Adopted by Mutual Agreement - 10/9/17

 Adopted by Mutual Agreement

In the spirit of “Plea for the Original,” there is a need for some sort of mechanism or a manner for those who want to adopt the “Proposed Set of Governing Principles [Original GP] as contained in the Draft Scriptures.  Here is a link to the Original GP found online:

In March, we were taught that before the Lord can establish a covenant, the people need to receive scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern their daily walk in life and that they need to be given the time to review those scriptures.  We were told these terms and given a list of the scripture necessary to include for the covenant to be established:  “As it stands today [March 2017], there is not a single church, body, congregation, or assembly anywhere that has published and is claiming as their body of governing scriptural material, a set of scriptures which includes: 1. the Lectures on Faith, 2. fully contain the fullness of the scriptures for every revision Joseph made of the Bible, 3. faithfully reproduce the original revelations and their original wording, and 4. adapt punctuation for the Book of Mormon text that avoids imposing doctrinal errors. Nor is there a form of scriptures adapted so as to function to govern the existing fellowships among us. Now there is a draft to include all these things, and it is available for at least a half a year for all to review before we consider adopting it as our volumes of scripture.” (Things to Keep Us Awake at Night p 5)

We were also told, “Approving and adopting the scriptures is to take place in September after the chance has passed for review of the material. This has always been a necessary and ignored step for the gentiles. With it, they can claim they have accepted a covenant and a law”  (ibid p. 7)

In his opening remarks at the Covenant Conference, the Lord's servant, David, reminded us: “The covenant being offered does not require one to reject it, only voluntary acceptance. It assumes mankind's rejection and therefore to reject one need do nothing.”

With covenants, God offers something, and we simply accept.  We don't create or redefine the terms to suit our preferences.  The only thing required of the servant offering the covenant, is to allow time for the people to review the material before they accept it by covenant.  The people do not get to decide what the material is, only if they want to accept it or not.  “The Answer and Covenant” confirmed that the adoption of a statement of principles by the mutual agreement of His people was mandatory.  

We believe that the Original GP serves well the function that the Lord's servant, David, commented in March in his remarks titled “Things to Keep Us Awake at Night”:
·       That now there is “a form of scriptures adapted so as to function to govern the existing fellowships among us.”
·       To “adopt guiding principles applicable to our day.”
·       “ of the characteristics of these people will be their willingness, even alacrity, to receive commandments and            revelations.”
·       “We want to find that group of believers who will accept and abide covenants from God.”
·       “The Lord cannot force us to receive Him; He can only offer. We must accept.”
·       “It was always the Lord’s expectation that “few” would receive it and walk in a straight and narrow path. Almost all others will reject it and walk in a broad enough path to accommodate every other false religious idea, false promise, incomplete and damning path that competes with the Lord’s invitation to come to Him.”

Since the Original GP was removed  and written out of the scriptures before the Lord provided us with “The Answer,” we also believe that the Original GP satisfies all the requirements the Lord commanded us in “The Answer”:

ü              adopted by the mutual agreement of [His] people
ü              contains an agreed statement of principles
ü              is a guide and standard to bless, benefit, and inform
ü              is wise in word and kind in deed
ü              must be written and added to the scriptures

The Original GP was offered alongside the rest of the scriptures for our review and acceptance after the scripture committee had come to a unanimous agreement.  We agree with their work and believe the Lord's hand was directly involved in the project to recover the scriptures left to us by Joseph and also provide us with scriptures to function to govern our existing fellowships.  We define mutual agreement to mean:  All those willing to join in agreement with the scripture committee to accept the Original GP have an agreed statement—therefore, have adopted it by mutual agreement. Those who don't want to accept it are not forced to do so. Those who want to make a statement of principles to their satisfaction are at perfect liberty to do that.  No believer is at the mercy of another to decide what he/she will adopt or accept. But for those who do have the desire to accept the proposal as part of the scriptures, we claim the liberty to accept it by mutual agreement. 

Therefore, we want to affirm and demonstrate before God, angels, and between ourselves that we do mutually agree, as People of God (having accepted and covenanted with Him on or since Sept 3, 2017), that we do adopt the Original GP-- “A Proposed Set of Principles” that will need to be “written” again back into the scriptures.  The Original GP was removed from the Covenant Scriptures and will need to be written again to be added to the scriptures again.

And so, neither by majority nor by unanimity, but by simply accepting what God has prepared and offered, we adopt by mutual agreement the original governing principles (found in the original draft covenant scriptures starting on page 247), to be the guide and standard, to bless and inform, and to be written into the Canon of Covenant scripture.

We don't know if the Original GP will ever eventually be included into the scriptures compiled by the Scripture Committee—we presume that committee is the one to finally determine that.  But whether by that committee or a new committee or by whatever means the final requirement of the Lord gets added, we can meanwhile adopt, by our mutual agreement, the Original GP among ourselves, as the Guide and Standard the Lord requires.

If you likewise would like to adopt the Original GP by mutual agreement, as was originally offered (explained above), you can indicate your own willingness to simply accept it by submitting your name(s).  After allowing sufficient time for any and all to respond (at least 3 weeks, November 1, 2017), or until the Original GP is written into the scriptures, I plan to submit this document – along with the names of any others who likewise are in mutual agreement – to, to be kept as a record and testimony of what we have adopted by mutual agreement.  You can please comment to this blog post with your name and with the names of the others present with you, who likewise accept.  You can also send your names to me confidentially via emaiI at to be included with the list of names that I will submit.

