Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Taki - A Traditional Proposal


A Traditional Proposal:

I present a “taki” to the entire movement, using method of Traditional Proposal. In Polynesian culture, particularly Maori, when visitors come to their land, a ceremony was performed called powhiri (a ritual ceremony of encounter). It was a process of determining whether the manuhiri (the visiting party) were friend or foe to the tangata whenua (the people of the land). As the ceremony progresses, the tapu (or the sacredness) of the visitors is unveiled. If they are unveiled as friends, they become one with the tangata whenua (the people of the land). 

The ceremony begins with a woman’s karanga (a chant from both parties), calling in a high pitched voice to each other to exchange information, in order to establish the intent of the visit. The one’s exchanging in chants use their conversation to weave a mat on Papatuanuku (Mother Earth), …or in other words to establish a land, binding the two sides together, covenanted to protect the land from war.

Next, a wero (or challenger) was sent forth to challenge the visitors further, to look into the whites of the visitor’s eyes, up-close and personal, to further establish intent. As the wero (or challenger) seeks the intent of the visitors, the tangata whenua (the people of the land) perform the haka powhiri, also commonly known as the haka.

Finally, the wero (or challenger) places a “taki” before the visitors, as a recognition and a challenge. The “taki” is a token, representing the conditions of equality, unity, and freedom, offered by the tangata whenua (people of the land). It is only offered when such conditions seem possible by the wero (the challenger). The offering is an invitation, and the total unveiling, and exposure, of the tangata whenua (people of the land). For the manuhiri (visitors), picking up the “taki” is to accept the terms. Anything else is to reject the terms. Thus, the final unveiling is their choice.

Depending upon the final unveiling, there would be a battle, or a feast. In the case that the “taki” was lifted and accepted, while the feast was being prepared, the mihi (orator of knowledge) would share their whakapapa (knowledge of genealogy, history, and records). Speeches are followed by waiata (song and dance), many times sacred songs and sacred dances. After knowledge and wisdom was shared by oration and performance, both parties would physically move together, and one at a time, they would press noses and foreheads together, inhaling, in hongi. Food would be shared by both parties. The eating of the feast finally removes the barrier between manuhiri (visitor) and tangata whenua (people of the land), signifying the binding together.


My wife and I, and our ancestors, have fulfilled the first portion of this protocol, unveiling our hearts, leaving you to show yourself. My wife used her high pitched voice, woven with many of your voices, in karanga (a chant from both parties), working to weave a mat, or covenant land, to be bound on Papatuanuku (Mother Earth). A mat/land where we can be bound together, both manuhiri (visitors) and tangata whenua (people of the land), without contention. In this lengthy process of word exchange, the hearts of both parties have been partially unveiled.

I have fulfilled the protocol of the wero (or challenger), sent forth to look into the whites of your eyes, to discern your deep intent. I have been in your face, with my eyes wide opened so you can see me and my deepest intent, and I can see you and your deepest intent. My strength is not representative of my power, but the haka of those who stand with me (a visible minority), our dead ancestors tangata whenua (the people of this land), and my God.

Finally, I lay this “taki” (challenge) at your feet, for you to do the final unveiling of who you are (friend or foe), to be expressed by what you do with this “taki,” picking it up, or something else. It is a token, representing the conditions of equality, unity and freedom, offered by the tangata whenua (the people of this land), so that we both can dwell upon the mat/land which we have woven, bound together, without contention.


The “TAKI”:   

The few instances where Zion succeeded at being gathered offers little information more than: Enoch/Melchizedek preached repentance, and “the people” repented. Over the year that the Governing Principles Project has been underway, many views have been shared, at varying times, about what is required of us. I suggest that what is required of a people who have been preached to, …is for “the people” to minimally mutually agree to repent, turning and facing Christ.

Given our varying degrees of understanding, mutual agreement (where people choose not to dispute) has eluded us. To some, “choosing not to dispute” has been defined as: put aside your view for another. To others, “choosing not to dispute” requires: something they agree with, and because they agree, they choose not to dispute. Since the only tool any are allowed to use is persuasion, neither definition authorizes anyone the power to tell another what’s right for them, …threatening their agency to choose for themselves. Relying on persuasion alone has presented a difficulty, as those who desire to graciously put aside their view for another have expressed frustration with those of us continuing to search for something that we agree with, and will not dispute.

The gospel or “good news” of Jesus Christ is repentance and redemption from the fall. All must be redeemed from their own fallen state, which process is extremely unique, personal, and individual. But the efforts surrounding the building of Zion requires the unity of a community of people. Therefore, this assignment must satisfy both “individual redemption AND unity.” Emphasizing one over the next produces imbalance, making completion impossible. For instance, individuality satisfies “my” understanding to be respected, but unity is often lost with an individual emphasis. Or putting aside your view for another can produce unity, but at the cost of possibly loosing individuality. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only hope for redemption and Zion, providing both individuality and unity. Zion is the family of God, and it must return through the preservation of both the individual and the unit. Male and female is the image of God, requiring both individuality and unity to be preserved within them. Likewise, within a successful family, each member must have their individual identity, while protecting unity. And a community, like Zion, is no different.

In His mortal ministry, Christ proved all of His Father’s words by obeying the Doctrine and Law of the Father. He shared the fruits of His labors freely, healing the sick, restoring sight, and raising the dead. He was made one with the Father through His atoning sacrifice and triumph. These three components are of interest: Doctrine/Law, Fruits, Sacrifice.

After resurrection, Christ instructed those who were His sheep in Jerusalem for forty days. Christ referred to both His words and His works as the model for all to follow. The record instructs that all who would be Christ’s sheep must respond by going and doing likewise. They too must prove Christ’s words by obeying the Doctrine and Law of Christ, both in word and deed. He counselled that by their fruits His sheep will be known. And the sheep that would be called the Sons of God would be persecuted for His names sake, as a willing sacrifice. Christ departed that fold of sheep, to tend to other sheep which were not of that fold.

The account of Christ’s instruction to America, compared to the instruction in Jerusalem establishes a pattern. Christ taught on this continent His Doctrine and Law, produced fruits of mighty miracles among them, and interceded on their behalf, accessing His atoning sacrifice. Those at Bountiful were left with the Doctrine and Law of Christ, the responsibility to produce fruits, and to offer up sacrifices of a broken heart and contrite spirit, to bear one another’s burdens, etc. Christ left those in America to instruct other sheep, which were not of that fold, or the fold in Jerusalem.

The Lord is unchanging. Those who are indeed His other sheep will resonate with the Doctrine and Law of Christ. They will expect to identify with those who produce fruits similar to the fruits of Christ’s, recognizing them as His sheep. They will recognize a people who are willing to sacrifice all things for the Kingdom of God on the Earth and the establishment of Zion. Each of these other sheep have strayed (the LDS progenitors, the remnant of Lehi, and the scattered Israel). Each of them have fallen, broken the covenant, and must be restored, expected to produce fruits, and to receive a covenant by sacrifice, to be gathered. In an effort to not dispute, respecting that some are willing to put aside their view and others need a sufficient reason to agree and therefore not dispute, I propose that we preserve individuality and find unity, by mutually agreeing to: “Govern Ourselves by the Doctrine and Law of Christ.”

Those who have written documents all include the Doctrine and Law of Christ, and a little bit more. If they will agree to this proposal, to: “Govern Ourselves by the Doctrine and Law of Christ,” I will not disassociate from them if they choose on their own to do a little more. This is my proposal. Those who agree to this proposal can email their names to the recorders clearinghouse, and let Keith Henderson keep a list of names that match baptism records, and report his findings of matching however he sees fit (As Keith Henderson knows nothing of this matter, as of yet, if he refuses to participate in accumulating names and reporting, someone else may volunteer). Those who disagree simply need not submit their name. 

Opposed to some opinions identifying me as froward, angry, obstinate, aggressive, …I seek only to be sanctified and purified within the sanctuary of Christ’s presence. Conversations that talk, preach, rejoice, and prophecy of Christ provide that sanctuary, …because where two or more are gathered in Christ’s name, He promises that there He will be also. Those who are unsure, who want clarification, or who need to talk it out, this would be a perfect opportunity to talk to you, either online, on the phone, or in person. Even though digital communications come with it’s isolated keyboardist issues, the Lord’s promise did not come with stipulations excluding digital communications. Where two or more are gathered in His name, was the only requirement. That can include a personal prayer, a face-to-face conversation between two, a fellowship in person, a fellowship via video conferencing, a telephone conversation, emails, …or even this online forum. Those who comment here, if they gather in His name, Christ promises that He will be there. His sanctuary “is” His presence. Gathering in Christ’s name should not restrict any topic of conversation, whether you agree, disagree, or are indifferent. Each person commenting must answer for themselves if their comments are to gather in Christ’s name, governing their own intentions.

In the end, it is Christ who will do the gathering.


The journey we have been on has fulfilled the first portion of this protocol. Our words are woven together in a weaving of a mat. You have seen my heart, and I have seen yours. I lay this “taki” (challenge) at your feet, extending my heart. It is up to you to do the final unveiling of yours. It is a token, representing the conditions of equality, unity and freedom, offered by the tangata whenua (the people of this land), so that we both can dwell upon the mat/land which we have woven, bound together, without contention.

We desire to share our whakapapa (knowledge) and our waiata (wisdom), through the sharing of our words and our music/dance. We desire to share the breath of life in a ritual welcoming embrace. And most importantly, we desire to share the ritual feast that removes the barrier between manuhiri (visitor) and tangata whenua (people of the land), signifying the binding together.

Mahalo Nui Loa (Big Thanks),
Rob & Q Adolpho


  

278 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did you say here Jared, and why did you delete it?

      Please tell us.

      Delete

  2. The only statement of principles that shall be agreed to is The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

    The acceptance, practice, and teaching of the law and commandments entail accepting all, even our enemies, not esteeming one above another, nor respecting men, thus removing the need to judge between friend and foe.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not sure what you mean bro. I mean, I get you want acceptance/practice/teach, but not sure how you connect esteem one above another, or respecting a man, or judging between friend or fo.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rob,

    Understanding the law comes by revelation. Revelation comes by practicing the law. With revelation comes the obligation to teach the law.

    "All are alike unto God."

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree, agree, and agree. And are you the revelator? I suppose you are not, and therefore, I'll let the revelator tell anyone how to practice, and teach.

      All "ARE" alike unto God

      Rob

      Delete
    2. I do let the revelator - whom I have never claimed to be - tell anyone how to practice and teach.

      I do, however, tell those who claim to be God's people by covenant that they have accepted the obligation to practice and teach (Question 3), leaving it up to the Holy Ghost to instruct them how to accomplish those things.

      If therefore you wish to accept and do as the Lord has required pertaining to the statement of principles, then the only way open to you to do that is to agree to adopt The Rock of Jesus Christ.

      But, again, you don't have to accept and do as the Lord has required.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    3. That’s why I don’t like the idea, because I don’t want to be told. It offends agency to tell another.

      Rob

      Delete
    4. Then your accusation is against God (Question 3).

      Jared L.

      Delete
    5. If God tells me, it is a commandment. But Jared telling me doesn't legitimize the message. That was just kind of Jared. I rely upon the testimony of the Holy Ghost to do the telling. When the Holy Ghost then tells, I am not dependent upon Jared any longer, as he simply carried the message, and the Holy Ghost wrote it upon my heart.

      As a messenger, you must be instructed by the Holy Ghost as well. So I have no accusation against God.

      Rob

      Delete
    6. Your accusation is against God (Question 3), and you cannot split the hair you're trying to split - to divide the Lord's words from my repetition of his words.

      "Cry peace. Proclaim my words. Invite those who will repent to be baptized and forgiven, and they shall obtain my Spirit to guide them."

      You and me and every other covenant participant has already agreed it was the Lord speaking (Question 1), therefore by your own words and reasoning it is a commandment to you to teach. By reminding you as well as every other covenant participant of your agreed upon obligation to teach by putting it in the guide and standard, I fulfill my obligations per Question 3. And you can too, if you accept, practice, and teach the Lord's doctrine, law, and commandments.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    7. As I said before, it seems you don't know what you agreed to when you entered the covenant.

      "The time is short and I come quickly, therefore open your mouths and warn others to flee the wrath which is to come as men in anger destroy one another."

      "...accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant...", Question 2, one of which obligations is this: "he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance."

      "Teach your children to honor me."

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

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    8. Jared nobody would be prohibited to teach by way of persuasion any other, only that each person must decide for themselves how they are persuaded by the Holy Ghost to apply the Doctrine and Law of Christ.

      Delete
    9. Edwin,

      I'm not sure how what you're saying relates to what I'm saying, which is that there shall be no mutually agreed document other than The Rock of Jesus Christ, and that the objections to it raised by Rob are invalid by his own reasoning.

      Perhaps you could clarify your meaning?

      Jared L.

      Delete
    10. As we have seen all around the world - MANY people claim all kinds of funky religious practices by influence of the Holy Ghost. Many have corrupted the ordinances claiming guidance of the Holy Ghost. This is why the Lot document is so important to bless, benefit and INFORM those who know nothing of this work. Maybe if they know how to properly receive the ordinances then they have a chance of actually receiving the Holy Ghost. Does this make sense?

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

      Delete

    12. No, it doesn't make sense.

      The Lottery document teaches faith in Denver Snuffer, and to follow the Lottery document men must trust in and follow Denver Snuffer's words for their guide and standard instead of Jesus Christ's words. The Lottery document leads men astray.

      O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

      Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

      [Thus saith the Lord:] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

      Therefore, let every man stand or fall by himself, and not for another, or not trusting another.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    13. Well the good news Jared, is that the covenant offered in Boise isn't conditional upon me agreeing with your interpretations.
      In His answer to the request for a covenant, the Lord said that as a people we are not excused from writing a statement of principles by mutual agreement.
      I believe that He still doesn't excuse us in this thing. However if all I can offer to Him is my individual willingness to govern myself by the Doctrine and Law of Christ, and then display a willingnes to teach the same, then I can't see how that could produce anything worse for wear than being beat into submission to agree with Jared Livesay's interpretation of Christ's doctrine and law.

      You state that the one will not produce mutual agreement (because you refuse to agree with it) and by your actions have shown that the other can not produce mutual agreement (because you can't persuade anyone else that they should abandon the guide of the Holy Ghost in order to only abide your interpretation of the doctrine and law of Christ.)

      Therefore I will leave the right of judging what the Lord intended on asking for mutual agreement, up to Him, and in the mean time will seek to have the Holy Ghost guide me in how to apply it in my life.

      Delete
    14. Edwin,

      It's still not clear what you think you are saying.

      There shall be no document agreed to other than The Rock of Jesus Christ.

      If therefore you wish to be one of the Lord's people indeed, you will accept and do as the Lord has required and cease to dispute The Rock of Jesus Christ.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    15. 1 of 2

      Jared,

      You are addressing the Boise Covenant as a whole, but I am addressing the Governing Principles Project at hand. Within the context of the Boise Covenant, I am responsible to practice and teach, and that is clear. However, within the context of the Governing Principles Project, all I can mutually agree to is how I will agree to govern myself.

      You have expressed in the past your regret for following a man, and taking the covenant. You have expressed that you cannot unring a bell, and therefore your efforts to speak in terms of the Boise Covenant is your way of repenting of following a man, by making the Boise Covenant irrelevant. For that reason, you would cover the necessary requirements of the Boise Covenant, by stating the necessity for the Governing Principles Project to include “practice” and “teach,” in addition to “being governed by.” Doing so, removes the necessity for anyone to make the same mistake you made. That is what I have learned about your opinion. If I am wrong, and have mistaken your view, I’m sorry and would be inclined to be corrected.

      If I am correct about your view, I was not instructed by the voice of the Lord to participate in replacing the Boise Covenant, but only to work on the Governing Principles Project. In that context, that is the reason I have come to conclude that to “Govern Ourselves by the Doctrine and Law of Christ” is sufficient.

      I did not do as you did, making the mistake of following a man, and taking the covenant. I received personal revelation, prior to going to Boise, that if the Governing Principles are not included in the scriptures (as the majority was pushing the Aug 5th document) the rest of the covenant would properly represent my connection to heaven. However, I was also prepared to do as I say, and not partake of the covenant because I could not agree with the principles laid out in the Aug 5th document. I had great anxiety going to Boise, and felt confirmed by heaven when I was permitted to partake in receiving the responsibilities of the Boise Covenant.

