seek oneness with the Creator. We prayed and fasted for visions that would help us grow in our knowledge of the path of Red Road we walked to spirituality. This was a road of peace and spiritual depth that focused upon maintaining our cultural ways and sustaining our community. This was a road of self-sacrifice that insured each one knew the greater whole was our security and maintaining that oneness was integral to our society. 


    1. That is beautiful Q. Thank you for sharing. That seems to illustrate a good example of a Zion society to me. All equal, no power structure - the manner of happiness indeed!

      -Sam Vaughn

  24. "Moses was handicapped by centuries of slavery separating him from Abraham. And so Moses re-wrote an account of the creation, Adam, and the first generations. (1 Ne. 5:11) He established a new body of commandments adapted to the capacity of Israel at that time, and then the people voted in order to accept those as their governing principles. (Exo. 24:3)"

    Things to keep us awake at night, Denver Snuffer, March 2017

    "Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted. And then they proceeded to vote. And they voted by quorums from the least to the greatest. Then after all the quorums of the church had accepted the Doctrine and Covenants, the first 70 some pages of which were The Lectures on Faith, the General Assembly voted, including everyone who was present. Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church."

    Faith talk, Idaho Falls, I'd, 2013

    Regardless of what some have said here, voting to obtain the voice of a people (even in matters of faith and religion) is a mechanism honored by God and His servants. Some of our most valuable pieces of scripture that you all quote daily have come to be scripture as a direct result of voting. Don't all of us in the movement lament the removal of the Lectures on Faith WITHOUT A VOTE as one of the biggest mistakes and acts of abuse ever perpetrated upon the Saints?

    However, the one thing I don't see in any historical record of when voting took place regarding scripture is a time when the vote didn't result in items being canonized immediately....else why have the vote at all?

    In my view, if we are to have a vote in Phoenix as an assembly, it should begin with just one question and then go from there. Are we or are we not finished discussing what our statement of principles should be? It is disrespectful to both those who feel we have completed the assignment and those who desire further discussion to hold a vote that is only symbolic and offers only pretense for action and not action itself. Let us rise up and be people of conviction and action.

    1. I appreciate what you are saying about those votes, but I would ask, did they achieve Zion? Were they voting for or against opposing documents, as we have been, or were they simply agreeing to the plan given by a higher source, like in the council in heaven?

      One definition of the word “dispute” is “to compete.” Our whole paradigm has been disputing, both the “majority” and those with concerns. That’s what keeps me awake at night :)

      - Sam Vaughn

    2. A further observation on the council in heaven: although there were two competing plans, the King made the choice of which plan would be adopted. If we followed that pattern, or the votes you bring up, we would appeal to Christ for a statement of principles - revelation - and then vote, or give common consent (synonymous with mutual agreement) to the single statement by our Lord.

      What we are doing, on the other hand, seems to be taking bits and pieces of previous revelations and voting on how best to correlate them. I know that’s a bad word, but isn’t that the essence of the matter?

      - Sam Vaughn

    3. Jim,

      If the conference can achieve unity, it is a step toward movement-wide unanimity. Movement-wide unanimity would leave no obstacles to publishing. We want a published G&S. It is our goal too. We are trying to build consensus toward that end. We are not home run hitters, are you going to begrudge us our modest little single through the short stop’s legs?

      Picture this. There’s a vote at the conference. The majority’s choice is made manifest. The minority is asked to choose not to dispute, and they agree. If the conference attendees can unite around a G&S, it does not bind anyone not in attendance to the attendees’ choice. But, would such an outcome give momentum to the acceptance of the document by the entire body of believers?

      The vote that will take place at the conference is not a pretense. That is an unfair characterization. A vote is, as you say, a legitimate and time honored way of determining the will of the people. View this vote as a primary if you choose, or as the first in a series of quorum votes, as in your example. It is not merely symbolic. It will tell us whether or not there is actually a G&S that the majority prefers. And it will tell us whether the minority is willing to choose to not dispute their preference.

      Those two bits of information would be valuable to know by themselves. But the proposed vote offers another valuable byproduct. If there is a resounding, emphatic unity around the majority’s choice, then many may feel that we have achieved “an agreed statement of principles:” the minority has agreed with the majority. At that point many may also feel justified in “adding” that statement of principles to their own set of scriptures. So, for them, they have complied with the Lord’s command.

      The “lots” folks should embrace this vote. If they are correct that there is overwhelming support for their document, the vote will make that clear to everyone, in a matter of minutes. How is it disrespectful of the “lots” effort (or any effort) to provide a way to show that they are correct? How is it disrespectful to provide a mechanism that confirms that the body of believers is indeed willing to unite around a single G&S?

      We are asking you to walk with us one mile. It will take many 20 minutes.


    4. Gordon,

      Just a bit of non-pointed clarification if you would. You said above:

      "Movement-wide unanimity would leave no obstacles to publishing."

      Does this mean you (and the scripture committee) believe it now requires unanimity to publish whereas non-unanimity will suffice to approve the document in this primary as you say? Or was that just an unintended word choice?

      And yes, of course I will walk with you a mile as I stated previously. I'm not opposed to what you are trying to accomplish and understand both your good intent and desire for unification gained by the inch. I’m just of the opinion that at least on this one issue, the people have walked and re-walked the same circular mile so many times that once they adopt a document, there will be so little interest in further discussion about it that it will sit on the shelf of non-publication in perpetuity and only exist in this movement as a glue-in card or slick pamphlet. Which I would have been fine with from the beginning and even now, but which I’m also of the opinion would not satisfy the Lord nor those who know nothing yet of the Lord’s work now underway.

      But hey, what do I know. The only thing I’m really positive about is that none of this will likely go the way I think it will because very little has so far. So here’s hoping!

    5. Jim,

      Thanks for being my brother. First, let me say that I am not speaking for the scripture committee. The group proposing this vote is separate from the SC. I believe the SC when they say that they aren't going to have anything else to do with the G&S (except as individuals), so it probably doesn't matter a lot what the committee's position on unanimity is.

      I used the words I intended, but I do not think that unanimity is needed to add the G&S to our scriptures. As I've said, I think that we can each, individually, choose to add the G&S to our scriptures IF we can agree on a statement of principles. My point was that if we achieve unanimity, there would be NO obstacles left to PUBLISHING it. And I'm with you, I think our long-term goal should be to publish a G&S as part of our scriptures. I hope, and believe, that the vote in Phoenix will build toward that goal.


  25. Jim O’Rullian,

    Simply because they voted, did that mean they were mutually agreeable, or not? Your expounding doesn’t cover the point where a family in the House of Israel disagreed with the document, and they were required to just agree with a majority. It wouldn’t be humility for the minority to submit to the majority. Cliques, bullying, and peer pressure work that way. It would be humility for the majority to submit to the minority. The minority want to keep working together, working through their issues instead of sweeping them under the proverbial rug.

    You want a vote to represent you, go for it, vote to your hearts content. Gather stats, campaign to get supporters, and be a beast at the polls. However, that will at least get one opposing vote from me. Your STRONG opinions will have no effect on my disposition regarding this as a form of compulsion, and STRONG arming.

    I maintain independence from your efforts. And we will maintain our distances on all the matters that we cannot work through. We currently have more that we agree upon than we disagree, but that is slowly changing, as we face issues that we did not foresee. There are many more issues ahead. So, how we treat our differences establishes patterns and trajectories. Our inability to deal with this as people will continue to produce separation, not unity. Initially, we came together on matters that united us. The more we walk this path, and avoid the work of working through our differences, the bigger the proverbial carpet gets, and separation is the result. It is no different than a marriage. Perhaps we should slow this relationship down before you wind up divorcing me. Let’s take it sweet and slow.

    Let’s get to work,
    Rob Adolpho

  26. Sam,

    The foregoing instances regarding voting among a mortal people whom God claims as His are only to demonstrate that the mechanism of voting to assess the voice of the people on matters of written canon does indeed have precedence and is honored by God. This comes in response to the recent change of direction in the position of the scripture committee to not publish what the voice of the people select....be it in agreement or disagreement with your personal views or my own.

  27. According to Denver's recent post,the book has been published and can be purchased on Amazon. I am interested to see what is there.

  28. Gordon,

    What do you mean when you say,

    The minority is asked to choose not to dispute, and they agree.

    What does choose not to dispute mean to you?


    1. Q-

      What I mean is that the minority chooses not to dispute the majority's preference. They accept the majority's choice of G&S even though it isn't their first choice. They choose unity rather than choosing to defend their turf.

      I believe, and I think a lot of folks believe, that the G&S is not really the most important thing in this process. ALL of the G&Ss are good or very good, but none of them are perfect. They are the product of the efforts of men and women. How could they be perfect? So, it seems to me that the defense of any particular G&S based on the merits of its content misses the point. A defense based on the process that produced the G&S hits nearer the mark, process is very important, but still misses the point. In order to win this "competition" we have to agree not to compete. In order to win this "contest" we have to be wise enough not to contest.

      I know that some see a vote as a competition. I think it depends on the vote, and I think it depends on what's in one's heart. if the vote is designed as a mechanism only to show what folks prefer, and if the next step in the pathway is to see whether we will voluntarily lay aside our personal preferences, out of love for each other and a desire for unity, then a vote can be a useful tool.

      This vote will be used only to invite with a spirit of love, never to compel. Please participate with us.


    2. Gordon,

      This is Rob. I choose to not compete. I have offered no document to compete, but have worked throughout the entire time the project has been assigned my wife and I. Your idea is flawed, using the same argument. To not compete/dispute (as you are using these words synonymously), you have defined it as the minority go with the vote of the majority. Well, if all things are held equal, why don't the majority not compete and go with the minority, and keep working towards a document representing mutual agreement. What's good for the goose is good for the gander ( I really don't know what a gander is, but I think I'm using the idiom correctly).

