Response to "A Plea for the Original"

***Please Read***
An open discussion forum for those who have assented to the covenant offered through Denver Snuffer to write and / or adopt by mutual agreement a statement of principles as a guide and standard.
Post Reply
Amanda S.C.
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by Amanda S.C. » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:37 pm

It has been requested that I post this here, as well. It was my response to "A Plea for the Original" on https://guideandstandard.blogspot.com/p ... 6961538500

I agree with the above blog post.

I too have felt, if we cannot let each other have “callings” without jumping in to take over and rip their efforts apart – how will we ever be able to get anything done? I have asked myself, “why does the Governing Principles have to ‘sound like’ me, or be written the way I would write it? Why can it not ‘sound like’ Jeff Savage, and I let it be?” Perhaps that was the point – that it sound like Jeff’s voice on purpose. Perhaps it was sufficient for the Lord’s purposes? Perhaps it’s what He intended? Did we follow the pattern of rejecting what came down off the mountain when we rejected the original (the #1 presented to the body in the vote) GP? What happens if we reject the initial word in favor of whatever we do instead?

I also feel that the GP was not specifically intended to be a doctrinal exposition, but to be a document that suggested, among other things, some social behaviors when it comes to interacting with fellowships or people we aren’t familiar with. Which I believe includes Zion and the Lord. I feel the original GP gives a doorway of permission for the Lord and His city to interact with us in a way we deem “safe” or “appropriate,” and that preserves our agency. I feel the original GP was not intended to manage or meddle in the affairs of families (which our fellowships ideally become, I think), but to give a possible standard for social interaction among people who are unfamiliar with each other on some level. A document with the focus of only expounding doctrines we believe does not necessarily give a standard of social interaction among/between “strangers.”

I feel that it is very good to allow people to talk, share opinions and concerns, and get together to work things/disagreements out. I feel freedom to disagree and share is important. I feel it’s good, should people feel compelled, to allow them to write other GP documents or create other processes with the goal to write things, or attempt to become of one heart and mind. I feel freedom is vital. With that said, it is also my personal feeling that it was perhaps never the job or part of the group/body re-write the original GP. I feel the group’s job or part was to give the document life, to activate it, by sustaining it. I feel getting together as a “fellowship committee” to represent the fellowships, discuss, have a voice, and work through “issues” was a good thing. But I am not sure that we ever had the “authority” (to use a word some have used) as we supposed, to officially re-write the document, or take over the project to make something we liked better, and call that a fulfillment of the original assignment. I feel this could be an error. It seems to me that it was a “light thing” to have one person (Jeff) write the GP, with the Lord, before the large group even had to worry about it!

I feel there is hope for us if we go back to the original GP (the #1 presented to the body in the vote), but I know others may not feel the same.

These are my current thoughts. I am open to being wrong and persuaded differently.



log
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:20 pm
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Contact:

Re: Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by log » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:28 pm

Well, the purpose of this forum is to give us a place to discuss these things, definitely.

It may be after discussion we mutually all agree to the original GP.

I wonder, though, what were the actual reasons that led to its rejection, and have those objections been answered?



Amanda S.C.
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by Amanda S.C. » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:54 pm

I don't know what the original objections were that made it so people couldn't support it at all. I'm not sure if those things are being addressed with Adrian & Jeff's process? Perhaps they are? I heard that some who were displeased with the other GP votes are happy with this new process, and being able to talk through things - so perhaps it will help in some way? It will be interesting to see what happens with everything, for sure!



log
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:20 pm
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Contact:

Re: Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by log » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:22 am

It seems that the problem with Jeff's GP was accepting stuff from the Lord coming through someone whose name was not "Denver Snuffer."

I can think of only two practical solutions for that particular problem, and since Denver cannot write the G&S, that rules one of them out.

The other solution would be essentially taking the G&S straight out of the scriptures.



Amanda S.C.
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by Amanda S.C. » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:12 pm

If the main issue was that it wasn't Denver writing it, then I'm not sure people will be ok with the result from Adrian and Jeff's new process either. :/



lobo78
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:40 am

Re: Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by lobo78 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:38 pm

I know several mentioned the only problem they had with the original was the oath related to the Sacrament.
Provided it is performed with the proper prayer and position, [Moroni 4-5], the Sacrament may be
administered to the body of the church in a number of ways. The officiator may break and bless the bread,
immediately blessing the wine, so that all may partake of the sacramental emblems together, or the emblems
may be blessed and consumed separately; either is acceptable so long as it is done with an eye single to God's
glory. If the priest and the congregation desire to make an oath that they will always remember him, then let all
who so desire raise the right arm to the square as a signal that they are holding themselves to the sharp corner
of truth and squareness in their commitment to God to always remember His Son. The Lord, in turn, promises
to reciprocate, filling us with His Spirit. The Lord provides these ordinances as the means by which He may
fill us with His Spirit.



BrentL
Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:57 am

Re: Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by BrentL » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:21 pm

In the official announcement of the scripture project it says this: "Governing Principles is a rewritten statement of principles and practices - similar to LDS Section 20 - that reflects this assembly’s efforts to preserve the Restoration. *This statement is not yet completed. It requires additional inspired input from you.*"



"You" meaning the general assembly. Right from the get-go the "proposed governing principles" were meant to have our inspired input and not be written solely by Jeff. In fact they were titled "A Proposed Set of Governing Principles"


"Fools!" said I, "you do not know!"
"Silence like a cancer grows"

log
Posts: 881
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:20 pm
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Contact:

Re: Response to "A Plea for the Original"

Post by log » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:04 pm

Well, I asked what the actual objections were, and that's what I got.



Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests