I pray not only for these followers, but also for all believers who learn our words from them. I ask that all followers and believers may be united as one, as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, that they also may be united as one in us. By them becoming one, the world will have reason to believe that you sent me. And the light which you gave to me I have given to them. This allows them to become united as one, even as we are one: my light in them, and your light in me. The light will lead them to be made perfect in one.
—TSJ 10:33
The Lord has an agenda he intends for His people to accomplish. Such an idea is inherent in the Lord calling a people His own; He isn’t merely looking for pets or devoted worshipers—He actually expects us to accomplish certain things. This is the obligation, or rather privilege, of peoplehood. It means we will have to work together. And this means the gospel purpose expands from individual salvation to group connection and accomplishment, bringing certain challenges.
It’s far easier for a hermit to live in quiet meditation than for the same hermit to live in harmony within a community. We’re not called into a dispensation of only individual salvation. For the salvation of souls today, the primary focus of God’s religion is to gather a community. God’s purpose for the end-times is focused on making people of one heart and one mind. In order to do that, your soul needs to be disciplined by, subordinate to, controlled by the glory of God or the spirit or the intelligence that is inside every one of you.
—Denver Snuffer, “Understanding your Soul,” p. 8
With the necessity of group dynamics and group decisions, the Lord has given us tools to assist us in getting along and working together. We have the scriptures and very specific injunctions regarding how we treat one another. The Answer to Prayer for Covenant (T&C 157) and the Covenant itself (T&C 158) both center largely on our relationships with, and treatment of, one another.
The Answer to the Prayer for Covenant and the Covenant are the beginning blueprint. That blueprint teaches the need to be better people. Following it is more challenging than reciting it. No one can learn what is required without doing. Working together is the only way a society can grow together. No isolated spiritual mystic is going to be prepared for Zion through his solitary personal devotions. Personal devotion is necessary, of course, but the most pious hermit will collide with the next pious hermit when they are required to share and work together in a society of equals having all things in common. Do not pretend it will be otherwise. Failing to do the hard work outlined in the covenant is failing to prepare for Zion. It’s failing to have oil in the lamp. It’s failing to put upon you the wedding garment.
—Denver Snuffer, “Civilization,” p. 29
To facilitate our working together, Lord has given specific procedures for making group decisions and reaching group consensus. It is upon these methods that I’d like to focus. And as it turns out, in the Lord’s revelations to us thus far, we can identify three degrees of consensus.
Level 1: Voice of the People
The most basic and fundamental method the Lord has given for making group decisions is often called in scripture the “voice of the people.” You and I just call it voting. Pose the question, take a vote, majority rules. Pretty simple, right?
This is, in fact, the quickest and simplest way to settle a question, absent a strong man or hierarchy to do the deciding for us. Since decision making is left to us, it’s easy to just put questions to a vote. We see this method used multiple times in the Book of Mormon, for matters both civil and spiritual. Likewise, the Lord has prescribed this method in our day for determining acceptance of Covenant of Christ:
Publish it for the people to read. Then, have the voice of the people determine if they will accept it as my Covenant, as they will be judged by their voice on this matter. Once the voice of the people has been heard, if they accept it let it be your Covenant version to guide you. (T&C 182)
The Lord also prescribed this method for settling disputes regarding women’s councils:
Let the women learn to come to agreement and the voice of that conference decides all matters raised. And I remind you that the majority of those who vote decide the voice of the conference of women. If 100 vote, the vote of 51 decides the matter. (T&C 182)
This method was used to accept the scriptures for canonization in 2017 and was also recently used for selecting items to be included in the next printing of the scriptures, both in verbal voting and in paper ballots.
And why not, right? It’s a simple, easy, quick way to settle a matter that comes before a group.
But there’s more to it than that. Given the highly consequential meaning of “the people” discussed in my prior post, there’s much more to “the voice of the people” than first meets the eye. This isn’t just the whim of a group of random folks; “the people” as God’s named and claimed group of covenant believers, subject to his protection and correction, implies that group decisions made this way have far-reaching and important consequences. Such decisions set the course, agenda, beliefs and practices of His People, for better or for worse.
There are, of course, problems as well with simple majority votes. This method practically guarantees there will be a minority group that will not prevail. Whether that minority is large (49%) or small (1%) there will always be a disappointed faction in any vote. Such may mistakenly feel that, because they didn’t prevail, their voices were not heard—a notion that is proven false by the fact that they were allowed to vote, and in so doing, made their voices heard.