      Your argument is one sided. You are creating a competition, when I would prefer we keep working. You have lumped me into a lot of folks who believe that this project isn't the most important thing. I don't fit that description. I think it's the most important thing right now, both the people and the document. You think that this is a product of men and women. I disagree. I believe it is the work between men and Gods, to restore the primordial unity between men and Gods. You ask, How can they be perfect? I respond, by Christ! You say questioning the content misses the point. I obviously don't agree with your assumption, and it is your assumption, even if it is shared by many people. It is not a fact, but you are requiring me to just do me, like you do you. That is a colonization mentality, and will never appeal to me.

      You have justified how your vote idea is not a competition, when by definition that's exactly what it is. You may use the results differently, but that does not remove the fact that it's a competition. And it does not invite a spirit of love. It magnifies the contention already upon us, the same as it has done multiple times before, as this would not be the first. Why do the same thing, expecting a different result?

      You say that this vote is never going to be used to compel? Let me ask a question of reality, How are you going to stop people from not using this vote as another club to justify compelling? Are you going to enforce that? Are you going to referee the Jims, Steves, and Karens who have swung that club around here on this blog? The minute the vote reflects another majority, it will once again justify the pushing effort for the minority to fall in line.

      I'll be honest with you right now. According to your definition of your expectation for at least my minority family voting for an existing document, accepting the majorities choice of GS, ...that's a big NO WAY JOSE! I don't believe that this vote is not a competition either, despite your good intentions for how you hope to use the data.

      You have labeled it disputing. I'm fine with your choice to define your words however makes you feel good. I disagree with your label, recognizing the responsibility for any governing principles to be open to stringent questioning, and it's author/s to respond until people are satisfied. Otherwise, you have simply promoted another reformation institution!

      I disagree with your proposal for a vote,
      Rob Adolpho

    3. I'm not requiring you to do anything Rob. If you think the vote is a bad idea, don't vote. If you want to continue working, go for it. If you want to try to build consensus through dialogue, you have my blessing — for what it's worth. I think your goals are admirable, and I respect your agency to do as you see fit. But I don't think your current approach is working, and I believe there is a better pathway.

      God bless you in your efforts.

    4. 1 of 2


      I never said you were requiring me to do anything, as I don't subscribe to your vote-off, in the name of data collection. How much data do you need to collect to recognize that there's a separation on the subject of the documents? I can tell you that there's separation without agitating the circumstances further with a vote of pretenses. But, do what you gotta do to suit you.

      I will continue to do precisely as I am impressed to do, and not participate with the vote, but participate and remain in opposition, both here on this blog, and at the conference. Those who want to respond according to their hearts need to know that there are others who are responding with their hearts as well. I am willing to take the proverbial hits from your Karen's applying things one sided, so that others can know that there's really nothing behind the proverbial punches of numbers, numbers, numbers, percentages, percentages, percentages, and vote after vote, after vote. To those who are abused, your vote and claim of a majority is scary, as they have been abused by the LDS, ousted by their judgment of pretenses, and finally excommunicated. You do not scare me Gordo. I want there to be no need for fear tactics among this people, so I will not act afraid, despite the crushing NUMBERS and the odds against me.

      Consensus through dialogue is exhaustive, it takes time, it requires knowing one another, considering them equals, facing the deadlocks and working through them, rather than side-skirting them with a process to get things done. You say, "...for what that's worth." To me it's well worth it all. It's certainly not comfortable, if that's what you're looking for. It's definitely not a convenient process, if that's what you're looking for. Relationships are hard work! If you are looking for comfort and convenience, brutha, you best not look for a relationship because that is all but comfortable and convenient initially.

      The comfort and convenience of relationship comes after the discomfort and inconveniences. I still remember my fifteenth anniversary telling my wife, this has been the best three years of my life. And she responded, that makes the best two years of mine. The comfort and convenience comes after the work dawg!

      You say my current approach is not working, and you'd prefer a better way. While the results of my efforts don't appear on the surface, there's a rumble, a vibration, a "movement" happening right now among us. That rumble is the rumble of truth growing. It's a good vibration of growth, as the weakness is agitating out, making room for strength. This IS the movement of to be the stone cut without hands. You are looking on the surface, while missing the rumble, the vibes, and the moving of the movement. Granted, it is slow at first. As the massive rumble/vibrations/movement increases it's momentum, however, I would not stand in it's path, because it will go forth, grind to dust, all of the kingdoms of the earth, ...whether external kingdoms or internal kingdoms.

    5. 2 of 2

      People looking for quick fixes, hoping for results on the external to indicate the deep vibrations of the internal, where costly apparel, they feign relationships, and take steroids and fat burners to speed up the slimming and muscle growth process. I do not prefer those options. I prefer the inside to be reflected on the outside, and my efforts among you here on this blog are all requests to work on the inside, the relationships, the heart. And that can only happen with a dialogue approach, according to persuasion that leads to pure knowledge. A vote is bitter fruit in comparison.

      I do not wish for God to bless your efforts. But I wish for God to bless your eyes that you might see the truth of your erroneous proposal, and use your agency to continue working with a brutha. I know you. I really really love being around you and your bro. But, your push here does not represent a beacon of truth, rather it represents a colonization tactic. I have witnessed your heart, though, and I sense no ill intent, as it is absolutely pure.

      God bless you! And that might not mean what you want that to mean,

      Rob Adolpho

    6. Rob,

      Here’s what I think you’re missing. The second step in this vote asks the minority to voluntarily lay their own preferences aside for the sake of unity. They are not required to do so. I would never force them, even if I could. That is why it is unfair to characterize this as a “colonization tactic” or “colonization mentality.” The colonial powers didn’t ask the indigenous peoples if they could take their land and resources and culture, they just took them by force and murder. It is a powerful charge to liken this vote to those terrible sins. But is it fair?

      No one is being forced here. We are going to make a humble request, in pursuit of the goal of unity, that some in the body make a voluntary sacrifice. If they chose not to do so, the vote comes to an end. No one will be dispossessed, or excommunicated. I will acknowledge that the vote was a bad idea and I will sit down and be quiet. The effort to come to unity will go on.

      But consider this. What if those who prefer a statement of principles other than the majority’s preference say in their hearts. “It’s true, I don’t think the best document was selected. But I am willing to embrace their document anyway, because I care more about them than I do about the document. Out of love for them, I will go along with what they have chosen.”

      In an act of humility and self-sacrifice, they will have obeyed the two great commandments of the law.

      Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
      37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
      38 This is the first and great commandment.
      39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

      They will show their love for God by obeying His commandment to come to mutual agreement — to choose to not dispute. And they will show love for their neighbor by graciously agreeing to give their neighbor their preference.

      You want to build relationships. So do I. The strongest relationships are built on voluntary sacrifice. Kids love their mothers because mothers sacrifice endlessly. We are all drawn to Christ because of His eternal sacrifice for us.

      Rob, there is no need to fear this vote. It is not a tool of oppression. It is a way to build relationships by love and sacrifice.


    7. 1 of 2


      If fear were my motivating factor, then I would have been with you at the August 5th meeting, and voted with that group who were unanimous. That was a fear-vote! If I was afraid of what the movement would do, prior to the September 3rd meeting in Boise, ID, afraid to loose the covenant, I would have joined the Aug 5th and people close to me, who tried to use fear tactics to tell me that I would be left behind. I refuse to be threatened by a take-away tactic, and so I made peace with being left behind by those who chose to not continue working on this project any longer. However, they were extremely ticked off when the document was not included in the printing of the scriptures. Those who voted on Aug 5th, who threatened to leave me behind on Sept 3rd, …they are the main drivers for the Lots document now in question. They have spoken the same threats, that I’ll be left behind by this lots program, accusing me of injuring others, because I choose to exercise my agency to keep working. Now the vote of the March conference is being manipulated by you, to sway my perception into thinking that I must give in to the majority or else I am not humble. Although you claim not to leave me behind, you continue to push for the Lots document to exercise majority above my head, as if to say I am the problem with “unity.” Gordo, if I were so afraid, as you have accused me of being, I’m wondering how you have managed to paint that image of me? I am not afraid of walking through the shadow of death, concerning the covenant and this movement, because I have chosen to take my instruction from God alone. I am stretching into the highest heaven, and willing to comprehend the dark abyss, and commune with God. Fear? Negative! More like FAITH.

      You have a faint view of the colonist movement. “Treaty” is the tool they used to take control of the land. Guns and murder came much later. At the time of the treaty of Treaty 7, it was promoted much like your request to vote is, …as a peace treaty. But it was in the hearts of the whites to have power, to rule over the land, and to reign with blood and horror, …but they thought that they had good intentions. It is not an unfair characterization at all.

      How can you make a humble request, in pursuit of unity, …and then tell me I have to sacrifice? You are the humble one, but I have to sacrifice? Oh, ok, I will do all the weight lifting, feeling the burn, and the achy growing pains, …while you get the muscles. That makes just as much sense as your application of you being humble, requiring me to sacrifice. If you’re so humble with the majority, then be the one to sacrifice, and let’s keep working.

      You say no one will be dispossessed or excommunicated, as if that hasn’t already been done. From those claiming the majority, including you, I have had nothing but the silent treatment, regarding any discussion about King Follet Discourse applications in the Governing Principles. It can be likened to being dis-fellowshipped from the LDS, as speaking privileges are taken in silent treatment, sweeping our differences under the rug, and ignoring the concerns about the content of the document being weak. Maybe excommunication may be too final, but I had to look up the word dispossess, and I have learned that deprivation of conversation is a beginning form of dispossessing. Excommunication is just an end result.

    8. 2 of 2

      Here, I’ll give you a taste of your own medicine. You say, “It’s true, I don’t think the best document was selected. But I am willing to work towards a document because I care more about the minority than I do about the crappy documents being produced. Out of love, I will keep working.” Or does it not work both ways for you, only your way?

