Cooperative Behavior

A popular university psychology professor offered an exercise to his students each semester just before the final exam. In this offer he emailed each student the choice that they could accept a 2 point extra credit addition to their final exam score or they could accept a 6 point addition.

The hitch to the offer was, that if more than 10% of the class chose the 6 point offer, none of the class would receive any extra credit points.

It turned out that over a period of several years enough students in each class justified to themselves their need or desire or right to those 6 points, that not once in those years did those choosing 6 points fall in number below the 10% required for any in the class to receive extra credit points.

1st variant

The teacher then devised an interesting variant on the exercise, which made it possible for a student to choose 0 extra credit points. For each student choosing 0 points, 1 person, randomly selected, would be eliminated from the group choosing 6 points, losing everything.

From that point on almost half of the classes qualified under the original requirement that required less than 10% of the class to opt for 6 points in order for all of the students to receive the extra credit points they selected. It even accomplished this at times with no one choosing the 0 point option.

I have sat here for a long time now pondering what this all means and what I would do. Of the 0 pointer’s or 2 pointer’s or 6 pointer’s, which do you think has a higher developed sense of altruism?

Perhaps we might consider a couple of other questions:

. Do you think so many persons attempting to maximize their personal benefit means it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish, or are some simply being strategic?
. Do you think the ones who choose 0 points do it because they are selfless or is there possibility for other motives?
. Which option of the exercise – the original or the variant – do you think demonstrates a more highly developed cooperative nature as a class unit?
. What would you do?

There are some lines from an old Beatles song that tells us: “All the world is a birthday cake / so take a piece / but not too much.”

Keith Henderson

Furthermore

Furthermore, besides the history which it would seem the claimants of the receipt of the sealed plates got wrong, and the little (make that no) work or effort those claimants went through to get them, (see blog post May 10, 2018. Denver Snuffer.) it would seem to me there are other things to be considered.

By the time Joseph Smith received the plates promised him by the resurrected angel Nephi, four more years of personal preparation had gone into being prepared and deemed trustworthy by the powers of heaven to deal with the information which they would transmit to him through those plates and personal revelation they would give him attending to issues therein.

In the economy of the Lord another has now been in process of being prepared for the receipt of items and knowledge which will continue the Restoration which was begun through Joseph. This man began delivering information given him by Jesus Christ in 2005 and since that time the pace has progressively increased to the point that today there is a covenant group of people actively contemplating the establishment of Zion.

This man – Denver Snuffer – has been consistently revealing God’s words of required repentance, increasing our knowledge of how God deals with man, and the beauties and simplicity of Christ’s Gospel, through series of lectures, written books, written papers on many vital topics, personal examples of sacrifice, and a single minded commitment to God and His work.

He has gained our trust through consistency and untiring work trying to teach us not to be like him, but to surpass that and be like Jesus Christ. He has gained no monetary value from the work he has performed. He has been the greatest promoter of the virtue and the works of Joseph Smith Jr. helping us to understand that before a restoration can continue after a long hiatus, what went before must also be understood.

Where are there any others who can rival the trust we can all have in God’s choice of Denver Snuffer as the servant He has chosen to be His mouthpiece, as He continues the restoration? Where is their consistency over the past 13 years? Did they speak truths at the very first of their calling which they hardly understood, which are now being fleshed out in added glory?

Why would God choose this group in Brazil to deliver these precious plates to, by the hand of Moroni/Nephi when they can’t even tell correctly who delivered them? Where is their personal preparation? What have they done? Where is the group they have prepared with God’s word? Where will their Zion be? Brazil?

I shudder to think that these people probably did have a messenger who called himself Moroni, who did deliver a set of plates of some kind with some kind of content on them. I shudder that others are leaving their salvation to follow such things. But even Lehi followed a man dressed in white for hours through a dark and dreary wilderness. But then he prayed.

As for us, we will wait for those real plates to be given through a trusted messenger, and in the meantime we will, with relish, savor many of the teachings in those very plates given by the mercy and generosity of God through that same trusted messenger, as God tries us, and prepares us for what is still to come. If we can only believe, there will not be many great surprises when we finally get our individual chance to check that precious volume out of the Temple treasury and see with our own eyes, that which we already know through the Record of Heaven.