      Delete
    16. 2 of 2

      This past conference, I was one who vocally opposed, because I cannot see the Lots document as mutually agreeable, and therefore if it was voted into scripture, between God and I, I would not be able to accept the scriptures in that condition, and must again walk away. As I believe that this is All or Nothing, and that this movement is the prophesied rock cut without hands (the building of Zion), …I opposed as if I was loosing my life, as this is the very life of me. Some have advised me that I am making this more than it really is, but my heart just cannot believe their words. My heart vibrates that they’re wrong, and that this, right now is everything, …it is All or Nothing. And that is why I spoke up. When the final vote was not cast on Sunday, the joy that filled my heart was the same joy and relief I felt in Boise when the Aug 5th document was not included, because that meant that I was not yet cut off, and could continue towards Zion. On both occasions I was forced to walk through a symbolic valley of the shadow of death, contemplating the dark abyss, wondering if my inclusion in Zion would be lopped off (like Laban’s head). To express relief does not do it justice. It is as if my life was preserved, when I was doomed to certain death.

      Jared, what I don’t understand about your perspective is, you regret following a man, but recommend “telling” people to what to practice and what to teach. You have made yourself the man for others to follow, while regretting following a man. And you are recommending that the only thing mutually agreeable is for us to “be the man” with you. I would not have anyone make the same mistake you made. Therefore, if we could mutually agree upon something, without following a man, then it would be to simply: Govern Ourselves by the Doctrine and Law of Christ.

      You-da-man,
      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    17. Rob,

      It is not necessary for you to understand my perspective.

      All you need understand is this:

      1. There shall be no agreed document other than The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.
      2. There shall be no modification to the content of The Rock of Jesus Christ.
      3. If you indeed desire to be one of the Lord's people, you will accept and do as he has required and you will cease to dispute against The Rock of Jesus Christ.
      4. How long it takes you to accept and do as the Lord has required is up to you.

      That's all you, and anyone else, need to understand.

      The test is just this simple: "Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required."

      Those who want explanations for the content of the document can find them on my blog.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    18. I have taken some time to think about your four points above. The first point, I understand to be where you stand, and you refuse to mutually agree to anything else, leaving mutual agreement in hold-up. Regarding that point, I do not agree with "all" you have written in the document you call "The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles." I disagree on the point of something we both agree to, that no one can tell another what to do. We both agree that the Holy Ghost is the only source that should matter, until you are in the presence of the Son of God. I also differentiate between the name of your document, and The Rock of our salvation, Jesus Christ. Upon Him will I put my trust forever. And I await further contact from heaven on the matter of the document, satisfied not to make any effort to persuade you otherwise, and unwilling to budge to agree to tell another what to do. As to mutual agreement, I am willing to wait for Christ to unite us.

      On the second point, I understand that you will make no modifications, contrary to your blog post. On it you state a possibility of something else along the same lines. I won't search it out, to quote yourself to you, as you know what you have written. I also respect the fact that you can change your mind, to stay permanently where you are, allowing you the freedom to do as you desire, me not willing to try to change you.

      On the third point, you have interpreted the conditions for being "the Lord's People," based upon accepting, doing as Christ required, and not disputing against Christ. On this point, I whole heartedly set my life!

      On the fourth point, you respect the agency for men to choose, despite however long they take to choose Christ. I would add to that, however long indeed, whether in this lifetime, or the next, or the next, ...agency cannot be infringed upon.

      If the test is as you stated, and I believe it is, I desire to be the Lord's people, have accepted to do as He has required, fully confident in qualifying to be His people.

      Thank you Jared,

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  5. Rob and Q, why the emailing of names and matching them to the book? I don't follow that. But I love your proposal and the understanding I have gained of your heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No reason, except for a call to action. That's it.

      Rob

      Delete
    2. Lori,

      I failed to clarify what I meant by a call to action. When truth and light are offered, despite who God chooses to offer it through, if that is what you seek, you are required first to recognize it as truth and light, and then receive it. Belief is based on recognizing truth and light. However, action is required of all who receive it. Regarding sacred things being given, I call it a "taki" while others may call it a "token," all who desire to receive it must take an action, and arise to receive it. Likewise, those who recognize the Lord's hand moving again today are required to show forth a sign, and that sign is baptism. If mutual agreement is required, a mutual sign must be offered to express your mutual agreement.

      However, that sign has no relevance to anyone but you and God. For that reason, I have designated the direction to send your name is to the clearinghouse. He set himself up as the clearinghouse, so he can do that part. Appropriately so, since a clearinghouse is defined as: an agency or organization that collects and distributes something, especially information.

      People can do it or not, it doesn't matter to me. I simply know that saying that you believe and acting on belief are two different things. And in this world, we have an abundance of saying, and doing is altogether rare.

      Thank you for asking this question and impressing upon me to provide reasoning.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    3. I do understand the need for both saying and doing, or that faith leads to works.

      Back when the idea to use the book where names of those baptized are recorded as a background check on those nominated for the lots drawing, I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, and your suggestion to submit my name in a similar manner albeit as an act of faith and acceptance evokes the same pain. It's something I could not put my heart behind. I am not sure what could be done otherwise, but I am very appreciative that you have offered the group something.

      A bonfire where we destroy our efforts thus far, then cover ourselves in the ashes of the fire and petition Christ for His greater light still appeals to me. haha

      Delete
    4. Lori,

      I understand the sick feeling. That's how I felt about voting. For lack of a better method, I too cannot imagine any other way of adopting the statement publicly, as a method of mutual agreement. Now is the time of anxiety, where I trust the Lord to do His part. I'm confident that He'll show His part soon.

      I believe that an action of mutual agreement can be made, but an action is necessary. We cannot continue to say, but not do as we say. Whether or not it is in one location really doesn't matter TO ME. It might matter to God, or it might not, I really don't know. That's for you to be instructed by Him.

      Thanks,
      Rob Adolpho

      Rob

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

      Delete
  6. This is a beautiful idea/proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Didn't we already agree to that when we took the covenant?

    I don't understand how this fulfills the Lord's assignment that we adopt a Statement of Principles?

    Or, is the proposal that our adopted statement of principles be - only: "Govern Ourselves by the Doctrine and Law ofChrist"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon.

      I think Tyler Kelly's expression below represents how it fulfills the Lord's assignment. And, yes, the adoption of the Doctrine and Law of Christ, to govern ourselves, is what we can all mutually agree upon.

      Rob

      Delete
  8. Two and half weeks ago I was led to this idea as well. The spirit breathed new life into the Doctrine and the Law of Christ.

    Much of my unbelief which blinded me is now being shed. There are numerous principles found in both of these teachings. They are WORTHY of being a "guide and standard" to follow in my daily walk. I have been working on being more responsible in aligning my behavior with the Lords law and it has begun to bear fruit. However I still have a journey ahead of me.

    The Answer and Covenant calls for us to “come together by precept, reason, and persuasion.” However that may take a great while. It is the “true points” of the Doctrine of Christ that has brought us together. I say why hide the light under a basket, when the doctrine us the potential of delivering us from darkness? The light in the doctrine of Christ, could shine forth as “STANDARD” for the Lords sheep to flock towards. What other people on earth right now know the “the true points” of Christ doctrine? (D&C 10:62; 3 ne 21:6). Or at least take it serious enough to attempt to follow it?

    The Law of Christ lays out a “GUIDE” for how we are to behave once we have received the baptism of Fire and the Holy Ghost. Our fellowships and our fellowman provide us with opportunities each day to become more holy and sanctified by abiding by its (the Law) precepts.

    With mutual agreement upon the Saviors two most important teachings it allows each person and fellowship the ability to govern themselves. Each fellowship could then be free to embrace other “statements of principles” for their fellowship to follow.

    Tyler Kelly

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Lord stated:
    “I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands. When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow. Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless, benefit and inform them.” (Answer and Covenant p. 8)
    In the same revelation, the Lord stated that it was the scriptures we are to accept, by covenant, as our guide and standard:
    “Do you […] receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern you in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words thoughts and deeds?” (Answer and Covenant p. 10)
    It is clear the statement of principles we are required to adopt should be taken from the approved body of scripture the Lord has already placed us under covenant to receive and use as our guide and standard. All covenant makers have already unanimously voted and accepted by mutual agreement to accept the approved scriptures as their guide and standard.
    Denver in his second Christian talk stated
    “The Early Christians were very diverse but they agreed on two things: Christ’s doctrine […] and Christ’s Law […] found in the Sermon on the Mount. Once Christians have these two essential teachings in common you can have differences on other issues […]”
    (Talk to the Christians #2 p. 8)

    If we bear the fruit of these two teachings it will bless, benefit, and inform those who know nothing about the work. They will recognize our “works” rather than just written words on a paper. The fruit could then testify of God’s work now underway. Taking these two teaching as a Guide and Standard accomplishes the following:

    -It adheres to the guide and standard (the approved scriptures) already accepted by covenant.
    -It emphasizes the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.
    -It is both the foundation and ideal of Christ’s teachings.
    -It allows fellowships and individuals to maintain flexibility in their own cultures, beliefs, and circumstances.
    -It allows for the heretofore proposed Statements of Principles to be adopted on an individual or fellowship basis as the revelation they were originally claimed to be.
    -It focuses on Christ’s personal teachings to help followers displace trust in the arm of the flesh.
    -It teaches those who know nothing of the work underway to focus on the most important teachings found in the scriptures, leading them to attain the Holy Ghost, without which none of the work underway will benefit them.
    -It allows those who nothing of the work underway to independently search the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith and Denver Snuffer for instructions regarding ordinances, priesthood, fellowshipping and conferences, marriage, and tithing.

    Tyler Kelly

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Rob,

    I hope you'll indulge two sincere questions and a comment.

    Someone else already asked how this fulfills our obligation to write a statement of principles. So I won't ask that one again, but I believe it needs to be answered.

    I will, however, ask how a one-sentence statement referring to the law and doctrine of Christ will "bless, benefit and inform those who, as yet, know nothing concerning the Lord's work now underway." Let me explain:

    I received a baptismal request this week from a family that has been "investigating" Denver and the movement. They purchased a set of scriptures online and have been studying them. They now desire baptism.

    I am sad that the set of scriptures this family purchased does not include the statement the Lord asked us to provide them as a blessing and a kindness. I feel heartbroken that we, as a people, have failed, thus far, in our duty to the lost sheep who are listening to the Master's voice and seeking to come to Him. This is a light thing he required, and He specifically required it to bless people like these who are seeking guidance.

    And we failed them.

    Even if I taped a statement into the back of my own set of scriptures, as has been suggested, this does nothing to bless, benefit and inform this family who bought the new scriptures and didn't receive what the Lord wanted them to have.

    Likewise, if there happens to be a one-sentence statement about the law and doctrine of Christ in the appendix somewhere, I submit this does nothing to give them any practical information at all. It does not tell them how to proceed. It does not provide true principles and their application. It does not tell them ANYTHING about the Lord's work now underway. (The law and doctrine of Christ have been around for thousands of years. The Lord asked us to tell them about the NEW things happening--NOW underway!)

    When I heard from this family, it suddenly became much more real to me. This is not just some abstract set of ideas over which we can, or ought to, argue endlessly. These are real people, real lost sheep, to whom we were called to minister, and we have failed in that obligation.

    If you'll forgive an obscure reference, these people are the man on the side of the road who has lost his load of drywall, and can't get it reloaded by himself. And we continue to drive by and make excuses.

    One last point: The wording matters. The Lord did not define "Mutual Agreement" as "choosing not to dispute." Look closely. He defined it: "As between one another, you choose TO NOT dispute." Notice the word order is different. And I believe this matters.

    If you choose to not dispute, this implies two things: First, there is disagreement, and even justifiable reason to dispute. Second, there is a proactive, conscious choice to not do that, even though it is justified. I just wanted to point that out because I think this adds a dimension that is lost in the mis-wording you have used. The problem is not that we need to be one or become Zion in one step through this effort. The Lord's definition tells us otherwise. In this baby step we simply need to make the active choice to NOT dispute, as did our master.

    I pray the Lord will guide us all and help us to accomplish what He has asked of us, and soon, so we will not fail more families like the one that contacted me this week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adrian,

      I get that this movement is young, and we have things to work through, but to say it has failed does not seem accurate to me. If there is going to be mutual agreement on a statement of principles, the work to mutually agree must not be substituted by a process.

      Dispute can be seen as disagree, but none of us believe that we aren’t “allowed” to disagree. It also can mean to argue/ discuss heatedly/ compete for/ strive to win. I see that as what the Lord desires not to happen, because contention is of the devil. However, the definition of choice for those claiming the majority is the first, disagree. And if disagreeing “is” permitted, there's a social norm of acceptable disagreeing permitted. And the box gets smaller and smaller by the box builders establishing the lexicon, defining words to their liking. No disagreeing produces the death of individuality, in exchange for a unity. I desire to preserve both individuality and unity. Re-ordering the words from “not to dispute,” into “to not dispute,” doesn’t change the fact that interpretation can take it two ways, and both be correct. That’s the kind of stuff the Lord does all the time, to prove His people by how they choose to interpret it. I choose to recognize both, and offer a solution for both to live in harmony.

      Reading your post causes me to think that assumptions are being made, but they are being stated as facts. It is an assumption that the Lord desires this document to be a how-to manual, a promotional document, a law, or something else. Like I stated above, the Lord does this kind of stuff all the time to prove us (my assumption). I don’t mind assumptions, but they ought not be stated as if they are facts. The words being used are vague, leaving our treatment of one another to be exposed, as we work to do the assignment. If they are vague, then why be so certain when everything about you is so uncertain? Our responsibility is to consider all that we have been given, and do the work of being a people, at least at heart. For that, I find it sufficient to mutually agree to: Govern Ourselves by the Doctrine and Law of Christ.

      Regarding the one-line statement having no practical information, no instruction to how to proceed, not telling any true principles and applications, and nothing regarding the Lords work now underway, …um, you’re gonna have to explain that. The Doctrine and Law of Christ does every one of those. The Lord’s work now underway is the work towards Zion that previous generations failed to do, which is to repent. All who were preached repentance and repented became Zion. You have made another assumption that the Lord wants this to be NEW, and that the old Doctrine and Law of Christ was not the problem of the earlier followers of Christ. Just because it’s old, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

      Rob Adolpho

      PS. I don’t understand the implication of the guy on the road who lost his load, and everyone passes him up, not stopping to help. I would have pulled over and helped. That sucks that he lost his load, and he’s not only in need of help, but he could cause a much worse accident for everyone else. But I don’t understand how this is relevant.

      Delete
    2. Hi Adrian,

      As I was reading through your comment, and I was pondering your claim that we failed that family by not having a printed statement of principles in the scriptures, it hit me, that you would have added to their understanding by filling in the gaps with what is written in your heart.

      This opened up my understanding as to how Rob and Q’s proposal fulfills the Lord’s requirement while allowing mutual agreement and being broad enough to include any who know nothing as yet.

      The scripture in Jeremiah (13:9 RE) came flooding to my mind:

      “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel:
      After those days, says the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts and write it
      in their hearts, and will be their God and they shall be my people. “

      I considered myself - if I knew nothing as yet concerning the work currently underway, would I want to be handed a piece of paper with a list of principles, or would I rather have a friend to explain and teach me what is written in their heart and treat me as a member of the family?

      In D&C 20, which we are endeavoring to replace, it says that after baptism, “The elders or priests are to have a sufficient time to expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding, previous to their partaking of the sacrament and being confirmed by the laying on of hands of the elders, so that all things may be done in order.”

      In the A&C the Lord says one purpose of the statement of principles is to “bless, benefit, and inform” those “who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway.” That includes people who may not know that there even is a God, the nature of the Gods, what priesthood is and why they would want it, even the need for a savior, etc., which are principles that are not addressed by any existing statement, but would be necessary to understand in order for them to understand any of the documents now available. In other words, only people with an LDS background would benefit from the current documents.

      Maybe what you described with that family, and what you needed to do in order to bring them up to speed is exactly what needs to happen. I don’t see it as a failure, I see it as a success. We should all be willing to welcome new comers into our covenant family personally, and no written document can do that. We need to become a living embodiment of our principles. At one level, adding a short statement like the one Rob and Q propose would fulfill the requirement to add a statement while at the same time be simple enough to allow mutual agreement. At another level, it also allows for anyone to add to it as they feel inspired, which others, including the scripture committee, have also proposed. At an even higher level, it allows the Lord to write a statement in our hearts that is broad enough to encompass all others who know nothing as yet.