      The thing that hilarious to me is your idea to recommend to me, what you consider self-sacrifice, but you aren’t willing to flip it around and do it yourself. You recommend self-sacrifice for me, but you claim humility for you. One day, you’re going to re-read this and pound your head in wonder and amazement to how you could think to recommend someone else sacrifice, because you are too humble.

      No Fear,
      Rob Adolpho

    9. 1 of 2
      If I understand Rob correctly, what he wants to see is a document that he can recognize as filled with light (a "light" thing). Something that represents our combined effort to reach into the highest heaven, contemplate the darkest abyss and as a stone cut without hands, fill the Lord's requirement that a statement of principles be adopted by mutual agreement and added as a guide and standard for his people.

      If I understand Gordon's position correctly, he represents those who seek to put aside differences and come together in unity over a document that fills the same requirement from the Lord.

      "... for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands".

      As a replacement for D&C section 20, there appears to be (at least) two views represented.

      1) I (speaking for myself, personally) have been of the opinion that the statement of principles, as a replacement for D&C 20's organization of offices, procedures for baptism, duties of members, etc., could be something as simple as the basic list of requirements for fellowships that Denver has received from the Lord and presented in talks and books, etc. Back in October of 2016 (before anything to do with G&S or scripture committee etc.), someone from my fellowship compiled an index for Denver's Preserving the Restoration that included a section of all the things that had been written about the functioning of fellowships. It was (and is) an excellent resource. In my view, the requirement for a statement of principles to replace D&C 20 could be fulfilled by nothing more than such an index that doesn't require revelation from on high, as long as there was mutual agreement.

    10. 2 of 2
      2) Rob has begun to enlighten me to another view that I have not considered. In addition to organizational requirements, D&C 20 also includes revealed light and truth. It is the revealed light and truth that a simple index or "Denver Snuffer Quotation document" (DSQ) lacks. If all we are going to do is quote something, why not quote the doctrine of Christ and the Sermon on the Mount and call it good?

      What I hear Rob saying is that if we could put as much energy and time into uniting our hearts in prayer and trusting in Christ to tell us His part, as we have in creating committees, campaigning, voting, and trying to push through some version of a DSQ document, we could have a statement of principles that fully fills the Lord's requirement to bless, benefit, and inform, WITH REVEALED LIGHT, others who know nothing, as yet, of His work underway.

      Rob, is your desire for a document filled with light of greater importance to you than the unity Gordon seeks?

      Gordon, is the unity you seek more important to you than having a document filled with the light that Rob seeks?

      If we united in prayer do we have faith that Christ will tell us His part? Is it possible His part can include both a document filled with light as well as the unity we seek?

      Jay Ball
      (sorry, I forgot I was logged in as a different user named "Jim")

    11. Jay,

      All the G&Ss I have read are filled with light. They could hardly be otherwise since they all rely heavily on scripture. That is not to say that I think they are all equal: I think some are better than others. But I refuse to say which. Because, I'm convinced that the hurdle we are trying to get over is not finding the most perfect G&S, or creating a perfect G&S.

      In The Answer the Lord tells us that our scriptures have flaws, but they are good enough for now. He holds out hope, I believe, that one day we will receive more. Similarly I believe that any of the G&Ss are good enough for now, if we will just stop arguing with each other. We can improve our G&S over time.

      Part of the problem is that like the father of King Lamoni we suspect each other's motives.

      "Lamoni, thou art going to deliver these Nephites, who are sons of a liar. Behold, he robbed our fathers; and now his children are also come amongst us that they may, by their cunning and their lyings, deceive us, that they again may rob us of our property."

      But, also as with the father of King Lamoni, I think there is hope for us to come quickly to an epiphany. And to have our hearts changed by the Spirit of the Lord. I hope, and believe, that will happen at this conference.

      "And when he saw that Ammon had no desire to destroy him, and when he also saw the great love he had for his son Lamoni, he was astonished exceedingly,"

      May God help us to come together in love.


  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  32. Denver has stated that once we have an agreed upon Statement of Principles where we have mutual agreement (and people are not choosing to dispute it) - then he will take that statement to the Lord to see if it is acceptable.

    If the Lot G&S is crap and not worthy of God's covenant people and would not "bless, benefit and inform" those who know nothing of this work now underway - then won't the Lord inform us of that?

    Why don't we try trusting the Lord to rebuke us and tell us to go back to the drawing board if we submit a faulty, lesser statement that doesn't meet His expectations?

    Why not try coming together as a people with what the majority has worked to produce - choose not to dispute - so that God's servant has something to take to the Lord then see what happens?

  33. I have never heard Denver say he would take it to the Lord. Could you show me that.

  34. (1 of 2)

    My first comment was too wordy, so I'm trying again.

    I just saw that Denver had included into the brand new "Teachings and Commandments" an Epigraph.

    An Epigraph is "a quotation set at the beginning of a literary work or one of its divisions to suggest its THEME."

    I found this very interesting. For Teachings and Commandments to have a theme, I would assume it would pertain to "the great work" associated with that volume of scripture. That work and labor is to bring about Zion. Thus, I take this quote to have direct relevance to what we are currently engaged in, and relates directly to instructing us on how WE can best go about working with others within the covenant, as we seek to bring forth Zion; including the assignment pertaining to the GS.

    Here's the epigraph: (emphasis added)

    “I would rather SUBMIT to the DECISION of THE GROUP than insist that my view be followed. For me HARMONY BETWEEN BRETHREN is MORE IMPORTANT than getting what I THINK BEST to be followed. I believe HARMONY CAN LEAD TO MUCH GREATER THINGS than can merely enforcement of even a CORRECT VIEW. I know how difficult it is to have a correct view, because of how often I have been corrected by the Lord. Sometimes I am humiliated by my foolishness when the Lord reproves me. Humiliation can lead to humility, but my experience is that the humiliation is accompanied by shame, whereas humility can proceed with a clear conscience. My experience with others leads me to conclude that if we can have one heart first, eventually we can likewise come to have one mind. But if we INSIST on having ONE MIND at the outset, we may never obtain ONE HEART TOGETHER. ” — Denver Snuffer

    There's much to ponder here, and I will leave it to the reader to ask the Lord to be personally enlightened. But because this was intentionally placed where it was in our scriptures (as a stand-alone epigraph)...before I would dismiss this as lacking pertinence to our current situation, or finding ways to interpret it to excuse myself, I would want to be absolutely certain the Lord wasn't trying to tell me something. We will be held accountable for the counsel and wisdom that is found in that quote, and I would hate to rationalize away my opportunity to labor in Zion, only to find out, like Denver acknowledged of himself, that what I thought was correct and worthy of argument, was not. I admire Denver's example in teaching us that he would rather "submit" to the larger group, rather than hold firm to his position, even if he thought his view best (right). What an act of humility...the one, or few, submitting to the majority. It is counter-intuitive to the unfairness that we perceive such submission to reflect. Alas, the Law of Christ is full of counter-intuitive requests of us.

    1. Karen,

      You have missed the point in the third sentence. Denver compared HARMONY with ENFORCEMENT OF A CORRECT VIEW. I believe that the vote concept is enforcing a correct view. After all, what is it that the minority is enforcing? According to my family, all we want to do is to have harmony with you folks, by continuing to work with you. I have invited you to work with us, but you have rejected the offer, choosing instead to enforce a majority vote upon me. NOT COOL!

      Nowhere will you find Denver recommending an assimilation, a blending to loose individuality, a follow the enforcing crowd mentality. If he did, I would not reject all of this, as it would be contradictory. The individuality of each fellowship must be preserved. Your idea of enforcing a correct view is your stance.

      Rob Adolpho

  35. (2 of 2)

    May I add one more thought. I have come to consider very strongly that in Joseph's last dream it is the church that is first guilty of having neglected the farm that Joseph returns to and finds in dis-repair. But at the end of the dream, it is US, those who are now among the remnant, who come into the barn where Joseph is standing (trying to reclaim the restoration) and we are those who draw the knives and begin fighting with one another over what the church had already messed up and neglected. Joseph walks out and leaves those contending to themselves. An example to us all, and a warning to us all. There's no proof that this interpretation is correct. BUT, if it is...we ought cease our current strife immediately, and heed this epigraph.

    We've been bestowed with a great blessing in realizing the restoration was hi-jacked and taken off course. Are we now guilty of drawing our knives upon one another and causing our own spiritual deaths by how we are acting over this matter? I feel God's rebuke. Do you think it possible that God in His mercy, once again, had that little epigraph put in place just in time for this conference for a reason?...For those who have eyes to see?

    As I consider this possibility, and do not desire to draw knives with any of my covenant family any more, I am sobered.

    The 9th parable reminds us the test entails living in peace. That harmony is preferential to being right when we are dealing with one another as covenant brothers and sisters...and that this leads to the oneness of heart we seek first. It's a thought that is often foreign to us "defenders of the truth." It is our common love of "truth above all else" that got so many of us here in the first place. So we want to defend what we believe to be the truth now...or the best solution in our eyes. Yet, we are being told that in seeking Zion...with our fellow family members...being right, getting the best outcome, etc...is counter productive to the cause of establishing Zion. Harmony with our family is required...even if it means submission.

    Just my thoughts today as I came across the epigraph. I believe that a resolution and mutual agreement was already humbly worked through with 500+ covenant holders contacted by the Lots representatives. It included all those of the covenant that CAN, or WANT to be identified and make their will known. With only 30 remaining opposed at that time. A 93% + mutual agreement with a declaration by the Lord that it was acceptable to Him, and testified to by many. Yes, there were and always will be various documents...but none received this broad a degree of acceptance at the height of discussion, with the highest number participating in any vote (once the follow-up contact was made). I believe the Lord honored their efforts and acknowledged it acceptable; so despite the feeling by some that there is no agreement over a document to which Denver's quote can be applied...there IS an existing document that we can apply a direct connection to in applying the counsel of this epigraph.

