The earth groans under the wickedness of mankind upon her face, and she longs for peace to come. She withholds the abundance of her bounty because of the offenses of men against me, against one another, and against her. But if righteousness returns and my people prove by their actions, words, and thoughts to yield to my spirit and hearken to my commandments, then will the earth rejoice, for the feet of those who cry peace upon her mountains are beautiful indeed, and I, the Lord, will bring again Zion, and the earth will rejoice.
—T&C 157:63
Now that we’ve done some foundational work by discussing some of the meanings and levels of peoplehood, and likewise three levels of consensus in decision making, I’d like to offer some practical thoughts about how we can apply these precepts in our group interactions.
In offering these thoughts, I want to start with a couple of important points. First, many of the ideas expressed in this series did not originate with me. These are the results of discussions among several thoughtful Covenant Christians. Though I wholeheartedly agree with what is written here, I can’t take credit.
Second, the following ideas and advice are meant to be just that. If something here seems helpful, please pursue it. If not, please feel free to reject it. Ultimately, you must decide the truth of these things for yourself with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
And finally, in discussing various situations we have and do face as a covenant body, I hope to focus on events and decisions, rather than any particular people. We are all on this journey together and all equally in need of our Lord’s grace. Therefore, please use these ideas to focus on applying precepts, rather than pointing fingers.
OK, with that groundwork in place, we can proceed to discuss some practical applications.
The Voice of the People
It should be clear from the prior post in this series that ALL forms of consensus among the covenant body begin with the voice of the people—or in other words, with a vote. The outcome of the vote determines whether we have a simple majority, mutual agreement, or unanimity (see part 2 of this series). Since this is the common starting point, and since the Lord has expressed confidence that the voice of the people will typically choose righteousness (Mosiah 13:6 RE/CC), we need not fear holding a vote.
I’ll admit this is a departure from my prior understanding and feelings. I presumed there were certain items or questions upon which it was inappropriate to even consider holding a vote. But my understanding has grown and my opinion has changed. If we are the Lord’s, we need not fear our own common consent.
Naturally, it’s imperative that before any vote is taken, all sides be given ample opportunity to present their ideas to the covenant body, and that time and space be given for discussion, debate, and full consideration. This process is to be conducted respectfully and need NOT include fear on anyone’s part. Fear is the root that leads to contention and disputation. But perfect love casts out fear, and faith is the opposite of fear. These two great principles should give us the strength and understanding to discuss ideas without fear.
But those who have not made this sacrifice to God do not know that the course which they pursue is well-pleasing in his sight, for whatever may be their belief or their opinion, it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind, and where doubt and uncertainty is, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time. So that persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence, and where unshaken confidence is not, there faith is weak, and where faith is weak, the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ Jesus, and they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them.
—LoF 6:12
At our most recent Women’s Conference, a group of women who formed a unanimous council to remove a man’s priesthood certificate stood accused of misconduct in their procedures and were placed on trial before the covenant body, with the outcome to be settled by the voice of the women at the conference. In the lead-up to the conference, fear and accusations caused contention, disputation, and much harm on all sides of the issue. In the end. the women’s council was overwhelmingly vindicated, and the issue stands settled. What remains is the lesson that we need not fear. As noted the next day in the General Conference meeting:
Second, we have just been through another opportunity to deal with a controversy that divided us. It has required opposing views to be debated. That may not have been as cheerfully conducted as we might have wanted it to have been. But it was another chance to work through a problem. We needed that.
So, now, we should look back on how we did individually in the discussions. 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
What encouraging counsel our Lord has given us that we can cheerfully view another’s dispute with us as an opportunity to work through a problem. If we as a people could learn to approach disagreement with cheerful confidence instead of fear, trust the body of believers, and not lose faith because we have a matter to resolve, then this would be a great step forward in learning to disagree respectfully and become more united as a people.
