Saturday, March 24, 2018

...if we only had the stomach for it

[This is being posted with no idea whether the group proposing this will carry it out at the Phoenix conference.]

“There is another method that we haven’t tried, so far as I know.  That would be to use ‘lots’ to choose from every [proposed G&S Statement/Document] in the [movement, equally].  This method was used to fill Judas’ vacancy in the original Twelve in Jerusalem.  (Acts 1: 21-26.)  The description there is ambiguous, but was intended to be random, unpredictable and not just a vote.  It was a recognized way to choose someone [or something].  (See, e.g., 1 Ne. 3: 11.)  It has been used to sort through the entire nation of Israel when all twelve tribes were assembled.  Someone had stolen an idol, resulting in the withdrawal of the Lord’s Spirit from them in battle.  The result was defeat for Israel and the death of many men.  They needed to find the one who committed the offense.  So they had to choose from the entire gathering of all twelve tribes.   Beginning at the tribe level, they sorted through to find the right tribe (Judah).  Then proceeded to sort through the tribe to locate the larger family involved (Zarhites).  Then went through the family to find the individual involved (Achan).  The whole thing is in the scriptures.  (Joshua 7: 13-23.)  

Such a system was uncontrolled by man, done by lot, completely random, but produced the right person [or in this case, ‘Statement/Document’].  Left to God, it obtained God’s answer.  Did with the sons of Lehi, and with the vacancy in the Twelve in the Book of Acts, too.  There is no reason why such a system wouldn’t generate the Lord’s choice today.  

If the [body is unable to choose a Statement of Principles’ without disputes], then random choosing using a lot system would put the choice in the Lord’s hands.  But I suppose we don’t have the stomach to try it, particularly when we already have a system that seems to work for us.”

Adapted from Denver Snuffer’s post “Prophet, Seer, Revelator” (May 21, 2010), changing only the subject of the discussion from selecting a church President to selecting a Guide and Standard.

—from a couple willing to lay down their own pride

38 comments:

  1. I love that. A couple willing to lay down their own pride. I would lay mine down and accept a G&S chosen by lots, if the voice of the people method is unsuccessful.
    Thanks for the inspiration.
    Love, Lisa

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting.

    Is that you Dani?

    Are you and Jared the couple willing to lay down your pride if a guide and standard is chosen by lot, and it's not the guide and standard you've been arguing in favor of?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You can include a lot for "none of the above" to allow the Lord to let us know we have to go back to the drawing board.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looks like there was some success today. Hopefully we will be adopting the Lot’s G&S tomorrow. Thanks for all of the good work. I look forward to the vote completion tomorrow. Love, Lisa

    ReplyDelete
  5. Folks,

    I’m sorry that we were unable to complete the vote for a guide and standard in the conference today. The organizers decided not to risk any more “audience participation,” and I get that (that is not meant to be snarky!). It’s their conference to organize; it’s their decision. But, let me suggest a couple of things that all of us were able to accomplish with our truncated vote.

    First, the “lots” guide and standard was pretty clearly the assembly’s preferred choice. That’s the second time that a fairly large number of people participated in a vote in which it came out on top. That is two “witnesses,” if you like, that it is the document that most prefer.

    Second, and more importantly, there were a considerable number of folks that preferred a different document but gave up their preference for the sake of unity (and no, I am not suggesting that if you did not support the “lots” document that you don’t also desire to be united). Voluntary sacrifice builds love. Thank you.

    Third, speaking only for myself, what I saw was a strong desire to come to mutual agreement. After our group talked to those that opposed the outcome/vote, I would estimate that no more than 8-10 people were in opposition to the “lots” G&S. That’s less than 5%. Others may have a different estimate, but that is my honest appraisal of the numbers.

    Fourth, after talking to the folks who were opposed to the “lots” document, I have more sympathy for their concerns. We have made plans to get together and continue to talk things through to see if we can develop greater love and understanding.

    Fifth, again speaking only for myself, at this point I feel at peace with adding the “lots” document to my own personal set of scriptures. I believe I saw the minority agree (out of love) with the majority on a statement of principles. In my estimation, that satisfies the Lord’s requirement.