    I pray that the message of this epigraph will sink into our hearts, despite any past positions taken, that we may seek Zion together and not apart...and that the spirit of harmony would be poured out upon us at this conference, allowing us to rise up, because the Lord witnesses the humility and love of those who would follow the example of Denver in this epigraph.

    1. Hi Karen. I, too, have been moved by that statement by Denver. I first read it on someone's blog, and then saw it again as I opened up the newly released T&C. I am still striving to understand what it means for this task. We have also been counseled not to sacrifice truth, something Denver said in that last fellowship recording.

      I wanted to let you know that I have had a similar idea come to me about Joseph's dream of his Kirtland farm. The words and phrases recorded are...interesting. I am surprised to see someone else say they have seen the same thing in Joseph's dream, and wonder. Adding in scriptures I have been studying and asking to understand more fully, I am trembling at the potential implications and meanings. I've had many thoughts coming to me regarding that particular interpretation, and several places in scripture that I have been led to connect together. I am in shock, and truly see how prideful the Gentiles have become, we have become. So many thoughts and ideas I have never considered before...due to pride.

      I've also been led to the ninth parable you mention--The Great Competition. Crazy to hear, yet again, another instance of someone else too.

      I have been listening to the 10th part of Denver's Forty Years talk the last two days, and find again impressions and ideas coming. I am still working through it all, praying for understanding of what I am hearing and seeing.

      At this point, I simply hope we can all respect what each person feels led in his/her heart to do, without rancor or judgment or fear...or pressure. I honestly do not know yet what is what, but I do know I am free to choose and have a responsibility to make a decision. I have never been known as a fence-sitter, and I don't plan on starting to now. I also know I need more light, and feel we as a body need greater light.

      I don't want anyone to feel pressured to choose something they don't believe in, in terms of a statement of principles. I encourage people to listen to their hearts, for that is where the Holy Ghost will be, as Denver taught in the 10th part of his talk.

      We can choose not to dispute, but let us remember that does not necessarily mean that most have chosen rightly; as is noted in that epigraph you referenced. This means we may still yet be in for a rough ride as we continue to learn how important humility, kindness, and love are to develop as between ourselves. There are so many scriptures to teach us...

      Are we truly in this together?
      Come what may?
      Will we stand with one another, seeking the welfare of each person by serving and sacrificing for each other? Will we listen to one another openly, without judgment?
      Are we willing to acknowledge our individual weaknesses and seek to overcome them through Christ's knowledge and wisdom, calling ourselves to repentance?
      Will we let love unfeigned guide our interactions?
      Will we seek to build one another up?
      Will we remember that we are but invited to participate in building Zion?

      There is so much in the Book of Mormon for us to comprehend right now...so much.

      The posterities of those who lived the accounts in the Book of Mormon do not have the burden of pride we do. Their long oppression and abuse by the Gentiles has produced the required humility, while our wealth and abundance has produced pride. We have enjoyed the brightness and warmth of the sun via our position amidst the lofty branches of the tree. There is much they will and can teach us, if we humble ourselves.


    2. Karen,

      I believe that you are right. Denver's epigraph is meant to be applied to us and our current difficulty. You may also be right in implying that the few should submit to the desires of the "lots" group. I for one would do so readily, if I could be certain that there really is 93% acceptance, and only 7% opposing.

      On the other hand, there is another saying we also need to consider.

      "If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, what will he do? Won't he leave the ninety-nine others on the hills and go out to search for the one that is lost?”

      If we will leave the 99 in search of the one, should we also be willing to go in search of the seven?

      A pathway has been suggested that can confirm that there is the support for the “lots” document that you and others claim exists. This pathway also provides a way to reach out to minority to make us all one fold.

      1-Saturday morning at the conference there will be a voice vote between G&Ss to determine the majority’s preference.

      2-After we determine the majority’s preference, we will reach out to the minority and invite them to join with the majority in unity.


    3. Gordon,

      Although you know that I feel going after the "one" has already been faithfully attempted, I'm good with that your plan to try again and exert another honest expression of love. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I was even willing to go along with the proposal that you had originally presented, even though I was initially opposed because I felt the work had already been done. But I changed my mind to lend support to your efforts, pretty much as an expression of being willing to submit to all of those who felt another vote was necessary and to strengthen bonds of love, rather than weaken them through opposition. I have remained at great peace in the decision I made to change my heart to one of support for you, rather than continued disagreement.

      If I may be honest, the only thing that I am sad about in this upcoming voice vote is that it is being used to determine how much support ACTUALLY exists for certain documents. As for the lots document, I am sad that literally 60+ covenant holders that I personally know, who feel as I do and participated in previous voting, will NOT be in attendance. Thus, I don't think the reality of the support will even be close to being represented. Alas, nothing can be done about that and my disappointment that the reality of the numbers will not truly be manifest, is being set aside by me in order to be one who is cooperative rather than uncooperative.

      In any case, my hope is that even without many individuals present who support the lots, that those who have felt inclined to reject and counter all of this, will reconsider their intent based upon the concepts of the epigraph. If none dissent because they catch the spirit of what Denver was saying, then numbers would not even be part of the equation. Wouldn't that be a beautiful thing!

      Much gratitude to you again, Gordon, for your kind heart and desires.


    4. Thank you Karen!

      I think this is going to work, and folks of good will like you are the reason we will come together.


    5. In all instances, the Denver quote, the barn, and the competition, your call to conform to the majority represents respectively: the enforcer of a correct view, one fighting for control of the scenario, and the competition. I've been waving my arms around, saying lets not vote, but instead keep working.

      The idea to keep working is a choice to engage in the work until we are all, those who remain, are happy. How do we know that it's mutually agreeable? The same way the Lord became known as The Word, because He proved all of God's words. Likewise, the mutual agreement document will become mutually agreeable, not because a vote, but because we all have independently adopted it, proving it works.

      My recommendation to keep working cannot be enforced, so it provides the only option for HARMONY, according to your Denver quote. It also offers the only option to cease our current strife. So if the majority are so humble, why don't they set the example, set aside their vote, and continue recovering those of the minority who need help? And lastly the idea to continue working is the only NON-COMPETITION, despite your justification for why your vote is not a competition, in this scenario (and yet all political officers use the same method to take-office).

      You say you are humble and I am not, because I choose not to support the vote. Do as you recommend for us to do, and reconsider continuing to work, ...prove your humility, and lets get back to work, ...stop talking, and lets go to work again!

      You speak for Denver, but you do it in vain, saying that if we minority catch the spirit of Denvers words, ...and then you restate your own words. You are the ones who have made this a numbers game, and now you're blaming the rest of us for your using numbers? That's no different than Brigham Young blaming the saints for the plagues, frost, starvation, etc. You are the source of these issues you so slickly put blame on us. It would be a beautiful thing if you would not make it a numbers game, and stop the voting process. It would be a beautiful thing if you would stop misrepresenting Denver's words. It would be a beautiful thing if you could catch the spirit of Denver's words.

      Your push for a vote is turning to LDS vomit, and will result in another Reformation Institution.

      Rob Adolpho

      Rob Adolpho

    6. Thanks for adding your voice here, Rob. Always good, sound thoughts.

  36. "Denver has stated that once we have an agreed upon Statement of Principles where we have mutual agreement (and people are not choosing to dispute it) - then he will take that statement to the Lord to see if it is acceptable."

    Can you tell us where/when Denver said that? I am not disputing your claim, it is a sincere question.

    1. Last fall, someone from the scripture committee asked Denver a question about adopting a Statement of Principles and got permission to share the answer - they sent it out via email to a large group:

      "Denver, [I] have a touchy question for you. "You (the assembly) 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."

      Forbid him from writing?, to be sure.
      Forbid him from participating in the discussion, arguments, proposals?, probably BUT

      I wonder if you feel that you are forbidden to help us with two areas.

      Once we have a document, would you take it to the Lord and see if He will accept it?

      OR my preference

      Once we agree on a document will you ask the Lord if a yes/no vote in general conference (like the covenant in Boise) is sufficient for adoption?

      The Answer requires mutual agreement at the point of adoption. Not in the writing. So we need to know what it takes "to adopt" a document.


      Denver's response

      “I think your preference is something I could take to Him and inquire. At worst I can be told I'm out of line, and may be told we can proceed. Sometimes an inquiry produces unexpected information. But I don't think it can be hypothetical--meaning we'll have to have a document to inquire about.”


    2. That doesn’t sound definitive to me. Just a “maybe I could do that.” But even then not until the document exists — mutually agreed upon. So ... we aren’t there anywhoo —

    3. Thank you very much. Turns out I know who wrote this.

    4. Do we lack confidence in our own ability to hear Christ?

  37. I hope we haven't lost sight of what I believe to be one of the Lord's purposes here. If we can say that we love those involved (this includes everyone) more today than we did a month ago, then I think we are succeeding. If we don't love them more and are harboring resentment, frustration, or other negative feelings toward any involved, then perhaps we are failing. What good is a final product if no one can stand in a prayer circle together at the end of this because we all harbor ill feelings toward each other?

    1. Your point is well taken, Taggart. For me, the reality is that sometimes in order to have such feelings of love and harmony exist, we must be willing to submit our will, or opinions, to that expressed by others; especially when either opinion is acceptable to the Lord and no clear measure is given whereby to determine if there is an absolute right or wrong. I think that's what Denver was trying to say. What good is being right, and getting the best option that could ever be written, if in the process relationships are destroyed because we are unbending, and/or dogmatic? If I entertain departing from people because they will not adopt my perspective, can I say that I truly love those people? Actions always speak louder than words. Thus, to me, Denver is saying that the "action" of being willing to submit to a larger group of his brothers (or sisters) in order to remain in harmony with them, is an act of true love and humility. Such an act would endear both the one who submitted and the ones who experienced the act of such love to each other. It would cause great strides in uniting hearts. Such people would have no problem standing in a prayer circle together.