      Ordering the scriptures and reading a statement of principles cannot bring them baptism, or priesthood. There must be someone to administer those things to them in person. Having a statement that we take the doctrine of Christ and the law of Christ (which the Lord in Jeremiah said would be written in our inward parts and hearts) as our guide and standard is simply stating that we take Christ Himself as our living Guide and Standard. Our actions, what we do, then becomes our statement we “add” to show this to the world.

      It is true, we have had the doctrine and law before us for thousands of years, but with this we are stating that these are the principles for others to hold us to, to judge our actions. We are saying, “this is who we are, let us show you by how we act.” Anything procedural is already in the scriptures, and we can point them to it. It is difficult for us to anticipate everything they might ask.

      I appreciate your questions, because I don’t think I would have seen these things otherwise. I love that we are able to have peaceful dialog - I feel like we are making progress.

      -Dana Vaughn

      Delete
    3. Dana, that was beautifully and perfectly expressed. Thank you.

      Delete
    4. Dana,
      I agree with all that you said above. Thank you!

      Delete
    5. Dana,

      I think you make some excellent points that I had never considered before. I think we should explore this idea further and see where it leads us.

      Thank You.

      Delete
  11. Adrian although your adressing Rob, i'll engage you if you don't mind?
    Keep in mind I'm speaking for myself and from my own perspective.

    Although I believe this proposal needs more input on how it would look in the scriptures..the underlying intent is to agree to the doctrine and law of Christ.(Correct me if I'm wrong Rob).

    My speaking up is not an attempt to dispute or contend. You are all free to do as you please. Rather, it is an effort to make peace and build upon the two most essential teachings of Christ.

    If you feel the Lots document is helpful for ppl in your area then this idea would allow you to embrace it. However it would leave my fellowship the freedom to embrace the statements we feel drawn to. Some have claimed revelation for their parts in thevarious documents. This would allow them to still honor those revelations they feel come from God.

    We are all aware of where the scriptures and information is found, that show the "practical" things as you say it. Rather, than continuously produce section 20 type documents and argue over the wording and explanations of those practices, each fellowship could agree to govern themselves.

    I would never come and attempt to be a "presiding authority" over your fellowship. You guys probably have your unique way of doing and explaining the work now underway. Who better to help the people in your area than your fellowship. I trust that you know there needs better than I do.

    Likewise I would hope others would not attempt to come in and "preside" over my fellowship.

    For those who do not worship in a fellowship and want know "practical" things they could visit a website with various statements etc... This would allow them to learn how other fellowships practice.(Just an idea).

    However with the above said, if you have LIGHT I would appreciate it. If you feel confident that how you explain the work now underway is filled with light please share it. If your passionate about the Lots document please share why. Over time LIGHT will cleave to light and we will grow in a unity of faith. For now however I believe it is wise to allow our diversity and freedom in explaining these things.

    If one fellowship prefers the lots document then go for it. If another prefers the August document then they also could embrace it. If Jared wishes to only abide by the Doctrine and the Law then he is welcome to do so. Rather than attempting to compel each other to accepting our version of this remnant movement, we could be free and allow each fellowship to express itself. However each would be founded upon the doctrine and law of Christ. Over time as our hearts knit then we can come into agreement on these other things.

    If we already have this much diversity amongst a number of former LDS, then imagine what it will be like when Buddhist, Hindus, and remnant sheep join us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tyler,

      I wanted to address a comment specifically to you, but it also fit under something that was written below...so I posted it there.

      Will you please go below and read the comment under AnonymousApril 12, 2018 at 8:53 AM.

      I conclude it with another example that supports what Adrian's is saying above, too.

      But the reality is, I think we need to be careful buying into the perspective that the standards the Lord requires to be adhered to are somehow culturally offensive to the Lord's Sheep. Culture and tradition...for ALL of us...MUST give sway specifics the Lord has given as absolutes. There is nothing in explanations we've been given by the Lord through Denver regarding the proper application of the Doctrine and Law of Christ that are offensive to anyone who desires to be of His fold.

      I hope you'll take the time to scroll down and read my comment.

      Thanks so much.

      Delete
    2. I forgot to mention that it will make more sense if you first read what AnonymousApril 12, 2018 at 6:57 AM and 7:00 said.

      Delete
    3. Tyler,

      I only have a minute, so I'll be brief, I hope.

      1. The family in question does not live in my area. They are remote and live in a state where there aren't any close fellowships. The reason I knew of their baptism request is that I run the Born of Water website. Sorry if that was confusing. But it makes the point that the sheep are all over the world, and mostly not near a fellowship. Hence the need for the statement the Lord requested. These groups need direction and help. They believe the doctrine of Christ, but don't know how to receive or perform correct baptism, for example. Or the sacrament. Or sustaining so they can serve one another. And so the list goes.

      2. The Lord requested a single statement, not individual statements for each fellowship or each individual. How that turns into multiple statements is something I simply don't understand. To my mind, multiple statements is a way of avoiding the work of mutual agreement. The Lord asked for one, not many.

      3. The work NOW underway, by definition, means something different than previous works. This is a new dispensation, with specific requirements, procedures and practices. We need to inform people about this new dispensation. Merely reiterating the truths of previous dispensations will NOT give them what they need to know now. It is unkind to teach the doctrine of Christ, but withhold the procedures necessary to follow it.

      4. We have already agreed to the law and doctrine of Christ. We did so when we accepted the covenant. This is not about agreeing, again, to accept what we already have.

      5. The Lord asked us to write a statement, and gave the specific purposes it is meant to serve. My point about the family requesting baptism was to point out how we have, as yet, failed to do what the Lord has asked. It is a light thing, easily done, if our hearts are right.

      6. If the ordinances are changed, they are ineffective. The ordinances MUST be taught properly and in purity. A one-sentence statement with no further direction actually serves to WITHHOLD the proper ordinances from those who need to receive them, when they might, with some direction, be able to provide them to one another. Why would we not teach them what they need to know? They will burn if we withhold this information from them. I can't imagine any justification, therefore, for failing to include proper instruction in our statement to them.

      Finally, the baptism request I used to illustrate is only an example of a much larger issue. I know of other people, and even large groups, in need of understanding about this dispensation and how to receive and perform what the Lord has asked. He wants us to tell them. But instead we make this into every imaginable issue and interpretation, ultimately deciding we prefer disputation over obedience.

      This is not about us. It is not about our feelings. It is not about who gets to be right, or who gets their way. In the end it is about ministering to the lost sheep by giving them the direction only we can give. But we seem to care more about ourselves than about them. Hence, our hearts must change.

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

      Delete
    5. "Kind" means "like family."

      I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't teach my children how to steal cars. For me to teach someone how to steal cars would not be kind.

      Likewise, it is not kind of me to tell someone whom God has not sent how to do something God has not asked him to do, such as baptize or administer the sacrament or ordain someone.

      RE D&C 58:7-8
      Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name? Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

      One of the points being illustrated in 3 Nephi 11 is that those whom God calls and empowers, he also instructs in how to perform their assigned tasks. Authorized servants don't require men to educate them in how to do what God has instructed them to do.

      And it is unkind to usurp the role of the Holy Ghost and take it upon oneself to teach unauthorized servants to counterfeit the ordinances, as they must be if they have not been called and sent by God.

      The only thing we need teach men is faith and repentance - teaching men to keep the law and commandments of the Lord our God, and that they should trust solely in him and not in any man. Performing ordinances is the assignment of those whom God has chosen and instructed and sent to perform the task - which should be us.

      Mosiah 23:14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    6. And if you disagree, Adrian, you may take personal responsibility and teach those whom God has not called, chosen, and sent how to baptize, administer the sacrament, and ordain others, within your own fellowship.

      Nothing in The Rock of Jesus Christ prevents you from doing so.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
  12. Hello Everyone,

    Part 1

    In my prior post at https://guideandstandard.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-ground-rule-from-doctrine-of-christ.html I brought up the part of Christ’s doctrine about not disputing. I’m persuaded by Denver’s post at http://denversnuffer.com/2018/04/how-can-zion-come-from-this/ that “Any solution could be imposed quickly and would result in stabilizing everything–just by adopting a central command structure to compel order.” But “that step would bring peace at the price of altogether losing the hope for Zion. For now it must be this gentle way.” I mentioned that we could, as a body, allow for a minority of one to stall everything if we decided to. I was wishing for the opposite, where we could apply no contention as a body and not stall things, ignoring the filibusters. Perhaps I sinned in my wish.

    Perhaps Denver’s ideas are expanding my thoughts to lay down all weapons of war and let the movement be taken over and halted if our enemies decide to do so. The doctrine of Christ about not disputing then becomes an individual matter of applying justice internally while I, as an individual, choose mercy for all others. It is like the Anti-Nephi-Lehis who let their enemies slay them if they wanted, without resistance. I am not in control. Christ seems to be saying that he wants Zion and not efficiency. Remember this scripture? T&C 49:12. I am not saying the Lord has applied that scripture to us yet, but it’s principles can apply to how we feel about options that hinder mutual agreement, whether the people advancing them have good intentions or bad.

    Since I’m not sure if T&C 49:12 is the Lord’s word to us yet, let me suggest something about the Sermon. 3 Nephi expands the Sermon to include Beatitudes about being baptized. He gives instructions on baptism. In 3 Nephi 8 after giving the Sacrament, he says “And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things, blessed are ye for ye are built upon my rock. But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation.” In my opinion, although he pauses the Sermon at Bountiful before doing the Sacrament, this makes this part of the Sermon. This makes Jared’s version of the Sermon incomplete. The Book of Mormon expands and corrects the Sermon, and is more correct.

    Also, the Book of Mormon say men have made mistakes. Moroni fixed his father Mormon’s mistake by including the Sacrament prayers that Mormon neglected to record. We know they are reliable because Mormon said the twelve disciples didn’t vary in repeating the words Jesus spoke in the Sermon. Jesus also said to believe those disciples’ words. These Sacrament prayers are also part of the Sermon as is the baptismal prayer. Oliver Cowdery came close to interpreting the Book of Mormon Sermon as the law for community rule in his first draft of D&C 20. We are replacing his incomplete version. This is what the Lord is doing in our day, as the Book of Mormon is coming forth to go to the remnant of the House of Israel which halted in Joseph Smith’s time.

    I do not accept Jared’s words pre-empting how we are to view the Sermon outright. They are his words, and by his logic of only using Christ’s words and not paraphrasing, if I have understood him correctly, he fails the test. I think it is OK to paraphrase if the paraphrasing is accurate. I’m just pointing out that Jared’s Rock is flawed by his own terms. If we want the Rock to be our guide and standard, Jared’s version fails.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Part 2

    This is my persuasion and my heart at the moment. I submit it as a modification of the thoughts in my post. Or rather, selecting the options in my post that fit better with wisdom than the possibilities I preferred before. It is still speculation on my part. I’m still studying these things out with all of you and willing to get light and knowledge as I come to better conclusions. I hope you all will be willing to do the same. My heart is willing to accept other proposals, too, but this is my heart within the confines of the most restricting set of mutual parameters based on all I’ve heard. Within those confines, that is what I think. I can’t confine myself to Jared’s contradictory confines, but I can to the idea of the Doctrine and the Sermon if we include what I think is the full information revealed at Bountiful.

    I think this harmonizes with the Adolpho’s sentiments above, but you guys let me know if not.

    I would ask Jared to include the full Sermon in 3 Nephi and relevant parts of Moroni with the ordinances Christ mentioned, and the full Doctrine including language about no disputations. Christ called the Sacrament his rock as well in 3 Nephi. Christ mentioned baptism. His language is clear about what parts he says to his disciples and to the multitude. We can share with others that disciples are told to baptize in the manner he mentioned. It is part of the Rock that his disciples are so instructed and that the multitude hear the instructions to the disciples so they know.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Part 1: The Guide and Standard by Lots is nothing more and nothing less than the Law of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ. They are the same thing. I will illustrate below:
    Lots Document in a nutshell and how it compares to Law of Christ and Doctrine of Christ:
    The parts of the LOTS document is in italics then how it compares, if necessary for explanation is in regular print:
    Jesus Christ
    The Doctrine of Jesus Christ
    The Law of Christ
    Baptism- baptism is at the heart of the Law of Christ and Doctrine of Christ. When Christ first preached in Jerusalem it began with baptism, so also in America. Baptism was first before He taught anything else.
    Sacrament-In both Jerusalem and America, Christ instituted and commanded that the Sacrament be performed for all those who repent and are baptized. Christ explains, “give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name. And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you. And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. And when the disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them: Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you. And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock.” (3 Nephi 18:5-12 LDS)
    Marriage and Family: In both Jerusalem and America Christ teaches the people that the Law of Moses allows for Divorce, He then teaches a higher way which is that if a man even looks at a woman to lust after her he has committed adultery in his heart and those who put away their spouse, except in the case of adultery, cause them to commit adultery. Christ teaches in the Law of Christ that marriage is sacred. The Lots document teaches that marriage and family are sacred and marriage is between one man and one woman. Christ in Jerusalem “suffered” the little children to come unto Him. In America Christ taught the children wondrous things. In the Lot document it reiterates how important it is for us to teach our children of Christ.
    Priesthood: In both Jerusalem and America Christ taught the people how they receive power through him to baptize. Baptism is part of the Doctrine of Christ, therefore, if someone new to this movement wants to obey the Doctrine of Christ through repentance and baptism they must understand where the authority to baptize comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part 2:
    Fellowships and Gatherings: In the Law of Christ, everything that Christ asks of us needs community. To be the salt of the earth we must interact (or fellowship) with others. To comfort those who mourn we must associate with others. To accept the Lords servants and give heed to their words we must associate with those servants. To be a light to the world we must associate with others so that they can see our light. Read the Law of Christ again with the perspective in mind of fellowships and gatherings and you will see that the entire Law of Christ cannot be lived as a single individual.
    Tithing: The Law of Christ teaches that if a man compel thee to go a mile go with him two. Love your neighbor as yourself. If someone steals your coat give them your cloak also. Isn’t tithing the same thing? Tithing is a way by which we can lift those around us (loving our neighbors as ourselves), if they ask for a dollar, give them two.
    Zion and the Covenant: everything Christ taught in the Law of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ is preparing a people for Zion. In the Law of Christ He teaches, “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Zion, land). And as far as the covenant, it is the way by which we became His people. This is what the Law of Christ teaches, “blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” The Law of Christ teaches the way by which we can be numbered as God’s covenant people.

    The LOTS document IS the Law of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ. There is nothing in the LOTS document that is not found within the Law of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ. Accepting the LOTS document is accepting the Law of Christ and the Doctrine of Christ, it is accepting CHRIST!
    We have all been saying the same thing, desiring the same thing for months now, we have just perhaps not noticed before. I accept the Law of Christ. I accept the Doctrine of Christ. I believe that the LOTS document is both the Law and Doctrine of Christ and will help inform and bless those who know nothing yet of the Lord’s work now underway.
    *For those who believe that any guide and standard we adopt must only be Christ’s words and none of Denver’s. If you believe the Law of Christ, then let me remind you that the Law of Christ begins with these words: “ Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants…And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.” The Law of Christ clearly teaches that we are blessed if we give heed to the words of the servants HE sends to us (Denver) and more blessed are those who believe in the words of those that testify that they have seen Him!

    **sorry, when you add comments it doesn't' let you italicize, so, I hope you can figure out what I meant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an excellent analysis.

      I hope people will really ponder what this is saying...particularly, any who feel that all we need is to use the Law and Doctrine of Christ.

      Using them alone lacks the necessary added context of knowing how to apply them within the bounds the Lord has set. I'm not sure why we, who have accepted the words of Christ delivered to us through Denver, continue to kick against the use of the further explanations and clarifications he gave us for our dispensation in how to properly handle the ordinances, etc.

      Why is this so offensive to people? And how can it possibly offend any culture (or at least the people within that culture who are His Sheep)...if it is from Christ?

      If something is from Christ (which the added clarification is) then it is and will be required of all His Sheep....NO MATTER WHAT CULTURE OR BACKGROUND THEY COME FROM.

      Will the future Native Americans, HIndus, Muslims, etc. not have to be baptized with the correct words, by someone who has the authorized priesthood and partake of the sacrament properly or not? Will they need to follow the instructions for priesthood given in this dispensation and be sustained by seven women or not? Was the Lord just joshing us? Was He just giving us a suggestion? Or was He expecting us all to adhere to the things Denver taught in this regard.

      If the answer is that the Lord was serious...how serious can we really take ourselves when we think that we have filled the measure of our assignment by referencing just the Law and Doctrine without needed context.

