I wanted to put out a reminder regarding the limited purchase opportunity that soon closes for the second edition restoration scriptures. As you may be aware, all the first edition leather restoration edition scriptures have sold out, and this is the opportunity to get high-quality and up-to-date scriptures. 

In addition to top-quality, world-class construction, this new version includes many new features:

• Addition of KJV and LDS chapter and verse numbering in the text. Now, with LDS and RE numbering for all books, references from past talks and materials will be easy to find, and conversations with LDS scripture users (and other Christians as well) will be greatly facilitated. 
• Added recently canonized sections to the Teachings and Commandments.
• Inclusion of Covenant of Christ
• Updated and expanded Glossary of Gospel Terms
• Hundreds of minor text updates, punctuation fixes, and corrections

ALSO: NEW COLORS!

The initial offering of these scriptures offered only British tan and Black for the 3-volume complete sets. Two additional color choices have been offered: Blue and Firebrick Red. Though these options don't appear on the site, you can email to specify your color preferences at this address: 

scripturesrestoration@gmail.com

Previously placed orders may also change to the new color offerings by sending email to the above. 

The buying window for the new version closes on Saturday July 26^th at midnight Mountain Daylight Time. 

Here's the link where you can place your order:

 

https://scriptures.shop/special-order/2nd-edition/

Covenant Christians, Part 4: Making Peace

Now, my dear people, I’ve taught you this to help you understand your duty to God, to help you be blameless before Him, so you will let the Holy Order of God lead you, which is why God received you. Now I want you to be humble, submissive, gentle, easy to persuade, full of patience and long-suffering, being self-controlled in all things, faithfully keeping God’s commandments, asking for whatever you might need, both spiritual and temporal, always giving thanks to God for whatever you receive. Make sure you have faith, hope, and charity, and then you will always be eager to do many good works.

—Alma 5:6 CC

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

I’ve had a variety of responses to the first three posts in this series—both public and private—which have resulted in delightful discussions and some awkward exchanges. As a result of these interactions, I feel the need to clarify an important definition, which if misunderstood, leads to all sorts of problems. So in the hope of promoting better understanding, I’ll start by stating it as simply as possible:

Disputation is a behavior. 

This is a fundamental and important notion that must be firmly grasped if we are to ever obey the Lord’s command and come to mutual agreement. Disputation is not mere disagreement, and it is not a matter of mere thought. It is a behavior, intentionally engaged in, and is against the Lord’s will. 

Disputation is Not Disagreement

For purposes of this discussion, I’ll classify disagreement as a matter of ideas; it is primarily confined to the realm of thought. Of course, disagreement can and should be expressed. A free exchange of ideas is crucial among any people seeking to be the Lord’s; all should have opportunity to express their ideas, even when they contradict the ideas of others. We need not fear ideas, nor the open discussion of them. Ideas can be discussed kindly, openly, lovingly, and ultimately even productively.

But above all, the Lord has stipulated that such disagreement can and should be conducted respectfully; in fact He has gone so far as to require us to learn how to disagree! Imagine that! Our Lord, who prizes our agency, which is the root of our individuality, expects us to disagree with one another—indeed to do so on a regular basis! He insists that we learn how to do this thing! And do it in a certain way:

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.

—T&C 157:3

Discussion of disagreements may result in one or the other party being persuaded. When both have access to the same light and truth, they tend toward unity of thought. Agreement and disagreement, therefore, are a function of information and understanding. But when disagreement leads to disputation and contention, a line has been crossed where our Lord will not go. To help shed some light on these definitions, let’s look in the Glossary of Gospel Terms. the entry for “Disputation” begins with this statement:

The Lord’s elaboration on “disputations” and “contentions” in 3 Nephi 5:8–9 is important and consistent enough that it should all be considered together.

What follows is an elaboration on the inappropriateness of disputing about ordinances. Lest we should too narrowly consider this advice, we would do well to remember that anything ordained by the Lord is an ordinance. This includes the Statement of Principles assignment, which the Lord ordained that his people should accomplish together, without disputation. In fact, His requirement of Mutual Agreement, together with the definition He gave of this term, prevent Him from accepting anything that involves disputation. 