Keith Henderson

Declaration of the signees

A Declaration
Concerning The Lord’s Assignment To Us
To Write, Adopt, And Add A Statement Of Principles To The Scriptures ______________________
It is necessary for us, part of the Lord’s covenant people, to make known in writing our united sentiments regarding the months-long effort to write, adopt, and add to our scriptures a statement of principles, as has been required of us by the Lord. And whereas there exists no other suitable or meaningful medium for the silent majority of God’s people to make their voices known, we hereby proclaim our belief concerning said effort, and extend an invitation. This Declaration shall be added to the historical record which is kept among the people of God.
We believe the Lord requires us to add a statement of principles as a guide and standard to our scriptures. Just as the Lord required two specific sections to be “added” to the scriptures in the Answer and Covenant, noting that these additions would make the scriptural record acceptable, he also said concerning the statement of principles, “I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow.” This clearly requires the statement be added to the published scriptures, as were the other two required additions.
We have, therefore, on more than one occasion, nearly unanimously agreed to a statement of principles that the scripture committee has chosen not to publish, thereby preventing the final step of the assignment from being completed. Recently, the same committee has said publicly that it now has no intention of publishing a statement of principles in our scriptures until such a time as “everyone wants to reprint the scriptures with a Guide and Standard as a permanent addendum.”
The Lord said, “Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless, benefit and inform them.” We believe a failure to publish a guide and standard that has been adopted by the mutual agreement of the people, cannot bless, benefit or inform others who know nothing of the Lord’s work, as it will not be readily available to those who purchase our scriptures.
The Lord also said, “it was a light thing I have asked…if your hearts were right and you prepared yourselves you could have finished this work long ago.” We believe those who say we are acting in haste misunderstand the Lord’s words and the assignment given to us.
Let this Declaration stand as a witness that we, as covenant people of the Lord, interpret the Lord’s instructions to us differently than do those who have prevented the accomplishment of this assignment. While some, including the scripture committee, do not consider it necessary to add to the scriptures a statement of principles by publication, we do consider it necessary, and have repeatedly attempted to pursue that end.
Therefore, as there has been, on more than one occasion, public demonstration that the preponderance of God’s people have voted to be mutually agreeable, and have attempted to publish a statement of principles as a guide and standard;
And whereas there remains to be seen any meaningful scriptural objection from anyone as to the content of the Lots Guide and Standard document, which has been agreed upon by a vast majority of the Lord’s covenant people;
And whereas the scripture committee currently chooses a course of inaction regarding the publication of previously agreed upon statements of principles, thereby preventing both an outcome consistent with the voice of the Lord’s people and the fulfillment of the Lord’s assignment to us;
We the people declare our written witness and affidavit before God, angels and men, that we have made a faithful effort to comply with the requirements of the Lord to us.
We now humbly request that the scripture committee, who for the present time, by virtue of a copyright, has control over decisions concerning the published contents of our scriptures, add the Lots Guide and Standard document to the scriptures by publication. If the committee chooses not to comply with the voice of the people, either because of the relentless opposition and disputation of some individuals, or because of their own private prejudices, then it shall be recorded it was they, and not the undersigned people of God, who chose thusly.
Some few may continue to choose opposition and disputation rather than unity. The confluence of disputation on one hand, and inaction on the other, have heretofore curtailed the completion of the assignment we’ve been given. We love, support and respect our brothers and sisters who may disagree with the voice of the majority and do not consider our difference of opinion in any way an act of severance, nor an intention to remove either ourselves or anyone else from our general fellowship. We recognize and are grateful for the sacrifice and labor of the scripture committee to produce our Restoration Edition of the scriptures. We invite all to stand with us in our weakness as a show of love and reciprocation as we attempt to accomplish the Lord’s requirements to us.
We remain a covenant people united in our determination to keep all of God’s commandments to His people, who choose kindness rather than disputation, and who are mutually agreeable with regards to this assignment. We desire to be faithful to the Lord by accomplishing all that he has asked or may yet ask of us.
Onward!
_____________________________________________
Signed, beginning this day, April 6, 2018.

If you would like to add your name to this list of signees please contact Matt Lohmeier at matthew.lohmeier@gmail.com.

Susie Aagard
Gary Barlow
Kimberly Barlow
Nephi Barlow
Marv Bateman
Sharman Bateman
Shuree Bawden
Stephen Bawden
Russell Baxter
Aaron Bishop
Margaret Brough
Glen T. Cella
Mary Jane Cella
Meghan A. Cella
A. Maks Cella
Rick Cromar
Jeanene Custer
Lark Cyr
Christy Danner
Donald Danner
Erin Dippold
Jonathan Dippold
Vern Eastley
Anastasia England
Andrew England
James Fargo
Heidi Fargo
Derek Fausett
Devin Fausett
Krista Fausett
Terry Fausett
Mellody Fausett
Laura Fenn
Hi Gibson
Keith Henderson
Elaine Henderson
Jack Hinkle
Robert Hone
Jeremy Hoop
Whitney Horning
Vernon Horning
Enoch Horning
Mark Hudson
Jill Hudson
Janie Hudson
Jack Hudson
Ken Jensen
McKaye Johnson
Brandon Johnson
Brandon A. Johnson
Dianne Johnson
Robert Johnson
Sierra Kelsch
Sterling Kelsch
Adrian Larsen
Jennifer Lohmeier
Matthew Lohmeier
Sara Lohmeier
M. Lauren Luttrull
Tim Malone
Lynne McKinley
Christian Meyer
Julie Meyer
Sharene Morley
Spencer Morley
Jackson Naegle
Louis Naegle
rachel Naegle
Jim O’Rullian
Angela O’Rullian
Bonnie Parkinson
John P. Pratt
Phillip Redd
April Roundy
Jon Sanders
Tina Sanders
Dauna Sandmire
Blain Saunders
Christina Saunders
Karen Stella
Kirk Strong
Karen Strong
McKenzie Strong
McKelle Strong
McKessa Strong
McKyla Strong
Brian Van Leer
Kimberly D. Van Leer
Linda Van Leer
Steve Van Leer
Kevin White
Angela White
Bethany White
John Webster
John Webster, Jr.
Kay Webster
Sarah Webster
Virginia Wegner
Alexandria Wilkes
Dallon Wilkes
Rebecca Wolford
Sarah Wright

