Monday, May 7, 2018

This Is All Very Simple

1. I am a covenant participant and have standing in the matter of the adoption of the G&S.

2. I have made a choice to permanently and perpetually dispute the adoption of any other proposed document as the G&S other than the document that I, myself, submitted, which document is entitled The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles.

3. Because I have made this choice, only one document proposed for adoption as the G&S can possibly lead to the fulfillment of the Lord's requirement that the G&S be adopted by mutual agreement - for the simple reason that I disagree with the adoption of any other document as the G&S.

4. Because I will not yield on the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ, and also because I will not yield on disputing the adoption of each and every other document, the choice facing every other covenant participant has been reduced to a perfect dichotomy: either accept and do as the Lord has required, in which case The Rock of Jesus Christ shall inevitably be adopted as the G&S because no other document can possibly be agreed to, or else defraud the Lord by placing a disputed document in the / their scriptures as the G&S.

5. I make no revelatory claims.

6. I make no appeals to the priesthood.

7. I cannot compel the agreement of even a single soul in this matter.

8. I do not receive the Woodard Revelation.

9. I disputed the content of the Lottery document when it was announced in an email sent October 28, 2017 to both Karen Strong and Lynne McKinney, thus fulfilling the law of witnesses.

10. The Lottery group therefore never had unity with the body at any point, falsifying a key claim in the Woodard Revelation.

11. Explanations for the wisdom of choosing The Rock of Jesus Christ are available on my blog in posts dating to Friday, October 13, 2017.

12. There is no further discussion to be had on this subject.

13. The only thing being hashed out right now by each individual covenant participant is whether they shall individually defraud the Lord in the matter of the G&S.

14. If the body chooses to defraud the Lord by placing a disputed document in the scriptures as a G&S, then the body shall be unable to accomplish other works that the Lord shall require of it.

15. Not accomplishing other works the Lord shall require logically entails the destruction of the body, because the salvation of the body requires that the body do all things whatsoever the Lord shall command of it.

16. Those who are faithful to the covenant - those that choose not to defraud the Lord but instead do all that they agreed to do - shall be spared, because God is just (A&C p. 7).

17. The faithless have no such promise.

18. It is prophesied that this people, the remnant of the Gentiles, shall treat spitefully the servants of God, and slay them, and in their turn they shall be slain and their city be burned when the Lord shall send his armies against them (RE Matthew 10:17).

19. The armies spoken of are most likely the remnant of Jacob (3 Nephi 16:15).

20. It will be a remnant of the Lord's people, not a majority, who builds the temple which has not yet been commanded (A&C p. 11).

21. I would prefer my people not be destroyed.

22. It was for disobedience to the things contained in The Rock of Jesus Christ that the LDS Church was condemned.

23. There is less excuse for this people in this thing (Question 2, Question 4, G&S assignment).

24. Y'all are agents unto yourselves, and there is no further need for conversation.

25. My choices in the matter of the G&S assignment are not subject to your review.

26. Your choices in the matter of the G&S assignment are not subject to my review.

27. You have been fully warned.

Jared Livesey

Saturday, April 28, 2018

A Word to the Declarants

  1. The Lord does not receive that which he has not appointed.
  2. The Lord has appointed us to adopt a guide and standard by mutual agreement.
  3. The Lord has not appointed us to adopt a guide and standard by any means other than mutual agreement.
  4. "Mutual agreement" is not esoteric religious jargon of ambiguous, vague, unclear, or uncertain meaning, but a well-defined, commonly-used, modern English phrase.
  5. "Mutual agreement" means all parties to a matter agree together concerning it.
  6. "As between one another you choose not to dispute" means if anyone who has standing in the matter disputes the adoption of a particular proposal that proposal is not mutually agreed to by all concerned parties.
  7. Placing a disputed proposal in the scriptures does not fulfill the Lord's requirement.
  8. The Lord will not receive the placing of a disputed proposal in the scriptures.
  9. Placing a disputed proposal in the scriptures and offering it up to the Lord in place of his required agreed statement of principles defrauds the Lord.
  10. Defrauding the Lord is bad.
  11. You will not like the consequences of defrauding the Lord.
  12. Expressing disagreement with a person, position, or proposal, is to dispute.
  13. The declaration expresses disagreement with the scripture committee and is therefore a disputation.
  14. Even if the phrase "mutually agreeable" meant "choosing not to dispute," which is not what it means, the stated disagreement with the scripture committee constitutes an open self-contradiction on the part of those who signed the declaration.
  15. The declaration is more properly characterized as an implicit threat against the scripture committee if they do not publish the Lottery document.
  16. Zion cannot be built up by intimidation nor threats.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Still Defrauding the Lord

Whenever there is a procedural proposal offered, we need not consider the motives of those who offer it. All we need consider is the following test:

"If this procedure is followed exactly can a G&S be published in the scriptures even if the G&S is not mutually agreed to by all covenant participants?"