The discussion culminates in the following way (emphasis added):

On the other hand, Christ is saying to keep the ordinances unchanged. And further, don’t even begin to dispute them. They are off limits for argument, dispute, and discussion. “When you open the opportunity to dispute over the ordinances, you are allowing the devil an opportunity to influence the discussion and change the ordinances. Disputes lead to contention, contention leads to anger, and anger is the devil’s tool. So don’t start down that road. Accept and understand the ordinances. If you are perplexed by them, then let those who understand speak, exhort, expound, and teach concerning them. As they do, you will come into the unity of faith and become one. Perplexity cannot exist when there is light and truth. Light and truth comes from understanding the ordinances, not changing them. So do not begin the process through dispute. The purpose of discussion is not to dispute, which leads to contention, which leads to anger. When the Gospel and its ordinances turn into something angry and contentious, then the spirit has fled, and souls are lost. It is the devil’s objective to prevent you from practicing the ordinances in the correct manner. But, more importantly, it is his objective to prevent you from becoming one. When he uses arguments over ordinances to cause disunity, he is playing with two tools at the same time. First, changing the ordinances brings about cursings, and second, encouraging contention and anger grieves the spirit, and prevents the saints from becoming one. The devil knows this, even if men do not. Men are urged to take steps they presume have little effect, all the while being lied to by the enemy of their souls. When men arrive at the point they are angry in their hearts with one another, they are not united by love as they are intended to be. These are the end results of the two paths. One leading to love and joy (Helaman 2:25), and the other to anger and wrath (T&C 69:7).” See also CONTENTION.

Since the entry recommends we also look at the entry for Contention, let’s take a look at that as well (emphasis added):

The more one contends with others the more he is taken captive by the spirit of contention. Everyone becomes subject to the spirit they submit to follow. Those who are prone to contention become more contentious as they listen to that spirit. Eventually they are overcome by that spirit, and it is a great work involving great effort to subdue and dismiss that spirit from the heart and mind of the victim. There are many who dispute the inspiration others have received. There are two concerns with the decision a good person makes to dispute with others: First, the Lord’s example is to refrain from disputing, as He did. When confronted, He would respond, but He did not go about picking a fight with others. He responded. The only exception was when He went up to Jerusalem to be slain. Then He went into the seat of Jewish power and authority to throw it down and provoke their decision to finally judge, reject, and crucify Him. He, and not they, controlled that timing. His provocation at that time was a deliberate act on His part because His “time had come,” and His sacrifice needed to be made. Second, the Lord has given the Doctrine of Christ in scripture. Just before the Doctrine of Christ, He says what His doctrine is not: 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). And then He proceeds to declare His doctrine of Christ. The more contention and disputation there is with one another, the better the people become at contention. Rhetorical skills are polished. That spirit of contention can take possession, and when it does, one is hard-pressed to be a peacemaker with others.

The Contention entry goes on and recommends also consulting the entry for Mutual Agreement, which is as follows (emphasis added):

In response to prayers and pleadings, the Lord answered with a definition of mutual agreement (as used in the Answer to Prayer for Covenant) this way: “As between one another, you choose to not dispute” (T&C 174:1). Simply put, even if men or women disagree, if they choose to not dispute, they have mutual agreement. “Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me, I will tell you my part (T&C 157:54).” 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. “As between one another (that is, every one of us because every one of us is involved in a relationship with one another) you choose [to not dispute]. Mind you, Christ could have disputed, he could have corrected, he could have challenged every one of the ongoing religious and social conventions of his day…. How much of the gospel of Christ would not have been possible for Him to preach if He’d gone about contending? He chose not to. In that respect, perhaps His most godly example was the patience with which He dealt with those around him — kindly, patiently, correcting them when they largely came to Him with questions trying to trap Him, but affirmatively stating in the Sermon on the Mount how you could take any group of people and turn them into Zion itself, if we would live the Sermon on the Mount.”

I Will Tell You My Part

In T&C 157:54 we find the following (quoted in part above): 

Study to learn how to respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason, and persuasion, rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger. Take care how you invoke my name. Mankind has been controlled by the adversary through anger and jealousy, which has led to bloodshed and the misery of many souls. Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger, nor to invoke my name in vain as if I had part in your every dispute. Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me, I will tell you my part.

This particular invitation has caused quite a bit of mischief, and I believe is not what it seems. Allow me to explain:

First, the Lord admonishes us to come together and to do so by the peaceful means of precept, reason and persuasion, echoing the prior teaching about disagreeing respectfully. The Lord then prohibits sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger. We need not even question why he commands such. By now we’ve been over it a number of times and know that He chooses to not dispute and expects us to choose likewise. 

Then He cautions us to take care how we invoke his name, together with a caution about anger, “as if” He says “I had part in your every dispute.” Clearly, the Lord does NOT have part in our every dispute, and in fact has consistently counseled that disputes should be avoided altogether. 

He then offers this command: “Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me, I will tell you my part.” 

Let’s suppose, just for a moment, that the Lord was serious about this command, and He really expects people who are sharply disputing and wrongly condemning one another in anger to “pray together in humility” and “meekly present [their] dispute” with the promise that He will “tell [them] His part” if they are contrite. 

First, what do you think the effect of praying together in humility will be on the angry, arguing, condemning parties? Is it possible to remain angry, jealous, and stubborn while also praying together in real humility? 

Second, the Lord expects contrition. Why should they be contrite? 