    2. Thank you for expressing these thoughts, Taggart. I have thought similarly. I only have direct influence over my own heart.

  38. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions, opinions, opinions, opinions, perceptions, perceptions, perceptions, and to add to it all, we'll include a "Denver said..." That sounds like the recipe preferred.

    What about actually doing the work of talking to one another? Spending time to understand what is being introduced by people who are able to participate in this project? What about actually doing more work on the content, rather than just getting it passed off? That would be a change. Anyone ever involved in any of this cannot escape the fact that the content of the document was done really quick, and then the rest of the time pitching like pitches.

    Does that make me a disputer because the truth hurts the feelings of those who would prefer someone like Karen suggesting we sing and act like the primary song, "Do as I'm doing, follow, follow me?" I never got here following anyone. Even while I am here, I won't follow Denver. The only relationship that matters to me is my relationship with God. And because I have a relationship with God, I care to talk with you guys. The idea of follow the new leader is idle worship, and nothing but idle worship.

    Regurgitating other people's words, often times gets mixed up with the previous meal, a little stomach acid, and often times corn. The people of Moses regurgitated Moses' words with a little Egyptian corn. The Christians regurgitated Christ's words with a little Jewish corn. The early saints regurgitated Joseph's words with a little Protestant/Methodist corn, and the documents being produced are regurgitating Denver's words with LDS corn. When initially consumed, Moses, Christ, Joseph, and Denver's words were pure. But you can't blame me for not wanting your regurgitations.

    According to Taggart and Karen, oooooh I am evil, I am dark, I am contentious. But, according to the reactions given to Christ's words, there's a possibility that Taggart's and Karen's reaction is only an indicator of them, and not what I have written. Everyone must judge and be judged as they judge. You have a choice, and a majority cannot answer for you in the presence of Christ. You must man up and decide for yourself.

    I prefer reversing the condemnation of the early saints. Rather than conversations that are too low, too mean, too vulgar, ...I prefer conversations that are too high, too kind, and too pure. So rather than settling for the minimum. I'd prefer something more reflective of the reason I came to be involved in all of this, something that stretches my mind high into the heavens, and contemplates the darkest abyss, making it necessary for all of us to commune with God.

    You are gonna judge. Best you judge me by what I say, rather than your perceptions of what I say. I am more than willing to work out the details for any who really want to know what I am saying, so that they can make a good assessment, rather than taking someone else's word for it.

    Rob Adolpho

  39. Taggart,

    I understand your idea of frustration and grudges, but It's part of the growing process. We are all independent fellowships, and that must remain true. The work necessary for independent fellowships must naturally go through a growth process, where we learn of our differences, seek more light to lead us our of our darkness, and act according to the greater light. The physical properties of growing muscle necessitates tearing and repairing. Anyone who has gained muscle would be a fool to wish that the muscle pain of consistent working out was regretted. Likewise, we are fools to try to make things appear smooth, and resistance-less. Too little resistance offers zero progression. Too much resistance causes injury. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to stretch our minds high into the heavens, contemplate the darkest abyss, and commune with God.

    Too little resistance, removes the necessary working conversations to uncover the greatest truth, in fear of reactions, rather than doing what's necessary to speak truth, like Nephi, who declared God's word with unwearyingness, not fearing what man would do to him. We must balance ourselves out, not injuring, removing all hopes of beneficial recovery.

    What I hear you saying is too soft, making progression impossible. Some may think that I would be the opposite end of the spectrum, leaving too much injury in my wake. I would disagree, but I'm open to being corrected.

    We have worked together before Taggart. I know your heart, and you know mine. I recognize you as good, I hope you recognize me good too. The July 10th meeting was a long time ago, but I remember our prayers there, and I pray we can once again see eye to eye, and be better for it.

    Rob Adolpho

    1. You're good in my book, Rob. I don't even have the words to describe what I see here, and I don't quite grasp how it works in Heaven beyond knowing there is no compulsion, no forced competition. I wish the vote wasn't happening. I don't see what good will result when the numbers will be skewed. But people have a hard time standing still.

      I read and try to listen to what folks be saying here, and wonder how Nephi or Moroni would fit in. Their fruits were good, yes? But their words caused contention, yes? Your mention of building muscle through resistance is appropriate.

      I wonder about that Denver quote a lot too. I like it, but am not sure how he walked it out exactly. To which relationships and situations does he apply it? He's a friggin lawyer! He argues for a living. Ha! Why was the quote included where and as it was? What I am to do with it? Do I agree with everyone by choosing not to dispute ever? Even when something looks, sounds, feels off? Is there never to be discussion? Who gets to decide when there's been enough? Who decides when someone is being a disputer versus just wanting to patiently continue discussing?

      So many questions. You keep talking, ya hear?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Devin,

      You just dropped a two degree demand on me, to first TELL you and answer many questions asked of you about the Lots document is acceptable, and second ANSWER for you what I'd input differently than what has already been written. Is that how you start a conversation, by two degree DEMANDS? Is that how you treat those who you love unconditionally, as a brother?

      First, the conversation between your sister and I was a private conversation that has remained private, until now. You have painted a picture of our conversation, using your perspective of that conversation, to create an image of me, out of context, and one sided. That is precisely one of the reasons why the Lots document is unacceptable. It is out of context.

      I could share the other side of that conversation I had with your sister, but that would give a picture within context, and given the way you tried to put my character on blast with a partial story, I'm assuming that's not something you're interested in. Context is what I would write. The Lots document has no context, and represents your sister's regurgitation, void of any context.

      I have made multiple lengthy comments that give a better description. But, you're not looking for more light. You're looking to pick an online fight. It's obvious that you have set up stakes on the Lots document, claimed God's acceptance, and the majority vote. What more do you honestly want from me, but a fight? You have clothed it in words that sound peaceful, taken out of context, as you prefer. But, in context, you have turned unconditional brotherly love into a pretense, to justify your mischaracterization of my request to continue the effort of working towards something suitable to more than your majority.

      Let's call a spade a spade, and quit playing passive aggressive charades. If you're upset with me, then lets meet face to face and work this out, so that you can hear the part of the story where I barely said a word and your sister was bawling. There's much more to context both to your sisters conversation, and to the Governing Principles document, if you're interested. I'm open to a person to person conversation, but dealing with this online, ...bro who you foolin? You ain't foolin me!

      Content and Context matters,
      Rob Adolpho

    4. Devin,

      Maybe before you judge someone, you should get both sides of the story. If Shalyce or anyone else had an issue with Rob, because of their conversation, they should have confronted the issue and worked it out. If you had, maybe you might have had a better understanding of the situation. I could understand confronting the issue on here, had the exchange been on here for all to see, but it wasn't.

      You are about the billionth person asking us what problem we have with the document. Have you not read any of our posts? Do you really want to know our answers or are you going to be like everyone else and tell us, “these are Denver’s words!” “These are Joseph’s words!” and then continue to tell us how dark we must be for not accepting them. Look, if you and anyone else in the so called silent majority want to place it in the scriptures, go for it. I’m not damning your progression making my voice heard.

      Throw our hat in the ring? This is God’s work and He should be leading it. Instead someone pushed the lots idea, because he thought it was a good idea, not because he received revelation. And then we rely on man to throw our hats into the ring instead of letting the Voice of the Lord choose. You can give me all the stats you like; this process doesn’t match up with the Book of Mormon. But you guys want to call this truth. I was called by the Lord, I know what He said to me and I will do as He asks. I didn't agree to havie our names thrown into the hats, because I didn't want to offend the Lord. Should I have told Him, "Oh sorry Lord, instead of listening to you, I will put my faith in the lots process." I don't think so.

      Did the Lord reject D&C 20? I wonder if the early saints also thought they could go back to the drawing board when and if the Lord rejected their work.


    5. Hey Rob. I certainly wasn't directing my comments to you or anyone else specifically. They were meant for all of us; as equals. As for your last sentence, I couldn't even tell you where we don't see eye to eye right now. I left the July meeting with nothing but mad love for you, man, and it hasn't changed. My regret is that I haven't had the chance to meet up with and get to know you better.

      I actually don't mind all the discussion, even passionate discussion, though I admit I have kind of tuned out. I have a ton of my own rough edges to chip at and there's only so much time in the day. Mostly, my comment was just a call to remember to love each other through this process, however long it takes us to figure it out. That's a guiding principle we can all hopefully agree on. Seriously though. Nothing but love, Rob.

    6. Man, Rob. Rereading your comment again, I feel like I need to further clarify. I absolutely don't consider you evil or dark or contentious. Don't really know where that came from, but it's just not the case. Please believe me and perhaps think better of me in the future. Love you, brother.

    7. Tag,

      I think great of you. I reflect upon the prayer we had together, with Jeff Savage, Keltroy, the Carters, and Whitney Horning. What you wrote, I believe was genuinely seeking peace. But, where do we ever allow questions to work through to greater light among us, if we are being governed by the emotions that look like peace, without grinding out the work of creating real peace?

      You're good to me, but we gotta keep going with the work we had going on on July 2nd. I believe that peace isn't something that we allow to happen, it's what we do that makes peace happen.

      Rob Adolpho

    8. Thanks, and I agree Rob. I don't feel the time constraint here that some do. If we try to force something through, it will be less, I feel, than what the Lord intends. The process feels more important than the end result, at least to me. The prayer we had together that day is precious to me. I think of it often as a time where we approached the greatness of God together.

  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

  41. Rob and Q,

    I have tried to delete my comment so that I wouldn’t be misconstrued as disputing you. (Since I cannot figure out how to do so, I’ll just respond to you) I don’t wish to dispute, I only wanted to know what you would’ve done different in the G&S document. I do love you no matter what you say or do to me or my family, and I think you read something into what I said that I didn’t mean. Either way, I’m sorry if you feel I’ve judged you, called you out, or injured you in any way.