If the answer to that question is "yes," then the procedural proposal defrauds the Lord of his requirement that we adopt a G&S by mutual agreement and add it - to the scriptures in place of LDS D&C 20, in context.

Notes on vocabulary:
The phrase "mutually agreeable" does not occur in the A&C.
The phrase "mutually agreeable" means "able to be accepted by everyone."
The phrase "mutually agreeable" does not mean "choosing not to dispute with each other."
The phrase "mutual agreement" means "agreeing together," "universal agreement," or "unanimity."
If one or more of us choose to dispute something, then we do not mutually agree to it.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Nothing Has Changed

Let us review the Lord's assignment to the people in the A&C pertaining to the G&S.

1. You [the covenant participants] are not excused from writing [without specifying any method] a [single] statement of principles [rules of behavior that you do not ever break] that I have required [commanded] at your hands.

2. I forbade my servant David [Denver Snuffer] from participating, and again forbid him.

3. But I require a [single] statement of principles to be adopted [accepted] by the mutual agreement [universal 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.

4. When [at such time as] you have an agreed statement of principles [a single statement of principles which none of the covenant participants choose to dispute] I require it [the single statement of principles no covenant participant chooses to dispute] to also be added [as a replacement for LDS D&C 20] as a guide [that which directs behavior] and standard [that by which behavior is judged] for my people to follow [to conform their behavior to].

5. Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless [bring the Holy Ghost to], benefit [do good to] and inform [teach what is required to receive the Holy Ghost to] them—so I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you.

At Phoenix, it was demonstrated publicly that the adoption of the majority-preferred statement of principles was disputed. The Lord's requirement is not fulfilled by adding a disputed statement of principles as a replacement for LDS D&C 20. The Lord's requirement is rejected and left undone instead.

Therefore, the true state of affairs of this people pertaining to the Lord's requirement that a statement of principles be adopted by the mutual agreement of this people is this:

1. There is nothing in the A&C restricting me from selecting my own G&S.
2. There is nothing in the A&C restricting me from disputing the adoption of any other G&S proposals.
3. There is nothing in the law and commandments of God restricting me from selecting the law and commandments of God as my G&S.
4. There is nothing in the law and commandments of God restricting me from disputing the adoption of any other G&S proposals.
5. I have made a choice of G&S proposals that I will agree to for this assignment and it is The Rock of Jesus Christ.
6. I have made a choice to dispute the adoption of every single other G&S document past, present, and future.
7. Therefore, if the body actually and truly does want to be the Lord's people indeed, they will each individually accept and do as the Lord has required of them and adopt The Rock of Jesus Christ.
8. Failure to accept and do as the Lord has required occurs when any other proposed G&S is placed in the scriptures.

The task has been simplified down to where in order to succeed at this assignment all the body has to do is place The Rock of Jesus Christ in the scriptures after any who dispute its adoption shall have ceased their disputations. Any other action taken by the body is failure.

Failing to verbally dispute a proposal does not necessarily mean that one is not disputing that proposal. One may dispute a proposed G&S by adding a disputed G&S to their scriptures. The placement of disputed documents in the scriptures, feigning to have accepted and done as the Lord requires while in reality rejecting his requirement and leaving it undone, must also cease.

It is not accurate to say that I am attempting to control the body. It is accurate to say I reject the rule and ministry of the unrighteous (A&C p. 8) and corrupt (A&C p. 3) majority, and I will not agree to curse, harm, and misinform those who as yet know nothing concerning the Lord's work now underway by failing to dispute their preferred G&S. I reject the rule of men for the rule of my Lord, Jesus Christ.

Friday, March 9, 2018

Mutual Agreement Re-Revisited

To make the issue of mutual agreement understandable, imagine the following scenario.

The Lord comes to Adam and Eve, a married couple, and tells them, "I require you two to choose a restaurant by mutual agreement and order dinner there. The restaurant should serve only healthful and nutritious food. If you fulfill these conditions, I will pay for your meals, and I will not pay otherwise. The dinner is for you to eat."

Adam ponders a bit. He thinks to himself that he and Eve don't often agree on much, and asks the Lord, "What do you mean by 'mutual agreement'?"

The Lord says, "As between one another you choose not to dispute."

Adam is still confused. He asks himself - isn't disputation always a sin? If so, isn't the Lord really saying no choice of restaurant should be disputed, and, if so, that the first one to select any restaurant picks for the both of them? But Adam doesn't ask the Lord to explain further.