    Sixth, perhaps the sacrifice of the minority “provoked” the Lord’s merciful implication, given through Denver, that each fellowship could decide for themselves how best to organize a statement of principles. “Do you want the fellowships in Uganda, the Philippines and Spain to all be alike? (rough paraphrase). Perhaps mutual agreement at the level of the fellowships is enough for now. After all, most everything else is happening at that level.

    Thanks to those who participated in the vote, and also to those who voiced alternate opinions. Thank heaven we don’t all think alike. Otherwise I’d have to go buy a bunch of white shirts again.

    Gordon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gordon,

      Thank you for filling us in on your perspective of what happened. For those of us who weren't there, and only saw the little bit that was televised, it was good to hear more details of what happened afterward when you met with those who opposed. I am now comfortable printing off the Lots GS and putting it in my scriptures. I hope someday we will be able to do so as a united body of believers, despite our wonderful diversity of personalities. The counsel on not being froward was something that cannot be ignored, despite our need for and always present diversity. The way I see it, the necessity to eliminate frowardness trumped just about everything else that was said. It was compelling, humbling, and worthy of deep and ponderous reflection and personal application by all of us who have the covenant.

      Thanks for your efforts to see if there could be a "second witness" of agreement among the people. It was much appreciated.

      Delete
    2. Gordon,

      Because of your comment above, after all that has happened today, I have changed my mind about meeting with you. I have no desire to have your sympathy. I have no desire to pretend with you, acting as if you care, when you are set on the results of your failed experiment. We have learned nothing new, the lots have the majority, and are set above all the other documents. They are the ones above the next.

      The next time you feel inclined to run another experiment like this one, make it clear that this is an "experiment," ...so I can avoid being the guy being probed!

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  6. Diversity = BeautyMarch 25, 2018 at 6:34 PM

    "Perhaps mutual agreement at the level of the fellowships is enough for now."

    If we're doing it at that "level," then surely we can just go all the way to the individual (even twins have different priorities!). Let us all mutually agree that we are free to create our own statements of principles which guide us, and add them to our scriptures. And if we change our thoughts about a matter (or have added experience or insight), we are free to remove our old statement and make a new one, as many times as we would like.

    See, that wasn't so hard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. look at Denver's talk today (last 20-25 min.) where he mentions favorably the diversity that will be found in fellowships in uganda, the philippines, and spain. And then look at what is on either side of that comment. diversity does equal beauty.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nothing Has Changed

    Let us review the Lord's assignment to the people in the A&C pertaining to the G&S.

    1. You [the covenant participants] are not excused from writing [without specifying any method] a [single] statement of principles [rules of behavior that you do not ever break] that I have required [commanded] at your hands.

    2. I forbade my servant David [Denver Snuffer] from participating, and again forbid him.

    3. But I require a [single] statement of principles to be adopted [accepted] by the mutual agreement [universal agreement] of my people, for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands.

    4. When [at such time as] you have an agreed statement of principles [a single statement of principles which none of the covenant participants choose to dispute] I require it [the single statement of principles no covenant participant chooses to dispute] to also be added [as a replacement for LDS D&C 20] as a guide [that which directs behavior] and standard [that by which behavior is judged] for my people to follow [to conform their behavior to].

    5. Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless [bring the Holy Ghost to], benefit [do good to] and inform [teach what is required to receive the Holy Ghost to] them—so I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you.

    At Phoenix, it was demonstrated publicly that the adoption of the majority-preferred statement of principles was disputed. The Lord's requirement is not fulfilled by adding a disputed statement of principles as a replacement for LDS D&C 20. The Lord's requirement is rejected and left undone instead.

    Therefore, the true state of affairs of this people pertaining to the Lord's requirement that a statement of principles be adopted by the mutual agreement of this people is this:

    1. There is nothing in the A&C restricting me from selecting my own G&S.
    2. There is nothing in the A&C restricting me from disputing the adoption of any other G&S proposals.
    3. There is nothing in the law and commandments of God restricting me from selecting the law and commandments of God as my G&S.
    4. There is nothing in the law and commandments of God restricting me from disputing the adoption of any other G&S proposals.
    5. I have made a choice of G&S proposals that I will agree to for this assignment and it is The Rock of Jesus Christ.
    6. I have made a choice to dispute the adoption of every single other G&S document past, present, and future.
    7. Therefore, if the body actually and truly does want to be the Lord's people indeed, they will each individually accept and do as the Lord has required of them and adopt The Rock of Jesus Christ.
    8. Failure to accept and do as the Lord has required occurs when any other proposed G&S is placed in the scriptures.

