Covenant Christians, Part 2: Decisions

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

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

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. 

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 1: Peoplehood

 Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required.

—T&C 157:56

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Humans long for connection—for a sense of belonging—for a group we can call “our” people. 

You see this human need leveraged in marketing, where everything from credit cards to pharmaceuticals, to the US Marines sell the idea that if you accept what is being offered, you’ll gain membership and belonging. You’ll be numbered among a group with special status; that the common shared ideals and attributes of the group will now become your own ideals and attributes. The group identity will become your identity . You’ll be elevated, unique, and given special status as a member of an exclusive group. Once a Marine, always a Marine, as they say. 

The potential loss of such membership and identity is a powerful motivator to control the behaviors of individuals in a group—just ask any organization that uses threatened loss of membership as a means of control. To strip someone of membership is to remove their supposed special status, to make them common like those who are not members; to remove the privileges and expected rewards of membership status. It is a loss of identity, which, for those most committed to the group, is most painful.

It turns out that God longs for connection as well—for a group of observant people committed to the truth He can call His own. The Hebrew word עַם (ahm) has something to teach us about such a group. The word literally refers to a nation, people or kinsfolk; those of a common tribe; those who share a common identity. When appearing with the definite article, it is commonly translated simply as “the people” though this undersells the concept. “The people” in the Old Covenants refers to the House of Israel, or the people with a specific family relationship and covenant connection to God. The opposite term is גּוֹי (goy), which also refers to a group, but means a foreign nation, a group of “others”, a troop of animals, or most commonly, “gentiles.” It implies any group other than “the people,” with such a group lacking the elevated status enjoyed by “the people.”

Putting it simply, the Hebrew terms divide people into two categories. “His people” and all others.  “His people” can expect protection, salvation and favor, while all others can expect eventual disappointment.

His by Baptism

Likewise, Covenant of Christ uses the term, “His people” in numerous places. Perhaps the most descriptive is Mosiah 9:7: 

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? 9Are 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? 10If 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? (emphasis added)

Here we learn the notion of entering into a covenant by means of the gospel’s first ordinance, which is baptism. Indeed, this ordinance is the beginning of the believer’s return to God, or in the Book of Mormon language, “the gate by which ye should enter.” (2 Nephi 13:3) It is the genesis of a peoplehood identity that expands as the believer progresses. “His people” therefore denotes a specific, covenant status and implication of connection to God by having received an ordinance. It also implies the expectation that those so identified will share a common set of beliefs and practices, conforming their lives to specific behavior patterns, as outlined in scripture. Therefore, becoming  “His people” requires more than mere baptism. It requires obedience to his word.

His by Covenant

The ordinance of baptism is offered, indeed commanded, to be received by all. A group of believers who have entered into this ordinance, received the Holy Ghost as promised and given some level of heed to its direction may be offered a higher level of “peoplehood” or a new identity more closely linked to God.

Such is the case with those who accepted the covenant offered by the Lord in 2017:

Now, hear the words of the Lord to those who receive this covenant this day: All you who have turned from your wicked ways and repented of your evil doings, of lying and deceiving, and of all whoredoms, and of secret abominations, idolatries, murders, priestcrafts, envying, and strife, and from all wickedness and abominations, and have come unto me, and been baptized in my name, and have received a remission of your sins, and received the holy ghost, are now numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. 

—T&C 158:9-10

This represented a change in status from the general body of repentant, baptized believers (my people) to the covenant family of Israel (my people who are3 of the house of Israel). Therefore, the meaning of “the people” among those who entered into the covenant similarly changed. We are not merely believers in a common God and shared set of beliefs, but also a body who has accepted a higher covenant binding us to God and His commandments. In response, God has recognized us as having a unique, committed relationship with him and has claimed us as His own. 

His by Name

Yet another level of “peoplehood” was recently bestowed on us by the Lord, as reported in our last General Conference: 

After learning that the Lord intends to accomplish His work through our group, or at least a remnant that includes some from our group, I was then told that the Lord has given us a name. When the Lord names His people He then commits to work with them, for there is no reason for Him to name what He intends to abandon. Even if the people reject Him, for at least three and four generations the Lord will reach out to recover them. Only when they have altogether gone too far astray will He then end His work with the people He has named, to choose and work with another people. Therefore, the fact He has now named us holds great significance. This is what the Lord has declared:

This is what you shall say to the people: “I give to you a name to distinguish you from others, and you shall call one another by this name: ‘Covenant Christians’ because you have and hold a covenant with me that make you my followers deserving of my protection. But my protection does not only defend, but also corrects, reproves, disciplines and guides you along that you may be mine indeed.”

—Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People,” April 13, 2025, p. 28

The Lord giving us a name adds yet another dimension to the identity of “His people.” As Denver pointed out, this implies a commitment to protect, correct, and labor with us for three and four generations. Giving a new name like this creates a new identity and relationship that was not included in the covenant that made us “His people.” In the 2017 covenant, he said “You shall be my people and I will be your God” (T&C 157:48), creating a relationship between a God and his recognized followers. The same paragraph also associated us with Jacob (Israel): “I will number you among the remnant of Jacob, no longer outcasts, and you will inherit the promises of Israel.” These gave us a God and another man’s name. 

But the naming of children is the privilege of parents, and this act of giving us a name and a commitment reaching to generations of our posterity implies something much more familial and intimate. It is the tender act of a loving Father who wants a connection with us sufficient to rescue us and our children from this fallen world; it is the act of a God who seeks to expand his family. The name he gave us is derived from his own elevated status; by calling us Christians he associated us with his own anointing (Mashiach in Hebrew, Christos in Greek). He did not merely name us; rather He anointed us with His name. This increased commitment on God’s part ought to be matched by an increased commitment on our part. 