The disappointment of the minority may be amplified by the fact that, as a people, we don’t tend to vote on insignificant questions. Voting on a lunch menu may not be a matter of life and death, but voting on items involving salvation and Zion can tend to produce strong opinions.
Fortunately, we’re told in scripture that the majority of “the people” generally get it right:
Now it’s not common for the majority of the people to want anything contrary to what’s right, but it’s common for the minority to want what isn’t right. So you must observe this principle and make it your law, to do your business by the majority vote of the people. And if the time comes that the majority of the people choose iniquity, then that is when God’s judgments will fall upon you and He’ll cause great destruction, just like He’s done upon this land up until now.
—Mosiah 13:6-7 CC
And if the majority get it wrong, the Lord can and will deal with his people in a way to correct them. Even destruction is on the table, if necessary. But fortunately, for a people sincerely seeking to follow God and keep their covenants, such correction is unlikely to be necessary if we will simply heed God’s word. Therefore we need not fear approaching a question by taking a vote:
Many of us have approached the task of deciding a controversy with fear, and not with cheerful confidence. I am confident that the voice of the people will almost always choose the right outcome. I approach our disagreements with the confidence that, in the end, we will achieve the right outcome. Be encouraged to lay aside your fears, trust the body of believers, and do not lose faith because we have a matter to resolve.
—Denver Snuffer, “God's Covenant People,”, p. 33
Trusting the voice of the people is difficult when we are governed by fear. Similarly, it is difficult for even the best of us to let go of honest and well-grounded dissent from the majority after the majority has spoken. Some in the minority may even feel the group has lost its way and it is up to the minority to correct the entire group in the matter. We would do well, therefore, to remember that correcting “His people” is the responsibility of our Lord, and not the responsibility of a dissenting minority when the voice of His people has spoken.
Likewise, we would do well to remember that God Himself has confidence in His people, born of faith that His people will eventually fulfill His promises. This is not to say that every individual in the group is worthy of God’s trust; but rather that the voice of the people will generally choose righteousness and those who remain committed to the group will eventually arrive where the Lord intends to lead them.
And finally we should make it our practice that, before taking any vote, all His people should have the opportunity to consider all sides of the question, respectfully disagree, attempt to persuade with kindness and pure knowledge, and engage in robust, but civil, debate.
Level 2: Mutual Agreement
The next level of group consensus in decisions is called “mutual agreement” in scripture. We were first introduced to this term in conjunction with the group assignment the Lord gave us to create a statement of principles to be added to our scriptures as a guide and standard.
But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so, you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands. When you have an agreed statement of principles, I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow.
—T&C 157:55
This assignment resulted in extensive discussion, debate, effort and labor, but also unfortunately resulted in much contention and disputation. In an effort to better understand the assignment and the method of agreement prescribed by the Lord, Denver asked for clarification of the term “Mutual Agreement” and received the following:
As between one another, you choose to not dispute. When the definition was given, it was accompanied by the realization the Lord could have disputed every day of His life with someone. He deliberately chose to not contend. He was not an argumentative personality.
—T&C 174
The wording of this answer seems very deliberate. There is nothing in the definition of Mutual Agreement about actually agreeing with each other. Rather, the Lord prioritizes the absence of disputation, rather than actual agreement. This implies—and in fact completely allows—disagreement to exist within Mutual Agreement. I’ll even go one further than that: Mutual Agreement REQUIRES disagreement.
Wait, come again? How is such a thing possible? You can agree by disagreeing?
Yes.
First, we must remember the Lord has not condemned disagreement in our scriptures. But he HAS specifically required that disagreement be conducted with respect:
For you to unite I must admonish and instruct you, for my will is to have you love one another. As people, you lack the ability to respectfully disagree among one another. You are as Paul and Peter, whose disagreements resulted in jarring and sharp contentions. Nevertheless, they both loved me and I loved them. You must do better.
Nevertheless, there have been sharp disputes between you that should have been avoided. I speak these words to reprove you that you may learn, not to upbraid you so that you mourn. I want my people to have understanding.
—T&C 157: 3, 5
Therefore, it’s expected that group decisions will result in many opinions, which will inherently cause disagreements among the group. The Lord only requires that such disagreements be conducted respectfully, as we attempt to use “persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge” to address our differences. Disputation is forbidden by our Lord.
And there shall be no disputations among you, as there hath hitherto been, neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there hath hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the Devil, who is the father of contention; and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another, but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.
—3 Nephi 5:8 RE
Ultimately, in the midst of disagreements, it may become appropriate to obtain the voice of the people to settle a matter or choose a course of action. In the face of ongoing disagreement, any vote will result in a majority that prevails and a minority that disagrees. We covered that in Level 1. Voting does not end disagreement.