      The above explanation, by Anonymous 6:57 & 7:00, of how the Law and Doctrine of Christ actually make up the entire content of the Lots GS are beautifully explained.

      Honestly, brothers and sisters, this is bordering on silly. Why are we so stubborn of heart that we cannot accept the words the Lord has delivered to us to help us know how to apply His Law and Doctrine in a way that honors His instructions for our dispensation.

      And while I'm writing, Adrian is right. I have been corresponding with a former Anglican Minister. He ordered our new scriptures of his own accord. Consider the misunderstandings he probably has regarding baptism, sacrament, priesthood, etc. How would he possibly have any clue that there is a proper way to perform baptism, the sacrament, etc. by the Doctrine and Law alone. Do we feel no obligation to help him? Do we feel no obligation to honor God and His instructions pertaining to the administration of such ordinances? I for one, do.

      Delete
  16. Part 3

    So, to be clear, I am removing my proposals # 3 and # 4 about rejecting contentions at the beginning of the comments on my last post. I am doing this because Denver’s post causes me to ponder longer before I am willing to motion on that kind of idea. I am willing to remove the other proposals, but they are not bad suggestions. I’ll let them stand. You can vote on them as a body or not. What I have written above incorporates the same ideas which I think match the Adolpho’s post request.

    In response to Adrian’s thoughts about providing something more than the Sermon talking about particulars from our time and Denver’s revelations, I can see that side of things and agree. I am of two minds. If we are restricted to mutual consent with others who only agree to the Sermon, I offer my thoughts within those confines to try to compromise. If the Sermon and Doctrine is the standard, perhaps what the Lord is asking is for us to clarify which parts of the Book or Mormon are the principles we adopt, like he asked Oliver Cowdery to do. In writing on golden plates, etching things in, they had a linear way of getting thoughts down and couldn’t compile them in a way people can understand in terms of where to begin. If we separate out all the Sermon principles scattered across 3 Nephi and Moroni into one document as our guide and standard, perhaps we complete what Mormon and Moroni couldn’t do on golden plates completely well. It also allows us to affirm their importance. Many of us started with 3 Nephi as LDS missionaries. If you’ve noticed Denver’s preaching to Christians, he really has just given better first discussions, etc. They are very similar. It preserves what was good.

    We have put Denver’s revelations in the scriptures and it is easy to give newcomers a copy of the Guide and Standard (as Sermon and Doctrine only) and also include any other scriptures as follow-ups. But, it is exhilarating in a sense to be able to affirm that our Law is the Sermon and our Doctrine is from Christ.

    I think this is the last of my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  17. (I just saw Anonymous's posts after mine, and I agree with those sentiments, too. I can go either way. I agree with the idea that we are learning to accept more of the Sermon on Bountiful. If we want want those principles restated to include some of Denver's words, I am all for it. If we only want to reprint what is in the Book of Mormon and pull out the right principles and put them in one document, I am for that, too).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And just to be clear, I think the Lots document selected words from Denver that are the Lord's words and not his own, so I don't think "Denver's words" is an accurate term to use to match my own feelings. But, I am not willing to force people to accept them as the Lords. Also, in different fellowships I've been in as I've moved my home, some of them have not been ready to implement tithing or accept the covenant, even though I do. We have started just fine with baptism and Sacrament. It is easy to find the scriptures about tithing, covenant, and ordination after that. Or, there may be enough about ordinations in the Book of Mormon that are part of the Sermon like Anonymous mentioned if that really needs to be there. Still, ordination particulars are mentioned in the covenant. People can was the inside of the cup first and get the outside clean after.

      Delete
  18. Brian,

    You ask: "I would ask Jared to include the full Sermon in 3 Nephi and relevant parts of Moroni with the ordinances Christ mentioned, and the full Doctrine including language about no disputations. "

    I answer:I already answered why the answer to that question is "no" on my blog. See also here for additional clarification.

    Adrian's sorrows can end just as soon as he ceases to dispute The Rock of Jesus Christ.

    The power of godliness is manifest in the doctrine and the Sermon when they are actually put into practice, not when they are merely acknowledged with one's lips. When the words of Jesus Christ are not believed and put into faithful and diligent practice, they remain cold, dead words on paper, as they have been for millennia.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  19. Roughly 7 months after Boise, why are people still talking about putting the doctrine and sermon into practice in the future?

    What has stopped you from doing it since Boise, when you agreed to do it?

    Will whatever has stopped you from doing it since Boise cease in the forseeable future?

    If not, then it may never be easier to do it than it is right now - so oughtn't you get started?

    Remember - [T]rust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments. - Mosiah 23:14.

    Those who do not walk in the ways of God, and do not keep his commandments, should not be hearkened to as teachers, nor should one accept ordinances from them.

    That injunction might prevent much sorrow were it to be observed (Question 3).

    Jared Livesey

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

    ReplyDelete
  21. Brian,

    It's not an opinion. And you have misread the Lord's requirement.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jared, I suggest your reasoning is preference and opinion when you stated briefly: "With respect to KJV Luke 6:20-49, the differences between the Restoration Edition and the KJV are not substantial. Using the KJV allows for a broader approach to Christians who are not from the Mormon traditions." That could be seen as rejecting the Lord's requirement to let people know what is going on in our day, including the more correct version of the Sermon in the Book of Mormon. I could be wrong, but I suggest that part of your post is not supported by scripture, but is a preference. However, because I accept accurate paraphrasing, and agree with your summary of the Rock, and the scripture in Luke, I already accept and strive to do that as a guide and standard. If others want compromise, I say it is the same thing to included the expanded version of the Sermon at Bountiful, and equally fulfills the request for a Guide and Standard by your own terms, barring the above preference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That part hinges on the interpretation of the word "kind" in the A&C. Kind does not necessarily imply long or short or non-Book of Mormon verses for the Law.

      Delete
  23. Also, Brian:

    I remind you: there shall be no other document agreed to than The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

    There shall be no negotiation nor compromise on the contents.

    As soon as all dispute concerning the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ ceases, the body can fulfill the Lord's requirement and requests concerning the G&S by adding The Rock of Jesus Christ as the replacement for LDS D&C 20.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I will also note that failure to do what is in The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles is also to dispute it, for if you will not do what it contains you disagree with it in your heart, whatever you may say with your lips.

    All dispute against The Rock of Jesus Christ must cease.

    The Lord will have a people who not only says with their lips that they accept his doctrine and his law and his commandments, but who will with their deeds demonstrate they believe and will faithfully and diligently execute his doctrine and his law and his commandments.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And to go the second mile with you, I'll advocate as well that everyone go two miles with Jared and accept his proposal. It is just fine and it is just as easy to copy other scriptures and hand them to newcomers on an individual basis. I'm completely fine with that. I think it fits fine with the Adolpho's proposal, and I think Adrian's concerns can be met another way. We can finish this G&S and start a new document that collects good scriptures into one doc for fun.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Replies
    1. Holy crap, I can't keep up with the arguments to tell you if you're wrong or not. I can tell you that Jared and I disagree on two words: practice/teach. The basis of the disagreement is not trusting in the arm of flesh. Both of us agree on that, but he would add instructions to tell those who accept the Doctrine and Law of Christ that they must practice/teach it. Now, I know that if they actually do govern themselves by it, they will practice/teach it. But, to tell it in the document, contradicts the idea of trusting in the arm of flesh.

      This ought not be misunderstood as my inability to recognize the truths taught by Denver. The Holy Ghost has testified to me that the things I understand of what Denver is true. So, if I now say something that Denver has said, it is not Denver's. He has no copyright on truth.

      The kindness shown is to all who would be the Lord's sheep to have an environment with which truth and light can increase. The governments of all the world are toxic to the sustaining life of the seed, which is the word of God. To have a people willing to govern themselves by the Doctrine and Law of Christ, an environment can be provided for the seed to grow. If a coconut tree was planted in Canada in the spring, it may survive until fall, but it will never endure the winter, as it is a tropical plant. A coconut tree's survival depends on the necessities of the environment for it's survival. Likewise, within the Doctrine and Law of Christ, light can increase, until we are filled with light.

      The frequent questions I hear is, "Where is the instructions for the new people?" As you have pointed out, the instructions are found in the Doctrine and Sermon. But our old LDS traditions seek to be told what it is we should do, when the Doctrine of Christ requires the Holy Ghost to instruct you, not relying on the arm of flesh. Even a prophet's message must come through the medium of the Holy Ghost. So when a person receives the message from God, what they have done is receive the Holy Ghost.

      I will not tell people what they should do. I recognize that everyone commonly accepts to be governed by the Doctrine and Law of Christ, therefore I propose something that we all already agree with. Some have assumed that accepting to Govern ourselves this way somehow offends what Denver has taught. It doesn't. That's just an assumption. On the contrary, it respects what Denver has taught.

      Lastly, the Doctrine and Law of Christ IS in the scriptures, but our response, in mutual agreement, to be governed by it is not. All successful Zions have two things in common: a preacher preached repentance, and the people repented. Our response, in mutual agreement is our choice as a people to repent. If the Doctrine and Law of Christ is too simple, agree to be governed by it, and individually do the level of complexity that suits you. However, we ought not force another to see things through our own lens. They should be free to see it through their own lens.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. I see your perspective and agree your proposal is a good one. It's between you and Jared about the word "teach". I can accept his document with or without the word. I see where you are coming from. Thanks for your response.

      Delete
  27. There are at least two reasons why proposals for statements of principles that only include the Doctrine & Law of Christ fall short and miss the mark:

    1) How can a statement of principles “also be added” (future) if it only consists of scriptures (ie, Doctrine and Law of Christ) that are already included in the scriptures and/or guide and standard? Do we think the Lord would ask us to “add” something that is already included the scriptures? Adding, at least to me, means it was not there before. In other words, the Lord is asking us to write something that was not there already.

    2) The statement of principles is to help those who know nothing of the work now underway. The Law & Doctrine of Christ do not include the Lord’s recent revelations to us through a messenger concerning His work now underway. If we fail to include the recent instructions we have been given, and then fail to relay them to others that are new to the work now underway, have we met the requirements?

    ReplyDelete
  28. What our brother Jared is saying is that HE (for himself) will dispute every document other than The Rock of Jesus Christ. He will only support the contents of his own document which does contain truth. So Jared, I mutually agree to not dispute with your choice of statement. I support it and every time I see you and speak with you, I will encourage you and all others who support that document, in your walk and calling. I don't need to dispute The Rock of Jesus Christ. As for me, the Guide and Standard I choose needs a little more information so as to be kind and helpful to those who know nothing of Gods work NOW under way, it may look a little different but does contain the same truth. I will not force the document I am inspired to accept upon anyone, but just be and encourage all.

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

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rob and Q,
    Thank you for taking time to write that proposal. I accept with gratitude and support with all my heart. Now, let's all go smoke a peace pipe together!

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

    ReplyDelete
  32. Instead of "trying Jared's document," why not try the following things?

    1. If anyone hits you on one cheek, turn the other cheek to him (Luke 6:29; Matt 5:39; 3 Nephi 12:39).
    2. If anyone takes your cloak, allow him to have your coat too (Luke 6:29; Matt 5:40; 3 Nephi 12:40).
    3. Give to every person who asks you to (Luke 6:30; Matt 5:42; 3 Nephi 12:42).
    4. Do not ask for your stuff back from anyone who takes it (Luke 6:30).
    5. Lend to everyone who asks, do not ask for it back (#4), and hope that you do not get paid back (Luke 6:34-35; Matt 5:42; 3 Nephi 12:42).

    The Lord would be much impressed were we to actually execute these, his commandments, for that would show him and the angels that we do, indeed, desire to be his people, and that we do, indeed, accept and do as he has required.

    The Sermon has not yielded much fruit for millennia because the Lord's followers honored him with their lips only, and not their works. They have not believed his commandments and have not put them into practice, even though they talk of love constantly with their lips.

    Those who do put the Sermon into practice agree upon it, and they have the Lord's spirit to be with them always, as promised in the Sacramental prayer. Those who do not put it into practice have no promise from the Lord.

    What differentiates this people - what must differentiate the people of God - from the world is that they do, indeed, accept, practice, and teach the Lord's law and commandments.

    And, if not, he will find another people who will yield unto him the fruit he has required, and he shall make Zion from them.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I absolutely agree Jared. Trying the document is not the concern, it's living the truth of the Doctrine and Law. I have never questioned someone's authority in this project. What gets done with authority represents its fruits.

      The fruits of the Doctrine and Law have not been produced for forever. Seeking for something NEW, to replace something OLD is not a plan or method I would trust, especially when the none of the NEW ever produced Zion, while the OLD has at least twice. I would add that belief is broad and wide, but faith is rare, especially today. What differentiates the people of the Lord is precisely as Jared says, they do as did the Son of God, by proving His words because He lived them.

      It is not enough to be religious. Hell will be filled with the religious. It is not enough to proclaim you have light if you do not live according to its principles. The sermon we are looking at now is the Lord's careful formulation of the principles which will save. He delivered it often during His mortal ministry. When He was resurrected and ministered to lost sheep, including the Nephites, he delivered the same address to them all.

      Above all other sources of information about the path back to God, this is the greatest message of all. Within it are the very steps that are required for life and salvation, spoken by the author of salvation.

      I agree with what Jared wrote, and recognize it as truth. Both Natives and Hawaiians immediately recognized the truth in the message delivered in the scriptures, connecting it with their own cultures, and the God that promised He would return. However, the fruits that those who professed these words were incongruent to their message. The message can be repeated by hypocrites and pretenders. The fruits cannot be faked. The sacrifice cannot be faked. But the words can absolutely be faked by hypocrites and pretenders!

      I not only place the challenge, I expect to do as I say, and produce sweet fruits. God give me sufficient nourishment to produce sweet fruits!

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. Amen to to what Jared and Rob said above!Let's bear some fruit. It's our works no our words that are most important.

      Delete
  33. Rob says: Waiata!

    Sam Vaughn says: Let's ha'e a cèilidh, bro! (as he picks up the Taki)

    ReplyDelete
  34. I actually really like a proposal that Brian Zang put forward in a comment that he seems to have since removed.

    It is clear that everyone agrees that the Sermon on the Mount/at Bountiful and the Doctrine of Christ need to be included no matter what (although some may be a little different on details such as whether to use the New Testament or the Book of Mormon). Therefore, put those in a document by themselves, and take it to the Lord and seek His word on whether or not it falls short. I'm sure many have done this on an individual basis, but I don't believe it has been done on a collective basis.

    The only wrinkle is, we would need to specify before hand who is to receive the answer, and all would need to agree.

    I haven't thought through the full implications, but figured I would float the idea anyway.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Did Denver say his exclusion was from participating, but if we come to a conclusion, he could ask the Lord for us? I don't remember, and I'm not advocating for that either way, just wondering what was said because I know some people will be wondering, too.

    ReplyDelete
  36. If Denver's post about receiving reliable information is accurate, then coming to a conclusion we think is reasonable, even if it is a wrong conclusion, is no sin if we take it to the Lord to ask if it is right. http://denversnuffer.com/2018/02/reliable-information/

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Lot Statement points to Jesus Christ. It helps anyone to live the Law and Doctrine of Christ. It containts the teachings of Jesus Christ given to this new dispensation. The purpose of calling Denver and giving these teachings through him was to correct the errors and falsehoods among the LDS and all Christians.

    To even receive the gift of the Holy Ghost - not just inspiration from the Holy Ghost - one must receive the proper and authorized ordiances.

    All kinds of evil and false religious practices have been engaged in by people claiming they were guided by the Holy Ghost. The Apostasy of the LDS Church occurred by multitudes claiming guidance from the Holy Ghost. Great evil has been done by those who claimed they are "Governed by the Law and Doctrine of Christ".

    God didn't call Denver and speak to him from Heaven to ignore those teachings when going forth to spread the message of His work now underway throughout the world.

    Indeed, the Lot document fulfills, in every way - the "test" of "goodness" given in Moroni 7. It teaches of Christ and points to Christ and "bless, benefits and informs" those who know nothing of God's work now underway how to keep the Doctrine and Law of Christ.

    Moroni 7:
    13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
    14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
    15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
    16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The Lottery documents omits the law and commandments of Christ, without which men cannot believe on the word of the Lord and repent of all their sins and receive the Holy Ghost, and substitutes in their place an opinion of Denver Snuffer's.

    "The Law of Christ

    The greatest instruction given by God at any time, to any generation, is a rule of community found in the Sermon on the Mount[9] and in the Sermon at Bountiful[10]. The Law of Christ is found there."