    The task has been simplified down to where in order to succeed at this assignment all the body has to do is place The Rock of Jesus Christ in the scriptures after any who dispute its adoption shall have ceased their disputations. Any other action taken by the body is failure.

    Failing to verbally dispute a proposal does not necessarily mean that one is not disputing that proposal. One may dispute a proposed G&S by adding a disputed G&S to their scriptures. The placement of disputed documents in the scriptures, feigning to have accepted and done as the Lord requires while in reality rejecting his requirement and leaving it undone - must also cease.

    It is not accurate to say that I am attempting to control the body. It is accurate to say I reject the rule and ministry of the unrighteous (A&C p. 8) and corrupt (A&C p. 3) majority, and I will not agree to curse, harm, and misinform those who as yet know nothing concerning the Lord's work now underway by failing to dispute their preferred G&S. I reject the rule of men for the rule of my Lord, Jesus Christ.

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

      Delete
    2. Jared,

      I respectfully request you answer a question Adrian asked you on another forum.

      Were you speaking literally when you spoke of being in God's presence before accepting the covenant offered in Boise, and being denied His presence after saying "yes" to the preliminary questions asked of those entering the covenant?

      And when you spoke of seeking to regain His presense in the months since the conference?

      Are you saying you were in God's secret council, then sinned, and found yourself cut off from His presence?

      That's what I understood you to be saying, and it seems to be what Adrian understood you to be saying, and I'm asking you to please tell all of us if we understood you correctly.

      Please.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Log, the Lord also said multiple times that He doesn’t want anyone to dispute. He never said that He doesn’t want us to dispute UNLESS we don’t get our way then it’s ok to dispute.

      So, do you actually desire to be obedient to the will of the Lord?

      Delete
    4. Shane,

      1. Cursed is the man that trusts in man, saith the Lord (KJV Jer. 17:5; LDS 2 Ne. 28:31).
      2. Denver Snuffer is a man.
      3. Cursed is the man that trusts in Denver Snuffer.
      4. Leading men to trust Denver Snuffer brings upon them the curse of the Lord.
      5. Being cursed is a bad thing.
      6. We do not want to be cursed.
      7. The law of God, which is the law of the Celestial kingdom, is this: every last thing you wish others would do to you, do to others.
      8. Because we do not want to be cursed we should neither trust, nor lead men to trust, Denver Snuffer.
      9. The Lottery document leads men to trust Denver Snuffer by offering his words to be the guide to their behavior and the standard by which to judge their behavior.
      10. By the law of God, the adoption of the Lottery document (and any other that offers the words of Denver Snuffer to be trusted as their guide and their standard) should be disputed and not agreed to.

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

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  10. Book recommendation, with love for all you guys:

    The Anatomy of Peace: Resolving the Heart of Conflict

    From chapter four: The Way-of Being Diagram

    Behaviors: (Voting)(Discussions)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Way of Being:

    Heart at Peace >> Others are PEOPLE: Hopes, needs, cares, and fears as real to me as my own.

    Heart at War >> Others are OBJECTS: Obstacles, Vehicles, Irrelevancies

    "I'm going to suggest something to you about this...It's an idea you might want to resist at first, especially regarding your children [others]. But here it is: Generally speaking, WE RESPOND TO OTHERS' WAY OF BEING TOWARD US RATHER THAN TO THEIR BEHAVIOR. Which is to say that our children [others] respond more to how we're regarding them than they do to our particular words or actions. WE CAN TREAT OUR CHILDREN [OTHERS] FAIRLY, for example, BUT IF OUR HEARTS ARE WARRING TOWARD THEM WHILE WE'RE DOING IT, THEY WON'T THINK THEY'RE BEING TREATED FAIRLY AT ALL. IN FACT, THEY'LL RESPOND TO US AS IF THEY WEREN'T BEING TREATED FAIRLY."

    "As important as behavior is, MOST PROBLEMS AT HOME, AT WORK, AND IN THE WORLD ARE NOT FAILURES OF STRATEGY BUT FAILURES OF WAY OF BEING. ...when our hearts are at war, we can't see situations clearly, we can't consider others' positions seriously enough to solve difficult problems, and we end up provoking hurtful behavior in others.

