Thursday, March 8, 2018

Some Thoughts on Our Assignment

Some thoughts on our assignment

By: Edwin Wilde

Our assignment is to write -and then adopt- a statement of principles and then add it as a guide and standard.
The verb 'to add' conveys the idea that this statement is not THE guide and standard.  I believe this notion is supported by the prefix 'A' used instead of using 'THE' to preface the idea of what this statement of principles will be. (ie., 'A' guide and standard.)

In other words, this statement of principles is to be added to something else.  The only thing, to which it can be possibly added, is the body of scripture that has just been finished. 

Would it make sense that the body of scripture that we have just completed is THE guide and standard?  Would that justify the use of the prefix 'A' describing the required statement of principles as A guide and standard, instead of describing it as The Guide and Standard?  (i.e., we at times refer to 'the Law;' but when a bill gets ratified it is a law of the land, and not the Law of the land.)  To me this makes sense because we are going to add the statement of principles to the recently completed body of scriptures.

Wouldn't that mean that we have already agreed to be guided by the full content of the scriptures that we recently completed and received them as our standard?  (see the second promise in the A&C, wherein the Lord asks whether we will receive the scriptures as our standard by which we will govern ourselves and guide our words, thoughts and deeds.)

Would that mean that we have already accepted to receive as a standard and guide, the full content of what Jared Livesey has proposed as the statement of principles required by the Lord to be written and adopted? 

I believe this to be the case. 

Would the Lord require something to be adopted, that had already been adopted, and that by covenant?  To me that defies logic and reason, but above all, as I have taken this matter in consultation with the Lord, I am consistently persuaded that Jared is acting without knowledge.   That doesn’t mean that I think he is wrong or evil, but just that he isn’t any more informed than am I, regarding what the Lord intended to be the statement of principles.

However, Jared also brings up a good point that as of yet I have not heard to be satisfactorily resolved: if mutual agreement means that we choose not to dispute with one another; what happens when one person insists on their right to dispute?

So far I have heard people insist that the Lord couldn’t have meant unanimity when He used the term mutual agreement.  But that’s not the point.  What do we do when the Lord requires that as between one another, we choose not to dispute; and there are those among us who insist and refuse to desist from their right to dispute?  Do we really just kick them out? 

Who is going to play the part of referee to eject them?  Nobody was given the right to record the names of those who partook of the covenant, so does anyone have the right to kick another out of the covenant?  If not, does anyone have the right to tell another that they are heterodox because they do not submit to the orthodox? 

In this case, what is the orthodox?  Whatever the majority decides?  What happens when in the future a majority decides against the orthodox position of today?  Does that then become heterodox?  Or is it fundamental orthodoxy that cannot be moved?

It really seems to me that we are all acting without knowledge here.  When Joseph and Hyrum were taken, the saints were faced with having to act.  They voted without knowledge in which the result was that they received dear brother Brigham and his accompanying ‘ascent’ out of the lush green valley of Nauvoo into the barren, desolate mountain land of the Great Basin. 

It has been pointed out that of all the arguments that were advanced in trying to decide how best to act, nobody submitted the idea that their situation must only be resolved by revelation from God. 

I wonder if those who decided that Brother Brigham and his band of apostles were the guys to follow -after hearing the various arguments- had asked the Lord if He would accept that decision, what would have been the reply?  (Honestly I don’t doubt that there were those among that group who did just that.)  I believe that the Lord would have responded that such a decision was sufficient for His purposes.

You see, we’re not going to frustrate, impede or derail the Lord’s plans.  We are all very eager (myself included) to fulfill the purposes of the Lord in our lives.  However, mans plans generally get frustrated when we are impatient and decide that we need to act without knowledge. 

Now surely Nephi moved forward taking the spirit as his guide, without knowing beforehand what he was to do.  However, in doing so, Nephi was not acting against another commandment that the Lord had specifically given to him in that situation.

The LDS temple ceremony recounts how Adam and Eve acted because to them it seemed that there just was no other way to keep the commands of God.

Because of their relative chronological proximity to Enoch and Melchisedek, the Israelites just knew that there had to be a king, and therefore figured that if they could just get God to give them a king –based on the pattern of the neighboring nations- that they could then solve their problems.

Time after time, what we see in scripture are people who act without knowledge; and the results that follow are never positive.  They break one commandment that the Lord had given them in order to attempt to abide another commandment that they prioritized higher.  Yet the people never get closer to having Zion other than by crossing off another mistake not to commit from the list, for future generations hopefully to learn from. 

Some have suggested that we go to the Lord and concede failure.  I would rather see us go to Him as He suggests in the A&C, and concede that we don’t have enough knowledge to know how to proceed while also keeping all of the commandments that He has assigned to us.  Perhaps that’s the same thing, but the used car-salesmen in me, says that the second one sounds better and will hopefully inspire greater pity from the Lord than just going to Him, and saying, “we failed.”

Instead of forcing a vote -where we already know that there are those who dispute- would it be possible to come together in Phoenix in sackcloth, ashes, fasting, prayer and explain to the Lord that we don’t know how to proceed.  Let’s ask Him to help us understand what the way forward is when someone chooses to dispute and by this break the mutual agreement that otherwise might exist. 

Perhaps He has a revelation in the midst of all this that He wants us to receive.  Perhaps like the revelation that become the introduction to the Book of Commandments, what He intended all along was for us was to humble ourselves as low as the dust so that we would approach Him together –as He instructed in the A&C- and ask for His part. 

He has promised that if we would do this with contrition and sincerity of heart, that He would fulfill His part of the bargain.  Can we study how to come together with respect, reason and persuasion?  Can we meekly present this dispute to Him in humility and being contrite?  If so, can we have hope that from the time of Adam, down until the time that we solicit this answer from Him, He has always been willing to answer the honest seeker of Truth? 

God I hope so, because otherwise I just don’t know what to do anymore with regards to this thing.


  1. "Let’s ask Him to help us understand what the way forward is when someone chooses to dispute and by this break the mutual agreement that otherwise might exist."

    This is an inspired recommendation. Thank you.

  2. Denver states, “Each new dispensation is responsible for fixing the canon in order to reclaim truths, to correct errors and to adopt guiding principles applicable to their day.” (Pg. 7 Things to Keep Us Awake At Night) Moses and his people had guiding principles: Moses went to the Lord; the Lord spoke to Moses and gave him all the words, and all the judgments; Moses went to the people and told them; all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.” (Exodus 24:3)

    Moses told them to repent and follow Jesus Christ, receive the Spirit and be taught by heaven, which will reveal all things; but the people did not listen.

    For months and months, we disputed over the meaning of mutual agreement. Then Denver studies it out, asks and receives a definition. Now we are disputing over: whether or not this document is viewed as important; what it means; what it’s going to be used for; what light means; what heart means; what should we do about dissenters; and etc etc. I like and support Sam Vaughn and Edwin Wilde’s suggestions, because it wipes away all of our own understandings and views, making room to become converted to His views. We must receive counsel from Him, not give it. We have to get direction from Him, because it’s His lexicon we need, so that we can understand what He is asking of us and saying to us. This is His work, not mine not yours. Let’s let Him lead out.


  3. I don't know why there's an oft repeated inference that the people who do not agree are going to be "kicked out," "ejected"...or no longer part of the covenant. This is fear-mongering that keeps getting put forward. It is a form of manipulation that appeals to people's emotions, and it has an undertone of accusation to it that infers those who support anything with the majority are somehow without heart, judgmental, or taking away other's agency...or haven't taken the time to "hear" what others are saying. This just isn't right.

    We have been told repeatedly that it is okay to see this differently. It's "how" we are acting that is most important for the Lord right now. And if someone continues to dispute after a decision is made, then that can be between them and the Lord to learn whether they have jeopardized their situation with Him. No one in the body will be kicking anyone else out. But it is true that "how" one handles things that don't go their way, is just as important for the Lord to see as is anything else. For it shows our capacity to deal meekly, and gently with those around us, especially when our attempted persuasion fails to persuade, and we are left disappointed.

    It is incorrect to say "No One" proposed finding an answer through revelation. That just isn't true. Were you able to read into the hearts of others? Were you involved in the private petitions made by many, and God's answer to them? Were you involved in the group prayers that occurred? Just because a few disagreed with the manner revealed and shared with the body, does not mean revelation was not received all along the process. Nor was revelation lacking just because it came in pieces to different individuals, to combine as one whole. How glorious was that, that God spoke to numerous people to bring about a way forward!!! No ONE individual got to be looked to as "saving the day." I can remember Steve Van Leer posting several letters and comments testifying that he received revelation for his idea, and the others involved similarly sought and received revelation. They felt God's hand specifically unveil how things should be proposed to move this things forward. And, even now, Gordon has testified repeatedly that he has had revelation on this latest portion, and that God is the source...he's begged people to go ask God themselves. As the earlier revelations evolved and were shared, people were then at liberty to pray to ask God if He was behind the ideas proposed by Steve and those others connected with what happened. It is just not right to make a statement like you made.

    Finally, this continued inference that this GS assignment is much more grandiose than it is, doesn't work for most of us. It's a point of view being purported to object to what has been done in order to promote another agenda. The Lord said it could've been done already and was a light thing. Please, let's stop adding things into what the Lord actually said to build up our view. This is nothing hard. Some are making it hard. We are our own worst enemies. And it is due to pride, masking as "following God," that people are unwilling to make this easy and become so hard-line and inflexible in their positions. It is time we begin to discern between spirits. When one says "I am right and all the rest of you are wrong" spirit hears alarm bells. I think Denver even gave a talk where he stated this attitude was suspect.

