“I have a real problem, as I hope many of you likewise have a real problem, with the concept that some man or men can vouch for something and say, “Trust me, it’s gonna be GOOD for you to go ahead and take the pill we’re asking you to swallow.” The view that replaces that is the view no one of us is greater than another. No one has the right to dictate. No one has the right to tell you, “trust me.” Instead, everything is being made available in advance for everyone to view so that no one need stand, as was done in the ceremony on the 17th of August when the Doctrine and Covenants was first sustained, when the audience only heard second-hand people telling them, this is a good thing, go ahead and adopt it, without ever having had the opportunity to review it. We ask no such thing. And none of us should expect to be treated that way. We’re all equal, we’re all accountable, and we all should be shown the respect of being allowed the opportunity to review, and that review critically and to comment and to make suggestions, and to advance criticisms and to deliberate, so that when the end of this is reached and people raise their hand to accept it as the basis for governing a body of believers, a body of equal believers, a body of believers who respect one another, they do so knowingly and they do so with the full light of understanding and not trusting some group to tell them, “Trust us — we’re not going to let you read it, but we’re telling you — it’s good stuff.” You’re going to be able to read, to pray, to examine, to criticize, and to determine that for yourself.:” (Denver Snuffer, Things to Keep Us Awake, General Conference, St George UT, March 19, 2017, page 4)
This sounds wonderful! I have had two years to review a proposed scripture project. What is the procedure if I find some of it unacceptable? If I am asked to vote, are there other options besides yes and no? What happens if I vote no? What if I don't want to swallow their pill? Is it necessary to go along to get along? Was it assumed from the beginning that I would accept what they produced?
Another question . . . Who gave this committee power to work in behalf of some group who will be voting? Did a group ask them to work in their behalf? Did they sustain them to do the work? Was this a personal project of a group of friends? When did their personal project turn into “the one and only group project”? Who put this group together? Who gave them authority? Are other projects being encouraged and considered? Why or why not?
I love this definition for mutual agreement . . . Answer given to Denver Snuffer Jr., 29 November 2017, in response to a request to understand how the Lord defines “mutual agreement” as used in the Answer To Prayer For Covenant. As between one another, you choose to not dispute. (Teaching and Commandments Section 174:1)
Clear and simple . . . do not dispute.
But our modern dictionaries do not give us a similar definition of these words.
Agreement: harmony of opinion, action, or character. The act or fact of agreeing
Mutual: directed by each toward the other or the others, having the same feelings one for the other, shared in common, joint
Is it important to reach mutual agreement according to the English dictionaries? Is it okay to do our own thing and have our own opinion as long as we do not dispute? What if this is one of the principles Zion is based upon? Would people live in peace and harmony if they did not dispute but were independent and unique in the way they viewed and did things? What if this scripture project venture is an experiment to teach us that we do not need to agree or accept the same thing to have mutual agreement?
I think it is a great idea for a group of friends to work together to preserve scripture. I have a real problem with this project becoming my project without my consent. This is not my project, and it never has been. When I first heard about their project, I thought they invited me to work with them, but my efforts to participate with them have not worked too well.
According to their section 174, I can let them do whatever they want, and I can do whatever I want, and we can have mutual agreement as long as we do not dispute. That sounds wonderful! So why is there still an effort to “mutually agree” according to Webster's dictionaries? Why don't we use the “Do Not Dispute” definition and move forward? Why do our scriptures have to look the same?
When they complete their work, I'm wondering if they are going to ask some group to vote for their version of scriptures in some meeting or online forum? Are there going to be any other versions on the voting ballot? If so, where are the other versions? Is there any other group doing such a work? What are the guidelines for their voting procedure? Is a vote even necessary? I'm curious about their process :)