    Thus we can plainly see that this people has not learned the lesson of the LDS Church.

    The LDS Church failed because they followed Joseph Smith and not the Holy Ghost.

    Following prophets, even true prophets, keeps you in the telestial world, hellbound, and seperated from Jesus. Swapping one set of mortal leaders for another, even if you're swapping false prophets for a true prophet, is simply to commit the same error the LDS Church committed.

    Pick up the taki of God, even the Sermon on the Mount, and do it and teach it, and you will be his people. Practice and preach loyalty to his servants, on the other hand, and you will fail just as those who did the same before you.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  39. "How can a statement of principles 'also be added' (future) if it only consists of scriptures (ie, Doctrine and Law of Christ) that are already included in the scriptures and/or guide and standard? Do we think the Lord would ask us to “add” something that is already included...? Adding, at least to me, means it was not there before. In other words, the Lord is asking us to write something that was not there already."

    Good point.

    Aren't the sermon on the mount and the sermon at bountiful already part of the scriptures you all covenanted to accept as a guide when you entered the covenant?

    How can they be added?

    Here's a quote from those scriptures you accepted then.

    "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though but a man’s covenant, yet when confirmed, no man disannuls or adds unto it."

    Galatians 9.

    Since "The Rock of Jesus" consists only of quotes from the scriptures already accepted as a guide in Boise, how can they be added?

    And why hasn't Jared ever responded to this?

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

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

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

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

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

    Adrian Larsen asked these questions some time ago.

    Why haven't they been answered?

    And Jared did recently say "By all means, fast and pray - but remember that unless you really do what is required to get an answer from the Lord, you have no promise that he will answer. And if you have no promise that he will answer because you do not fulfill his stated conditions, and if you are answered, then it may not be him who answered. Therefore if you do not know your answer comes from him you may well be deceived...If you are not doing these things, you have no promise from the Lord that he will answer you, and whatever answers you get are suspect.

    There are lying spirits that answer prayers, and even testify of true messengers, as we can plainly see from the scriptures."

    It seems reasonable to ask him if he feels he's beyond deception, and why he feels that way.

    Jared--do you mean to imply that we must meet these standards perfectly, and that you are beyond deception because you meet these standards perfectly?

    Please reply.

    And please tell us whether you meant to come across as a prophet when you said "All dispute against The Rock of Jesus Christ must cease"?

    That does sound like an order.

    Are you speaking, or did you intend this to be understood as a "thus saith the Lord."

    These are legitimate questions.

    Please answer them.

    Thank you.



    ReplyDelete
  40. The Boise covenant hasn't been confirmed until the requirements are met, has it?

    And one of the requirements is that a statement of guiding principles be agreed to and "added" to the scriptures that were accepted as a guide there.

    So how can something already accepted be "added" to what was accepted?

    (And Jared, please answer the above questions.)

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The Boise covenant hasn't been confirmed until the requirements are met, has it?"

    No.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And isn't one of the requirements to "add" a statement of guiding principles to the new Canon of scripture you already accepted as a guide?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. T&C 158:3

      Second: Do you have faith in these things and receive the scriptures
      approved by the Lord as a *standard* to govern you in your daily walk in life, to
      accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant, and
      to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to *guide* your words, thoughts and deeds?

      So, again, how can the DoC and LoC be accepted as a statement of principles to "also be added" when they are already included in scriptures that we have already, as of last Fall, covenanted to govern ourselves by?

      Delete
    2. If you do not give to every man that asks you to as the Lord has commanded (Luke 6:30), then it appears you haven't accepted, and do not practice, and do not teach, the Lord's law and commandments, and you would then have need of guidance in how to fulfill your covenantal obligations.

      Hence "we accept, practice, and teach" these things. Otherwise, we are hypocrites.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    3. That's how The Rock of Jesus Christ serves the Boise Covenant participants as a guide and a standard - it gives direction for behavior and a standard to measure how well you're doing in attaining your goal - assuming your goal is to fulfill the Boise Covenant.

      The G&S is, after all, "for my people to follow." Follow where? Into the Lord's presence, and to Zion.

      Jared L.

      Delete
  43. And since the scriptures do tell us to confess our faults to one another, would you please tell us if you recognize any faults or shortcomings in yourself?

    Because it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to infer, from some of your posts here, that you believe you are beyond deception, and have past the finish line, and measure up to the stature of the fullness of Christ.

    Is that what you mean to imply?

    And is that how you want to be understood?

    ReplyDelete
  44. "And isn't one of the requirements to 'add' a statement of guiding principles to the new Canon of scripture you already accepted as a guide?"

    You can read the document for yourself: http://denversnuffer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Answer-Covenant-1.pdf

    And the context for it here: http://denversnuffer.net/resources/Prayer-for-Covenant.pdf

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hate to interrupt the discussion, but this spot seems like a good place to quickly add some powerful insight someone gave, since time is a factor (for those who are fasting and praying on Saturday, anyway).



    Turning Water into Wine

    ReplyDelete
  46. Impressed with all the long, detailed posts back and forth here each day, but just wondering if you folks work full time, or are you all retired?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Can we accept both parties as being right? In other words, the Lord said “When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow.” He says “a guide,” not “THE guide.” This may imply one among many possible guides. The English here could be either “a guide and THE standard” or “a guide and A standard.” The article that carries through is ambiguous. Maybe we have to get McKay to parse that. Either way, let me take the tack that if the Lord meant “a guide and a standard” he would’ve explicitly put the extra article in (I don’t know that for sure).

    Can we accept Jared’s doc unmodified as the Standard? Can we accept the Lots doc (and it could even be another) as a Guide? A Guide meaning it can contain what others thing are opinions, and it can have a preamble that says it is one example of a set of principles in the scriptures? It does contain commandments from the Lord, but if the arrangement, any paraphrasing, etc. is our opinion and preferences, we can overall say, as a guide, it is one way to start, and fellowships can do the exercise of creating their own guide from the scriptures if they want to?

    All this would do is elevate the Doctrine and Sermon as the Standard, and let the Lots doc be a Guide as a separate doc. In my mind, this should satisfy both Jared and the Aldopho’s and the Lots groups’ concerns. Does it? Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  48. *thing should be "think" as opinions above.

    ReplyDelete
  49. In my own conclusion, this would satisfy the Lord's requirements, too. I am willing to take that conclusion to Him to find out. But, we need mutual agreement, too.

    ReplyDelete
  50. An example preamble for "A Guide" could be: "This guide is presented by those who seek to follow the ways of the Lord Jesus Christ. These principles are our best efforts to organize scriptures and sayings of prophets that bless, benefit, and inform as words of wisdom for those who know nothing, as yet, of the Lord’s work now underway and for the Lord’s people to follow. References are included so you can read any commandments from the Lord in context. They are presented here in one place for your convenience. Individual fellowships may benefit from creating their own guide by similar means. We hope you are persuaded to consider these principles as a good foundation for coming unto Christ. If there are mistakes, we encourage you to search the scriptures and learn to be more wise than we have been."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian,

      Bro, I am really confused because, although English is my first language (actually my only language), I don't speak it that well, let alone read it very well either. So I cannot weigh in on whether or not it fits. But, reading your posts, I recognize your effort to find peace regarding the work. It seems as if you have taken seriously each view and are trying to make them all work, without taking sides.

      I find it difficult to see all the anonymous' comments as trying to gather in Christ's name, so that where two or more are gathered in His name, there He will be also. I suppose that people can oppose in Christ's name. Heck people have killed in Christ's name. But, although your efforts to combine all the different sides doesn't seem to fit what I think the assignment is, I sense your genuineness to gather in Christ's name in a way that His presence can provide sanctuary.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. Glad to hear my sentiments came across at least. Sorry for the confusing English. In plainer language, imagine in the table of contents of the Teachings and Commandments at the end there is a section called "A Guide," and a section called "The Standard." If you turn to "A Guide," it is the Lots document with the title changed and something that says it is one guide among many possible ways to organize scripture quotes and saying. Just as helpful advice and non-binding. If you turn to "The Standard" it is Log's document unmodified.

      Delete
    3. "A Guide" would be our best efforts to represent the wisdom of the Mother, with a guide that is like one tree among many. The Standard represents the rock of the Father and the Son.

      Delete
  51. I was wondering if all the anonymous people could at least make up a fake name to sign with? Like Spider-Man, or Mark Twain, or Elder Oaks or something. It’s confusing when you sign anonymous because we don’t know if your one, or many. I also think it’s disingenuous to ask someone, like Jared, really personal questions that you absolutely expect him to answer in front off everyone, and can’t sign your own name. I know there are several reasons for not wanting to sign, but some of you sound like your hired shills from the church.
    Dana Vaughn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous goes: "We are Legion!!" No--really just kidding :)

      Delete
    2. It’s a good point Dana, how can anyone demand Jared Livesey to share a personal experience, regarding entering the presence of Christ no less, in the very act of accusing him of devil attributes? I mean I get that all the anonymous people seem to come from the Lotsters support group, but we know better than to treat someone’s personal experience with Christ in reverence. Whether or not you believe it shouldn’t hinder their belief. Not many believed Joseph Smith had that experience. The LDS don’t believe Denver has. It will not change the fact that the only way to know is by their fruits!

      It’s fair to say that given Jared’s fruits, you don’t believe him. But that’s a judgment, not only on him, but also on you. As you judge you will be judged. And why not? Be judged, for heavens sakes, if you feel inclined to be. We all have to judge “this” matter, and be willing to be held accountable for the kind of fruit we produce!

      Messed up Brian, but funny,
      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  52. Brian,

    You ask: "Can we accept the Lots doc (and it could even be another) as a Guide?"

    I answer: No, for reasons I have spelled out sufficiently both here and on my blog.

    The Lord's assignment pertaining to the G&S was clear and it has been solved.

    The sooner y'all can make your peace with The Rock of Jesus Christ - which entails freely believing and actually doing what it contains - the sooner the body can move on to other tasks the Lord may put upon us, having the capacity to actually do what he asks.

    On the other hand, the more people hinder and delay and say we don't have enough time for everyone to start doing what they agreed to do in Boise, well, there probably is a clock ticking somewhere that we don't know about, and it is not wise to procrastinate the day of our repentance. And if a subset of the body - even a majority - were to defraud the Lord, we won't be able to accomplish the tasks the Lord will give us, and the body - maybe even a vast majority of it - will not be saved, while those who remain faithful to the covenant and do not defraud the Lord will be.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Jared, will you stop disputing and let the body make what you consider to be a mistake? I am asking according to the way you follow the Sermon yourself to go the second mile and stop. Will you do so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian,

      The short answer is "no" (A&C Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4).

      Given a choice between having God as my adversary, and having you as my adversary, I choose you.

      All you have to believe is this: there shall be no other agreed upon document for the G&S assignment than The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

      There shall be no compromise, no negotiation, no textual change, and there is no other path open to any of you to fulfill the Lord's requirement.

      How long it takes each of you to accept and do as the Lord has required is up to each of you.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    2. Why would you ask me to become party to murder, Brian?

      Jared L.

      Delete
    3. Jared,

      Given a choice between having God as my adversary, and having you as my adversary, I choose you.

      The Lord has endorsed the Lot's document, so I can accept no other.

      All you have to believe is this: there shall be no other agreed upon document for the G&S assignment than the Lot's document.

      There shall be no compromise, no negotiation, no textual change, and there is no other path open to any of you to fulfill the Lord's requirement.

      How long it takes each of you to accept and do as the Lord has required is up to each of you.

      Delete
    4. If you consider the covenant as being from a man, you can rescind it at any time and be free of its obligations similar to how Mormon repented of his oath.

      Delete
    5. Brian,

      I ask again: why do you ask me to become a party to murder?

      For to lead God's children astray is to murder them, says Alma.

      Alma 36
      13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.

      14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

      Murdering God's children is the price of "mistakes" in this field.

      I will not consent to the murder of God's children. Why would you ask me to?

      "Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?"

      Jared L.

      Delete
  54. Brian, the lots document as well as the august, and savage document all are similar. It seems that all the section 20 type documents contain similar themes. For what purpose do we all need to submit in favor of one document? If we all mutually agree to the Doctrine and Law then we are free to govern ourselves. Each fellowship can determine how best to explain the work underway etc.. Why not allow the fellowships to determine for themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  55. I agree with that sentiment, Tyler, but many do not. I also don't see any harm in publishing a version of one document as an example, if it is stated as such. The Lots doc is one that a majority felt comfortable with, so it may be easy to publish it in the scriptures as a word of wisdom for fellowships as an example of one version they can get an idea off of, and encouragement to make their own based off of scriptures. I see that as kindly to tell fellowships to determine for themselves, but notice how a majority of Gentiles tackled the problem as an example only, stating we could be wrong in our organization, paraphrasing, and pick of quotes from Denver or Joseph Smith or scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think even Jared's doc could be accepted as "A Guide and Standard" or whatever his title was, and offer that as fulfilling the command from God, and do what it says. Then, in a separate act, add a word of wisdom on fellowshipping in a glossary capacity in the scriptures, and not suggest it fulfills the command in A&C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is interesting idea.

      Delete
    2. The Guide and Standard requirement is bound by mutual consent by command of the Lord. A glossary addition is not. We have already added other T&C sections by majority vote. I don't know what is right to do. Just brainstorming again.

      Delete
    3. Just so I understand correctly. Your idea would be to take the Doctrine and Law as our "statement of Principles."

      Then as a "help" publish the lots document in glossary with the idea that it is there to help new ppl get started.

      Right?

      Delete
    4. Yes, and change the preamble to the Lots document to reflect that. See my example of a preamble above that covers some concerns expressed by others along the way.

      Delete
    5. Another option is to publish the Lots document as a Word of Wisdom in its own section in T&C, if the Lots people don't like it relegated to merely a Glossary item. I still think it should state it is one among many, and go and make your own, hence the ideology behind it being a Word of Wisdom, and not by constraint. That could also be by majority vote. I don't know.

      Delete
  57. Brian,

    I'd like to continue this conversation over the phone if you would like. Friend me on Facebook and let's swap numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's your last name? Or, if you'd prefer, you can find me on Facebook

      Delete
    2. Tyler Kelly. I send you a friend request.

      Delete
  58. From my reading of the comments above, Rob and Log are differentiated by only two words: practice and teach. What's the best way to resolve this?

    I think Log has been pretty clear that he is unwilling to change ANY wording in the document he has titled: The Rock of Jesus Christ. Log, is this correct? Would you be open to changing these two words? Could you be persuaded to use something different? Will you talk with Rob privately about it?

    Rob: It looks like from the discussions above that you weren't persuaded by Log's explanation/justification for using the words practice and teach. Is this a deal breaker for you on using the document: The Rock of Jesus Christ (as it presently exists)? Could you be persuaded to use them (i.e., practice and teach)? Will you talk with Log privately about it?

    Personally, I believe practice and teach convey the same meaning and are superfluous. It you are practicing the doctrine and law of Christ you are also (by that very act) teaching it. In fact, if you're practicing the Doctrine and Law of Christ, you're probably a better, more authoritative, and persuasive teacher than others who just "preach" about it.

    In fact (while we're talking about this), the whole prefix "accept, practice, and teach" in my mind is superfluous. Accepting the Law and Doctrine of Christ, in my mind, means living it. Does one accept the Law and Doctrine of Christ without practicing it? Living it means practicing it. Practicing it means teaching it.

    That being said, I'm fine with The Rock of Jesus Christ using only "accept" OR using "accept, practice, and teach." Both statements are equivalent to me.

    I think this discussion has been fruitful. I'm happy with the progress that is being made (however small). I'm glad everyone is being heard.

    AND Rob, I really like the post above. It has touched my heart, and is a very apt analogy, symbol, or description of what's been happening within the Guide and Standard discussions. I hope you've felt like I've accepted the "taki" you've laid at my feet (I'm going to also send in my name to the recorder because I see no harm in that). I accept the Doctrine and Law of Christ as my guide and standard.

    Yet, I also sympathize with all others who wish to provide more information to new believers in a written format. However, I believe there is plenty of ways to remedy this problem in a manner that doesn't offend those who disagree (i.e., a website/directory of "GUIDES" that show how others have implemented the Law and Doctrine of Christ).

    I believe that a website like that would be a great celebration of diversity and that it would actually encourage others to use their own gifts and talents to implement the Law and Doctrine of Christ.

    Thank you Rob and Log for having the courage to stand up for what you believe. We're all better because of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brade,

      I am unwilling to alter the document, and I am unwilling to consent to any other.