    "IF WE HAVE DEEP PROBLEMS, IT'S BECAUSE WE ARE FAILING AT THE DEEPEST PART OF THE SOLUTION. AND WHEN WE FAIL AT THIS DEEPEST LEVEL, WE INVITE OUR OWN FAILURE." (emphasis added)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Part 1 of 2

    Since last May, my experience with the G&S has been both very positive and very negative. I learned a great deal about God’s lexicon and I learned a great deal about myself, which I tried to share with you. These two points out weigh the many negative experiences attributed to me. There are many negative thoughts and expressions that are being purported here on line that will be judged; therefore, I feel the need to express the following:

    Back in October when Jim and Angela O’Rullian and Karen and Kirk Strong came into my home to tell us about the Lots proposal, I tried to inform them that I didn’t believe utilizing lots is an expression of my faith. I did tell them if they felt the need to move forward on this then to do so. BUT If they did, I did ask them to Not hold a vote, as this would cause us to be separated. Maybe they didn’t believe me or maybe they did.

    We expressed on line time after time, that we didn’t believe in the voting system, as this would cause a separation. Maybe Gordon didn’t believe us. He kept on saying this is out of “love” etc. Love for who, the majority who had a lot of love already? Did you think of the minority and how this experience would be for them? I did. What did you think would happen? Did you think that Rob and I would not say anything, especially when we were not being accurately portrayed? Just because we didn’t play by your rules doesn’t mean we were contentious.

    The whole process was uncomfortable for those of us who were on the minority, especially since everyone who was on the majority side were pitched as being united, expressing charity, etc. and those who were not, as being the ones who were “opposed.” Even the whole “yes” and “no” words used. Even the word “ours” were all expressions of an “us” and “them” mentality. It was a big judgement in front of a large group akin to having a Scarlet Letter sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Part 2 of 2

    Gordon, we submitted to your process, Rob even went to meet with you. We tried to support you and your process and you hung us out to dry. You didn’t once protect us from the many negative comments that flew our way. You said it was to be a meeting where we could voice our “opposition” You are the one who chose to make it a very public spectacle, choosing to have the meeting outside where everyone will pass by. Why? In your report, did you mention this? Now you report the following as if you fulfilled this part of your process with honor and success:

    “After our group talked to those that opposed the outcome/vote, I would estimate that no more than 8-10 people were in opposition to the “lots” G&S. That’s less than 5%. Others may have a different estimate, but that is my honest appraisal of the numbers.”

    What was your point? So that you could finalize this? If that was your point, then you accomplished it. It’s obvious that you don’t care about the after effects of it all to the minority- as people told us to leave and told us to shut our mouths. And it still continuous with people talking, gossiping and expressing their opinions about us here on this blog and others. Who will speak up for the injustice and inequality that occurred?

    Do you guys not realize that you voted before angels, God and witnesses that you were taking on this document as your Guide and Standard. This will be a document you will be judged by. Moses’s governing principles were used to judge his people. This isn’t me trying to instill fear in you, but it is a warning. Read your document and the Covenant.

    I find it very interesting that many people felt like our speaking up was act of contention. Was it contentious when many of you spoke up in the LDS church, wrote letters to the First Presidency and when you stood up for justice and equality. I’m sure you were told you were dark and contentious for speaking up. What did we say that was so contentious? Or could it be that you just felt uncomfortable? I for one didn’t feel the spirit leave. I even felt supported by my ancestors.

    The bones of my ancestors call out because of the injustice and iniquity used to eliminate the higher law they lived, having been forced to live a law that so many religions forced upon them. They cry out for their blood lines, because of the unbelief they have due to the iniquity of the Gentile nation. Last year, I gave a talk at the Strong’s fellowship meeting, at that meeting I stated that I finally felt equal to a group of white people. This last years’ experience tells me I am not equal to you- the majority. I suppose you can call me the minority of the minority.

    You believe you have the majority, that may be true at this point, that you are aware of, and that you can see. I know who I am. I know who I represent. I know who my father is. I know my role. I serve my Lord Savior Jesus Christ and Him only. I wish you the majority well as you guys move forward.

