Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Final Post About the Guide

I received a very good forwarded email in which the scripture committee explained more about the Guiding Principles. This was my reply to the friend who forwarded it to me: 

I am fully willing to accept the original. I wish we had been told, plainly, from the beginning that it was an assignment from the Lord to the committee.

I am also willing to accept the one that got 91% of the votes.

I have been willing to accept over and over again. Finally, I was prompted to back off and let the others fight it out. God knows my willingness to accept even something I view as imperfect. I think our repentance will not be complete unless we accept the original document, but I do not see that happening unless a major miracle occurs.

I posted my pleas on my blog and now I have stepped back. I am powerless to stop the confusion or to make anyone calm down enough (be fearless enough) to trust God enough to accept what we already have. The mass of confusion seems to be based on, "Me! Me! Choose mine! I will stop the process. I will put a cog in the works and prevent mutual agreement by my interpretation of the term "mutual agreement" and/or by my insistance that if you don't choose ME, I will refuse to cooperate, and thus keep a Guide from happening until we start being raped, murdered, robbed, and destroyed like those in Nauvoo." 

Yet we forget that by the current definition of mutual consent, God failed, for 1/3 of the hosts of heaven did not consent. Yet, the plan was still implemented, by the mutual consent of those who DID consent.

3 comments:

  1. I appreciated that the scripture committee finally posted an explanation of what was going on behind the scenes regarding the original Governing Principles as well as subsequent discussions occurring in advance of the conference in Boise. Really, there should have been transparency from the outset pertaining to all of those discussions and I believe that would have resolved the confusion and probably most of the contention as well.
    Speaking to the issue of confusion, I am aware of an individual who, when the assembly was asked to stand and acknowledge acceptance of the canon of scriptures in Boise, believed that the Aug. 5th document was being voted in at that time, only to learn later that results of the vote taken in August were considered insufficient for acceptance and had been set aside.

    However, I am not on board with the idea being advanced by some that we, as a people, perhaps failed by not accepting the original GP and are therefore needing to repent of that.
    Chris Hamill's presentation on behalf of the scripture committee in St. George laid out from the outset that the GP was not "finished" and required input from the assembly:

    "(A Proposed Set of) 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."

    Maybe something better will come from all of this. Something that also incorporates the further light revealed in the Answer and Covenant. I am at least intrigued by this latest post from the scripture committee.

    http://guideandstandard.blogspot.com/2017/10/hope.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your reply and the link. I haven't read that post. You give me some things to think about.

    I agree that transparency from the outset would have prevented a lot of problems.

    I sincerely do hope that something better will come from all this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regarding your last comment, if you read the text closely it was "one-third part", which is not a fractional third but indicating it was one of three groups. Makes one wonder what the other group favored (if anything).

    ReplyDelete