    Thank you for trying, Edwin. But it is only a handful of people who insist on making this difficult and I do not want to be falsely "guilt tripped" into dragging this out under the pretenses of some higher revelation being required because the rest of us are lacking in revelation, or a false premise that it is unfair because unanimity wasn't achieved and we didn't listen or communicate enough, or the falsehood that one will be kicked out if they disagree.

    1. I think you are misunderstanding what Edwin is saying about asking for and getting revelation. It is true many have claimed revelation in this process, but you represent it as being altogether consistent with each other in one great whole. In reality, the revelations received by individuals or small groups have contradicted and competed against the revelations of the other groups. That is why we have so many groups that work in competition to each other.

      I believe Edwin's point is that we, as a united people, have not asked for, nor received guiding revelation in this.

      There is a qualifier to the phrase "it was a light thing" that we need to address. "If your hearts were right." My belief is our hearts are still not right. We still work in contention with each other. We are still competing. The spirit of competition is the spirit of contention. We all need to work on the same document, not two dozen. Until we understand that, the only principle that is being espoused is contention.

      Sam Vaughn

    2. Part 1:

      I want to clarify some things that hopefully will bring us closer together.
      To your first point:
      You're right: nobody gets kicked out by simply disagreeing with someone else in this movement.
      The decision on what to put in the scriptures as a statement of principles is supposed to occur by mutual agreement. We are told that mutual agreement means, that we choose not to dispute.
      Well who is supposed to be making the decision about which we are to agree not to dispute? The Scripture Committee that was called by God? Because if it is their job to put a document in the scriptures, I don't know how we even got here. Seriously. This website shouldn't exist and there is no 'voice of the people' to elect a document. 89%, 91%, 93% none of that should matter because it should be their assignment to complete and which they did complete and anyone that wants to dispute the document that they already put in the scriptures, should get to choose whether they will be in mutual agreement or not.
      However, I believe that we got here, precisely because the Scripture Committee has felt that upon reading the A&C, it was the Lord's people who having partook of the covenant, they are the ones that are supposed to write and adopt a statement of principles by mutual agreement. A document about which we choose not to dispute.

      Which brings me to my point in my OP. Who is going to decide what is the protocol we are to follow -being justified before God- when one, two, ten or four hundred decide to choose to dispute a document that another portion of those who have entered into the covenant, have decided they desire to add as a guide and standard?

      Excuse me if I have ignorantly passed over some information that would answer this for me. Pardon me if I ask for help in clearly being shown where the Lord outlined what He intended to do in this situation.

    3. Part 2:
      When you said, "It is incorrect to say "No One" proposed finding an answer through revelation" I think you misunderstood my point. I was pointing out that at the time after the murders of Joseph and Hyrum, neither Brigham nor Sidney suggested resolving the succession crisis by appealing to the Lord and waiting for Him to reveal His position on the matter before acting.

      I know that revelation has been received by many within this movement. However, almost to a man, everyone that has produced a document that they put forth as a statement of principles has claimed that the Lord told them that their document is the one that He finds wants or finds sufficient.

      Which leads me to ask: is God trifling with us? Did He require this document of us without really caring about what we produced? Does it really not matter which document that gets produced? Can anyone come up with their own document, and have it be acceptable to the Lord?

      Adrian Larsen has pointed out that a few of them are mutually exclusive. Yet once again, the documents that he highlighted, each claim to be the one document which the Lord said He wants and finds sufficient.

      You point out that the Lord said that this assignment was supposed to be a light thing. Yet I am still in limbo about what He means by that. Does He mean not heavy, or does He mean light being the opposite of darkness?

      I know there are many people who have felt inspiration as they have moved forward in what they feel are their best efforts to complete this assignment. I was a fellowship representative that attended the first 3 meetings and participated in many prayers and counsels that all felt very inspired.

      However, upon reflection, I wonder about that short-order-cook-god that Denver identified and who seems to direct everyones inspiration (mine included) since the beginning of the disputing started almost a year ago. That god seems to inspire everyone to know that their document or effort to produce a document is exactly that which He wanted and approves.

      Is there anyone that has produced a new proposal to produce a new document since March of last year, that has shown that what they thought was right was actually then rebuked, chastened and then taught by the Lord what His desired portion is?

    4. Part 3:

      I am without knowledge on this. That state is not for a lack of prayer, pondering and study. I have asked, I have searched and I have knocked. Increasingly what I see is more fracturing, more fighting, more choosing to dispute. Yet all from people that I am convinced do not want to fight the Lord; but who may or may not be fighting the Lord.

      Can you share some knowledge with me? And I am not talking about knowledge in the way that LDS use it. I am not talking about what you really, really, really believe about any of this. In my total ignorant, deplorable state I plead with you to share with me some knowledge or confess that you -like me- don't know what to do.

      I am not suggesting that by asking of you that, that if you do not have knowledge from the Lord about how to act, that you should sit and do nothing. If you want to go forward claiming that you don't 'know' what to do, but you're confident in whatever you have/will decide, then I commend you for it.

      However, as for me the way forward seems to me to be provided in the A&C when the Lord says that instead of disputing, we each bring our dispute before the Lord in humility, accepting before Him that we don't KNOW what to do.

    5. Something I've been thinking about...

      Chapter 4 in Dave's The Second Comforter talks about the test of apparent imminent failure:

      >One of the necessary experiences through which you must pass is the experience of apparent imminent failure. This experience is as necessary to your development as was Christ’s experience on the Cross when the Father withdrew His presence from Christ.

      >This is no random history. It is a description of the things which everyone who seeks to know from God about His great mysteries must pass through. It is a formula for how this process works. It is the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is what He would have you do, as well.

      This might be where we are as a people. Mutual agreement is impossible as long as humans have free will. We get us through this. I don't know what.

    6. Random curiosity: was this written by Mr. or Mrs. M?
      Because I would guess based on the organization of thought, that it was written by Mrs. But use of the name Dave makes me think it could have been Mr.

      I definitely have felt the imminence of our failure in the impossibility of achieving mutual agreement. Which makes me feel like we either need to get more knowledge from the Lord, or something else that I can't wrap my head around but I'm sure at this point is going to be uncomfortable, at least for me.

      (by the way, are you coming to Phoenix?)

    7. TBM's writing, Mrs TBM's ideas. Not coming to Phoenix.

  4. I second Edwin's proposal. Sackcloth and ashes and waiting on the Lord sounds way better to me than rushing the pass.

  5. I am in agreement with asking Christ for direction on moving forward.

  6. Amen. Thanks Darren.
    There is no time frame. We keep setting dates, voting, dates, voting, dates. Ugh

    The man in Denvers vision kneels, waits on the Lord.... And after a long time, the Lord comes and takes the man by the hand.
    Can't we just wait? Focus on studying the Covenant, loving one another, becoming holy studying the Standard and Guide which is the Scriptures themselves.

  7. I agree Edwin. You've said it better than I did.

  8. I think we all need to take a step back and try and live each proposal put forth. Only time, experience, careful contemplation, study and prayer will reveal to us the truth of the matter.

  9. Edwin thank you for your post. I support it.

    You’ve done a great job of taking the challenges we as a body are encountering and forming that into a question we can take to God.

    This is an example of a petition that is in my heart at the present moment to the Lord, that I believe aligns with your OP. I would gladly join with others in expressing anything along these lines in Phoenix. Others might be more eloquent, but this is my feeble attempt.

    Father in heaven, we have labored as a body to compose the required statement of principles but admittedly have divisions, and have members who yet choose to dispute. We have members who are weary of all the tools we have thus far attempted to utilize, and we confess that as yet have not been able to succeed in fulfilling the assignment in a way we all feel is honorable and indicative of the destination we desire to reach.

    How would you direct us to fulfill this assignment in our present circumstance when there are many with inspiration they feel is from you but which sometimes conflict with each other. How would you likewise direct us when we have those among us who elect to continually dispute and break the mutual agreement we might otherwise have?

    We as a body would rather wait patiently upon you than rush ahead and yet again fall short of the beliefs we profess. We acknowledge you have instructed and corrected us in the A&C,for which we are thankful. As we each attempt to live those teachings in our individual lives we petition for further direction in the completion of this assignment, petitioning your merciful hand to heal our hearts that we may be one. Help us make this assignment a light thing by revealing your part, and if needed correcting us. We are weak, broken, and prone to err, but we believe through Christ, all things are possible.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Above anonymous is me. The one with the prayer @8:52pm. Apologies for posting without my name.


  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. Edwin,

    How do you keep all of the Anonymous' in order. The first one seemed aggressive. The next signed his name, so he's not really anonymous (Sam). But the third seemed to be easily intreated, understanding the conundrum you described. I recognized kindred spirits in the third. I am tempted to give the anonymous writers super hero names like Peter Parker, or Bruce Wayne, or Clarke Kent, just so I can keep them organized in my own head.

    But, now that I think of it, our ability to hear the voice of the Lord in the document is really being tested hear. If the other documents were animated by Christ, then I sure don't recognize it. And by the sounds of people's reactions, claiming that it isn't good, but it's not bad, and it's not like the content is not true, ...well that can come from a myriad of places.

    I truly believe that the Lord would never give a commandment save He already prepared a way to accomplish it. Denver was removed from the task just as Lehi was removed. The voice of the Lord made His wishes known to Nephi, and the task was complete. It seems like the same pattern that Nephi relied upon ought to be the same pattern that we rely upon. And that is the voice of the Lord, whether it is to receive the revelation and write it down, or if it is to read what has been written, discern the voice of the Lord in the content, either case you must be seeking the voice of the Lord.

    Thanks Edwin. I'm down with your suggestion. I think it represents meekness and humility much more than simply rolling over to submit to a process of voting.