This adoption by mutual agreement to include the Original GP is not necessarily binding upon the whole body.  We have no authority to actually make the addition to the scripture as requested by the Lord.  But hereby, we declare and demonstrate the intent and desire of our hearts and minds.

Christ told us, My yoke is easy.  My burden is light.  It was so light that it was handed to us on a silver platter.  Let us partake of the fruit that was grown for us through the love of others and the workings of God.

The exact process that will cause whichever final statement of principles to be added to the scriptures in unknown to us yet.  It was a light thing the Lord required of us and we do not want to hinder nor delay the adoption of a guide and standard any more. 

We are NOT separating from the rest of the body.  We seek to “Be one” -- in equality, agency, and love.  We desire to stay united with the Lord's people (whoever that might be), seeking further and further to become of one heart and one mind, and to help the Lord continue his Strange Act, and to continue in the Covenant we entered on or since Sept 3, 2017.

Ken Jensen

We mutally agree:

Michelle Jensen
James Jensen
Mary Jane Cella
Glen T. Cella
Meghan Cella
Maks Cella
Mandon Francks
Melinda Francks
Javanna Questereit
Joshua Questerteit
Gin Genys
Nancy Genys
Bree Arrington
Alan Arrington
Alecia Truax
Alandra Sala-Hart
John Glemser
Tiffany Glemser
Alan Rock Waterman


  1. I want my name added. Melissa J Cunningham. Thank you!

  2. "Please add my name to the list of signatures, and thank for doing this..." Lynne McKinley

  3. I accept the original GP. Please add my name.
    I will also accept any further revelation that God chooses to give.
    Thank you!
    Natali Gibson

  4. I'm confused. Some of these people here were advocating adopting the Aug 5 document. Is this talking about the Aug 5 document, or the original one that resulted from Jeff Savage's stewardship? If it's not the Aug 5 document, are the Genys' and the Arringtons saying, "we'll support either one?" That's fine, if that's the case. I just want to understand.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Please add Virginia Wegner and Margaret Brough

  7. I would have to leave it for Genys'and Arrington's to correct me...

    But my understanding is that they were content and happy to have accepted the original GP, as offered in the original pre-Covenant documents for our review.

    BUT once there was apparently some unnamed and anonymous group with a supposed list "230 names" (please see the site for their explanation) that was steadfast and adamant against the Original GP, they cared enough about the process and content to attend all three of the subsequent meetings to address the complaints. The details of this can be found in the 17-Page restorationst papers post on this same site...

    Although they struggled in the spirit through long hours of deliberation to finally come to peace and mutual agreement among all attendees in each of the three occasions, they really preferred and appreciated the original that was given as part of the pre-Covenant draft of scriptures. Which, by the way, all we needed to do was accept (it was such a light thing) ...

    So after at least two months of confusion and chaos and lack of direction and utter stuck-in-the-mire, those who wish to join their voices in mutual agreement to adopt the original GP have done so by adding their names in mutual agreement on this particular post.

    You, too, can also mutually agree to adopt the original that was offered. There is no division-- only acceptance.

    I think it would be very interesting and important to know exactly who the small contingent of people is that undermined the original GP, and also what 230 names there were in support of such a stand.

    I wonder how many of those 230 names, now knowing the consequence of it earlier, would say or do something completely differently today.

  8. Hi! Ken got this mostly correct. The Arrington's did NOT participate in the meetings for the g&s. I did participate and it is correct that I ALWAYS preferred the original. However, the process was put forth and I sought for us to finish as directed and implemented by Jeff Savage. The reason we advocated the August document was because of the process employed and it was NEVER presented to the Lord. I am okay with EITHER the original or the August. The original was accepted by me and our fellowship. We felt it was from God. The August was a group of representatives and I supported their efforts. It would have been nice to have the original OR the August document presented to the Lord for correction. BOTH fulfilled the requirements set forth in my opinion.

    1. Nancy is correct. We are happy with the first document and August.

  9. Please add Duztin & Sarah Sorensen to the list to accept the original. Thank you.

  10. I hereby publicly dissent from this proposal.

    Jared Livesey

  11. Log, will you please share your reasoning? I'm absolutely not trying to pin you against the wall or anything like that. I'm truly interested in your reasoning - assuming that it can be shared openly without offense to anyone else. I hope you can feel my sincerity. I'm asking this as if we were sitting face to face.

    I personally am just confused by all the lo here, lo there. I could honestly sign my name to any of these proposals. I haven't seen one submission that I think is unreasonable or untrue, and I don't understand why there has been so much controversy.

    I think the final adopted statement of principles should be VERY simple, and reference the scriptures for details. The details are all there, right? If they're not, then perhaps the principle should not be included.

    I also think this is a statement of principle - previously a GUIDE - primarily to assist fellowships so that they have a certain core commonality and so they don't have to recreate the wheel.

    I could personally come up with a statement of principles, as I'm sure almost any of us could, that would work, but then I fear I would simply be adding to the confusion. I honestly don't know how we are ever going to come to an agreement now. I know it requires meekness and humility.

  12. Jared Livesey,

    I have responded to your public dissent in the thread here:

  13. The Original proposal contains Wisdom and the Lords pure Doctrine as written in the Book of Mormon which Doctrine is central to my life and my Salvation. Therefore I accept Truth in its purity without the interpolations of men. With gratitude, I thank all those who have laboured long and sought the Lord and love His Doctrine! I recognise His voice in this.

    Eva Gore