    I want the assignment done, and I don’t want to belabor it any longer. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels like we have strung this out and it’s gotten way more complicated than it was meant to be. I’m open to suggestion, if you’d like to share what you think should be done differently in the lots document. I think that if we were to discuss the document on here that it should be done with love and gentle persuasion, as the lord asked us to measure our words carefully before giving voice to them. I’m trying to do that myself, and I know that I sometimes come across as too blunt, so if my words have conveyed anything except love, I’m sincerely sorry for that. I’ll try to do better.

    So, Rob and Q, what would you like to see included in the G&S that isn’t currently in the lots document? I feel the lots has everything that we need, but if it could be changed or improved to be acceptable to you, in what ways would you add to or delete from it to make it acceptable that you could agree with it?

    Love, Devin

  42. Oops, I did figure out how to delete the comment, so I did.

    1. Devin,

      Don't worry about the technology issue. I've learned a ton about these environments. I have learned to write things first in word, so that you don't loose it. I also figured out why there have been lots of people's comments deleted. So, I have patience for low-tech issues, having been one who suffers in a similar way.

      I can see how your words could be genuine, but you couch your words in loaded statements, so it's hard to read NEUTRALITY in your comments. You came off as defending your sister's honor, when you had nothing to defend against with me. And then you demanded I give you a response, so that made it hard. But I trust your follow up comment, and would like to continue to engage concerning the problems regarding the Lots document.

      My response was still accurate, but I used the scenario concerning your defending your sister's honor to convey it. Your portrayal of your sister bawling was a one sided picture, taken out of context. She was bawling before I ever got on the phone. Likewise, the Governing Principles document regurgitates Denver/Joseph/Christ's words, but they provide no context of the big picture. The King Follet Discourse was massive context, but the saints flew to pieces like glass, unable to take any of it in. I have been recommending it since September. It represents the stuff that drew every last one of us to this movement. The Lots document offers none of that.

      If Denver used the true concepts that the Lots are promoting, as his founding principles, what he shared would not have been sufficient context to justify being willing to sacrifice my good standing in the LDS church, let alone sacrificing all things.

      The content that the Lots chose was based upon assumptions. The assumption has oversimplified the assignment, to be a pamphlet, or a guide to operate fellowships, and nothing else. To most of the Lots supporters, it will be placed in the book to never refer to it again. But, to my wife and I the content matters.

      You have expressed the desire to just be done already. Your attitude leaks through your words, feeling strung out, others (like me) have overly complexified this assignment, yet you say you're open to suggestions. Although it is a mixed message, I am very familiar with that mixed message, as many have expressed the same confusing expression. And then, you add a few recommendations for me to put into place.

      Gordon Platt does something similar, sending mixed signals, claiming humility, while expecting me to sacrifice. You are saying you are open to suggestions, while telling me how I must say and do as you recommend, so as not to be so offensive to you. Either you'd prefer being done with the Lots document, or not be done and continue working.

      I'd love to further express what I'm thinking, but not sure if that's feasible.

      Rob Adolpho

  43. Rob,

    Although the hour is late, since we are a few days from the conference, let’s see if we can reach agreement on this. You think the King Follett discourse is needed to be included in the G&S? Can you clarify which version of it you’d like inserted? I wasn’t extremely familiar with the content of it so I had to look it up. When I did I found 4 different (but similar) versions of it. 3 of the 4 authors were people who later betrayed Joseph (I don’t know what became of Thomas Bullock) so right off the bat I have my hesitations to trust their words, but nevertheless it’s the content that’s important.

    Are you saying that the portions of it that include the nature of God are what you’d like to see represented in the G&S? Or are you wanting all of it included? I was under the impression that we wanted the lowest common denominator represented in the G&S. And if you consider the King Follett sermon to be foundational, I don’t disagree. Maybe if you could succinctly spell out the portions of the sermon that you feel are important to be included in it, we could see if that will be acceptable to everyone.

    Will that satisfy you and your wife? Did you have other important information that you feel is as foundational as that sermon that you’d like added to it? I so badly want you and your family to be included in Zion and if it means we add in some portion of that important sermon, I would be willing to allow it, and support that if it will allow us to get to mutual agreement. I’m only one man, and cannot speak for the whole, but since it’s unity that I want to see happen, and many others do as well, it’s worth considering. If it’s more than a portion of the sermon you want added in, (for example you want the whole sermon) would you settle for a mention or reference to it in the G&S and then adding that sermon into the Pearls of Great Price? I have no authority to make these things happen. I’m merely trying to reach mutual agreement with you and respect your input and find a way that we can become one. If there is anything else you’d like included, let me know and let’s get this figured out hopefully before the conference so we may have a mutually acceptable document we can agree upon.

    Last question, if this addition were added to the Lots document, assuming that this sermon addition was all that you wanted represented in the G&S, would you be in agreement with us?

    Love you brother,

    1. 1 of 2


      Thank you for the genuine offer to add the stuff that would be more likely to keep us together. I recognize the effort, and through it, I recognize your heart's desire as good.

      It's clear that you haven't been around the project as much, by the questions you ask. The project seems to repeat itself. If you have been, and forgot, then let me refresh your memory. Jeff Savage generated a document and a vote, and it was full of errors, yet he tried to get it printed. There were two more of his iterations, prior to the Aug 5th meeting, where it was considered unanimous by those who voted. Jeff demanded that it was his assignment, and that everyone else was only there to assist him, but it wasn’t mutually agreeable. People asked me for suggestions on what needed adding, taking out, editing, and formatting, to make it mutually agreeable to me. I refused to edit it. He claimed it was all his assignment, he did it, it wasn’t mutually agreeable, it is his responsibility to fix it until it was mutually agreeable. I would talk to him as he asked, but he never cared to ask, and simply continued to promote his work as the winning document, refusing to fix the issues. Before the September 3rd conference where everyone was offered the covenant, if the Aug 5th was included and published, I came to Boise knowing I would not be able to continue in this movement, as it was not mutually agreeable to me. I was grateful that I was allowed to continue, as the assignment remained incomplete, and not yet included as published in the scriptures. I was able to agree to accept the covenant offered. But those who set up stakes were angry that the results of the Aug 5th weren’t published, and the Lots proposal was a result of those who were part of the 100% at Aug 5th.

      Those who were a part of the Lots have claimed an assignment, just like Jeff Savage. They have written, but what they wrote was not mutually agreeable to me, and I have been trying to talk them out of voting and to continue working towards something mutually agreeable. But, online and in person, those involved in the Lots document have totally flipped out, angry because I exercise my agency, and I have good reasons too. Now you are asking me to edit your document, to include an addendum, adding King Follet concepts, as a side thought, when it ought to be the main thought, and the Lots document be used as a side thought, or not at all. This is the same play from the playbook of Jeff Savage, as he tried to justify his original document, by getting my wife and I to write the preface.

      I couldn’t agree to write the preface of a document I didn’t mutually agree with. I couldn’t edit the Aug 5th when it was never my assignment, according Jeff Savage. I will not recommend edits to the Lots document, as a side thought, claiming it to be revelatory. I have shared my thoughts freely throughout the process, not holding anything back. But, it’s not until the conferences result in yet another failed attempt to finish the project, then people begin to make last ditch efforts to quickly and temporarily hear what is being said, suggesting edits, addendums, and after thoughts.

      I have constantly recommended that we start over, given the experience we have accumulated, and begin a new. It would have been easier if Jeff would have allowed his document to be put aside to begin afresh. Likewise, I have recommended to the Lots people to do the same, and they have summarily done the same as Jeff. I recommend again to start afresh, allowing king Follet to lead out, and for the voice of the Lord to direct people to write, putting the accountability upon

    2. 2 of 2

      the only one who is able to bear it, to put it on Christ. If He directed it, then He owns the accountability when those He directs do as they are directed.

      Those who are tired of the project should just be quiet and stop. Those who don’t care what is written, who seek unity, should remain silent, and wait to be united. Those who are impressed upon by the voice of the Lord to write, should write, and be accountable for what we write, by fielding questions, and holding ourselves accountable for mutual agreement, …rather than blaming everyone else.

      The problem we have now is that those who are tired, they project their frustration with the project on those who are still trying to work. They are a source of contention, that could be remedied by their silence. Those who don’t care, they act like they care and contribute to the contention, wishing it were done. Those who are impressed to write have to negotiate through the muck of people who should have remained silent, as they were not moved upon to speak up in the first place.

      Your intent to try to recover your sister’s work in the Lots document cannot represent mutual agreement. If you would add King Follet stuff to that document, it would be an after thought, and an abomination of the restoration from Joseph Smith. The King Follet stuff was so high that Denver uses its contents as the main source for Denver’s talk on Christ in Ephraim, UT. It was so significant that its contents were used by Denver in his book called three degrees, where he addressed celestial, terrestrial, and telestial, and used King Follet as his main source for the portion on the celestial. It was so significant that it is also the doctrine that President Hinkley denied in his interview with Mike Wallace of 20/20, and the church avoids that topic altogether. Joseph delivered the talk in his last general conference address in April 1844, and again just ten days before being killed, called the Sermon in the Grove, that ended too early because of rain. To add it as an after thought as you are suggesting would not be something I would recommend.

      But you can do as you feel to do. It won’t change the fact that the Lots document is way skewed to generalizations, and that kind of doctrine wouldn’t excite anything sufficient to sacrifice and make a transition with this movement, let alone excite our dead ancestors.

      Rob Adolpho

    3. Rob,

      I appreciate your engagement in this and your candor. If you could have elements of the King Follett sermon added to the lots document, (and I refer to the lots document because It was agreeable to a vast majority and we may be closer to mutual agreement if we can add to an already agreeable document) which elements of that sermon would you insist are important enough to incorporate into it? Not as an after thought but as equally important into the whole. Please share what you’d like to see included and let’s see if we can get to mutual agreement. As a matter of compromise, would you agree to allow the lots document remain intact as it stands and just add to it those elements of King Follett that you find necessary and vital for the completion of this G&S document? If so, will you become an advocate of this modified lots document and help us to gain mutual agreement of it?