    Rob Adolpho

    1. Rob I’m anon 3. I sense the same kindred spirit in you and Q. I’m therefore motivated to wait on the Lord, and build relationships until God answers.

    2. Rob, I am sorely tempted to claim Diana--Wonder Woman. Haha!

      On a less frivolous note, I've been considering Nephi and his brothers lately.

      I'm curious about the pattern I see and would like to hear your thoughts.

      1. Nephi could have just offered up to follow the voice of the Lord at the beginning, but instead went along with a method his brothers understood and had faith in. Perhaps he let Laman lead out even.

      2. They sacrificed (again) every worldly thing they still had, including Mom's beautiful China and Dad's fav Hawaiian shirt.

      3. Nephi and his brothers have now exhausted their own ideas and problem-solving abilities. Things get hairy, scary violent requiring an angel to stop thge crazy darkness. But Nephi has tremendous faith and understood the importance of taking the record with them into the wilderness. His ability to inspire faith where there was none is quite amazing to witness.

      4. Then the magic happens and he's taking steps not even knowing where they will lead him. We know the fruit born from his yet greater sacrifice at that point. Nephi knew the voice of the Spirit. He also knew the word of the Lord and how to apply it (wisdom).

      What is in this account for us to understand and liken to ourselves concerning our own task? Is our next step a sacrifice of some kind? What could we as a body offer up? Why didn't Nephi go forth on his own to begin with? Was the task given to all the brothers or just Nephi? His brothers lacked sufficient faith and relationship to begin with, else they could have joined the effort and seen the hand of the Lord as Nephi had. I'm curious to know what you see.

  12. 1 of 2

    Lori/Diana (tee hee),

    The system of efforts, in the experience of the Lehi-Boys retrieving the brass plates, I think can be isolated and viewed as a trial of their faith. It is a common theme in the BOM for proving, and you would probably see the same pattern in terms of Abinadi to preach the message without fear of death, in terms of Alma the older, to leave the order of Noah/ escape/ and preach in the wilderness, in terms of Ammon in relation to King Lamoni and his father, etc. Likewise, the effort to write a statement of principles reflects a system of trying our faith.

    As we are currently within the event, I find it difficult/impossible to draw a one to one connection that perfectly parallel’s ours (the answers in the back of the book so to speak), between Nephi’s case and ours, or any of the scripture stories for that matter. I believe they were given as “patterns” to unveil the Lords correct perfections, attributes and characteristics, …for us to extract and “know ye the Lord.” And then, knowing the Lord, we too can exercise faith as did the ancient fathers. Thus we become sons of God because we turned our hearts to the example and promises of the fathers.

    Although we are left to patterns, it is sufficient. I have had to draw on those patterns, around every corner throughout this project, trusting in the voice of the Lord, while simultaneously staring into “The Governing Principles Abyss.” From the first meeting until our upcoming March conference, votes have been taken, and accusations get thrown about frivolously. I have been called dark, evil, and contentious. I am constantly left to face the reality that I cannot lie to God and vote along with the ideas of others because they misalign with the instructions of the Lord to me. And the majority pushes the movement in the direction where I cannot support, where I’m left not belonging to any community, LDS or this movement. I think it’s a pattern of contemplating the darkest abyss.

    As I face “The Governing Principles Abyss,” I don’t feel tired or exhausted. Instead, I feel invigorated through it all, knowing that it is through the difficulty that strength is built, unshaken faith is built, and power is obtained. I intend to build on my faith, like the ancient prophets, and call each day a good day to die. Often times it truly feels as close to an abyss as I understand the term. But, I do not fear it, and am willing to face it, holding true to the things I know, while not trying to push through the things I know, that I don’t know (opinions).

  13. 2 of 2

    Laman and Lemuel could not trust in faith that they had not developed. To them, it was always a matter of opinion. They relied upon their logic and their opinions. In the absence of faith, what else can you rely upon, besides logic and opinion? Leaving Jerusalem, retrieving the plates, getting girls to marry, finding food and building a boat was all a matter of logic and opinion to Laman and Lemuel. But, to Nephi, it was a matter of faith. Follow the storyline in your memory, comparing the experience of Nephi to his older brothers Laman and Lemuel, and you will have witnessed the reality of Alma 12:10-11. Nephi receives the lesser portion of the word, showing it by acting on faith, until he received the greater portion of the word, …knowing the mysteries of God in full. Laman and Lemuel did not receive the lesser portion of the word and wound up knowing nothing of the mysteries, being bound by the chains of hell. The first verse of first Nephi is the most read verse, yet most people who read it miss that Nephi immediately tells us the reason why he writes his scripture: because he had acquired “Great Knowledge” of the goodness and mysteries of God! Abraham was a follower of righteousness, seeking the “Great Knowledge” that Nephi starts his record claiming he already acquired. Did you catch that? Nephi had it (Great Knowledge), and thus wrote the record he writes! Step back and look at Nephi’s example, he was constantly stuck in situations, forced to look into and contemplate the abyss, left to trust in the Lord. So I have taken to adopt Nephi’s mentality to live, trusting the voice of the Lord, even when it requires me to look into the darkest abyss.

    If Zion is where this is going, and I believe it is, then I think that my attitude is correctly aligned with Joseph Smith’s two-edged advice to stretch our minds into the highest most heavens and contemplate the darkest abyss, as it is stated in the King Follet Discourse, …concluding with, “Thou must commune with God!”

    From our pre-mortal existence, we were certain that coming here had the potential to risk, and lose it all. We never would have come under those conditions alone. But Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, and that made the risk worth it; knowing that not one hair of our head would be lost on the down side; and that the treasures offered on the up-side was for man to become redeemed, and to learn to become precisely what God is. The up-side is far greater than the down-side because of the Lamb Slain from the foundations of the Earth! We have a chance before us right now to stretch our minds into the highest most heavens, but the price we must also pay is to face contemplating the darkest abyss.

    I don’t know where the Lord’s voice is leading me in this Governing Principles project. But I know enough to not stay where the majority is recommending, …and that leaves me to contemplate the abyss of my choices. And that aligns in my mind with Nephi’s experience of retrieving the plates. I have studied it out in my heart and mind, and now I must act on the instruction given to me, not knowing before hand how this will all turn out. Perhaps I will be required to burn as Abinadi. No matter, it’s a good day to die!

    Thank you for asking the question. I really enjoyed writing this. I hope it’s received as I intended: to exhilarate, pump you up with hope in the Lamb Slain, and cause us all to stretch our minds into the highest heavens for our Governing Principles, being willing to contemplate the darkest abyss, to walk through the valley of the shadow of death, fearing no evil, and communing with God!

    Rob Adolpho

    1. Thank you for all you are willing to share, Rob. I do feel pumped up in a way, though I have much fear and trembling before Christ over this whole thing.

      “The Governing Principles Abyss” -- that should be the new name of this blog. It sure is accurate at this point.

      I feel lit up inside when I read the King Follett sermon. It is the same experience when I read the A&C, or the Book of Mormon, or Bible, or Pearls, or things Denver has written. What a contrast to what I experience going through this process!

      I get what you are describing as an abyss, like a "Dark Night of the Soul" (St. John of the Cross). It appears there are a number of these nights or abysses to be experienced, each growing in complexity and risk, along our individual paths. No wonder so few are chosen. Ima gettin' my arse kicked.

      But how I love the Book of Mormon! I appreciate what you have shared, and how easily you see these things and share them. Written for us, to us. The patterns, the life-giving light, the wisdom and knowledge, all to teach us how to rise up, to follow the steps to obtain Great Knowledge! I tend to be slower at connecting all the dots, but eventually I manage to. I probably should not make negative pronouncements upon myself, wouldn’t want them turning into prophecies, but I tend to say that I will be the one running into Zion trailing smoke. ;) Close call!

      Two favorite thoughts shared by Nephi: “And I, Nephi, did go into the mount oft, and I did pray oft unto the Lord, wherefore the Lord showed unto me GREAT THINGS.” And, “O, wretched man that I am! …”

      I read something on a blog recently that startled me and I am still trying to comprehend what it means and how it might have bearing to me in this moment. It had to do with the certain number of apostles in Jerusalem and disciples in America asking to be with Christ when they die while one and three instead asked to remain to help Him do His work. I consider the choice of the "majority" versus the choice of the "minority" and wonder if something is there for me to understand about a potential guide and standard. Could a G&S influence me to one desire more than the other? Should it, or is it to be just a statement, like the Wentworth Letter? Can it not only point me to Christ but cause me to love others so much I share the desires of Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni that “salvation should be declared to every creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble”? Is this not His same work today? Is it not the same work He desired to do in the days of Father Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Noah, Yeshua, Joseph, and dare I say it out loud, Denver? "It is my will that you love one another." This is my view of Eternity, where Gods condescend to serve, bless, help, save. That is love to me.

      One day I hope we can all meet up and share more laughter than what all has been spoken here. But we must needs get our hearts right. I, like you, desire to remain true to the Beacon placed inside my heart before I was born. I believe there is a reason for each person who is present in this moment as part of a hopeful-covenant body. If I can stay and move and think from a place of love for each person, not trying to change anyone, not becoming resentful but accept everyone as they are and where they are at on their paths to Christ, I am able to maintain a good sense of peace and joy still yet.

      PS—As a once upon a time raised in the South girl who spent her entire adolescence in government-subsidized housing, I can relate to your wisecracks and do not think you racist at all! Or contentious! We gotta find humour in those dark spaces of life, rather than take ourselves overly serious. It’s just a skin color. :)

    2. Part of the answer on the clarification to Mutual Agreement was the insight that the Lord could have disputed with someone every day of his life. But he chose not to. I don't see very many people talking about that part of the clarification on what mutual agreement means. If someone in contrast disputes at every single opportunity, sometimes hourly, I wonder if they somehow feel they have greater reason or justification to dispute with others than the Lord had?