      Accepting The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles is the price of accepting and doing as the Lord has required.

      I prefer to have my conversations in public.

      Jared L.

      Delete
    2. Brade,

      I think more along the lines of your initial understanding, that if they govern themselves by the Doctrine and Law, then no one need tell them to do anything. People can say, and those who are governed this way will recognize the spirit of what they say, and follow the Holy Ghost.

      The problem I have with adding more than to govern ourselves is, telling anyone to practice and teach is to govern another, and I in Zion none will govern over another. We will necessarily practice as we choose to be governed. We will necessarily teach as we choose to be governed. But, to add our requirements, one man to another, is not our responsibility.

      Does that answer your question?

      Rob Adolpho

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

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rob,

    How, exactly, do you plan on doing these specific things...

    "Cry peace. Proclaim my words. Invite those who will repent to be baptized and forgiven, and they shall obtain my Spirit to guide them."

    "The time is short and I come quickly, therefore open your mouths and warn others to flee the wrath which is to come as men in anger destroy one another."

    "...accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant...", A&C Question 2, one of which obligations is this: "he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance."

    "Teach your children to honor me."

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

    ... without teaching the doctrine, law, and commandments of Christ?

    And, if it is impossible do all those things without teaching them, then your objection to The Rock of Jesus Christ, that you will not teach - or, as you phrase it, "telling people what to do" - brings you into direct conflict with your assent to the Boise Covenant.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jared,

      You asked what I will do to fulfill the other requirements of the questions included in the answer to the covenant? I will simply fulfill them, without you or anyone telling me to do it. Since I choose to Govern myself by the Doctrine and Law of Christ, then I will do what comes naturally when a man Governs himself by the Doctrine and Law of Christ, and I will practice and teach the Doctrine and Law of Christ to all who will receive it.

      I agree that those who govern themselves by the Doctrine and Law will practice and teach it, I just don't agree that anyone need tell them to.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    2. Rob,

      You cannot fulfill them and simultaneously refuse to fulfill them. Your position is self-contradictory.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    3. I'm concerned about writing what is minimally necessary for mutual agreement. That doesn't represent what more I will accept to do, only what this body of people can minimally bear out.

      Rob

      Delete
    4. in mutual agreement that is...

      Delete
    5. Rob,

      You don't have to worry about the writing. It's done.

      Each individual of the body has, like you have, agreed to teach the doctrine, law, and commandments of the Lord as part of the covenant.

      Your objection to The Rock of Jesus Christ - that you refuse to teach, or, in other words, tell other people what to do - is thus seen to be self-contradictory.

      Jared Livesey

      Delete
    6. To you, teach = tell people what to do. That is precisely what I will not do. I will not tell people what to do, but am satisfied governing myself. If you want to tell people what to do, you can go ahead without me. I'll not stop you from going on.

      I'm not sure why we are doing this again. I thought we already established our positions to one another already previously. Did you think that my mind had changed? I am settled with the idea that you will not change your document, and I haven't tried to change that in you. Are you trying to "tell" me what to do?

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    7. Rob,

      Your position against The Rock of Jesus Christ is self-contradictory.

      Teaching entails telling someone what to do.
      You agreed by covenant to teach.
      Therefore you shall tell people what to do, or else you shall not fulfill the Boise Covenant.

      If you do not care to fulfill the covenant, that is indeed your business, but then why do you participate in the G&S "discussions"?

      Jared L.

      Delete
    8. Write what you like, I will not tell anyone what to do, thus making my flesh their arm, as you would.

      Delete
    9. Perhaps it's for the best that you don't. But, then, you should also bow out of the Guide and Standard discussions, since providing a guide and a standard is all about telling people what to do.

      Jared L.

      Delete
  61. Again, if any individual intends to fulfill the Boise Covenant, they will in the end do exactly what is contained in The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles, whether or not the body ever does accept and do as the Lord has required and adopts The Rock of Jesus Christ. That is what we have agreed to do.

    And nobody need enter the Boise Covenant to do those things and obtain the Lord's covenant.

    The path of wisdom is to cease disputing The Rock of Jesus Christ and do what it contains. When we are all doing so equally with an eye single to the glory of the Lord will we all be agreed, with no vote needed.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jared: Is this not part of what you covenanted to govern your life by?

    "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord."

    Prob. 2:218, RE.

    If your proposal is the only one that meets with God's aproval, why weren't you and others who agree with you (or who would agree with you now) chosen by lot?

    And instead of offering to fast and pray with others here, why did you instead warn them that even if they do fast and pray they have no promise that any personal revelations they receive will be of God, or any garuntee they won't be deceived by lying spirits, unless they're sufficiently diligent in keeping the law of Christ (ie the sermon on the mount, and the sermon at bountiful.)

    Doesn't that seem just a little bit negative to you?

    What is sufficiently diligent, and do any of us measure up?

    Are you talking about perfection, and are you perfect, and therefore exempt from the danger of deception you warn all of is of?

    These seem like reasonable questions.

    Will you please answer them?

    And is anyone really asking you to publicly discuss the details of some personal experience with God, or simply to affirm or deny whether or not you mean something you seem to say in one of your blog posts literally--namely that you had been favoured with the personal presence of the Father (and/or the Son) before you said that you knew that the covenant offered in Boise was of God, and left to rely "only on the Holy Ghost" after the conference.

    As Adrian said, that clearly implies that you had a face to face with God sometime before the conference, and that He turned His face away from you after the conference.

    Presumably because you did something He strongly disapproved of, and that you've been trying to warn us against doing.

    This is serious stuff Jared, and all Adrian or anyone else asked you was whether or not you were speaking literally when you made such statements.

    And I don't see why anyone who's read your blog doesn't have the right to ask you if you meant those statements literally--as Adrian asked you.

    Please do him, and the rest of us the curtesy of answering his question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of you speak through your lens and so do I. In my culture when we speak we introduce ourselves, our parents, grandparents and give a genealogy of where we come from, this indicates our connection to this world. When someone is Anonymous they are faceless, having no connection. In other words, they view themselves as nobody. It’s hard to take the Anonymous people serious since they don’t take themselves serious.
      Q

      Delete
  63. I am very familiar with the effects of religions "teaching" our people the gospel of Jesus Christ. We have had many people come and preach and teach us. The word “teach” is used in the Gentile culture as “telling.” How did Ammon teach the people of Lamoni? By way of his actions. In our traditional ways, “teaching” meant to show, be one with your words. So, when the Gentiles came and gave us their word, we thought they were speaking the truth, not so, they only wanted to tell and not show.

    Our lexicon doesn’t match God’s lexicon and until it does I don’t want to tell others to “teach,” because the way the Gentile culture uses “teach” is to tell someone what to do, and then contradict it with their actions. NO THANK-YOU! The Holy Ghost needs to teach us what God’s lexicon is before we can define what God Is talking about. For example, God tells us what mutual agreement is and then we run with our own definitions of what dispute means. Is the majority’s definition of dispute God’s definition-maybe they should go and have Denver ask God for them what it means? The Lot supporters wonder why I don’t like their document, because they define things through their lexicon, and because the majority agrees, they believe it is truth. A lot of their definitions come from damn Mormonism-taking things out of context.

    Q

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous asks:
    Jared: Is this not part of what you covenanted to govern your life by?

    "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord."

    Prob. 2:218, RE.


    That's between me and God, not me and you.

    "Who are you who judges another man's servant? He stands or falls to his master; yea, he shall be supported, for God is able to make him stand." - Romans 14:4

    The thrust of that verse is my service to God is between God and me, not me and you.

    As far as me offering my friendly warning to those who propose to fast and pray that if they do not keep the commandments of God with diligence, according to the Book of Mormon they have claimed with their lips to receive by covenant, they have no promise that the Lord shall answer.

    Wouldn't you want to know how to get answers you can rely upon? If so, then you would tell others how to get answers they can rely upon.

    And I perform this service to my brothers and sisters pursuant to Question 3 of the A&C.

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


    LDS D&C 82:10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

    If you do not keep his commandments with diligence, you have no promise the Lord shall answer.

    And if you have no promise the Lord shall answer because you do not keep his commandments with diligence, and if you are answered, it may not be the Lord who answered you.

    And if it may not be the Lord who answered you, it may have been a false spirit who answered you.

    And if it may have been a false spirit who answered you, your revelations are suspect.

    Either way, none should trust your revelations, for that would be for them to trust in men, which brings the curse of the Lord.

    Again, I say this pursuant to Question 3 of the A&C.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound a little bitter Jared.

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Even though your opening remarks still sound a little biter to me here Jared, I thank you for your reply.

      Delete
  65. There was no name attached to "log" for many years, and Jared has always said that these discussions shouldn't be about personalities.

    ReplyDelete
  66. On that we agree.

    ReplyDelete
  67. True, back in the day there was no name attached to the name log, but a person still knew that they were taking to "log" whoever log was. Would the anonymous writer(s) consider using at least a consistent alias? I think it would strengthen relations. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point Sarah! That would be helpful to at least know who is responding, even without identity, so that we can understand you.

      Rob

      Delete
  68. Firstly, I liked your post of the Taki, Rob. Here is what is in MY heart: After reading almost all of the postings on this blog, and after much thought, I have this observation: almost no-one agrees with everything any of the fine, wonderful and truth-filled G&S's offered, and there are even some people who may see nothing of value in one or more of them. Verbiage differs, as does length and emphasis.

    I also just read Larson's post about how perhaps something that should be considered is making the statement so broad and all-encompassing that no-one COULD disagree. Then all would have mutual agreement, no? The point was this: what if the statement or guiding principle was something like, "We seek to learn Truth as given by the Holy Spirit, from whatever source it may come"? Surely no-one could argue with something like that! But back to Larson's post. I think he made some pretty good points, and here is a quote from his post that illustrates more fully what I just said:

    "Our “statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement” could simply be that each person has principles and values they hold dear, and it is up to them to determine what they are. We mutually agree to hear the other person’s perspective, try to learn from it, and to teach them our own guiding principles if asked. Persuasion to not only each other in this movement, but the entire world would come in the form of viewing our fellow man the way God views them, and then behaving according to that view. This approach would not negate all the proposed standards put out there, but only give an individual the opportunity to live their stated truth."

    Thus, anyone could adopt any of the G&S's in existence (or compose their own!), as long as we can first get that initial, mutually agreed-upon statement of principle. I do not claim to be any sort of expert or authority. I just do not like bickering and fighting. This effort is looking more and more like the first attempt at the G&S, which crumbled and collapsed under the weight of so much logic and argument; of so many people insisting it must be "this" way (whether-or-not they invoke the Lord's name explicitly, they imply it by their intractability) or no way. Like I said: I just hate to see good people feel the need to argue and bicker so much. Love and Peace!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaron Abell,

      RESPECT! I agree with your expression above. I have written below addressing the same concerns. We are thinking along a similar wave-length, and I appreciate that.

      Given the vagueness of the assignment, we seem to have gathered into tribes according to our individual assumptions. People's assumptions are valid, and should not be treated as invalid. And, as you said, we ought to be good with not controlling another's assumptions because it causes the bickering and fighting that we are witnessing.

      I recommend that no one need give up their assumptions for another's. And that might not look like good sense when addressing the issue of mutual agreement. I recommend keep your assumptions, and I'll keep mine, and within our tribes lets focus on Christ to do His part, to give us more light that will bring together, rather than continue to tear apart.

      If we cross over to discuss and understand the assumptions of other tribes, we ought not go to war passively or aggressively forcing our assumptions on them. Within your own tribes, spend the time focusing on adding light, and when more light is given, it will shine on the darkness for your understanding alone. Each tribe ought to be an incubator for more light, allowing the grandness of light to produce mutual agreement, as men see your good works and glorify our Father in heaven.

      The more the contention continues, the more the salt looses its savor, and becomes useless, only to be trodden under foot. I agree with you that we must not engage in the poisonous contention.

      Thank you for your impressions,
      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
  69. To: All

    I want to address the intentional vagueness of the instructions given in the Answer and Covenant. It was vague from the beginning, when Jeff Savage began. Although the Answer and Covenant added clarity, it did not remove vagueness. However, the Lord requires still a statement of principles that are mutually agreed upon. Many assumptions have been made in order to complete the assignment, filling the vague gaps with our desires, making this a project of proving.

    Looking back, considering the vagueness of the assignment, I finally realize what people have been telling me all throughout the assignment. I didn’t understand what they were saying before, but I think I get it now. When they said that any document would have fulfilled the assignment, I thought, “Huh, what’da?” But, considering the vagueness of the instructions, I can now see that each of the documents could be justified. Jeff’s multiple documents could be justified by the assumptions he made in connection with the vagueness of the instructions. August 5th could have been justified by the assumptions and vagueness as well. Likewise, for the Lots program, Jared Livesay, and my own. Each are forced to make assumptions, based upon the vagueness of the assignment.

    As it seems, we have separated into tribes, based upon our assumptions. The Jeff Savage group have assumed his tribe. The August 5th-ers assume their tribe. The Lots have their tribe. Log has his tribe. And I have accumulated an assumptive tribe of my own. Some remain afloat, not necessarily belonging to any tribe. It is the vagueness of the assignment that has permitted our free division. And in the absence of instruction, how we choose to deal with one another has become the real test.

    The assignment will remain incomplete, no matter how many voices your tribe accumulates, no matter how many valid signatures you get on your petition, and no matter how many you speak for in your fellowships, …mutual agreement will be incomplete, unless the Lord produces it. He is the gatherer, and what He requires is servants. If we are to serve, it will be to continue laboring through our differences. That requires more conversation, but not poisonous backbiting, and justifying, …instead it requires genuine searching for peace. The Lord offers His sanctuary in our conversations, when they are centered on Christ and not contention.

    Please, remain in your tribes. Let’s agree not to go to war with other tribes. And let’s continue the conversations, in Christ, of how we can fulfill His requirement of a statement of principles in mutual agreement. Where two or more are gathered in His name, there He will be also.

    I refuse to tell anyone what to do, as that is the source of the war in heaven; it is the source of wars on Earth; it is the source of our contention. I will be satisfied to govern myself alone.

    Rob Adolpho





    ReplyDelete
  70. Part 1
    TO: THE “MOVEMENT”
    RE: SOME IMPORTANT THINGS YOU MIGHT BE MISSING IN ROB & Q’S POST


    Hi! My name is Chris Chandler, and I am your friend. Even though I’ve seen some weirdness (and I profess to my own weirdness – to which my wife will attest) in this blog, I want to assume that everyone on this thread loves the Lord and is seeking to love each other. That’s the premise I am working from in writing this here.

    Let me start out by saying unequivocally that I am Rob Adolpho’s friend. We have known each other since we were in the MTC back in 1991. We were at BYU-Hawaii together after missions and then didn’t see each other for nearly 18 years following.

    The reason I’m writing is because I see a lot of dialogue happening from his post, but most of it is about documents and language still. I think there is a significant piece of his message being missed because unless you grew up in the Polynesian culture, it is just so foreign.

    There are some things you cannot understand until or unless you actually experience it. For instance, if you knew I went to the Bruno Mars concert and you asked me how it was. If I said, “It was awesome!” That would not convey to you in the smallest form my “experience”. There almost could not be enough words to paint a proper picture in your mind. This is very similar to understand Polynesians and the “remnant” people (of whom we say we want to be among as Gentiles) or any other culture which may be foreign to us.

    Ammon, going among King Lamoni’s people understood this and was willing to put aside his Nephite culture that he might be able to serve those “savages” (think: Pocahontas, LOL). Until, or unless you have multiple engagements, or are even willing to “desire to dwell among [those] people for a time…or perhaps until the day [you] die” there are some things that may never be understood.

    I served my mission in the Polynesian islands and married a girl from the islands and have lived among these people for about the last 25 years, or so. From that perspective, if you will indulge me for a few minutes, I hope to share some things which may help you understand Rob & Q’s post much better. (Who knows? Maybe I’ll just muck it up, but hopefully not…)

    ReplyDelete
  71. Part 2
    Here are some internet primers I found to help you understand certain terminology:

    Powhiri & Waiata
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74VcCJNaGvw/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpY6qkWGMds/
    (This is ~ 4 minutes long, but you can watch the interaction between the two parties and notice the ceremonial embrace which happens at the end with the hongi.)

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/marae-protocol-te-kawa-o-te-marae/page-2/ (This is the best written explanation of the process I have found and definitely worth your time to read if you care to understand.)