    Rob and Q Adolpho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I have considered Q's position I have had this observation:
      Consider any statement of principals that contains language such as "we as a covenant people offer the following..." And suppose that within my fellowship there is one member who does not accept that statement for himself for whatever reason. Suppose further that even though I agree with a particular statement, I still love this person and do not wish to exclude him. Can I adopt a statement with language that assumes "we as a covenant people..." are a group that accepts this statement as our guide without recognizing that there may be someone, who we can also consider a fellow member of the covenant, who does not accept that statement? In other words, by containing that language does it necessarily put anyone who may disagree with it in a category outside "we, the covenant people"? Does the use of that language impose "sameness" on the body?

      Delete
    2. I too did not feel the spirit leave during Saturday's events, although I overheard several souls claim such things the next day. All I can say is, if you corner a lion and poke it with a staff you’re not going to be happy with what comes next. ;)

      My experience was that the spirit of God increased to sustain and comfort me through an otherwise humiliating and intimidating and perhaps unnecessary experience. Whatever the intent of the vote organizers and however “unfair” it may be, it was a sting similar to what I experienced in the Church. To have the camera turned on us for all the world to see us stand in opposition to a popular notion with the jeers and head wagging, the “be quiets” and “sit-downs” seems to be what was truly “unfair.” I am not surprised some who supported this action against their brothers and sisters felt the spirit leave. At the same time, I felt love and forgiveness for everyone, and the clarity and calmness of the spirit descend upon me, and I was happy to stand with my brothers and sisters in the breach. I don't expect anyone who didn't stand with the minority to understand those sentiments.

      I have a completely different perspective of my good friend Rob than most seem to. I saw him placed in an extremely difficult situation over the weekend. Publicly put in a situation that did not reflect much of the background of the situation he spoke out, was unfairly vilified in the minds of those who were not familiar with all that had gone before, cornered (literally) and encircled and put on the spot in front of the crowd - who of us would not have felt defensive and found it difficult to articulate in those circumstances?

      I have had several people try to convince me that it is impossible to approach Rob because of some flaw they perceive in him. In each case I could see a similar but perhaps more passive or subtle flaw in the person making the claim. If a shy and awkward boy like myself can approach him, I am confident anyone can successfully. When I learn the circumstances of their attempts I think I can see the issue. They approach with intent of making him see their perspective, rather than truly desiring to understand his. Some want to attack some flaw they see in him, and are surprised when he attacks back, shattering their glass house. Read the description of the cherubim in Ezekiel chapters 1 and 10 and tell me how comfortable any of us would feel approaching these sentinels of the chariot of God if we were anything but humble, sincere and contrite.

      This weekend there were reports of signs manifest, and interpretations given. I too saw signs and wonders.

      As my wife and I were visiting her Basque relatives in the valley of the sun we were walking one dark night among a small flock of sheep. As we approached the entrance of a large fort which promised refuge, we encountered several javelinas. I heard a noise and looked up and I saw a thin flat fire ball spinning as it streaked through the constellation Leo from head to tail. At the point of the mighty lion’s heart the meteor burst into seven pieces which surrounded the lion, but continued burning painfully bright. I beheld till it passed out of Leo through the lofty crown into Virgo, when the light of the comet became warm and subdued and as the pieces spun around seemed to unite into one again, which filled me with hope and peace. As the fragments continued spinning out from the woman-ward I could see they were still divided as they faded into the dark horizon.

      My only other thought is that maybe we can all agree to add the “Doctrine of Christ” and the “Law of Christ” as a movement-wide “Guide and Standard”, with no other title, and leave room for individuals or fellowships to add principles, titles, or documents as they see fit and the spirit directs. Does this satisfy the Lord’s requirement and all of the competing parties without compulsion, humiliation, or unjust judgement?

      -Sam Vaughn

      Delete
    3. Beautiful, Sam. I am moved by your heavenly sign. Your description of what happened last Saturday is correct. I've wondered if anyone else spent Saturday and Sunday an emotional mess. I still feel so.

      I agree with your idea to add Christ's doctrine and law as our foundational guide and standard. Rare is the Christian who understands both and lives them.

      From the last sentence of the 'mutual agreement' entry in the glossary of the T&C:

      "...perhaps His most godly example was the patience with which He dealt with those around Him kindly, patiently, correcting them when they largely came to Him with questions trying to trap Him, but affirmatively stating in the Sermon on the Mount how you could take a group and turn them into Zion itself, if we would live the Sermon on the Mount."