Now, back to the definition of mutual agreement. The Lord specifies that this level of consensus involves the choice—the decision—to not dispute. There’s no need to choose to not dispute if there’s no disagreement to dispute about. The choice implies the disagreement, coupled with a commitment that the disagreement will not result in disputation.
Therefore mutual agreement is NOT uniform agreement on a topic, but rather the agreement with one another that we simply won’t fight about that topic. We’ll talk more about this concept later, but for now consider it this way: Mutual agreement means we are of one heart. We disagree; we are not of one mind, but our hearts are committed to one another to the point that our disagreements do not become disputations.
I would rather submit to the decision of the group than insist that my view be followed. For me, harmony between brethren is more important than getting what I think best to be followed. I believe harmony can lead to much greater things than can merely enforcement of even a correct view. I know how difficult it is to have a correct view, because of how often I have been corrected by the Lord. Sometimes I am humiliated by my foolishness when the Lord reproves me. Humiliation can lead to humility, but my experience is that the humiliation is accompanied by shame, whereas humility can proceed with a clear conscience.
My experience with others leads me to conclude that if we can have one heart first, eventually we can likewise come to have one mind. But if we insist on having one mind at the outset, we may never obtain one heart together.
—Denver Snuffer, T&C Epigraph
Even situations of hostility can be converted into mutual agreement, as evidenced by Captain Moroni’s treatment of dissident Nephites. The Kingmen who laid down their arms and supported the title of liberty were accepted as allies rather than enemies. Moroni even made this his practice against the Lamanites. Any who would lay down their arms and enter into a covenant of peace were allowed to depart in peace. In other words, if they agreed to cease their violent disputations with the Nephites, it was enough. They didn’t have to agree; they simply had to stop fighting. And while I realize this may not be a perfect example, I think the principles are still applicable.
`
Before moving on to the next level I’ll just add this: We have reached Level 1 consensus on a number of questions. It’s easy to do so—it only requires a vote. But we have not yet reached level two consensus on anything, though we have been commanded to do so in the case of the Guide and Standard. This is a problem that holds us back as a people, as the Lord said:
But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so, you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands.
—T&C 157:55
And from our most recent conference:
From these words, we know there are other works He will require of us, and He has warned us that we will be “unable to accomplish other works [He] will require at [our] hands,” so we know greater demands are going to be imposed. Will our continuing disputes and arguments require the Lord’s disciplining hand to be imposed on us as has been previously needed for His people in times past? What should we be doing to prepare for the other works, the greater demands? What physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental skills will be needed to accomplish what God will require of us? How are we preparing ourselves in these ways for the coming difficulties?
—Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People,” p. 9-10
We can, and must do better. We’ll discuss that further in the next installment of this series. But for now, we need to round out the discussion with the third level of consensus.
Level 3: Unanimity
This level is perhaps the easiest to understand and the hardest to achieve. It goes beyond the level of having one heart—choosing to not dispute—and arrives at the level of one mind, where there is simply nothing to dispute about because all are in agreement.
This level has been specified by the Lord as the standard required to be met by a Women’s Council to remove a man’s priesthood certificate. There must be at least 12 women on the council, and regardless of the number on the council the decision must be unanimous among all participants. This level of difficulty encompasses a strong, inherent protection for any man called before a council. It only takes the vote of one woman for his certificate to be retained. (Incidentally, the restoration of the man’s certificate by the same council requires only a Level 1 consensus—a majority vote. This demonstrates the Lord’s bias in favor of entrusting men to act in priesthood authority barring egregious issues.)
Covenant of Christ gives us an excellent example of a people in unanimity:
After king Benjamin had said all these things to his people, he sent out a message, asking his people if they believed what he taught them. And they all cried out with one voice, saying: Yes, we believe everything you’ve taught us. And we know these things are true because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has caused a big change in our hearts. We’re not inclined to do evil anymore, but rather want to continually do good. We, through God’s infinite goodness and the manifestations of His Spirit, can clearly envision what’s to come. And if necessary, we could even prophesy about all of it. And it’s our faith in the things our king has taught us that’s given us this valuable knowledge, which makes us rejoice! We’re willing to enter into a covenant with God, promising to obey His commandments and do His will for the rest of our lives. We don’t want to cause ourselves the never-ending torment described by the angel, nor do we want to incur God’s anger.