Listening vs. Persuasion
Throughout the process of presenting and discussing the various sides to any issue, we should be cautious to avoid the trap of accusing others of not listening. If someone remains unpersuaded by an argument, it does not mean they have not listened to the argument. Our brains are programmed with the default position that we are each generally right in our own views, and therefore we tend to naturally assume that someone who disagrees simply doesn’t understand, and therefore has not listened to us. Because if they would just listen, they would understand and would immediately agree with us, right?
Let’s have the self-awareness and doctrinal grounding to realize that many of our own ideas and views do in fact miss the mark, and that it’s possible for someone else to fully understand our viewpoint and yet disagree. At such a juncture, accusations of failure to listen are unhelpful and only broaden divides and entrench disputes.
Most alarming (or absurd) is those who accuse God of getting things wrong because He fails to agree with them. Those who hold such ideas, and especially those who spread them, tend to find themselves rapidly pruned from the tree of life.
The Gift of Disagreement
It’s also vital that we recognize this principle in our process: When a question has been thoroughly presented and discussed, and a vote has been taken, we can safely assume that not all will agree with the voice of the people. Some will disagree, perhaps strongly, and feel their opinion should have prevailed. And now we get the the heart of the matter because this sacred moment of disagreement presents a golden opportunity.
Achieving Mutual Agreement
At this precise point—when the voice of the people has spoken, but disagreements remain—comes the priceless opportunity to elevate the entire covenant body, please the Lord, and demonstrate having learned by precept the lesson of mutual agreement. This is literally the moment it all hangs in the balance.
You see, it all comes down to those who did not prevail in the voting. They undoubtedly still disagree, and at this critical point, they have a very important choice to make. They can double down, dispute, argue, accuse and contend, or they can lay down their disputes and unite with the will of the Lord’s people. This doesn’t mean they agree with the decision that has been made; rather it simply means that, even though they disagree, they affirmatively choose to NOT dispute. Just as the Savior did.
…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 174:2
It really is that simple. And yet, it’s also beautiful, and perhaps even heroic to make the conscious choice to value unity with the Lord’s people more then one’s own opinion. It is a public declaration of allegiance with the people the Lord has called his own, rather than a public declaration of disputation against them, or even departure from them. It is, at its core, a sacrifice of one’s own will for the good of the group, and it echoes in some small degree the Savior’s sacrifice of his own will in the Garden of Gethsemane.
An Example
I’ve heard from some who voted against all proposed additions to scripture at the last conference. Their reasons were solid, well reasoned, and heartfelt. I do not fault them for their vote, though I may disagree. They voted their conscience and I respect them for it.
But here’s the thing: Once the vote was taken, they considered the matter closed. They chose then and there that, having made their voices heard by voting, and having not prevailed, they would end their objections and not dispute. They would unite with the voice of the Lord’s people and follow the path chosen by the body, trusting the Lord to provide whatever course correction may be needed.
In doing so, they even tacitly admitted they *might* have been wrong in their views. I’m not saying they were wrong, mind you, I’m simply pointing out that when someone lays down their own will, they tacitly acknowledge that a different course may be valid. For some, even such a tacit implication is painful. Perhaps the pain can be mitigated by the knowledge that as fallen mortals, we are all inevitably wrong on various items at various times. We need not fear nor feel ashamed; this is why we’re here having this mortal experience. We learn from our errors.
Those who disagreed with the scripture vote outcome could have disputed; they could have recruited; they could have whipped up anger, fear and accusation, doing a great deal of damage in the process. But they simply chose not to.
I have immense respect for their decision. It has brought us peace and unity, even while respectful disagreements remain. It has taught us the priceless lesson that we can be of one heart even if we are not yet of one mind. I believe it caused a glimmer of hope to shine in the halls of heaven, among those who are praying we will learn these lessons by precept, rather than by sad experience.
Now consider this serious question: Is this the key to mutual agreement? Or to be more specific, can it be said that we accepted the proposed additions to the scriptures, not merely by common consent—as evidenced by the vote—but actually by mutual agreement—as evidenced by the decision to NOT dispute?
The answer is, we don’t know for sure. Among those who voted no, there was no allowance made for them to declare their intent as to disputation. Therefore we really don’t know if we have all chosen to not dispute.