  14. Edwin
    Love and support your thinking.
    Here’s what has been on my mind and I think they work together.
    If you are not one you are not Mine!
    Since currently we are not one, we are not His!
    I don’t care, what mission from God you think you are on, what “agenda” you feel must be set forth at all costs. Causing contention and disrupting the need for unity demonstrates through your fruits you are not the Lords. Therefore, no matter how correct your agenda may be, you are on your own errand, not Gods!
    There’s a lot of talk about living the teachings of the Sermons of the Mount and Bountiful, but it appears scarce in actual practice among us!
    If we were one, we would be Gods, and if we were Gods, we would have His help; direction would come.
    But if we are not one, we are not Gods and we are on our own. Which means we are using the logic of men and trusting in the arm of flesh; and whether a white, brown, yellow or black arm, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s the arm of flesh and corrupted whatever cursed or celebrated ancestry.
    Because if we are not one we are not abiding the covenant, not His, and have no promise, therefore no guidance on a better way, the way forward as a people.
    Perhaps make the priority, becoming united in our goal of abiding the covenant, and in doing so maybe we can begin to become one. Then all things will become light things!
    If you think; you, or your view, group, or your document, is the only way to save the covenant people, we have already failed! WE must do this together and with His guidance and way, not ours!

  15. Denver said that as we moved forward individuals would self select out of the group of covenant people.

    Couldn't choosing to dispute something that the vast majority are united upon be that self selection?

    Those who are choosing not to dispute have mutual agreement.

    I don't believe the Lord indicated that IF someone chooses to disupte then that holds up the entire group trying to accomplish what the Lord asked us to do and for which He gave revelation to many individuals that was acceptable to Him.

    In Dallas Denver said that there will be many differences among us - we only have to be united upon the Doctrine of Christ (which we all already are and have stood and said "Yes") and the Law of Christ (from the Sermon on the Mount - which we all already are united upon and have stood and said "Yes").

    There is absolutely nothing in the Guide and Standard produced by the LOT process which adds more or less than the PRINCIPLES espoused in the Doctrine of Christ and the Law of Christ. It is a conglomeration of teachings given by God's sent messenger in our day. For the life of me I can't understand the logic in rejecting a Guide and Standard which would indeed bless, benefit and inform those who know nothing of this work to be able to fellowship together in a manner which would help ANYONE to keep the Law of Christ and to follow the Doctrine of Christ.

    Christ commanded that there be no disputations among us. The vast majority of the voice of this people doth choose righteousness. This does not mean that those few who choose to dispute don't also choose righteousness in their own minds. However, Denver has also taught that not everyone has a sound mind and angels won't appear to those who do not have a sound mind. Joseph also taught that it does not mean that a man is not a good man just because he errs in doctrine.

    Therefore - it is a light thing to do. I agree with Edwin that THE GUIDE AND STANDARD is the Holy Scriputes that we have accepted. And yes, there is an additional Statement that needs to be added to that to be able to bless, benefit and inform people who don't know how to move forward.

    Denver spent a year and 10 lectures - given by revelation directly from Jesus Christ - to what end? To begin a new dispensation and establish ancient Christianity through establishing fellowships to worship together in. He then proceeded to provide many principles and teachings on how we should fellowship with one another. The LOT proposals is an inspired collection of those teachings put in one document which very much indeed blesses, benefits and informs anyone who woudln't be familiar with this work.

    Yes, Denver is a man. But as 3 Nephi 21 tells us "there would be many who would NOT beleive it - although a man should declar it unto them". Everyone who is choosing to dispute because they don't want to "trust in the arm of the flesh" - well then you all "trusted in the arm of flesh" to even be here, reading this blog and to have received the covenant didn't you. God sends messengers and they are mortals.

    How can accepting a Guide and Standard compiled of teachings from God's servant bring condemnation and "defraud" the Lord when they "bless, benefit and inform" people on how they can better keep and live the Law of Christ and Doctrine of Christ.

    Maybe "choosing to dipute" does identify something. But it may not be siding with the Lord.

    In Acts, chapter 5 - there is a great lesson for us here. It could go both ways.

    38 And now I say unto you, aRefrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of bmen, it will come to nought:

    39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; alest haply ye be found even to bfight against God.

    1. Amen. Well said.

    2. I view this task to be in part about me showing what is in my heart, how I will respond to others and whether or not I will seek them out to help them come to Christ, rather than viewing them as self-selecting for something else; as though I am a bright, shining star in the heavens and they are choosing the dark side of the moon.

      One person choosing to dispute does not impact any individual's growth or journey to Christ. But if one person chooses to view others as less than or negatively different in some way, growth is slowed or stopped.

      As regards this task of creating a statement, when I imagine a group of individuals who have all chosen not to dispute with one another, I envision a group of people holding hands standing in a circle. Anyone choosing to dispute is standing on the outside, not holding hands, not encircled by those of the circle.

      My heart is such that if I am standing as part of a circle of people but notice one or more standing outside looking on, I want to understand why; I want to hear their stories and see if they won't come and join in. Or perhaps I should join them? If they truly desire to join with us in the circle I will seek to open a way for one and all to come join, even to invite them to stand in the center so I may learn from them and offer love and support until they feel they can hold my hand.

      I am not interested in standing with my back to anyone trying to pretend they do not exist or are unimportant.

      It is one thing for someone to self-select by turning around and walking away from me. It is quite another for her to remain close by and say she desires to be with me on my journey.

      This is how I feel I can ensure my heart is right, with Christ and with others who may disagree with me. I will seek to help and serve them, without resentment, jealousy, hurt, or anger.

      I want to learn to let go of resentment, judgment, backbiting, finger-pointing, pride, self-righteousness, and any other bricks that can be used to build a wall. I want to be inclusive.

      I was given a dream the beginning of January where I was shown what pride in my life looks like. I was horrified...HORRIFIED, and have since been praying and working harder at letting Christ heal me. I've been propped up and filled with so much fluff of rights and self-aggrandizement and instant gratifications and pride in myself throughout life that healing these parts takes time and attention and willingness to change. I feel that is universally true.

      We love a good "righteousness will kick virtue's ass every day" story, thinking righteousness is all about being right or appearing strong and united in number. Yet the One who is Righteousness was laid low to the earth in Gethsemane pleading for release and bared butt-naked on a cross for all the world to deride and humiliate, and this after a lifetime of obedience to His Father in all things. Any takers on that experience?

      Sometimes we have to be willing to put on a new lens prescription in order to see someone else's view. If I am unwilling to do that, I'm not willing to leave the 99 to seek out the 1.

  16. Part 1
    The reality of this situation is that the majority and minority labels have been incorporated into our conversations. These are not terms I came up with, these are labels individuals came up with that have stuck. However, the minority (AKA opposition, disputers, rebel rousers, 1/3, dark, evil, someone with their own agenda, ambitious and on and on) are individuals who are not connected into one group. Everyone here knows my position, so it is easy to see that I am on the “minority” side. The minority have not banded together, so to lump a bunch of individuals under one category is misleading. The “minority” are individuals making their individual voices known. So, when the majority writes and says something to the “minority” you are addressing individuals, so I take it personally. Anonymous, It’s a bit difficult to know who you are addressing and if you want it to be addressed, especially when indirect comments are being made to this “minority” group. The “minority” individuals aren’t many, so I’m not sure why it’s difficult to address that individual directly.

    The majority on the other hand have individuals who represent the majority: for example, Anonymous states, "Finally, this continued inference that this GS assignment is much more grandiose than it is, doesn't work for most of us." Who is most of us? and Who are you? It’s difficult to address the unknown majority. Rob and I have been told to not name names, as it comes off as calling someone out. So, I am left to address the majority as a whole. But now I am finding out that individuals, who are part of the majority, take it personally and then point to the “minority” and make general statements to the minority as a whole instead of just addressing me. Is this confusing? It is for me.

    If you are going to address the “minority”, why not just be direct and address who you want to talk to, especially if you are going to write anonymously. When you are addressing the “minority” and you point out something one individual has done but use the “minority/the few” label, it is difficult to address it, because it is kept in the abstract. It’s easier for me to address issues if you are just direct. Instead of saying the “few” just put names to it. If you think that saying the names is calling that person out and bad, then why bother saying “few” because when you do people have an immediate assumption of who the “few” are anyways.

    Anonymous, you stated: "Joseph also taught that it does not mean that a man is not a good man just because he errs in doctrine." Well you left out the following, Joseph Smith said: “I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (DHC 5: 340.) I do not believe anyone should ever be subject to church discipline for believing false doctrine. The false teaching should be overcome by teaching the truth, not by stifling discussion. The quickest way for truth to triumph is to allow free discussion. When we are open, the truth will always win out.

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. Part 2
    "Now, as a complete aside, I want to address the misapplication and overreaching misinterpretation of the idea one is “evil speaking” when a person explains something that concerns them. First, we are dealing with the souls of men. We are addressing salvation itself. If there is an error in doctrine or practice, everyone has an obligation to speak up, from the least to the greatest. (D&C 20: 42, 46-47, 50-51, 59, among other places.) Second, the “truth” cannot ever be “evil.” Though the truth may cut with a two edged sword, truth is not and cannot be “evil.” Therefore, if someone should say something that is untrue or in error, then correct their doctrine, show the error, but do not claim what is good to be evil, nor support what is evil by calling it good. (2 Ne. 15: 20.) Using a broad generalization to stifle a discussion of the truth is a trick of the devil, who is an enemy to your soul. It is not the way of our Lord. He was always open to questions, always willing to answer questions, ever willing to speak the truth even when it caused those with authority over Him to be pained by His words. We must follow Him, and not men, in that example. Even if we would personally prefer to not endure insults but remain silent. So, rather than condemn something as “evil speaking” that you believe to be wrong, explain the error and bring us all into greater understanding. But if something is true, then even if it disturbs your peace of mind, it cannot be evil."