—Mosiah 3:1, CoC
So abundantly moved were the people by Benjamin’s words, they found oneness in both heart and mind. To make the point clear, we find this language:
After finishing his speech to the people, king Benjamin decided to make a record of the names of everyone who had made a covenant with God to keep His commandments. It turned out that everyone except the little children had made this covenant and had taken upon himself or herself the name of Christ.
—Mosiah 4:1 CoC
The point is even more strongly made in the Book of Mormon wording:
And it came to pass that there was not one soul, except it were little children, but what had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ.
—Mosiah 4:1 RE
We likely find a similar scenario among Alma’s people at the waters of Mormon:
He told them: Here are the waters of Mormon (referring to what they were called). Do you have a desire to enter God’s fold and be called His people? Are you willing to help carry each other’s burdens, to lighten them for one another? Are you willing to mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who need comforting? Will you stand and testify as witnesses of God at all times, in all things, wherever you go, for the rest of your lives? Do you want to qualify for redemption by God and be included with those of the first resurrection, receiving eternal life? If this is the desire of your hearts, are you now willing to be baptized in the Lord’s name, as a witness before Him that you’ve made a covenant with Him? Are you willing to commit to serve Him and keep His commandments, so He can pour out His Spirit more abundantly upon you? Now when the people heard this, they applauded and shouted: This is our heart’s desire!
—Mosiah 9:8 CC
The text then continues to tell us that Alma baptized every one of the people there that day.
Unanimity is possible, even for broken mortals like us—and this should give us hope. At our most recent conference, when the Lord offered us a name as a people, the acceptance vote was unanimous. This surprising and delightful outcome certainly doesn’t mean we are yet what we need to be. But there is cause for hope.
Summary
Just as we can identify three degrees of peoplehood, or connection to God as a people, we can also identify three degrees of consensus, or connection with one another. They form an increasing continuum, providing us tools to use as a group seeking to do our Lord's will.
In 4 Nephi, we find a lesson in levels of consensus, as the peaceful post-advent society reached three distinct levels of oneness. The Book of Mormon language notes the absence of “contention” three times, and Covenant of Christ clarifies that language to “conflicts:”
In the 36th year, the people were all converted to the Lord throughout the land, both Nephites and Lamanites. There were no conflicts or disputes among them. Everyone dealt fairly and honestly with each other.
—4 Nephi 1:1 CC
They didn’t perform the rites and ordinances of the Law of Moses anymore, but they obeyed the commandments they received from their Lord and God, continuing in fasting and prayer and in meeting together often, both to pray and hear the Lord’s word. There were no conflicts among the people in the whole land, but there were mighty miracles happening among Jesus’ disciples.
—4 Nephi 1:2 CC
There were no conflicts in the land because of God’s love that filled the people’s hearts. There was no envying or disputes or disturbances or whoredoms or lying or murder or any kind of unrestrained, lustful conduct. There certainly couldn’t have been a happier people among all the people created by God.
—4 Nephi 1:3 CC
If this 4 Nephi record represents increasing levels of oneness, we should surely take notice as we seek to become what these ancient Covenant Christians were, and enjoy the blessings they enjoyed.
As we consider the three levels, we should note the Lord specified various levels for various purposes, teaching us an important principle. Not everything requires unanimity. And a simple majority isn’t always enough either. We must choose the appropriate level of consensus in any situation. We therefore have a choice when facing any group decision: What level of consensus meets the need and pleases the Lord? Can we voluntarily choose a higher level of oneness than the minimum requirement? To what degree do we choose to be One? The Lord does not require mindless groupthink nor uniformity. But He DOES require that we learn to be of one heart and one mind. This is the challenge we face.
Higher Levels
Just as there are greater levels of peoplehood and connection to God, there are also greater levels of oneness and connection to one another. We find hints and echoes of these things in scripture. Rather than expound on those things here, I’ll recommend reading Chapter 10 of The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord through the Veil by Denver Snuffer. The chapter is entitled “Ceremony and Knowing God.” See if what we’ve discussed here puts that chapter in a new light. Then consider the blessings to be received at the Lord’s temple, should we qualify as the people to build it.
In our next installment, we’ll consider some practical steps we can take to overcome our disputations and increase our level of oneness. The precepts are before us. I pray we will internalize them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hey everyone,
It's been brought to my attention that comments from mobile phones and some browsers might not come through in some situations. I recommend you save the text of your comment before submitting, in case you need to submit again.
If you commented and it hasn't appeared, try sending from a different browser, or device, or use the "Contact Me" tool to reach out to me personally. Sorry for the problems! The blogger platform, though free, seems to have problems.