      I have a long way to go. Most days I'm unsure I will make it given my lengthy list of weaknesses.

      Delete
    4. Jay, when I hear or read "we, the covenant people" it feels a rather pompous thing to say. Am I all that special? Have I proven myself worthy to Him of such a label?

      I read this morning something in Christ's Answer that gave me pause about thinking of myself as His people.

      "Whenever I have people who are mine, I command them to build a house, a holy habitation, a sacred place where my presence can dwell or where the Holy Spirit of Promise can minister..." (T&C 157:41)

      Given that we have not been given such a command, is it right and accurate for me or us to claim we are His people at this point?

      "Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required." (T&C 157:56, last line.)

      That comes at the end of several admonishments and corrections. Have we done any of those things? (157:49-56)

      I cannot agree with a clear conscience to any statement including a title of "we, His people."

      Delete
  13. Rob and Q,

    I never called you contentious. That wasn’t me. And I do not desire to be separated from you, in fact just the opposite. From the moment in the meeting when Rob suggested he was being driven out because of the vote, I expressed my love for him and told him I didn't want him to go anywhere. My attitude from the beginning has been that we have a difference of opinion — and that's all. I do not wish to be divided from you. If you knew my heart, you would know that. And, more importantly, no one at the conference that I heard or talked to wishes to be separated from you. Again, just the opposite, I heard many expressions of love directed toward the both of you, and the desire expressed that you stay.

    I am sorry If Rob felt ganged up on after the conference. It wasn’t my idea to engage with anyone other than the folks opposed to the majority’s choice. But once outside the conference you engaged with them, Rob. And you had multiple supporters in that group. I didn’t want to tell you that you shouldn’t continue to talk with them if you wanted to. But, as soon as it became obvious that you’d rather not continue the discussion with others, I suggested we move away from the group. If that was unpleasant for you I’m sorry. Truly.

    I am happy to take responsibility for including the “lots” document in my own set of scriptures. I am at peace with that. It was not my first choice of documents, but I am happy to support the preference of the majority. I really do believe that is more important than getting my way.

    I love you both,
    Gordon

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have heard plenty about how the majority should "get their way" because they are the majority. I have never heard any of the minority seek to get their way, but only to ensure that the Lord gets HIS way, for it is the Lord that placed the requirements upon the people:

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

    When you have an agreed statement of principles *I require* it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow.

    This is the reason we are here--to see if we will follow the commandments of God no matter how "impossible" they might seem, to see if we will call on HIM in faith to hold us accountable for our weakness and teach us how to overcome.

    We can't just set aside what HE requires. If we will meet God where He calls us then, as the Adolphos say, unity will be the byproduct because we will all be standing in the same place--in love with our Redeemer!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I feel very comfortable printing out the "Lot's" version of the guide and standard. I will print it out and add it to my Teachings and Commandments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bryce, you are precious, therefore I would caution you to ignore the command of our Lord for "mutual agreement". We have seen by sad experience what happens to groups of people who begin to ignore direct commandments from the Lord. Please give your decision some very serious thought. Please don't add anything to your Teachings and Commandments lightly, but of course you are so free to do as you'd like and while I don't support any action in opposition to the command of Our Lord, I do support you because we are equal.

      Delete
  16. The Lot Guide and Standard needs to be corrected in the part where it describes the Covenant ordinance. "Read aloud the Prayer for Covenant, " needs to be added or else the ordinance will not be complete.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous,

    Wondering if you can provide a reference for that suggested correction?

    I see in the A&C that it says this: "I will give to you words to speak to the people to accept my covenant, and you shall read those words to them. Read first to the people these words I now speak, and then read the words of the covenant, and the people who will receive and do my words and my covenant shall then stand and say, Yes." (p9)

    And in the opening remarks of the Covenant of Christ Conference, Denver said this: "Once the covenant is established, those sustained by seven women or a man inside his own family, who receive it, also have authority to administer the ordinance to others who want to be numbered among God’s people. To administer to others, repeat the ordinance, read aloud the Lord’s answer and the words of the covenant. Ask them to stand and say yes and they will become one of the Lord's covenant people. Do not change the words of the covenant, for to change an ordinance is to break it." (p2)

    I couldn't find mention of also reading the "Prayer for Covenant" as part of the ordinance.

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

    ReplyDelete