  19. Q,

    You quoted Denver, "If there is an error in doctrine or practice, everyone has an obligation to speak up, from the least to the greatest. (D&C 20: 42, 46-47, 50-51, 59, among other places.) Second, the “truth” cannot ever be “evil.” Though the truth may cut with a two edged sword, truth is not and cannot be “evil.”

    Please point out the error or falsehood of having an added Guide and Standard which includes the very teachings of this prophet you are quoting. You rightly believe that we do have the right to speak up and point out error and un-truth. But by disputing the acceptance of a Guide and Standard which summarizes teachings by this same messenger who claims that all of his public teachings come from the mind of God - then are you not rejecting the words of Christ given to "bless, benefit and inform man"

    I really would like to know why those who dispute a document like the LOT G&S feel that it would be a bad thing to be "held accountable" to live such teachings. How can acceptinga document which helps us to keep the Law of Christ and Doctrine of Christ be a curse?

    1. Anonymous,

      If you want to present this document to the Lord as your fruits, I can respect that. If you want to choose, out of all the teachings the Lord has given us, by way of Denver and even Joseph Smith, these words, I can respect that. If you want these to be the fruits you offer, I am not in your way of doing so. Out of all the words that have been offered I would choose different words making my fruits different than yours- for instance, I would choose words that speak about the idea of coming into his presence, face to face, having a personal relationship with Him without any man between me and HIm. Your document doesn't say anything like that, yet that's what has brought us together in the first place.

      You have asked if there is anything inherently wrong? From my point of view, yes, there is something inherently wrong with the Lots document. Looking at each principle in an isolated manner, and the document seems harmless. But considered as a whole, it leads to nowhere. The assignment serves a purpose, and the men your document quotes know that purpose, but you have combined them into a cut and paste collage of your own design. Whose mind and will ordered the heavens? That's whose mind and will ought to order this effort. Currently, your document has no direction. There's no direction to remove the necessity for an overarching governing body, like a scripture committee. There's no direction for the use of the document once it's published. What's to stop this from becoming the same things as the LDS, the methodist, the baptist, etc.? You have reduced men of grand vision to a short order check list, and that is inherently wrong to me. Where the people have no vision, the people perish.


  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. Furthermore...

    Those disputing the acceptance of the LOT G&S - do you now also reject this teaching from the same messenger of God who taught this regarding salvation:

    "What if salvation is not determined by grace alone, by works alone, or even some combination of the two? What if it comes from the ministry of one sent by God to declare salvation? And faith comes by hearing the message like Paul taught (Rom. 10:17). Paul was expounding a passage from Isaiah (Isa. 53:1), a prophet sent by God. Paul was likewise sent with a message from God. What if the meaning is that in order to receive salvation it is essential that the believer receive a message from a minister actually sent by God with a message for our day and time?

    "What if salvation requires the same thing now as when Isaiah preached and prophesied, and when Paul taught, and when Christ ministered to mankind?

    "What if there is a necessary relationship between the sender of a message (God) and the speaker of the message (one sent by God) in order for the message to actually result in salvation for the hearer-believer?

    "Who has believed our report, indeed? And who, then, has saving faith?"

    The LOT G&S is nothing but a compilation of revelations given to this messenger sent by God. Why dispute that? Is this teaching from Denver NOT true? Are you willing to say that?

  22. I have created a slide presentation to share my thoughts on all of this. It basically proposes that we use the words of Christ alone as an offering of thanksgiving and that if we cannot have mutual agreement at this time, we wait rather than break the commandment of God. I guess it will not be posted on this site officially, so I've posted it to an old blog (thus, the name Dani). You can find it here:

    1. That's great stuff Dani. One reason why I like the words direct through Christ's mouth over the words of Christ through Denver's mouth is the message it sends to "others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless, benefit and inform them"

      --it says to those new to the covenant that this is a fellowship of Christ, and not a new church of Denver Snuffer.

    2. Seriously--that slideshow is the clearest case I've seen for the DoC + Sermon

    3. In this slide show you state: "I do not believe He is asking us to innovate. (Nowhere does His request indicate that, not even the use of the word “write.”)"

      Yet - in your very next slide you quote from the Answer and Covenant wherein the Lord does say that we are to "write" a statement to be added:

      “I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you” (A&C, p. 8).

    4. Dani, I am saddened to learn your proposal presentation has not been given its own post on this blog. Greatly saddened. Seems not right given all the other ones.

      But thank you for it! I feel you did a good and succinct job in stating why we should choose Christ's words. You have outlined all the reasons why I am wonderfully okay with only using the Doctrine of Christ and His Law as spoken in the Sermon on the Mount and at Bountiful. It has nothing to do with anything Jared has said. It is solely because of the words of Christ Himself. They fill me with Light.

    5. I appreciate your kind words to me and to Jared.

  23. Dani,

    So Denver's public teachings are not the words of Christ? Is that what you are now saying?

    Does Denver speak with the tongue of angels because He speaks the words of Christ?

    If we don't believe that then that's fine - but let's just put this out there....Doesn't this all come down to whether or not we believe His public teachings are from God? He has claimed that. Do we not believe him now? Is that not what we are saying when we cannot accept a document which contains some of his most inspired teachings?

    1. I am saying whether or not YOU accept the teachings of Denver Snuffer as the words of Christ, you don't get to tell "others who know nothing, as yet, of [Christ's] work now underway" that they must accept the teaching of Denver Snuffer or anyone other than Christ in order to seek God. God has the power to direct people through the Holy Spirit and light of Christ to whomever He chooses, and people can be guided by that alone.

    2. Denver speaks the words of Christ, but using the words of Christ puts the focus on Christ. Using the words of Christ through Denver's mouth puts more of a focus on Denver. It's more of a step towards LDS 2.0.

    3. So, then this is a false teaching by Denver?

      "What if salvation is not determined by grace alone, by works alone, or even some combination of the two? What if it comes from the ministry of one sent by God to declare salvation? And faith comes by hearing the message like Paul taught (Rom. 10:17). Paul was expounding a passage from Isaiah (Isa. 53:1), a prophet sent by God. Paul was likewise sent with a message from God. What if the meaning is that in order to receive salvation it is essential that the believer receive a message from a minister actually sent by God with a message for our day and time?

      "What if salvation requires the same thing now as when Isaiah preached and prophesied, and when Paul taught, and when Christ ministered to mankind?

      "What if there is a necessary relationship between the sender of a message (God) and the speaker of the message (one sent by God) in order for the message to actually result in salvation for the hearer-believer?

      "Who has believed our report, indeed? And who, then, has saving faith?"

    4. The message is "repent and be baptized."

    5. Denver has said recently that God is working with all sorts of people around the world.

      I imagine that, right now, there are Tibetan monks who more or less do the things that Jesus taught in the Sermon. Will they be spared destructions just as much as us? Even if they haven't heard the message through Denver?

      Can there be other groups who believe in Christ, but do not know Denver who will be saved?

    6. And if any of us make it to Zion, will Denver have any special status there? Or will we all know Him?

    7. Being that it's public information you have provided, Fawn Livesey or "Dani," when Christ speaks to Denver, it's not Denver speaking but the our Lord through him. If we hope to be permitted to progress in the pathway, we first must give heed to and hearken to those words He sends to us by the messengers chosen by the Council of Heaven.

      This is not an issue about Denver, this is an issue about our Lord and His words given to us by Denver. Denver is irrelevant in the equation, ultimately. But, God chose him and gave him words to speak to us.

    8. BTW--Dani isn't trying to pull a fast one--she says she is Fawn Livesey at the end of the slideshow.

    9. To those who believe with genuine faith in Christ that Denver has brought you, us, the world also, Christ's words today, what is your understanding of why Denver was commanded to speak to the LDS first?

      Why worldwide Christians second?

      Who is next, if anyone, and why them? Simply fulfilling prophecy? Why was the prophecy given to begin with?

      Do you also believe that no one person or group of people has been since forever, or will be henceforward, able to find Christ without having first heard about or from Denver Snuffer?

      Only him, or could any one of us become a witness and messenger of Christ? And then, would we want someone to create a statement of our teachings as a guide and standard, or would we be more pleased to focus on the words of Christ given in such singular ways as the sermons were? (Understanding from the Lectures on Faith, that the way ordained for anyone to know of God's existence in the first instance is through a messenger's witness.)

      What do you believe is Denver's importance to you now, and going forward?

      When do you anticipate needing only Christ, or do you ever?

      I hope to gain some understanding of the push behind statements that contain much of or mostly teachings that have come through Denver Snuffer.

      For myself, it does appear we are rather fulfilling verses in D&C 76--those of John, those of Apollo, etc., which Dani did use in her ppt, and which Denver also has discussed in talks and on the blog. Idolatry is an easy trap to fall into for all worshipers. So, if y'all could help me understand how your proposals are NOT doing that, I would surely appreciate it. I genuinely want to understand your perspectives.


    10. And what if teachings from Denver are being turned into stumbling blocks?

  24. When we received the Covenant did we not state that we believe that these words are from Christ?

    Would we even have been sitting in that auditorium had we not believed that all of his previous teachings were from Christ?

    Why now be wishy-washy about accepting a document which consists of those same God-inspired teachings which have brought us all to this point?

    How can publishing the LOT G&S be a curse if it contains the words of Christ? Unless you believe that those are NOT the words of Christ and that then brings everyone's discernment into question and whether or not we are all cursed for following a deciever.