    Hongi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGJfj61bsE4/ (explanation)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39XbAjB2k-o/

    Haka
    Wedding haka (original HD version)
    Kahuku rugby haka
    Kahuku football haka – same

    Mana – “seeing eye to eye”
    Mana – TedxTalk

    Let me point out two things: 1) Most of you may not have known this, but the Kahuku football/rugby haka was written by a friend of mine and is a haka about the 2,000 stripling warriors from the Book of Mormon and how they remembered the teachings of their mothers to always honor God. If I didn’t explain that to you, you may have just thought it was another war dance to prepare to “rip someone’s head off”. Now, you may be thinking, hmmm…pretty cool.

    2) If you noticed in the Wedding Haka (with the subtitles) it was the parents speaking to their son telling him to follow the right and be true to himself about the weight of the problems he was carrying and how to find the answer – from within. It was a challenge from the parents and the village to have him wrestle the answer and not look to any other source – the assumption was that he was already connected to God within himself, so to only look there.

    But it looks so “mean” doesn’t it? If you do not understand the culture, especially when most of us westerners have become so “sophisticated” as to think we don’t need to have any culture, or told that we should only have the “Church” for our culture, or have had any culture beat out of us so we conform to modern western society, then we may not understand when someone who understands their culture and how to appropriately balance it living in a predominately white, Gentile society, comes along and offers us a “gift”.

    For the most part Polynesians have been looked at as either very “friendly” or “mean and aggressive”. The truth is, they can be a bit of both. The dances, can be soft and beautiful or mean and menacing.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Part 3
    Those of you who have accused Rob of having a “froward and argumentative nature” thinks all he wants to do is argue. It is not true at all. You obviously do not know him, or his wife, or where their hearts are.

    Now, please don’t think that Rob and I always see “eye to eye”. We “wrestle” and “struggle” through things quite often. He has “proven” himself to me time and time again as someone who is fiercely loyal to God, to the truth, and to his family and friends.

    For instance, two months ago when I was lying in a hospital bed after major cancer surgery, he came more than anyone else and spent more time with me there than anyone else. He didn’t have to do that. I didn’t ask him to do that, but told him talking about the words of Christ meant so much to me in my recovery. He saw me at my worst, at my lowest, literally almost with my guts hanging out, and as a brother he was there to help lift me up physically and spiritually.

    Why am I telling you this? Because every one of us were born with two innate fears within us – 1) the fear of falling and 2) the fear of loud noises. Every other fear we have was a “learned” fear.

    My wife, who is Polynesian, pointed out to me that those who have accused Rob of being argumentative and contentious are most likely scared because he is loud when he is passionate. It is true. Many of us have learned the concept of “reverently, quietly, softly sings our melody…” thinking that Jesus would not be loud. This is a false tradition.

    Rob and Q can come across as both loud and boisterous or soft and kind. Our Gentile/Mormon culture teaches us we should be soft and submissive. The remnant” culture represented by Rob and Q may feel like an assault to our Gentile senses. It’s comes across as thunder. We don’t like loud noises and it would be easy to assume that when Rob speaks loudly so you can hear him that might mean he is being contentious. I assure you it is not. Instead of either running away, believing that such a loud noise could not be of God, or worse, accusing him and his wife of being somehow dark or evil – don’t run away, but engage the loudness, move closer to it.

    If you’re scared to climb the mountain because of what appears to be thunder and lightening’s you may miss some of the greatest blessings God has in store for those who will face the loud noises. Heck, you may find that if you learn how to engage at that level you might not actually fear and run away when you meet a ‘real’ “Son of Thunder” (ie. John the Beloved)…hmm, let that one sink in…

    My hope is that you will deeply consider what is being offered. This is about much more than just discussing a “document”, but a token or gift being offered by the Tangata Whenua (people of the land), to engage heart to heart, mind to mind, in the form of a relationship. Something much bigger and more significant is being presented here that can bring us together as a people established on the Doctrine and Law of Christ and help us repent properly…and then make us HIS people.

    I challenge you to accept and receive the taki presented here. Again, it is not an offer for a document, but a renewal in relationship. Once our hearts are right, getting a written statement of principles between us in mutual agreement will be a “light thing”. We need to repent and fix our hearts and relationships first. Hopefully, this has been helpful.

    Rob & Q – me and my family love you. I speak for my family here. We accept and receive your taki and exchange our hongi with you.

    Aloha nui loa,

    Chris & Ofa Chandler

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you’re scared to climb the mountain because of what appears to be thunder and lightening’s you may miss some of the greatest blessings God has in store for those who will face the loud noises."

      I appreciate and relate.
      Fawn Livesey

      Delete
    2. Thank you Chris and Ofa!

      Delete
    3. The explanation that Chris gave above represents my heart and mind precisely, and adds more that I could not have expressed in my own ability to write, but is accurate. The wedding haka he referenced always brings me to tears, as I know the depth of the gut, where the fierceness of the words come from. It is the rumble within us, the vibration that gives life, even the light of Christ. Rather than reading endlessly here, go to the link Chris posted and take a few minutes to watch the wedding haka, and read the translation. What looks and sounds like thunder will suddenly become comforting, calming, even peaceful. I often think of the Native American symbol of the Father and the Son, as the Eagle and Hawk, respectively. Few know that these birds are the only species of bird that fly during thunder storms. John the Beloved was named by Christ, Boanarges, meaning “son of thunder.” In Hawaiian the name Kahekili Ka’eo Kulani literally means the thunderous wisdom from the heavens.

      Rob Adolpho

      Delete
    4. I enjoyed reading this. Thanks for sharing.

      Delete
    5. That wedding haka was incredible.

      Delete
  73. This is to be a "simple" thing.
    Why make it complicated, convoluted, confusing, controversial, contradictory and contentious?
    When the Lord visited the Nephites, He gave them a guide & standard to establish their Zion. It is found in 3 Nephi 11-14.
    Why are we seeking to reinvent the wheel?
    He gave them His doctrine, the Doctrine of Christ.
    It is obvious that the Doctrine of Christ is the prelude to the strait and narrow path which He declared numerous times leads to eternal life.
    The very next thing He taught the Nephites after His repeated explanations of His doctrine was the Sermon at Bountiful.
    If His teachings of the Doctine of Christ and the Sermon at Bountiful were considered by Him to be foundational to the Nephites establishing their Zion, why not use those same teachings as our own Guide & Standard?
    Why make this complicated?
    James Russell Uhl

    ReplyDelete
  74. James,

    It is because their hearts are not right and they have not prepared themselves by keeping and teaching his commandments that they cannot understand what the Lord has asked of them. Therefore they hinder and delay and declare they will not do what he asked, even unto breaking the covenant, if they could but hear themselves properly.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have attended their conferences and listened to their talks and read their blogs wherein they preach up their wisdom and learning and precepts. The law and commandments of the Lord our God is not in their minds nor hearts from what they say: for of the abundance of their hearts do they speak.

      Where is the Lord's people, who honor him and render unto him the fruit he requires? Where are those of the church of the Lamb, who keep and teach his commandments that faith and righteousness may be found again on earth, and that Zion may come?

      Jared L.

      Delete
    2. "I have attended their conferences and listened to their talks and read their blogs wherein they preach up their wisdom and learning and precepts. The law and commandments of the Lord our God is not in their minds nor hearts from what they say: for of the abundance of their hearts do they speak."

      Do you mean all of "them," or just some of "them"?

      Delete
  75. Back in the day, Log would have said that it was the content of what he wrote, not his personal identity that mattered--and he was right.

    Truth is truth wherever it's found.

    For example: if it was ever true that Log's identity didn't matter, because it was the content of his posts that mattered--it's still true that it's the content, and not the personality (or personalities) that matter.

    Truth remains truth if it's said by "log," "Jared Livesey," an anonymous poster, or multiple different anonymous posters.

    And a valid question is a valid question, no matter who asks it.


    And a valid question remains valid if it's asked by Adrian Larsen, an anonymous poster, or multiple anonymous posters.

    For example: we know that Adrian asked Jared this question on February 25th, 2018.

    "Jared,

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

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

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

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

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

    If that was a valid question when Adrian asked it here
    https://latterdaycommentary.com/2018/02/25/awake-and-arise/ it's a valid question when an anonymous poster (ormore than one anonymous poster asks it here.

    And whether valid or not, it seems strange that this question has remained unanswered for almost two months, because Jared also posted this.

    "If you love someone...Grant their requests without judgement, and give only what they ask for, agree to, or demand (JST Matthew 5:41-43)."

    https://latterdaycommentary.com/2015/05/06/the-ideology-of-god/

    Jared's been asked to tell us whether he meant statements like this to be taken literally.

    "And I found out to my horror what the Lord meant by 'cursed be the man that trusteth in man. By saying 'yes' to the covenant, thereby saying I knew the words Denver Snuffer put forth were from the Lord when I did not, in fact, know those words to be from the Lord, I broke a commandment and trusted in men. The Lord had therefore cut me off from his presence, leaving me to be led by the Holy Ghost."

    And that request remains ungranted.

    And if it was eve true that loving someone requires granting them whatever they ask, and love is the law of Christ, askiing Jared whether he's been keeping that law well enough to know he's beyond deception, would seem to be a valid question (after he warned everyone else here that they could be deceived by lying spirits, even after fasting and praying for some light on the guiding principles under consideration, if they aren't keeping this law with due diligence.)

    And from everything Jared's written about Christ's law, how he feels about granting the request, how he feels about anyone making the request, and whether or not he wants to grant it would all seem entirely irrelevant.

    Jared, would you please grant this request.

    Was Adrian's inference correct?

    Are you saying that before you went to Boise and accepted the covenant offered you had a face to face with heavenly Father (and/or our Lord),and that you were cut off (and "left to be led by THe Holy Ghost") after you accepted the covenant?

    As Adrian asked you on February 25th--were you speaking literally here?

    And will you fast with us today (and are you certain you've been diligent enough in keeping the law of Christ, and that you're beyond deception)?

    Please answer these questions.



    ReplyDelete
  76. There is a flawed logic in the assertion that is holding this process up. So quickly, it is a non-sequitur to think that the Statement of Principles that will act as a guide and a standard would be a rehash of the Sermon on the Mount. If that was the case, the Lord would have just said that. "Use the Sermon as your Guide and Standard", he is no fool and does not waste words. He certainly does not trifle with men and give them a redundant effort to make them endlessly toil as we are now. What I do see is a spirit of pride and contention and accusation. A demeanor that is all or nothing and not a persuading influence. Let me explain what was done with such people in the movement under Joseph Smith, such people were excommunicated from the group, as they had become caustic and began to impede the progression of others and the group. Perhaps, and most unfortunately, we have arrived at that point. We have on record one who regrets taking the covenant, well guess what, it is only as binding as you so allow it. We have many examples of scripture explaining where covenants can and are broken. It would seem that this same person who regrets the covenant, which IMO is akin to breaking it, wants to hold up the rest of the community in their fulfillment of a required assignment. If the attitude was different, then I would say let's continue with the discussion, but it is not. It is intentionally damning the process with poor logic and confused sense of obligation to something regretted. I participated in one effort on the forum, it was a marvelous experience of give and take, this is not a marvelous experience for anyone. I know it is an ugly option, but it seems we cannot be as "big tent" as we would like. At the end of the day, progress is better than damnation, and if we cannot fulfill a "light thing" in less than 6 months, we need to make a change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the Answer and Covenant, you will see that the Lord did indeed request that we use His words as our guide and standard.

      "Cry Peace. Proclaim MY words. Invite those who will repent to be baptized and forgiven, and they shall obtain MY Spirit to guide them: (p. 9, emphasis added).

      "Second: Do you have faith in these things [the things spoken in the A&C] and receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a STANDARD to GOVERN you in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to GUIDE your words, thoughts and deeds?" (p. 10, emphasis added).

      "The time is now far spent, therefore labor with ME and do not forsake MY covenant to perform it; study MY words and let them be the STANDARD for your faith and I will add thereto many treasures" (p. 12).

      I'm pretty sure only two individuals have any authority to excommunicate from the covenant: we, individually, of our own accord and the LORD.

      Delete
    2. Someone posted this on FB today. It seems relevant: http://denversnuffer.com/2011/06/joseph-the-prophet/

      Delete
    3. One more, and I'll stop talking (to myself): The scriptures tell us by which means we can know ALL THINGS and therefore the means by which we can help others know ALL things in 2 Nephi 14:1.

      "Wherefore, I said unto you, Feast upon the words of Christ, for behold the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them, it will be because ye ask not neither do ye knock. Wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark. For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do. Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he [Christ] shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.”

      - Observe the words of Christ
      - Receive the Holy Ghost
      - Receive the Second Comforter

      These are not obscure generalities. These are literal directions. Read and follow the words Christ taught with His own mouth. Hear and follow the witness of the Holy Ghost. See and follow the Christ himself. I believe can know all things according to these steps, but we will not KNOW anything unless we do as instructed.

      Delete
    4. I agree, we use his words to help us create something, he did not say copy verbatim what I said, but you have my words as the basis from which you can create something. It is unwise to go contrary to the word of the Lord, but if we think it is copy scriptures in a different format and call it good, we missed the point.

      Delete
  77. James Russell Uhl says...
    Asking Jared questions that have NO bearing on the G&S and question his personal integrity is mean spirited and unworthy of people who aspire to become Zion.
    Using the LORD'S OWN WORDS to define the G&S takes it out of the realm of asking the people to follow the words of men. The Savior was defining what the Nephites should do to establish their Zion. They took Him seriously and succeeded.
    Are we so much smarter and wiser than they were?
    Why not follow His words?
    I cannot say more on this topic. If contention and mean spirited arguments are to continue I want no part of it.
    One more thing: When you post, you will be taken more seriously, at least by me, if you include your name on your post.
    Thank you.
    James Russell Uhl

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not asking questions against Jared's words. He plainly stated that he regretted taking the covenant. This is a pursuit of the heart, not of the lips. If he indeed accepted, with his lips, but his heart was far from accepting, that is the same as not accepting. I do believe that is a scripture and he described it almost to a T. So I suggest we take him at his word and allow him to see that he is not bound, and therefore all dissention he brings is of no consequence, as he is not truly a covenant holder.

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

    ReplyDelete
  79. As I have contemplated the Doctrine and Sermon, the thought that occurred to me is that the Doctrine is knowledge and the Sermon is wisdom. The Doctrine is a guide because of the Holy Ghost and Christ is our standard. In the Second Comforter, Denver indicated being one with Christ led him into His presence.

    As I compare the characteristics, perfections and attribute of the Great Spirit, based on the talk: Our Divine Parents, they match up with the characteristics the Lord speaks of in the Sermon.

    The Mother points constantly to Christ and the Father. As I look to Christ, I realize that He has led out by teaching us what will provide us salvation. It is my understanding that through Him He offers everything and all we can offer is our cooperation. The sermon is the Lord’s careful formulation of the principles which will save: I believe He gave this sermon to all His sheep when He visited them.

    The Mother constantly tells us to look to Her son. I believe by choosing to govern myself by way of the Doctrine and Law of Christ I am picking up the Taki He offers. As 3 Nephi states, “Therefore let your light so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” The light we shine should point to the Lord and no one else. Christ’s teaching explains that people see your good works as the means for your light to shine. As we take on the Doctrine and Sermon of Christ, we become one with them and therefore produce good fruit, which others will want to partake of.
    Q

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This resonates with me thank you for sharing!I especially liked your explanation regarding knowledge being the doctrine and wisdom being the sermon.

      I was reading Samuels speach in Helaman yesterday. In chapt 15 he speaks of the promises to the Lamanites in the latter days. I was surprised to come across verse 16. Here it is....

      "Therefore, saith the Lord: I will not utterly destroy them, but I will cause that in THE DAY OF MY WISDOM they shall return again unto me, saith the Lord."

      Fruits should be produced so that when this day comes, we please both Father and Mother. Like your description of the word "teach" above. We are required to demonstrate and live the way of Christ rather than only say and not do.

      Delete
    2. Tyler,

      That’s interesting, I didn’t catch that before. I definitely have to go and study that chapter.

      This is what came to my mind as I read your post: And how do we please both the Father and Mother, it is to turn to their Son and go “toward” Him and not “froward.” (the opposite of toward is froward).