    4. Rob,

      I went to the Wikipedia page to see what they say about the King Follett sermon. I know better than to trust Wikipedia, but I was looking for a summary of what it is promoting. The problems I have with what I gathered from the wiki page are these:
      1. Those whom we rely on for the content of the sermon were disloyal to Joseph.
      2. At best we only have 30% of the content according to one who has studied the 4 differing versions of it.
      3. The most complete version we have was approved by Brigham Young, who admitted to never hearing the Lord’s voice, and considered himself a “Yankee guesser”.
      4. The substance of that sermon tends to feel a little more like deep doctrine, and to put it in an introductory document to “bless and inform those who know nothing...” I worry that it may scare away some good honorable inquisitive Christians at the onset.
      5. If we had to go through every particular scripture that we each felt was vital for newcomers to understand, we may as well vote for the entire Book of Mormon, revised D&C and New Testament in their entirety to be accepted as the G&S. As I understood the assignment, we were to give a brief introduction to who we are and that something as deep as the King Follett sermon could be cleaned up (maybe if it’s important enough for us to have, maybe it will get edited like the Testimony of John got edited)

      May I suggest you put yourself into the mind of one who has no idea yet of who this remnant group is? Do you truly feel that including the content of that sermon as part of an introductory statement into this movement will benefit and bless and inform them, and not scare them away? If so, then let’s proceed forward. Those are my concerns but if you still feel it transcends my concerns, then please share with me which portions or elements in it you feel are needed to complete the G&S document.


    5. Devin,

      It seems like you just ain't tryin' to hear me. I'm being very clear here, the Lots document is not equal to KF. You have taken the WIKI-view, and so has the lots. The word WIKI is a shortened Hawaiian word for wiki wiki, which means quick, fast, shortest duration. That would sum up your Lots document in a WIKI. Your assumption that this is a quick glance view is you projecting your assumptions on God's instructions, and acting as if they were His instruction. That would be speaking the Lord's name in vain, without effect.

      Let me be clearer, I would not edit Jeff Savage's document, he claiming it is his assignment and his authority. I will not edit the Lots document, they claiming being called of God by the hand of probability.

      Despite what I have written, you seem to not want to hear me, so let me be even clearer. The problem of the Lots document was their leading/guiding question. There was none! It is full of assumptions concerning how it will be used once it's complete. Another assumption is that they know who are those who know nothing yet of what God is doing. The Lots document is based on conclusions that they have made in arrogance, thinking, "I know, I know, I know." How can you be so certain, when everything about you is so uncertain?

      I will not unite under the Lots flag. They have taken the assignment, as if from God, by way of casting lots. Why not present it to God, using the same method of casting lots. And see if you get the same names, asking God to reveal His acceptance, using the same method of pulling the same names?

      When I was talking to your sister Shalyce, I told her what I will tell you, it's never been a problem for me to accept that someone has the authority to write. The problem has always been what they do with the authority. Jeff had a little authority, as he supposed. The Lots had a little authority, as they supposed. The late-in-the-game WIKI conversation is a last ditch effort to take the victory. It would not represent God's voice, not to me, and certainly not to my people.

      Finally, concerning the simplicity of the KF, it is deep doctrine to those raised in and comfortable with religious institutions. To those of the Hawaiian culture, it is easy doctrine. To those of the Blackfoot culture, it is easy doctrine. To those of Eastern cultures, according to Other Sheep Indeed, it is easy doctrine.

      Your assumptions are killing you bro. And it's killing me too.
      Rob Adolpho

  44. Is there a reason the “powers that be” aren’t willing to table this whole thing for a year or so?

    I say “powers that be” not knowing who they might be.

    I don’t agree with any of the documents. I choose not to dispute. I don’t believe mutual agreement has been reached on any of them. I choose not to dispute. I don’t see any reason this can’t be dropped, and I do mean dropped for the foreseeable future.

    1. Anonymous,

      Prior to the covenant being offered Denver spoke about the fact that once we have a covenant the clock will start ticking. While that wasn’t clarified, it does make some of us feel that we shouldnt waste time or treat this casually. The saints in Nauvoo treated D&C 124 very casually and look what has become of their failure to build the Nauvoo temple? I feel a sense of importance and urgency about this matter that I don’t want time wasted on this assignment. It’s not mine to dictate, as I am just one participant, but if we aren’t making progress then our chance for Zion is in jeopardy.

    2. Devin,

      If you don't want to waste time, come to my house, and lets talk.

      That, my friend, has been available all this time, but you have waited late in the game, just days before the conference to hold a conversation, procrastinated while some of us have been working the entire time. Come to my house and lets take the time to talk it through, hours and hours and hours of time, pushing through the night.

      You see that is the work that keeps going undone. That is the tall-order. What you are pushing through is the short-order, the quicky, the wiki!

      Denver used the KF for the talk he delivered on Christ. He used the KF to describe the Celestial Kingdom in his book called the three degrees. If that doesn't say something to you about the value of the content of the KF, I don't know what else to say further.

      Rob Adolpho

    3. Clock ticking for what? A G&S? A temple? A fellowship? A general conference? Families to be “converted”? Rebaptism? Converting Christians? Finding and bringing along the remnant? Talking to Jews? Depending on how we understand it, that “ticking clock” may just be our undoing.

    4. Rob,

      My schedule does not allow me hours and hours to drive down to your house and discuss this. I wish it did. The Lord said this could have been a light thing if our hearts were right. I’m sincerely trying to have the kind of heart that will help rather than hurt this process.

      Do you have a clear version of the King Follett sermon that you could email me? Is it reliable or is it Brigham-approved? Why do you feel that this is so critical to the G&S that you cannot be in support of a simple document that covers the basics?

      At the time the Lots got together to compile their document, they did their best to honor whatever had been previously written and submitted to incorporate principles and ordinance protocols into the document to satisfy as many people as possible while trying to be true to the Lords words (including as revealed through Joseph and Denver). I didn’t follow the many submissions so I really don’t know if you did, but did you advocate at that time for the King Follett sermon to be included? If not, why not? It may have been factored in or worked into their document if it had.

      With hundreds of people included in the covenant I don’t think it’s fair for any group attempting to write a document to be required to contact every person who took the covenant to ask what their suggestions or requirements would be in writing a simple G&S document. Yet even after they did, I know they attempted to contact and resolve concerns without whomever voted against the document.

      Can we find a solution here that you can agree with? If you have clear principles (I don’t think that doctrines were alluded to be included in this document) that you think are important to add into the G&S from the King Follett sermon, can you articulate it here on this forum so we can work toward mutual agreement?


      P.S. My email is navysky27@hotmail.com for that King Follett document if you have one you could send me.

    5. Rob, I have posted a response to your conversation thread with Gordon here:


      (I accidentally posted under user name "Jim")

    6. It is true, the lots did open up their first draft document for everyone to review and contact them by phone or email to address any concerns, including if there were additions that should be added.

      I remember, because I made a suggestion and it was added. I was treated with respect and kindness and I appreciated that even though I wasn't one of the seven, I was given ability to share the revelation I had about the content, to be included.

      I spoke with two other men, and one married couple who also made recommendations that were incorporated.

      Opportunity existed for everyone in the movement to contribute if they felt something important was missing.

    7. Devin,

      Your sister Shalyce called and talked to me on the phone. I offered my input, and I have been inputting here since this site was up and running. If they wanted to hear what I had to say, it was available here. I never supported the Lots effort, that not representing faith to me, allowing those who felt it was to them to act according to the dictates of their own heart.

      Yet, only now, less than a week to conference, the frenzy begins again, as people like you who have remained silent until now, choose to press for assimilation. The proposal for KF inclusion, for the third time now, is not justified as simply an addendum, an after thought, a side busting concept. It deserves primacy, especially up against the Lots document.

      Your posts seem to repeat itself, even when I have answered you directly. It makes me question your genuineness, and your heart, once again. Especially when you delete your original post, accusing me of making your sister Shalyce bawl on the phone.

      Rob Adolpho

  45. I feel to repent after reading Denver's 9th parable. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I desire to live in peace with all of my covenant brothers and sisters. Harmony between brethren is more important than being right. I'm grateful for the efforts of everyone in trying to produce a statement of principles. I believe that parable can be directly applied to this circumstance. The underlying message: can we live in peace together? I know that I have not personally helped to attain to peace and I want to do things differently moving forward. I love being part of this great latter-day movement because it is teaching me about myself and hopefully helping me be a better person for it.

  46. Jay Ball,

    I have read your response, and I like the summary. I feel much more understood by you in a short response, than all the responses I have gotten from Devin Fausett above. In answer to your question, I do think that when light is the focus, peace and unity is a byproduct. Gordon has used the two great commandments, so I'll refer to that. Love God is the focus on loving light. Love your neighbor is the byproduct, it is the unity Gordon seeks. Put them backwards, and you have focused on loving your neighbor, and loving God as a byproduct. It never works that way.

    Heat transfers to cold, and never the other way around. Light travels from a greater to a lesser, not the other way around.

    Thanks Jay for the summary,
    Rob Adolpho

  47. Rob,

    I have tried, and I’m exhausted. I guess I will just withdraw from discussing with you as you don’t seem to want to compromise on this. I love you and wish you the best. I’ve tried so hard to not dispute and I would rather pull back and stop contributing if it’s going to be misconstrued or seen as disputing.