    Is that not the logical conclusion here?

    Or are we now going to say that, yes, at first Denver was sent by God - but now he is trying to trick us. Well then, now you may as well be in the Rob Smith or Matt Crockett camp.

    Indeed, the rubber is meeting the road with this issue now isn't it?

    1. You may have felt that you were receiving a covenant through Denver Snuffer. I do not. I felt I receiving a covenant between myself and the Lord. I believe the words in the Answer and Covenant to be the words of Christ. Nowhere does that document state or even imply that I must accept anything other that those specific words and the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon.

    2. Whether I accept the teachings of Denver Snuffer is beside the point. I don't get to say that anyone else must do so.

    3. I myself am wondering if we haven't confused Denver with Christ Himself. So when Denver has said more than once that he has no spokesman, shall we understand that is also Christ saying He has no spokesman? And did Christ not state clearly He employs no servant at the gate?

      Where does the hearkening to the words of Christ given through messengers or a messenger stop and the worshiping and obeying of Christ actually begin?

      I am so glad we are finally having this discussion out. It has been long overdue. Perhaps we can finally come to sound understanding of each other and from there see clearly Christ's part in helping us truly have mutual agreement.

  25. Dani,

    Didn't the words of Christ given through Denver bring you to that point in your life? Would/Could it not also bring those who know nothing of this work now underway to do the same? That's what the LOT G&S consists of. None of us received a covenant of Denver. We all believed that God was doing this and we covenanted with God. But what did it require to even get us to that point? A messenger sent by God with teachings we needed to give heed to. How can establishing a statement with teachings that brought YOU to that point also not be a blessing to others who don't yet know anything about this work?

    1. The teachings of Denver did not bring me to that point. The promptings of the Holy Spirit brought me there. Are the words Denver taught part of where I was directed? Sure. So were the words of James Custer, so were the words of Stephen Robinson, so were the words of Doug Mendenhall and Matt Crockett and Jules and Mike Hamill and many, many others. If you suggesting we also use their words in the G&S? And if we have to accept all the teachings of Denver than shouldn't all those words be in both the Answer and Covenant and the G&S?

    2. This is really a matter of trusting God. God says we can know "all things" by receiving the Holy Ghost. No matter what we learn of men or servants or prophets, it will all be for naught if we receive not the gift.

  26. But the scriptures you covenanted to accept include the teachings of Denver Snuffer and anyone else who wants to come into covenant with the Lord in the last days and to enter Zion will have to accept those teachings from Denver and Joseph and Paul and Abraham etc... came from God.

    1. There's nothing wrong with Dave (blessed be his name). He is still a badass prophet. Anon posted above:

      >In Dallas Denver said that there will be many differences among us - we only have to be united upon the Doctrine of Christ (which we all already are and have stood and said "Yes") and the Law of Christ (from the Sermon on the Mount - which we all already are united upon and have stood and said "Yes").

      If that is all we need to be united on, then why not make that our G&S?

      Remember in the 10 talks when Denver said "you don't need to mention my name?" He was correct in saying that.

    2. I'm not advocating that we have to mention his name. But the LOT G&S contains the teachings of God and has valuable principles upon which we can all fellowship in a manner which will help us live the Law of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ. We've already accepted THE scriptures as THE Guide and Standard. The statement requried by the Lord is intended to bless, benefit and inform those who know nothing of this work.

      What is "this work" now underway - to return to ancient Christianity by worshiping in fellowships where we can learn how to love and support one another as we learn how to connect with the fathers. This is done when we live the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

      I see the LOT G&S as giving modern-day instructions on how we can better live that law. Those are the teachings of Christ.

      Yet - as part of the covenant we accepted the scriptures and in those scriptures are now revelations given through Denver Snuffer. Why is his name in there? The same reason why Enoch or Adam or Moses or John or Peter or Paul or Joseph are in there. We acknowledge God's servants by name for history's sake.

      Why is that now so bad. Denver's point in saying that it's not important to mention his name - because it's his teachings that matter - the principles. That's what those quotes in the LOT G&S contain.

  27. Whom did God choose to administer the covenant? Who qualified in every respect?

    1. Are you saying the Lord cannot issue a covenant unless Denver Snuffer administers it?

    2. Everyone but Jesus is replaceable in God's work.

  28. Obviously God has other servants He will use. But this covenant at this time on the Earth where there are no other people on the earth under covenant was administered through an authorized servant. That is what Joseph taught actually meant that the kingdom of God was on the earth - that there is an authorized administrator. Without that, there is no kingdom of God.

    This doesn't meant salvation goes through Denver - but I submit that no one on earth can obtain salvation and reject God's sent messenger at the same time. That is what Paul taught, Joseph taught and now Denver.

    1. How is only accepting a statement of the doctrine of Christ and the Law of Christ equal to rejecting a messenger from God? I don't understand and need help seeing your perspective.

      Denver's blog, books, talks, papers, all of it, still readily seen, available, accessible, even in the restored scriptures. Is it thought others will never find or be led to those things unless we first talk about them in a guide and standard, which will also be in those same scriptures? Is there fear people will do things wrong unless we spell it out for them?

      What about all the other prophets? Oughtn't we to mention their teachings too? Didn't Christ say we should search the words of Isaiah, for they are great? And what about Enoch and Moses?

      A new dispensation is upon us. Yes. Denver is a messenger sent by God. But to what purpose or end? Who is the author of the salvation of men? Denver, with his many books? Or Christ the Lord? Who shall we teach our children to hearken to and to follow? Who will we point others to first?

      Shall we have a G&S that resembles the creeds and handbooks of other churches, or do we want to be different because we "talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins"?

    2. If we ever meet, please allow me to hug you.

    3. Dani, I don't know if you mean me, Lori (et lux en tenebris lucet) or Anonymous. But if me, I am a hugger, girl, so yes! If you didn't mean me, I still say yes and let's grab Anonymous too. :)

    4. Yes, Lori. You. But Anon too. Why not?

  29. Dani's slideshow linked above is amazing:

    1. In this slid who you state: "I do not believe He is asking us to innovate. (Nowhere does His request indicate that, not even the use of the word “write.”)"

      Yet - in your very next slide you quote from the Answer and Covenant wherein the Lord does say that we are to "write" a statement to be added:

      “I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you” (A&C, p. 8).

    2. I see how what i wrote could be misunderstood. I intended to say that not even the Lord's use of the word "write" necessarily means innovate. That's a can of worms to try and prove one way or the other and would decimate more proposals than one.

  30. I have yet to hear how the LOT G&S does not or cannot "bless, benefit and inform those not familiar with this work as of yet".

    No one can explain how accepting that document would be a curse or "defrauding the Lord" when they blessed all of us to get to this point of accepting a covenant from God.

    Therefore, disputing the inspired teachings from Christ appears to be counterproductive to what the Lord wants to accomplish - else why did He send a messenger to give us those words in the first place?

    Would it be easier for the new individual who is not familiar with this work to read that 10 page document or listen to over 30 hours of podcasts or watch hours and hours of videos?

    I really think it comes down to whether or not we accept those teachings as being from God or not? If they are from God and help us to live the Law of Christ, how does that not bless and benefit and inform others who know nothing of this work?

    If they are not teachings from God then obviously they will not help others. What do you believe?

  31. I wish we had a different forum. These side conversations are sometimes interesting but it only takes a few minutes on this forum for the original post to be derailed into other people’s materisl and ideas and conversations. Becoming sometimes chaotic and appearing somewhat hostile.

    I’d still like to discuss Edwin’s post. But it’s really hard now as we’re lost in a sea of topics and various people’s side promotion of their own ideas.

    By all means, each can submit their material to the blog host for its own post. But when we can’t stay on topic, it just becomes chaotic.

    1. I have longed agreed with your wish. It is what it is though. I would still suggest you share your thoughts about the original post. I would like to hear them and I am sure Edwin would also like to converse with you. Don't let the rest of us monkeys derail that. Somehow we all sort ourselves out.

    2. This conversation is very much related to Edwin's post and Sam Vaughn's post. Why go through those steps and act like we have failed when God's inspiration has been given and we've all collectively already accepted the teachings which led us all to receive a covenant through Denver Snuffer?

      Did not those teachings quoted in the LOT G&S "bless, benefit and inform" all of us to receive a covenant?

      Therefore, the question of "choosing to dispute". Dispute what? The teachings and principles which came from God's servant?

      So, does "choosing to dispute" then mean that those who choose not to dispute - they are in mutual agreement and can then complete the Lord's assignment?

      Or does the fact that there is a disputer mean that the movement to get God's people to progress towards Zion can be derailed?

    3. Anon at 10:20. You have a point. I guess these conversations do relate to the original post.

      Guess I’m just discouraged is all. Desiring unity that is proving a challenge.

    4. Anon, that's how we ended up where we are. Many documents had >85% of the vote, but it was argued that 100% was necessary.

      All of the words in the Lots doc are true. As far as I can tell, all the words I the other docs are true too. There are many sets of words which are true.

      If mutual agreement only means "mutual agreement among those who mutually agree", then it doesn't mean much of anything at all. 51% would be sufficient. Or the group could split into subgroups who mutually agree on some other things.

    5. Are we to believe that in Enoch's city there were NONE, ZERO individuals who chose to dispute any of Enoch's teachings?

    6. TBM @ 10:39

      I dont see how there is any more meaning in pretending to have unanimity among a group you can’t even define and which is in a state of flux. That too is meaningless since you may not have unanimity, but wouldn’t know it due any number of practical challenges. And the moment you have it, you could loose it.

      I can argue all sides of the mutual agreement topic and the solution, in my opinion, is neither.

      Hearts must change. I’m starting with my own.