Well first and foremost because they have sinned. 

What? Sinned how? 

The Lord makes it abundantly clear that disputation, particularly about His Gospel, is against His will, and therefore sinful. It appears the act of approaching the Lord in meekness with contrition is in acknowledgment of the sin in which the disputing parties have been engaged. 

Now, with the foundation of humility, meekness, and contrition laid, the Lord has promised to tell His part. What do you suppose the Lord’s part in a dispute is? To pick sides? To say who was right and vindicated (yay!) and who was wrong and condemned (boo!)? Is that His part? As if He had part in our every dispute? Do we expect he is going to pick sides? 

No, I think not. I dare not speak for the Lord in this matter, but I suspect that in any dispute in which the parties have humbled themselves, come in meekness, and displayed contrition for their sin, the Lord’s part is to forgive and to teach. As he said earlier in the same revelation: 

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 157:5

Repent and Forgive

Anyone who has been involved in disputations within the covenant body is therefore invited to repent, myself included. This involves acknowledgement, humility, meekness and contrition. But it must start with the realization that contention and disputation are sinful—not merely to be avoided, but also to be the object of repentance. 

So this leads us back to the beginning of this post: Disputation is a behavior. In fact, it’s a sinful behavior—that not only mars those engaging it, but also damages the entire covenant body to the point that the Lord cannot work with us as a people. He gave us an assignment over seven years ago that still lacks completion, and the path to completion is repentance. 

If we cannot repent, we cannot advance. 

Repentance is personal. Nobody can repent on behalf of someone else, nor can we engage in organized, institutional repentance. The closest we can come is to acknowledge the harm of our behavior to those we have harmed and ask forgiveness. Likewise, having realized our sin, both collective and individual, we must forgive one another so we can be of one heart. 

“Be one,” the Lord says, “and if you are not one, you are not mine.” (T&C 22:7)

The path forward is clear. It is simple. It is crucial. And it beckons. 

For myself, I acknowledge that I have engaged in disputation and contention, and I intend to avoid such behavior in the future. If I have given offense to anyone reading this, please reach out and let me know so I can repent more fully. 

When the Lord Disputed

In all things, our Lord is our example. As is noted in the glossary entry on Contention: 

…the Lord’s example is to refrain from disputing, as He did. When confronted, He would respond, but He did not go about picking a fight with others. He responded. The only exception was when He went up to Jerusalem to be slain. Then He went into the seat of Jewish power and authority to throw it down and provoke their decision to finally judge, reject, and crucify Him. 

From this we learn the only time the Lord chose to dispute, it resulted in His death. And it will surely result in ours as well. 

Let us choose a better path. 

The Path of the Peacemaker

In His sermon, our Lord pronounced a blessing upon the peacemakers (Matt 3:12 RE). As we read in the glossary entry under “Peacemaker”:

More often than not, those who are “peacemakers” will be abused. They will have to endure aggression and give a soft word in return (see Proverbs 2:152). There will be no end to the peace which comes from Christ because there was no end to the suffering He was willing to endure (see Isaiah 4:1). When mankind hearkens to the Lord’s commandments, they have peace like a flowing river (see Isaiah 17:3). This is because the Lord will fight for them, and they can hold their peace. The Lord will fight Zion’s battles.

We have the opportunity before us to be gathered into a city of peace. But such a gathering cannot take place until there is a people of peace to be gathered. Peacemakers are those who choose to not dispute, and refuse to engage in such behavior. They turn the other cheek. (Matt 3:25 RE) They find blessing in being persecuted for His name’s sake. (Acts 3:9 RE; Matt 3:14 RE) They make peace. 

Covenant Christians

And now this discussion comes full circle back to the beginning of this series. The Lord has put his name upon us and claimed us as His own. Though His offer is real, it is not yet fully realized. Nevertheless, it is based upon His faith and hope that we will respond to his teachings, learn by precept, and truly become His in very deed by overcoming our disputations and contentions, and becoming true peacemakers. 

This is His path and the way in which we become His. 

“Blessed are all the peacemakers,” said He, “for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt 3:12 RE). God is indeed with them. (3 Nephi 5:9 CC)

He offers us everything! And all he asks is that we lay down our burdens of disputation and tread upon them like stones under our feet on a path to His house. If we desire to become His children, we will demonstrate it by responding to His generous offer. We will repent. 

I descended below it all, and know the sorrows of you all, and have borne the grief of it all, and I say to you, Forgive one another. Be tender with one another, pursue judgment, bless the oppressed, care for the orphan, and uplift the widow in her need, for I have redeemed you from being orphaned and taken you that you are no longer a widowed people. Rejoice in me, and rejoice with your brethren and sisters who are mine also. Be one. 

—T&C 157:50

Covenant Christians, Part 3: It is Time

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

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

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