    I’d rather just retreat and adopt Denver’s position on the matter (this is copied and pasted from Karen’s response earlier, so the bolded words were her emphasis):
    I would rather SUBMIT to the DECISION of THE GROUP than insist that my view be followed. For me HARMONY BETWEEN BRETHREN is MORE IMPORTANT than getting what I THINK BEST to be followed. I believe HARMONY CAN LEAD TO MUCH GREATER THINGS than can merely enforcement of even a CORRECT VIEW. I know how difficult it is to have a correct view, because of how often I have been corrected by the Lord. Sometimes I am humiliated by my foolishness when the Lord reproves me. Humiliation can lead to humility, but my experience is that the humiliation is accompanied by shame, whereas humility can proceed with a clear conscience. My experience with others leads me to conclude that if we can have one heart first, eventually we can likewise come to have one mind. But if we INSIST on having ONE MIND at the outset, we may never obtain ONE HEART TOGETHER. ” — Denver Snuffer

    I’m out.

  48. Devin,

    Easy come easy go. Compromise is unattractive to me. I would prefer that when facing a deadlock, waiting upon the Lord, until more light is given, before moving forward. Compromising upon opinions, I believe is not compromise at all, it's just shifting opinions. Compromising truth is totally unacceptable to me. But to make things worse, compromising my truth, for your opinions is totally not an option for me.

    I like the quote you and Karen both mistakenly use from Denver. Harmony is the combination of simultaneous musical notes that compliment one another, and is pleasing to hear. Denver used that word for a reason, and you and Karen have used it to mean that different notes ought to get in tuned with you. Where is the harmony of different notes? How is your and Karen's silent treatment harmonious? You have not recommended harmony.

    Although you have considered your efforts to be associated with harmony, I think that the push, all throughout your comments, your reading past me to push your agenda at an image of peace, and your ignoring what I am saying for your perception of what I am saying, ...they are all a part of what Denver labeled "enforcement of even a CORRECT VIEW."

    Here, I have continually requested more work. I still do, but you have expressed not being "able" to spend hours. In the absence of investing the time, enforcement of a vote is the compensation, or the compromise you have chose to support.

    You are free to act according to your own conscience. Each of us are judged by the truth being presented, whether by me or the passerby, and that makes for a very appropriate test. You have much to judge my heart by my words, feel free to do just that. I hide no agenda. I've not locked down and finalized what all of this is supposed to look like. Throughout the entire process I have constantly reflected, have been given more instruction, and have continued to work, ...while those who think like you continually want to cut that work short with a short-order vote. I am not persuaded.

    Peace OUT!
    Rob Adolpho

  49. 1 of 2

    To: The Movement,

    The following quote has been tilted in my direction multiple times, but in error:

    I would rather SUBMIT to the DECISION of THE GROUP than insist that my view be followed. For me HARMONY BETWEEN BRETHREN is MORE IMPORTANT than getting what I THINK BEST to be followed. I believe HARMONY CAN LEAD TO MUCH GREATER THINGS than can merely enforcement of even a CORRECT VIEW. I know how difficult it is to have a correct view, because of how often I have been corrected by the Lord. Sometimes I am humiliated by my foolishness when the Lord reproves me. Humiliation can lead to humility, but my experience is that the humiliation is accompanied by shame, whereas humility can proceed with a clear conscience. My experience with others leads me to conclude that if we can have one heart first, eventually we can likewise come to have one mind. But if we INSIST on having ONE MIND at the outset, we may never obtain ONE HEART TOGETHER. ” — Denver Snuffer

    The idea of GROUP THINK is despised by Denver, and is a representation of institutionalization. Yet, that is how the above quote is pitched, …that some how we should go with the majority. Read the quote carefully, and take notice of the comparison Denver uses. He compares the DECISION OF THE GROUP with FOLLOWING HIS VIEW. He also compares HARMONY with ENFORCING A CORRECT VIEW. All this quote points out to me is the disgust Denver has with people following a man and enforcing a correct view. This correctly compliments D&C 121, regarding the use of priesthood, against idle worship, and using compulsory means to generate an external result. The LDS subscribes to GROUP THINK, FOLLOWING MEN, AND ENFORCING A CORRECT VIEW. Those misusing this quote to support the Lots document are prescribing an idea in alignment with GROUP THINK, FOLLOWING MEN (the lotsters), and ENFORCING A CORRECT VIEW with a vote/majority/percentages/polls/voice of the people. This is contradictory to how they use this quote to justify their actions.

    I have recommended that light is independent of any and all institutions. None of us came here because of borrowed light. We are here because God has condescended to give us more light through a man in the wilderness. We are here in this movement, having been animated by God’s word, and not because Denver was a cool guy, or held an office, or controlled a multibillion dollar corporation. He is removed from this project, requiring us to put our ears to the ground, and recognize light among us, allowing the light to lead out, rather than our traditions. The Lots people claim their document full of light, but King Follet offers far more light than that. However, since they claim a majority over Joseph Smith’s King Follet, they have chosen to be animated by less light, rather than receiving more. If the assignment is published, having preferred less light over more, we have sealed the fate of this movement as remaining under the condemnation of the early saints who took lightly the words of Christ, instead of receiving and producing fruits with greater light. The Lotsters are flying to pieces like glass, unable to be questioned, unwilling to compare their light to that of King Follet.

  50. 2 of 2

    If we claim to be the stone cut out of the mountains without hands, lesser light should give way to greater light, so that we can all be lead by greater light, out of the bondage of our own minds. The light thing is allowing the greater light to give order to the lesser light. And the Gods commanded and waited for those they commanded to obey. Light is being offered. But GROUP THINK rejects further light and knowledge. Men ought to be judged by their choices, and their ability to recognize light and truth, rather than FOLLOWING MEN and ENFORCING A CORRECT VIEW.

    I will not enforce my view on another. I have left that crap behind, dusting my feet on the porch of the church, when I was physically thrown out by two Samoans. I have also left behind group think, refusing to simply go with the crowd. I will face the consequences of my choices like a man, being fully held accountable for making a mistake, whether on this blog, in person, or in the actions of my children.

    If God condescends to slap me across the face, I will consider it revelation, and be grateful for it. I will not be a coward, hiding my secret combinations, flowering up contention in pretty words, feigning relationships of love, with fake smiles, air kisses, emojis, and glad handing. I have made mistakes, and have eaten crow because of it, claiming the mistake, calling myself Chief Crow-eater. I have done it here too, mistaking James I with “The Real James,” James II, or James Fargo. I am not embarrassed by my mistakes, and am ready and willing to learn from them and correct them.

    Some have made STRONG comments here, under the title anonymous, refusing to be held accountable for their mistakes. Others have written harsh mischaracterized words, allowing them to be read for a time, and then deleting the comment, as if deleting the comment repairs the damage caused, leaving them to be perceived as “innocent” to those who come late to the conversation. Yet, none of them have been willing to engage in a contemplative conversation, valuing another’s point of view. They will only go so far as their ability to get their motion passed, like a governmental delegate in a political legislature. These are all habits of Babylon, the very stuff that the stone cut without hands will grind to pieces. We must allow those habits to be ground to pieces within us first.

    I am more than willing to have a conversation with anyone wanting to understand my perspective on King Folett, the big picture, the spark giving life to this movement, greater light leading lesser light, etc. I do not care for this digital venue of conversation, but we have been reduced to this in the absence of relationships. I will be in Phoenix and would be willing to talk then too. If we are truly the House of Israel, then we ought to act like it. Israel was the name given to Jacob, meaning to wrestle God, because Jacob wrestled from God a covenant. Although Boise was an invitation to receive a covenant, and you have all accepted the invitation, it is now time to act like Israel, and wrestle this covenant from God. A quick, short-order vote, silent treatment, passive aggressive attitudes, and side-busting comments, …is far from wrestling from God a covenant. It is Gentile customs, ways, and habits. To be number among the House of Israel is to wrestle from God a covenant, to stretch your minds high into the highest heavens, contemplate the darkest abyss, and commune with God. That’s a life worth living, and a life worth giving! It’s a good day to die. Hurrah for Israel!

    Rob Adolpho

    1. Those are powerful words you've spoken, Rob. My brain had to do a few flips to see your understanding of the quote from DS, but I totally see what you mean now.

      I feel like my brain has been programmed and my heart conditioned to see and think in certain ways, hence the struggle for me to understand correctly at times. All I feel capable of is grounding myself in love for others. It's what I have continuously needed to do throughout this experience. Once there, with my emotions more centered and controlled, I can hear and see better. Most importantly, I can see and hear light when it is taught. I'm a mess otherwise.

      What is your understanding about what, if anything, to do with the doctrine of Christ and His law in terms of a statement of light building upon the King Follett sermon? Too soon to know, because we need more light and relationships?

      ASIDE: My comment to Karen above was not in agreement with the lots statement or any others at this point. It was about seeing something off-topic yet applicable to us that she has also seen. I will leave it at that.

    2. Lori,

      I see the Doctrine and Law of Christ as the place from which we must launch from, that's for sure. But, before we blast off into outer space, we had better have direction, and that is where King Follett comes into play. King Follett gives us a map of a heavenly system, often called the cosmos, and how that works to console those who have lost loved ones. It's really big picture, and fights against the thinking of the world, to grind that mentality to dust, like the stone cut without hands is prophesied to do.

      Thanks for asking Lori,

      Rob Adolpho

  51. Assuming complete unanimity is never achieved on a Guide and Standard then publishing that Guide and Standard in the scriptures would FORCE that G&S on those who oppose it. If, however, every individual must ADD the G&S to their own scriptures once they choose to join with those who have mutually agreed on a G&S, then agency and accountability is preserved. This vote in Phoenix may achieve mutual agreement on a G&S among the 300-400 who attend but that would not prevent those not in attendance from agreeing in the privacy of their own home and adding the G&S to their own scriptures.

  52. That wasn't very clear. Can you try again?

    Rob Adolpho

  53. Beloved Enos.... pg 33-34

    "His relationship with the Lord resulted from his charity towards others, including his enemies. Doctrine is always less important than a person's character. Although you may have a deep understanding of doctrine, if you lack charity towards others your understanding will be of no benefit."