    7. P.S. TBM I see you as friend, not foe. Least there is any confusion or appearance of hostility in any of this online stuff.

      You have valid views and I truly want to come to agreement.

    8. Mutual agreement really does seem impossible. I see why one could conclude that there's no way 'mutual agreement' means 100%. That was my initial reaction and it may be the correct one. This is why I often compare all this to the conflicting commandments in the Garden of Eden. The answer back then was to wait until God returned (I think), and I think it's possible that the right answer now is to present our failure (failure so far, Edwin) to God and ask for a way out.

      But I'm just as perplexed as anyone here. It's easy for God to part the Red Sea (the elements are happy to obey God), but mutual agreement requires free will, and God won't mess with that.

      A light thing if our hearts were right. It is not a light thing, therefore our hearts must not be right.

    9. So, then, what is the miracle that will make our hearts right?

    10. This is very light indeed among those who choose not to dispute. The problem is that it appears that somewhere the decision was made by someone that that definition has to mean 100% agreement.

    11. Who is choosing to dispute? One person, who says she cannot abide but one way, or everyone else who says they must be "persuaded" before they will change?

    12. Anon @ 9:48
      I apologise to Edwin if he or others feel I am horning in on this post. I posted here on two counts:1-I think my proposal is related to the OP because I am also advocating waiting for further revelation if need be rather than breaking the commandment, and 2-the SC determined that I should not have space for my proposal since it comes in part to the same conclusions as Jared's, even though I believe it is significantly different in content. That means I would have to post in someone's comments or not at all. And, you know, God...

    13. Dani, that is not right. Are people not supposed to be submitting proposals right now? I sent an email to the SC requesting your proposal go up. I am not okay with this. Lori

  32. Please, any of the disputers, list the disputable teachings in the LOT G&S - which are from teachings which Denver claim come from God and are intended to help us all to keep the Law and Doctrine of Christ - so we can understand your dispute?

    Persuade us that the Lord didn't inspire those teachings and why we shouldn't deem them worthy of consideration.

    Then, persuade us that when the Lord told us in the Answer and Covenant revelation "to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you” (A&C, p. 8) - why that couldn't be a compilation of His teachings which help us understand how a fellowship COULD be run - not some law - but a "guide" - as to how to actually keep the Law of Christ in our modern situation.

    I have yet to be persuaded and I'm easily persuaded.

    1. Do I get to determine what you should "deem worthy of consideration" and ask you to follow it? I don't believe I do. On the other hand, God does, so if God--who has the power to do so--directs the lady in Taiwan to the teachings of Denver Snuffer or you, great! If we get that message from God directly then we are not trusting in men. And The Sermon is how a fellowship should "be run" if it is the Law of God.

  33. We were ALL ONE that September weekend in Boise. I would bet that virtually everyone present who accepted the covenant believed that the teachings given by Denver Snuffer were inspired of God - including the 10 Lectures. Denver claims that all of the content of those lectures were given to him by God.

    Many of the quotes compiled in the LOT G&S were from those lectures and helped persuade everyone that God had begun His work anew in our day.

    Therefore - why is there a dispute in this thing? Who or what is inspiring these disputes? Try the spirits indeed.

    All of that being said - yes - we probably should unitedly come to God and plea to know His part in this dispute. But how and what does that look like? If Denver can't be involved - who is going to receive the revelation?

    Why not "choose NOT to dispute" the LOT G&S and then present it to the Lord through His Servant and then wait upon the Lord's answer and or correction? Why can't that be the path forward? Surely the Lord, in His Mercy, can correct us and give us His part. Maybe he is waiting for that first?

  34. Part of the answer on the clarification to Mutual Agreement was the insight that the Lord could have disputed with someone every day of his life. But he chose not to. I don't see very many people talking about that part of the clarification on what mutual agreement means. If someone in contrast disputes at every single opportunity, sometimes hourly, I wonder if they somehow feel they have greater reason or justification to dispute with others than the Lord had?

    1. We don't get to choose how others will respond, though, do we? I only have direct control over my own responses, as do you. So perhaps the "message" in that was seeking from Christ to understand His heart? Why did He choose not to dispute with others and when? I am learning that it should never matter what someone else is saying or not saying. I can still choose love and stay out of fear, anger, hurt, resentment, etc. Showing kindness to someone, especially when we might think they are being rude or disruptive, might actually do the more good than other ways we might respond. I am trying to stay out of accusation, because that is the role of a true adversarial spirit.

  35. There is less than a week left to submit documents for the proposed conference vote. If no one requests that their preferred document be considered for inclusion in the scriptures, then the vote comes to an end before it even starts.

    Please consider submitting your document for the vote. It may be unlikely that we choose not to dispute at the conference. It may be the case that we are more concerned with our own preferences than we are with the desires of others, and that a dogged defense of our own position is more important than a charitable view of the opinions of others. But I for one haven't given up hope that we will transcend our squabbles and use this first conference since entering in to the covenant to finish the Lord's assignment.

    The work of building relationships can continue. The work of building toward unanimity can continue. The work of becoming Zion-like can continue. We do not have to accomplish all of that immediately. We simply have to stop arguing about all of this. Choosing a particular G&S is relatively unimportant; ceasing to dispute is everything.

    Please, brothers and sisters, go the extra mile. Put up with the indignity and inconvenience of another vote, for the sake of unity. This vote provides a mechanism for the minority to show their largeness of soul by voluntarily accepting the majority's choice. And it also gives an opportunity to the few who may remain in opposition to voice their thoughts and concerns, and have their position respectfully heard.

    There is an opening to finish this assignment in the next few weeks if our focus is love for each other and the Lord. The conference setting gives us the right atmosphere to come together in unity. If we will take it.


    1. Unity in Christ is the only unity that matters, the only unity that can be eternal. See the revelation regarding James Covel in D&C 121: Behold, verily I say unto you that his heart was right before me, for he covenanted with me that he would obey my word and he received the word with gladness. But straightway Satan came and tempted him, and the fear of persecution and the cares of the world caused him to reject the word, wherefore he broke the covenant which he had made, and it remaineth in me to do with him as seemeth me good.

  36. If our focus is love for each other and the Lord, there is no need to push this to get done by the conference. He did not say, If you love me get this done, He said if your hearts were right. Why are people in such a hurry? We have been given no deadline and God is very patient. If we care and love each other like we are commanded to, we would not want to push something done at the expense of others hearts. We know there are people who are not ok with a vote, not ok with the lots and many other proposals. Though we may not understand each others views totally, wouldnt love have patience, pray and fast with them, ask God together to show us the way to get over our differences? Our hearts are not right if we are willing to let people be hurt just so we can get a job done for the Lord. Since the heart is what He wants fixed, why can we not work on that first? Will He give us another assignment if we dont show that we hear and value their views as well? Everyone is hearing different things for this G&S, but no one has knowledge of what to do. Once EVERYONE gains the knowledge they need, there wont be disputaions among us. Just like none of us would dispute over the fact that the LDS church cannot give you eternal life, we have enough knowledge to not dispute this fact. Lets take the time, and follow what James 1:5 directs. We lack wisdom and are wandering around in darkness trying to argue our way out. Lets follow Josephs example, get down on our knees together, maybe even fasting, and humbly ask God for help, together. Proving to Him that we do love and value each and every person and their opinions and views no matter what they are. Being in a hurry only hurts people, lets be patient like the Lord, and expect He will show us the way in His own time, not ours. Would it be a more loving approach to pray and fast together, asking God His part than to hold another vote, when we already know there are those who don't want it? These are all questions I've been asking myself, as I wonder how do we come together on this? Thank you Edwin for your thoughts. It made me realize how much we are in need of Gods direction on this.

    1. IDK

      Do not murmur saying, Too much has been required at our hands in too short a time. If your hearts were right it was a light thing I have asked. You hinder and delay and then you say I require too much of you and do not allow you time, when, if your hearts were right and you prepared yourselves you could have finished this work long ago. Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required. — The Answer

      "Our hearts are not right if we are willing to let people be hurt just so we can get a job done for the Lord." Fulfilling the commandments of the Lord often involves hurting people. Moses killed the Midianite children, Nephi killed Laban, Zeniff and his folks killed 3000 Lamanites in one day "in the strength of the Lord," and many, many other examples.

      I think all of your goals are worthy goals, we should pursue them. But we should do what the Lord has required of us first. And he has already condemned us for hindering the accomplishment of this task and for delaying getting it done.


    2. IDK/Sheri,

      Thank you for what you expressed. I am in agreement. Hearts matter. People matter, especially to God and His Christ. Lori

  37. I am confused by some of the responses.
    I am also confused at how all of the anonymous folks believe that it is at all possible to keep their continued arguments in line.

    But I would like to clarify: I am not disputing the Lots document. I am not disputing the Normanschwartzkopf document. I am not disputing the Adolpho's or Sam Vaughn.
    I am not persuaded that Jared Livesy's proposal is what the Statement of Principles should be, because it has already been fully adopted in the whole of the scriptures. So I don't believe that the Lord would ask us to adopt something that has already been adopted.

    A part from that my thought is only that the only clarification we have on the meaning of 'Mutual Agreement' is that as between one another, we choose not to dispute.
    I have heard a bunch of people insist that if others would just not argue with their proposed document then we could have mutual agreement. However, I am at a confessed complete lack of knowledge because we have at a minimum one among us who refuses to not dispute any other document than his own.
    He is not the only one that seems intent on disputing on any other document than his own, but his case highlights a question that in my mind needs to be resolved before I can confidently move forward: How do we keep the Lord's commands when He has asked that we -all those who have entered into and accepted His covenant- only adopt a statement of principles by mutual agreement?
    I have read many times how people propose that the Lord couldn't have meant that EVERYONE actually agrees with whatever document gets adopted, but in every case they confess that such a proposal is only their belief. In other words they do not have knowledge.