So what would happen if we made room for such a declaration?
Here’s an example of how that might look, using the verbal voting conducted in the conference meeting last month as an example. For each measure proposed, there were “Yes” and “No” votes verbally spoken (or even shouted.) Here’s an example of how that was conducted, quoting the actual wording:
Regarding section 178, the Revelation given to Denver on 25 February, 2022 regarding questions of why some are healed and others are not.
Those in favor of adding section 178 please say Yes.
[Many responses of Yes]
Those opposed to adding section 178 please say No.
[Far fewer responses of No]
And it ended there, with the voice of the people, remaining disagreement, and unknown disputation status.
But what would have happened if the very next question were something like this:
The voice of the people having approved the section to be added, we now ask those opposed whether they will choose to unite with the voice of the people, even if disagreements remain, or will choose to dispute this vote.
Those who voted no, but who choose to NOT dispute the outcome, please stand and be counted. Thank you. You may be seated.
Those who voted no, and intend TO dispute the outcome, please stand and be counted. Thank you. You may be seated.
Now, if such a question were asked, and all who voted “No” nevertheless chose to NOT dispute, we would, in very fact, have achieved Mutual Agreement by the Lord’s definition.
Such a procedure would elevate the “Level 1” voice of the people outcome to a “Level 2” mutual agreement outcome. What would such an outcome demonstrate about us? About those who are willing to make an affirmative, public choice to NOT dispute, even when they have a valid disagreement? About our progress in internalizing our Lord’s teachings by precept? About our ability to disagree respectfully?
Of course, those who commit to NOT dispute need to be as good as their word. But without the opportunity to make such a commitment, we lack even the foundation upon which to build mutual agreement. An affirmative commitment to not dispute is the key to a higher, better, and more glorious form of unity. It is a higher path and a smoother road.
I should pause here to acknowledge the process proposed above can and should be improved. How do we remove peer pressure and public stigma from the equation? How do we cast out fear? These are important questions that ought to be discussed, but I hope the point remains: there can be a path to turn a majority vote into mutual agreement if we are willing to pursue it.
Applying New Understanding to Past Failures
Regarding these concepts, we heard the following in our most recent conference:
God gave us an opportunity with the Guide and Standard. It was to provide an experience for a group of people with differences and disagreements to learn and increase their ability to respectfully disagree while still coming to a mutual concession.
—Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People,” p. 31-2
And:
When I learned that rancor and hard feelings still linger over the Guide and Standard, it surprised me.
—ibid, p. 2
I won’t rehash the lengthy and difficult Guide and Standard effort that took place in 2017 and 2018. Suffice it to say many approaches were offered, debated, attempted, and abandoned. Thousands of hours were consumed in discussion and persuasion as well as argument and disputation. Eventually, through a process of random lots, a committee was assembled and a statement written. The voice of the people overwhelmingly accepted the statement in September, 2018.
Since that time, disputation and contention have continued, evidently driven by the rancor and hard feelings mentioned above. Numerous attempts have been made to address the issues involved and bring an end to the contention, including conferences, fellowship meetings, fasts, prayers, group prayers, attempts at persuasion, listening, lengthy discussion, private meetings, and public forum discussions. Unfortunately, argument, strife, harsh words, and unchecked emotion have remained in a significant enough degree to prevent success and invoke the Lord’s reprimand.
Through it all, even though the Lord accepted the statement approved by the voice of the people and allowed it to be added to our scriptures, the project remains a failure.
Rather than mutually agreeing, we surrendered the fight without achieving a unanimous statement that satisfied everyone. In that, it was a failure. We are failing again. We are so fixated on achieving a result that we fail to realize that the results do not matter; only the process matters. Results should be a byproduct of the process.
—ibid, p. 2
I want to say it as clearly and directly as possible:
We. Can. Fix. This.
Throughout the last seven years, many have proposed numerous ways to “revisit” the Guide and Standard project, with proposals ranging from simply praying together, to scrapping the whole thing and starting over. Many attempts at reconciliation have been tried. All have failed.