      When Laman and Lemuel were disputing with one another about Lehi’s dream, Nephi comes, and they ask him if he understands Lehi, Nephi asks them if they went to the Lord to gain understanding, which they didn’t. Nephi went to the Lord to gain an understanding of what Lehi taught them and when he did, he came to understand the words of Lehi- creating mutual agreement between Nephi and Lehi. When we choose to not dispute is when we choose to go toward Him and ask Him to gain understanding, instead of relying on man’s understanding.
      Q

      Delete
  80. It would make sense that "Add" means to actually add something to the pre-existing material--not simply rehash some of it.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  81. (Reposted due to typos and editing errors.)
    Back in the day, Log would have said that it was the content of what he wrote, not his personal identity that mattered--and he was right.

    Truth is truth wherever it's found.

    For example: if it was ever true that Log's identity didn't matter, because it was the content of his posts that mattered--it's still true that it's the content, and not the personality (or personalities) that matter.

    Truth remains truth if it's said by "log," "Jared Livesey," an anonymous poster, or multiple different anonymous posters.

    And a valid question is a valid question, no matter who asks it.


    And a valid question remains valid if it's asked by Adrian Larsen, an anonymous poster, or multiple anonymous posters.

    For example: we know that Adrian asked Jared this question on February 25th, 2018.

    "Jared,

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

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

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

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

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

    That question has never been answered, and if it was a valid question when Adrian asked it on Feb, 25th, 2018, it remains a valid question when h, an anonymous poster, or more than one anonymous posters repeat it.

    Saying it's "mean spirited" is just judging the heart of the poster (or posters.)

    And whether the poster is mean spirited, or the question is valid or not, Jared has also said that charity requires us to grant every request, whether we like it or not, without paternalism, without judging, and without respect of persons.

    If that was ever true, asking Jared to grant a request made of him almost two months ago, and asking him if he's been keeping the law of Christ with enough diligence to be sure he hasn't been deceived, would seem fair questions, after he's warned everyone else that they could be deceived by lying spirits if they haven't been keeping the law of Christ diligently enough.)

    ared, would you please grant this request.

    Was Adrian's inference correct?

    Are you saying that before you went to Boise and accepted the covenant offered there you had a face to face with heavenly Father (and/or our Lord),and that you were cut off (and "left to be led by The Holy Ghost") after you accepted the covenant?

    As Adrian asked you on February 25th--were you speaking literally in that blog post?

    And will you fast with us today (and are you certain you've been diligent enough in keeping the law of Christ, and that you're beyond deception)?

    Request: Please answer these questions.

    ReplyDelete
  82. That last part should read as follows.

    Jared, would you please grant Adrian's request.

    Would you please tell us if the inferences he drew from your blog post are correct?

    Are you saying that before you went to Boise and accepted the covenant offered there you had a face to face with heavenly Father (and/or our Lord),and that you were cut off (and "left to be led by The Holy Ghost") after you accepted the covenant?

    As he asked you on February 25th--were you speaking literally in that blog post?

    And will you fast with us today (and are you certain you've been diligent enough in keeping the law of Christ to know that you haven't been deceived)?

    Request: Please answer these questions.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Brent suggests, not-so-subtly, that the majority should excommunicate me.

    The problem is, the majority has no authority nor power to do any such thing. There are no provisions in the text of the covenant for excommunication, neither departure. On the text of the covenant, one may fail to fulfill the covenant and be destroyed with the rest of the disobedient. And I have no intention of failing to fulfill the covenant to the letter.

    At the end of the day, the change that needs to be made is that the Lord's doctrine, law, and commandments be accepted, practiced, and taught by this people. It's been roughly 7 months since Boise when we all agreed to do those things - will we ever do it?

    You'll find that accepting and doing as the Lord requires is not always going to be a "marvelous experience," a warm-and-fuzzy fun-filled romp on the way to exalted bliss. It will instead involve heart-wrenching choices, lawful demands made in an unpleasant way to which you must acquiesce because you follow the law or be damned, and the casting aside of everything we desire in this world to obtain hope in a better world. Jesus was persecuted constantly and ultimately tortured to death as an example to us of what we can expect if we walk in his ways and keep his commandments.

    The only thing that is at issue in the G&S "process" since 11/27/2017 is this: "Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required." The price of accepting and doing as he has required is that The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles shall be the guide and standard. There is no other path open to you to fulfill the Lord's requirement - so the choice is simple: do you indeed desire to be his people? Then accept and do as he has required. Cease disputing against The Rock of Jesus Christ but instead do what it contains.

    I do not have to persuade you. If your own word given in Boise does not persuade you to accept and do as the Lord has required, then you are unpersuadable.

    Jared L.

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

      Delete
    2. My first assertion is that you did not truly take the covenant. As you assert you did so with your lips not your heart, this technically means you did not. In such case you do not have basis as a covenant holder to dissent. You are also aware that you dissent to impede the acceptance of any proposal because of "your power" as a covenant holder to dissent and therefore deny any hope of mutual agreement. When we do such a thing, we have only to look at LDS D&C 121 and see that an appeal to any authority is a loss of that authority. So in the economy of God your appeal to your status as a covenant holder to do anything is an indication that God says amen to such authority and association. So my response should be an acknowledgement of that action taken by you and asking you to understand. In the event that you do not agree with the scriptures outside of the Sermon on the Mount, then a more drastic step is taken whereby you are publicly stopped by a vote of the people who would like to progress and comply with more than just a few passages in Matthew and 3 Nephi.

      Delete
  84. Brent says because I regret entering the covenant I am not truly a covenant participant. He claims that I merely entered it with my lips and not my heart, therefore the majority may proceed to add the Lottery document to the scriptures despite my dispute against the adoption of the Lottery document.

    Brent's position would be very convenient for adulterers - if you regret marrying the person you married, for example, Brent would say you aren't really married, even if you've had children and been together for years. Only we all understand that the marriage covenant doesn't work that way. Once you say "yes," you are married, no matter how regretful you might be about your choice afterward.

    The sole criterion to be a covenant participant is to listen to the A&C be read and stand and say "yes" when the officiator asks. Then you are a covenant participant - howsoever regretful you might be afterward. That's all it takes. It's just like getting married.

    Whether you fulfill the covenant or not after entering it is what shows whether your heart is in it or not. And fulfilling the covenant entails accepting, practicing, and teaching the doctrine, law, and commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ - you shall do what is contained in The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles, or you shall fail to fulfill the covenant.

    But you can certainly try to persuade the other covenant participants that I am not a covenant participant, Brent. All you can hope to do is get others to defraud the Lord in the matter of the G&S and fail fulfill the covenant, and murder them by leading them astray, but that is your choice to make.

    Jared Livesey.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Brent claims that my association with the covenant participants is ended and mentions LDS D&C 121.

    There is nothing in D&C 121 which applies to this situation. I don't have to agree with you. You don't have to agree with me. We are equal. I don't have to cease to dispute with you - any of you - over the adoption of any G&S document. That's part of the Lord's "clarification" of mutual agreement - we don't agree on a document when one or more of us disputes adopting it.

    However, if you - any of you - intend to fulfill the Lord's requirement and also if you intend to fulfill the covenant, you shall cease your dispute against The Rock of Jesus Christ and you shall do what is contained therein.

    How long it takes you to do so is up to you.

    Jared Livesey

    ReplyDelete
  86. Brent,

    Fools mock, but they shall mourn. A fool is a person who acts unwisely, or rashly, not showing care for the consequences of their actions. To mock is to laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner. The LDS claims Joseph Smith as their prophet, seer, and revelator, and claim the temple and the priesthood as their justification. Since the death of Joseph and Hyrum, the LDS have acted the fool by unwisely, or rashly, not showing care for the consequences of their actions, thinking themselves protected as God’s chosen people. Originally the temple was intended to reflect the heavens, perfectly aligned with the movement of the celestial law in the heavens, as if the temple were a template of the pathway through the heavens. The temple was a mock-up of the heavens and the power of the priesthood to walk that path. The LDS are fools, who prefer the mock-up. In their foolishness, their mock-up has shifted, and will produce mourning, or deep regret and sorrow, because it can never produce the necessary fruits of the kind of faith needed for life and salvation. They will never be able to produce the sacrifice of all things. Their fruits look presentable on the outside, but are rotten on the inside.

    We have come from that environment, and bring with us THAT baggage. The saints during Moses’ day brought Egyptian baggage. The House of Israel of Christ’s day brought Jewish baggage. The Mormons of Joseph’s day brought Protestant/Methodist baggage. It’s the baggage of our LDS customs, ways, and habits that we must be ridden of. Your effort to judge and excommunicate Jared Livesay is none of your business, nor is it the business of the arrogant anonymous’ (for they are many), nor do those who propose votes and sign petitions. It is unwise, not showing care for the consequences of your actions (acting the fools), and it is a mockery. They are promised by Moroni, they shall mourn or regret their actions. Repent, change directions, and look to God and live.

    I may disapprove of Jared’s view, but that gives me no right to suggest that he be cut off and treated as an animal to be kicked. I am not doing Jared any service here, as he is fully capable of flipping you off himself, …and he has proven that. But, this proving is NOT about gathering, it’s about behaving, finding the rock of your foundation, and standing on it. On this matter, Jared and I agree, and we will both stand upon the Doctrine and Law of Jesus Christ, as our rock and foundation. You are free to gather with the masses, and blame us for not agreeing to your proposals. It would, however, be best if we not be fools and mock, lest we suffer mourning.

    I recommend you repent of your final opinions of Jared, put him on the shelf in your mind, until you know what to do with him, and continue moving forward and not froward. If you prefer the Lots majority, make yourself known as a supporter of them and sign their secret petition. I’m sure Jared needs no apology, as he is unaffected by disapproval, as he knows where he stands. It is not your responsibility to gather, nor is it your responsibility to cut-off. It is only your responsibility to be proven and be gathered by the Lord. What you have just exhibited is bitter fruit. I say that, not for Jared’s sakes, but for your own. You are a fool mocking. I know it’s difficult to see yourself, within yourself. And sometimes it’s helpful, and even kind for someone outside of you to tell you that you have a snot hanging from your nose. So, you’re welcome!

    Rob Adolpho


    ReplyDelete
  87. So you can't say I'm compelling you - I literally cannot compel you.

    You can't say I'm abusing my authority - I always have power to either agree or disagree, and there are no conditions which constrain my agreement or disagreement. That is my agency, and, as a covenant holder, I have standing in this matter. That you may not like how I exercise my privileges does not have any impact upon my standing.

    You can't claim I'm not a covenant participant without undermining all participation in any covenant on the same basis you wish to use to exclude me from this one, and nothing in the text of the covenant justifies the claim of a "buyer's remorse" exit clause. There is no "right of recission" contained therein.

    You don't have any way in righteousness to avoid my claim.

    Jared L.

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

    ReplyDelete
  89. Doesn't "add to" simply mean to add a Guide & Standard to the new scriptures, rather than coming up with new ideas, new concepts, or new scriptures?

    The idea of "adding to" the doctrine and commandments which the Lord thought was sufficient to enable the Nephites to establish their Zion seems very presumptuous. Adding to the Lord's words always leads to contention and ultimately to failure.

    Rob, I understand your idea that no one should "tell" another what to do.
    I don't believe Jared is attempting to do that.

    It appears to me he is telling us to keep the Lord's requirement to teach and testify to one another. It is the Lord who tells men "turn the other cheek", etc.

    We must distinguish between the Lord telling us what to do (His right) and a man telling us to do what the Lord has commanded (mans' duty).

    A concise statement of the Doctrine of Christ and the Lord's teachings (as found in the Sermon on the Mount and at Bountiful), with nothing added or deleted, would make a very appropriate Guide & Standard and should be agreeable to all concerned. This the very same foundation the Lord gave the Nephites upon which they were able to establish their Zion.

    Whatever else people might wish to adopt as their personal, group or family guide and standard should be left up to them.

    It seems a "light" thing to me to accomplish this requirement given us by the Lord.

    Thank you.
    James Russell Uhl

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jared: "I have already responded to Anonymous above (and many others) that yes, I believe the Lord gave Denver the words.

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

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

    You said you believe the words of the covenant were given to Denver by the Lord.

    Does that mean that you still don't know that they were given to Denver by the Lord?

    And are you certain that (if?) they were given, they were only given as a test of integrity?


    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous,

    If you insist on trying me for my membership, which thing is forbidden by the Lord in the Book of Mormon you claimed to receive by covenant (Question 2), you'll have to do it without my input.

    LDS Mormon 8:20 Behold what the scripture says—man shall not smite, neither shall he judge; for judgment is mine, saith the Lord[.]

    You may, of course inquire of God and find out from him what he thinks of my covenant status.

    Here, again, is the formula for inquiring of God and getting an answer.

    1 Nephi 15:11
    If ye will not harden your hearts
    and ask me in faith
    believing that ye shall receive
    with diligence in keeping my commandments
    surely these things shall be made known unto you.


    These are commandments of the Lord.

    1. If anyone hits you on one cheek, turn the other cheek to him (Luke 6:29; Matt 5:39; 3 Nephi 12:39).
    2. If anyone takes your cloak, allow him to have your coat too (Luke 6:29; Matt 5:40; 3 Nephi 12:40).
    3. Give to every person who asks you to (Luke 6:30; Matt 5:42; 3 Nephi 12:42).
    4. Do not ask for your stuff back from anyone who takes it (Luke 6:30).
    4. Lend to everyone who asks, do not ask for it back (#4), and hope that you do not get paid back (Luke 6:34-35; Matt 5:42; 3 Nephi 12:42).

    May you find the answers you seek - from the source of all truth, wisdom, and knowledge.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Actually, I wasn't trying your membership in the covenant body, I was thinking of what you've said regarding the difference between believing and knowing, and wondering if there was any sense in which you could now say that you know the words given to Denver given were of the Lord.

    But now that you mention it, since you used the word "believe," and you've always recognized a distinction between knowing and believing, it would seem that you still don't know that the words of the covenant are of the Lord--in any sense (even as a test of integrity.)
    It would seem (from your words, unless you'd like to clarify them) that you don't (personally) "know" if those words are of God, of the devil, or of man.
    And it would seem from the words you wrote the day after you said you accepted the covenant, that you had no more knowlede of where those words came from when you said you that you knew they were of God than you do now.

    So if the questions asked of those wanting to enter the covenant that day were of the Lord, and the one asking them was a sentinel gaurding the way, didn't you really just "try" to enter a covenant you weren't qualified to enter by lying to a sentinel?

    How then have you ever been a covenant participant?

    Unless you'd like to clarify something, isn't the conclusion that you only pretended to be a covenant participant (from the beginning) inescapable--from your own words?

    I mean wasn't the covenant intended for those who knew it was of the Lord?
    And didn't you say you lied when you said you had that knowledge?
    And don't you now say that you only "believe" the words were of God (and then only as a test)?
    And didn't you warn those who did enter the covenant that day not to consider you a participant?

    Have I misread or misunderstood anything?
    And is there anything you'd like to clarify?

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

    ReplyDelete

  94. I said: "If you insist on trying me for my membership, which thing is forbidden by the Lord in the Book of Mormon you claimed to receive by covenant (Question 2), you'll have to do it without my input."

    Anonymous then says: "Actually, I wasn't trying your membership in the covenant body... [b]ut now that you mention it... [h]ow then have you ever been a covenant participant?"

    QED.

    Jared L.

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

    ReplyDelete

  96. "Wisdom counsels mankind to align their words with their hearts, but mankind refuses to take counsel from Wisdom."

    As we are almost all from a culture of hypocrisy, almost all of us speak fluent passive-aggressive, which is the fine old art of using feigned words to try to disguise one's intentions before men with plausible deniability. Almost all of us recognize it when we see it.

    Since you cannot answer my arguments, and cannot compel my acquiescence, the only remaining ploy the majority has left is to try to attack my standing as a covenant participant. No such attack carries any weight, of course, since God alone and not men are my judge in this matter, but the attempt is being made to make appear a case before men that I am not a covenant participant to manipulate them into defrauding the Lord and failing to fulfill the covenant that they may be led to destruction.

    As I said: you'll have to make your case without my input. If you wanted the truth you'd have appealed to God for it and not me. Therefore truth is not the objective.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I haven't said you only pretended to the knowledge required of a covenant participant, lying on the day you said that you knew the words of the covenant were of the Lord, you have, on your own blog.

    I haven't warned anyone who did enter the covenant that day, knowing the words of the covenant were of the Lord, not to consider you a covenant participant--you did.

    Again on your own blog.

    And I'm not the one who said you now "believe" that the words were given by Lord, as some kind of test, you did (here.)

    Your own words judge you.

    QED (unless you'd like to clarify something.)

    ReplyDelete
  98. 28 ¶ But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

    29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

    30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

    31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

    Jared L.

    ReplyDelete