    Am I to trust that because they feel confident in their belief to adopt a statement of principles while still having disputes from covenant makers, that I likewise will be guiltless before the Lord in doing so?

    Or does anyone have knowledge about this question? Can anyone answer for me so that I can feel more secure? Because as of yet I have petitioned the Lord and I have not felt confident that such a position is defensible before Him.
    That is not to say that if someone can provide more light, that I wouldn't listen, its just that, as of yet, I don't get how to get pass this seeming impasse.

    1. When was the last time you read parable numbner 9 from the Ten Parables book? Perhaps that can help?

    2. Anonymous,
      I took your recommendation seriously and went and re-read that parable. Thank you.

      I want to understand the truth that you believe you have found that can provide an answer to my question, in that parable.

      So where or how do you see that it is explained/likened in that parable regarding mutual agreement? The Lord has asked us to adopt a statement of principles, and adopt that statement in a way that fulfills the idea that as between one another, we choose not to dispute.

      Which document do you point to that fulfills that list of requirements?
      And how do you point to any document and say that as between one another, we choose not to dispute it?
      You seem to rely on the fact that because the concepts in the Lots document are sourced from the Lord's Servant in this dispensation, then that is the standard by which submission should be conditioned.
      However, that Servant received the words of the Lord, and the Lord said that it had to be by mutual agreement.

      I am not saying that I know that mutual agreement has to be unanimity. I just want to know how it doesn't have to be. Not explained by someones really strongly held personal belief, but rather can you or anyone point to the Lord's words (from any of His servants) and help all of us understand how we get around it necessarily being unanimously undisputed by all covenant partakers?

      Because if you can't, then it seems to me that you are asking me and everyone else to just hope that what you believe is best, is actually best.

      As a result I am asking, that if you can not demonstrate how any of the documents currently in existence, can fit the standard of having every covenant partaker choose not to dispute the hypothetical one document; and if you can not demonstrate definitively how the document which you desire to be adopted, doesn't have to fit that standard: then please, lets take our dilemma to the Lord, as a people.

      Lets ask Him, for further light and knowledge. Has He not promised that if we do this with humility and sincerity/contrite heart, that He will tell us His part? Can we not trust that if He were to do this, that each of us who have been moved by His words up to this point, will then be moved forward together on how to resolve this issue?

      Nobody will need point to another allegory that may or may not apply, and suggest that if the other doesn't fall in line with what the first believes, that then the second person will be cast out for being disloyal.

      Or do I not understand your point? If you have light, please share it. If you are like me, and don't know what to do, then lets take the Lord at His word, and take this to Him and ask for His part in this matter.


    3. "as between one another, we choose not to dispute"

      Where in that definition is the idea of 100% agreement among those who have received the covenant? Well, only in those who choose not to dispute, and those are they who are in 100% agreement despite their differing opinions and preferences concerning this assignment.

      We don't get to choose what others will believe or do in any stage of progression. We only have control of that for ourselves.

      There will be those who are aware of, or participate with those, who choose not to dispute. However, eventually those who are unwilling to bind the spirit which inspires them to dispute, such efforts to dispute will be unavailing despite their efforts and arguments which can be relatable, even persuasive. There are two groups, ultimately. And the real learning doesn't come until the group who can be identified as choosing not to dispute has self-selected to follow that Spirit instead of the many others.

      The Lord wants to cause a division among the people. That is one fundamental way of how He operates to ensure the peace of His people. In the parable, it's indispensable for the peace of a people who finally choose not to dispute. Therefore, he allow us the opportunity to choose whether or not we will choose to dispute so that we can be identified as being capable of living in peace with others or not in order for the identified people go on to learn what He has in store.

      Just because we have been called to something, doesn't mean we are yet chosen. For that a great deal of correct faith is required. So we must first choose to align ourselves with the Spirit which animates this work, or be cut off from among the people either by our own choosing or by the cutting off by the Lord's preachings.

      To me, the parable illuminates what it means to dispute and what that looks like.

      At some point we as a people have to learn how to not be derailed or stalled by those who choose to dispute and divide and instill fear whilst maintaining fidelity to the truth. We need to learn how to peaceably ignore those who choose to dispute and continue to do what the Lord commands despite others unwillingness to obey.

    4. The one and only person I need to worry about obeying, is the Lord Jesus Christ. Its accepting and teaching what Christ established that is the sole basis of entering in the Kingdom of God. If the Voice of the Lord and scriptures are guiding your decision, I can respect that. God will set up His dispensation the way He wants and I realize I need to submit to His ways. If you, Anonymous, believe you are listening to the voice of the Lord, good on ya and keep it up. Do what He commands, it’s His work. But I too must do that. It is the Lord that you need to follow, it is He that you must look to and abide. I can tell from your comment, that you are trying to do what the Lord is telling you and you are trying to encourage the majority, based on what you believe, to do the same.


    5. Edwin,

      If the Lord had waited to act until the third of the host were in agreement, the plan of salvation would not have been implemented.

      If Noah had waited to act until everyone agreed to come on board, then the family of God would not have been saved.

      If the Brother of Jared had tarried to find harmony with his community, then he and his friends would never have found a promised land.

      If Lehi had listened to the complaints and frustrations of Laman and Lemuel, the enterprise would have died in the desert.

      If Joseph had come west to the Rockies, separating himself from those he wanted to think of as friends, we might be living in Zion even now.

      The choice is often to obey God’s commands, rather than search for perfect alignment with the larger group.

      “Am I to trust that because (others) feel confident in their belief to adopt a statement of principles while still having disputes from covenant makers, that I likewise will be guiltless before the Lord in doing so?”

      No. Don’t trust any man. Trust the scriptures that come from God. If a pattern is repeatedly taught as an example of the way that holy men fulfill their assignments from God, it is probably safe to emulate those patterns. But don’t trust my word, weary God until He answers you.

      If we have a vote, I believe that nearly all in the minority will accept the majority's choice. The folks in this movement have good hearts and are here because they recognize the voice of the Lord. If a few remain in opposition, I can still choose not to dispute. I won't argue, bicker, wrangle or otherwise contend. On the contrary, I plan to reach out to those few with an excess of love.

      Isn't that a better plan than waiting even longer to adopt a G&S when the Lord has already warned us not to hinder or delay? We should do our best to love everyone into submission, but we are never going to get everyone to come along.

      Matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
      48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.


  38. Gordon,
    You make very good points and that is why I have gone back and forth on this. What does the Lord require first, it to get done or our hearts to be right? If we get our hearts right, it will get done. If it gets done but our hearts are still not right, then what good is it? I understand your examples, but I don't think we are in the same situation. Unlike the examples above, we are all people looking to be one with God, we all took a covenant with Him, we all want to do His will, and are all just trying to figure out how to do that together. Hopefully with love and gentle pursuasion being our guide.

    1. Sheri, (this is a new anonymous that has only posted once, just FYI)

      I like your willingness to consider Gordon's point and your honest inquiry of which comes first, "the chicken or the egg" sort of thing regarding our hearts vs. getting this done.

      Consider something that has been pointed out many times that pertains to what Gordon is saying above, and your response to him.

      #1 - Gordon's point is confirmed Denver's opening remarks in Boise. There are still the prideful among those who have accepted the covenant. Not everyone who entered that covenant will ultimately get the "right" heart. In fact, we know for certain, from Denver's remarks, that not all of us will.

      So Gordon's point is VERY relevant regarding waiting around unnecessarily trying to get everyone appeased and agreeing 100%. It's futile. Some just aren't ever going to get on the ark, and they probably won't ever have it in their heart to get on. It just isn't going to happen, and we were already clearly told that. And pride is the reason.

      The pruning to take place is literally among US...among the lofty (proud) we were told. It may not be a pleasant thought, but it's a reality. And if we are using some unknown and abstract means of determining when everyone's hearts are right (when we can't even know another person's heart for sure), then we will allow those whose hearts may or may not ever be right to potentially stall this indefinitely. Wouldn't Satan love that.

      #2 - You point out that, contrary to Gordon's examples above, that in your mind, WE (of the covenant) want to do His will. So you feel Gordon's examples don't apply because we are a righteousness seeking people.

      But you actually support the precise point I have seen repeatedly in these discussions regarding what the BofM teaches and why it supports being able to move forward now. You're actually confirming what Mosiah was saying about the majority being trusted to choose right...and this BofM teaching is perfectly applicable to our covenant body today.

      Mosiah correlated this truth only to people who desire righteousness. If people who just made a covenant with God (most having sacrificed immensely for this) cannot fit into the description given by Mosiah, then I don't know who would ever fit that description. This is why so many people have wondered why we continually set aside what 93% of the covenant holders agreed to as the way to move forward, when we've received the definition of mutual agreement that allows us to proceed without unanimity.

      Thus, your very response to Gordon, ALSO supports moving forward with what the majority in this movement have found to be acceptable... trusting that they have taken this seriously, inquired of the Lord, and are not being led down a road that will take this assignment off course, or that it is being done with impure motives, etc. The majority can be trusted to have chosen right.

      Thus, when I read your exchange here, I saw Gordon's point that there will inevitably be some few who will always fight against getting this GS accomplished now, and your realization that the people involved are for the most part seeking two realities that actually give an obvious reason to move forward and get this done as proposed.

      Both your points support moving forward with without further disputation, with what the majority of covenant holders have desired.

      Gordon's: because not everyone will ever get their heart right and be willing to get on board and delay this indefinitely.

      Yours: because the majority of this people ARE capable of choosing right as a body, and thus, why not trust their decision.

  39. I think with ENOUGH beer we could all get this figured out in an afternoon.