Seven years later, the Lord still waits for us to reach mutual agreement. And here’s the thing: We can get there anytime we choose! We have continued our disputes about the project, rather than considering the process of reaching mutual agreement. And here’s the process:
Those who still feel to dispute against the voice of the people, but also (rightly) consider themselves part of the Lord’s people have a choice to make. They can choose to continue their disputations, or they can choose to NOT dispute, and unite with the voice of the people. This DOESN’T mean they have to agree with the statement, the principles it contains, or the process used to create it. Surely things could have been done differently, and perhaps better. But now that the voice of the people has spoken, what’s done is done. We can choose to be united.
What Ought We to have Learned?
In the parable of the master’s house (T&C 176) the Lord begins and ends with two questions: “What have you learned? What ought you to have learned?” The intervening parable presents three groups of people who reacted in different ways to the Master’s command to build a house. In the end, two groups united and accomplished the work, while a third insisted instead on carrying burdens of stone even after the work was finished and accepted.
Finally, the third group was persuaded to lay down their burdens and the stone formed an improved roadway to the Lord’s house. The Master accepted both the house and the road.
I submit that this is one lesson that we ought to learn: The work is done but the path is still broken. Laying down the burden of disputation and reaching mutual agreement provides an improvement over the old path and initiates a reliable road for us all to reach the master’s house. Seven years of disputation has cost us much, and may yet cost us everything if it is not laid down. But if it is laid down and we all learn from this example, this sad experience will have served a positive purpose.
Everything can change immediately:
Now, my friends, you’ve received many witnesses, because the holy scriptures testify of these things, and therefore I want you to respond and produce evidence of your repentance. 31I would like you to respond and not harden your hearts any longer. Because now is the time and the day of your salvation. And therefore if you repent and don’t harden your hearts, the great plan of redemption will immediately take effect for you.
—Alma 16:37 CC
Can we leave the disputes in the past? Can we unite as a people? Can we drop the rancor and hard feelings that have plagued this project for over seven years and simply choose mutual agreement?
I believe we can.
But it’s not up to me.
Meetings to “revisit” the guide and standard yet remain proposed. Some say the cure for all the contention and disputation is to be nicer about things. To get together and argue some more, but smile while doing so, and be sure to call each other “brother” and “sister” while airing grievances about the past and revisiting hard feelings that have not changed in seven years of attempts.
But I propose a different approach.
What if a gathering convenes to include all those who have felt to dispute, as well as those who have not, and it simply consists of an acknowledgment of failure, the desire to do better, the application of precept rather than sad experience, and the commitment to end the dispute? What if we finally choose to be ashamed of our poor behavior and ongoing disputations? What if all kneel together and declare before God they would rather be of one heart than be vindicated? That they would rather unite with His people than be pruned to save the tree? What if all demonstrate before heaven and one another their firm commitment that the accusations, contentions and disputations over this matter permanently end NOW? What if the prayer concludes with supplication for the Lord to accept, after seven years, this, our humble repentance and mutual agreement—showing before God and angels that we can, in the end, learn by precept, and that we finally understand?
Might this please our Lord? Might this remove the stumbling block that has bloodied our shins and torn our palms for seven years? Might this process provide a smooth road for future journeys together in our Lord’s service? Might it even make us “…able to accomplish other works that [He] will require at [our] hands”? (T&C 157:55) Might it convince the Lord to “spare it a little longer” in teaching us by precept rather than raining down sad experience upon us?
I think this idea deserves our consideration. Our Lord asked us for Level 2 consensus; He asked us to reach mutual agreement. We have not gotten there in seven years, but that can all change in an instant, and we can show ourselves to be worthy of His merciful moniker, “Covenant Christians.”
It is time.
For the sake of the promises to the fathers will I labor with you as a people, and not because of you, for you have not yet become what you must be to live together in peace. If you will hearken to my words, I will make you my people and my words will give you peace. Even a single soul who stirs up the hearts of others to anger can destroy the peace of all my people. Each of you must equally walk truly in my path, not only to profess, but to do as you profess.
—T&C 157:19