Eve understands. Adam and Eve must be mutually agreed, which means unanimous, upon their choice of restaurant. If either she or Adam chooses to dispute going to a particular restaurant, then they both know they are not mutually agreed upon that restaurant and shouldn't go there. Eve also understands that there aren't very many restaurants that serve only healthful and nutritious food. There might be only one restaurant that fulfills the Lord's condition. Since Eve is the family cook, by long experience and study she knows what foods are healthful and nutritious.

Adam decides that what matters most to him is who has the control in his and Eve's relationship, and he decides that person will be him. Because of that decision, he further decides that what the Lord means is that he and Eve shouldn't dispute. Adam thinks that as long he chooses not to dispute with Eve, then he is mutually agreeing and the Lord will pay for the meal and any disagreement from Eve will have no effect. Adam figures if food tastes good, it must be healthy and nutritious, so he can pick any restaurant he wants. Adam picks his favorite restaurant, where they serve lots of deep-fried comfort foods.

Eve disputes Adam's choice of restaurants, and tries to reason with Adam, who grows angry with her. When Eve tells him his choice of restaurant serves unhealthful and non-nutritious foods, he does not believe her. When Eve tries to explain calories and vitamins and minerals and protein and fat and carbohydrates to Adam, he thinks she's trying to deceive him so she can take control.

Eve chooses a restaurant that she knows only serves healthful and nutritious foods, and asks Adam if he will accept her choice and enjoy the Lord's meal there. Adam chooses not to dispute Eve's choice in words, and instead utterly rejects her choice by his actions. Adam sharply chastises Eve for disputing, and then ignores her as he leaves to go to his favorite restaurant alone, where he orders all his favorite foods.

Question: Does the Lord pay for Adam's meal?

Question: Assuming Adam's attitude towards Eve doesn't change for the better, are Adam and Eve likely to succeed in future assignments from the Lord requiring mutual agreement?

Why Do You Call Me Lord and Do Not Do What I Say?

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

Let us consider another commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ: "Give to every man that asks you to, and do not ask for your stuff back from anyone who takes it" (Luke 6:30).

If you have been baptized, by that act you proclaimed to the world and to heaven that you are a servant of God. You demonstrated that you were willing - meaning wanting - to do what he commanded. You announced to everyone that you would give to every man that asks you to, and that you wouldn't ask for your stuff back from anyone who takes it.

To be a servant of God it is only necessary to accept and do as he commands. Likewise, to be the people of God, it is only necessary to accept and do as he requires.

And God is testing you to see if you indeed do desire to be his servant with every beggar on the street you come into contact with - do you give, or do you instead judge the beggar in his petition and withhold?

You can spend your time futilely trying to justify yourself in breaking God's commandment by judging the motives of the beggars on the street, or you can simply leave judgement up to God and give as he has commanded you. After all, when you judge the beggar and wihhold from him, it is not really the beggar you have judged, but God - you have judged his commandment evil.

So it is with this. If you will not accept and do as he has required, though you may justify yourself before men for defrauding the Lord by accusing me, it is not me you are accusing, but the Lord.

Adopting The Rock of Jesus Christ would be a light thing indeed for a people who wanted to do what it contains.

Jared Livesey

An Open Conspiracy to Defraud the Lord

The organizers of the Phoenix conference this month have apparently chosen to give place to an effort to defraud the Lord by delivering to him a guide and standard adopted not by mutual agreement as he requires, but instead agreed upon by majority vote. The scripture committee has publicly agreed to add any document arising from the upcoming vote to the scriptures as the guide and standard. The scripture committee and the organizers of the Phoenix conference have agreed to do these things at the request of some who are unwilling to accept and do as the Lord requires, believing it to be impossible.  Thus these groups have formed an open conspiracy with the publicly stated goal of defrauding the Lord.

The success of this open conspiracy to defraud the Lord shall ensure that the people who have entered into the covenant offered through Denver Snuffer cannot accomplish future tasks that will be required of them by the Lord as a body.  Since salvation requires doing all things whatsoever the Lord commands, the success of this conspiracy shall inevitably result in the destruction of the covenant body.  Some of us, if not the vast majority of us, shall not be saved.

It is written in the Book of Mormon that the Gentiles shall be trodden under foot of men.  It may take some time for this destruction to occur.  After the Jews rejected the Sermon on the Mount and crucified Jesus, it took roughly forty years for the Lord to send the Romans against the Jews, treading them underfoot as salt that had lost its flavor.  But it happened.  After the Nephites rejected the Sermon at Bountiful, the Lord sent the Lamanites against them, treading them underfoot as salt that had lost its flavor.  Being cast out and trodden underfoot as salt that has lost its flavor is the covenant curse contained within the Sermon.

When you covenant with the Lord, you agree to the penalties for defrauding him.

If you wish to act as good salt, a preserver and savior of men, here is information that you may find useful.