Faith in His People

This brings us therefore to confront the sobering reality that God not only intends to protect and correct us, but also actually has faith in us. His willingness to make prophecies and promises comes from His confidence that some portion of people on earth will give heed to His word, obey His commandments, and do His work. 

We must conclude that if our hope in God is based upon our faith in Him, God’s hope in our fulfillment of prophecy, promises, and covenants must likewise be based on the same principle of faith. Our hope is predicated upon our confidence in God. It follows, therefore, that God’s hope is predicated upon His confidence in us.

—Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People”  p. 24

The mere thought that the God of heaven deigns to have confidence in some portion of fallen mankind is stunning and even distressing. The fulfillment of God’s word depends upon US. Upon His People. Upon those who will humble themselves before him to the point of casting aside their own will to become one with His will. Upon those He has anointed with His name. 

Cleaving and Pruning

Unfortunately, in the same talk we learned that God’s commitment includes the willingness to correct us, both by precept and also by sad experience. As a loving Father corrects his children, so a loving God corrects those he hopes will be his family.  

My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when you are rebuked of him, for whom the Lord loves he chastens, and scourges every son whom he receives. If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chastens not? But if you are without chastisement whereof all are partakers, then are you bastards and not sons. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh who corrected us and we gave them reverence. Shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live? For they truly for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure, but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

—Heb. 1:52 RE

Therefore, we should consider carefully what it means to be part of the group of people God has claimed and named with his own anointing. As with any group, membership in this group means a shared identity, purpose, and set of beliefs. Commitment to the group entails at least the following items: 

• Supporting the group’s purposes and priorities
• Subscribing to the goals and mission of the group
• Considering and respecting other members of the group as ourselves
• Laboring and sacrificing to accomplish the group’s priorities

It also means the following obligations devolve upon each of us, individually:

• Worshiping our God in spirit and in truth
• Keeping the covenant into which we have entered
• Keeping the commandments He has given us
• Treating one another in the way the Lord has instructed
• Surrendering our will, pride, desires and understanding to His higher ways

In any group, it’s expected there will be disagreements, discussions, negotiations and settlements as the group wrestles with questions and priorities. There will be debate about group decisions and projects. These are to be conducted respectfully. (T&C 157:3)

Ultimately, there must be some level of willingness to subordinate our own desires and preferences in favor of supporting the group. And as with any group, some will find this difficult or impossible. Some will reach a point of disagreement where they can no longer support and identify with the group, in which case they are free to reject their group membership and proceed in a different direction. 

When this happens, it’s important to note that such people have departed by their own rejection of the group. They left the group, though they may claim the group left them. Also, it’s important to note that it’s not really possible to retain the identity and status of the group while rejecting the goals, decisions, priorities and purposes of the group. This identity is not one that can be retained casually or half-heartedly. Now that the Lord has given his own name to this group, those who leave are no longer His. 

Those who reject group membership in this way are metaphorically “pruned” from the tree in Zenos’s allegory, or separated from “the people.” But unlike actual branches, such may be said to have pruned themselves. This group—as yet—has no mechanism for removing bad branches. That is up to the Lord.

The Pattern of Elevating Connection

Becoming clear on our identity and what that identity means is both necessary and powerful. It sets expectations in our own minds and in the minds of others.

The notion that we can start out as strangers and foreigners to the house of God (Eph. 1:7 RE), cut off and excluded, then move through increasing levels of holiness and connection is a pattern we see demonstyrated (oops, demonstrated! Typo--see comments) in numerous scriptural examples. Consider the pattern of ancient temple worship with a public place for all, an inner court for initiates, and a holy place for higher initiates. This was noted in Denver’s recent talk:

This division between the outer and inner is reflected in the Tabernacle of Moses, the Temple of Solomon, and the architecture of the Second Temple. There were areas for the public, and others limited to the priests, and still another limited to the High Priest, and then only one time a year. The temples of the Old Testament show there was hidden knowledge that was unavailable to the public, and the content was excluded from the Bible narrative.

—Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People,” p. 34 

There are, of course, yet higher levels of connection between God and His people. Some involve group connection and Peoplehood, and some involve personal, intimate connection between God and individuals. We see some on display in Third Nephi when the Lord ministers in person to His people, and others that are never on display, though hints and echoes may be found in scripture. 

Thus far, then, we've seen and experienced three degrees of peoplehood: His by baptism, His by covenant, and His by name. Each is a degree of connection on the ascent. 

The point to remember is that we each, individually choose our level of closeness to the Lord and our level of connection to the group he calls His People. Nothing is forced upon us or demanded of us—only offered to us upon terms we are free to accept or reject. Remaining  “His” may become increasingly challenging as we ascend and more is required at each level. Therefore, it's important to remember such acceptance or rejection includes eternal repercussions. As we've been recently reminded:

We are obligated to heed the Lord. We only have two choices: either to learn by precept or through sad experience. If we learn by precept, then we listen and follow the Lord. But, when we reject the Lord’s counsel and ignore His warning, then we learn through sad experiences. Based on the recent communication with the Lord, it appears we will need, and are going to learn, from sad experiences.

—Denver Snuffer, “God’s Covenant People,” p. 14 

This brief overview is in no way complete or comprehensive. Rather, it simply highlights a few important truths inherent in being “His people.” In my next post, we’ll expand the discussion by considering the Lord’s gifts and tools given us for working through group decisions and disagreements. Stay tuned.

 

And I’ll preserve My people and will yet show My will through them, to restore My covenant with a remnant upon the earth, and they’ll inherit My renewed birthright as the chosen people…

—1 Nephi 6:7 CoC

It is ordained that some things are only to be given to people who are mine and cannot otherwise be given to mankind on earth. You do not yet understand the glory to be revealed unto my covenant people. 

—T&C 157:44