Education

Sloyd advocates the principle that:
“Education is what you are left with after you have forgotten everything you learned in school.”

“Sloyd,” is a system of handicraft-based education started by Uno Cygnaeus in Finland in 1865. The system was taught in the United States until the early 20th Century. It is still taught as a compulsory subject in Sweden and other European schools.

It’s initial aim was to promote social and moral betterment by means of such education as shall increase efficiency and respect for labor….To move from the known to the unknown. Hence the main educational tool in its beginning was the knife, because every farm boy prior to the turn of 20th century had knowledge of how to use a knife without hurting himself.

OF GOD OR BY CHANCE

I am aware that some have not appreciated the effort of drawing lots as the means to choose seven individuals to write the Statement. As I contemplate what has happened and delve deeper into the many “coincidence’s” which have come to light in the effort, I simply stand all amazed at what has taken place, and thought, perhaps, you might enjoy the following.

The Equality Factor

Perhaps there are other processes which could give participants the equality of which we have been taught so much lately, but so does drawing of lots. There were 185 unique numbers in the (now famous/infamous) spittoon. Each number was unique to a person who had accepted this process and submitted their own name, or had submitted another’s name [who also accepted]. Without factoring in other things such as shape and size of Elaine’s hand, or size of the spittoon, or the type of tag used, or other tools of the statistician’s trade, each number in the pot had, at first drawing, 1 in 185 chances of being drawn. As Elaine dipped her hand into the pot the second time each number had 1 in 184 chances of being drawn, etc., until the 14th consecutive drawn number offered a 1 in 171 chance for each number in the pot to be drawn. Every number in the pot had, at each picking, as equal a chance as every other number in the pot to be drawn. Every person had the same offer to put his/her name in for the drawing. This WAS a way to produce equality among all this Covenant group.

There were 114 unique numbers in the pot representing males, while there were 71 representing females. This means that by random chance alone there should have been 5 numbers drawn representing women, to 9 numbers drawn representing men. Yet there were 12 men vs 2 women, and those two women are split, one in the first group of 7, and one in the second group of 7. The probability that it would happen this way in each group of 7 is about 1 in 2,500.

I am told that the odds of drawing a husband and wife were approximately 33,000 to 1. And the odds of drawing the husband and wife consecutively would be 33,000 to one, to the 185th power. Other things we could list that would effect the probability of this couple would be the couple themselves, who they are among us. Another could be the drawing of the husband first and the wife next. In other words the result is so small as to be statistically zero.

Other improbabilities exist.

In the first group of seven one of the individuals lives in the United Kingdom, but happens to be the son in law of another member in that group, and is in regular communication with his father in law.

The fact that Jeff Savage’s name was drawn in the 14th spot or even drawn at all is very very very small (I couldn’t get anyone to calculate the numbers for this, but this was the common opinion). I wonder if for Jeff the case could be made that “the first shall be last and the last shall be first. At the very least God is aware of Jeff Savage. Jeff, many of us love you for what you did.

But, perhaps for me the greatest evidence of God’s hand in this drawing is the product itself. Read for yourself the “Plea” and then the “Guide and Standard” and experience for yourself the message of peace contained in them, and see if perhaps you can also agree.

I would like to echo the sentiment expressed by the compilers, Praise be to our God for His mercy and goodness. These are His words compiled by those He chose.

Keith

Drawing of Lots – Part 2

RESULTS OF LAST NIGHTS DRAWING OF LOTS

DRAWING OF THE FIRST SEVEN

#52 Jack Hinkle
#198 Jason Carlson
#36 John Webster
#44 Doug Larson
#186 Jeff Reber
#175 Jonathan Dippold
#96 Shalyce Woodard

DRAWING OF THE SECOND SEVEN (alternates to be used if needed in the order chosen at drawing and as given here)

#38 Kirk Strong
#133 David Kay
#181 Jeff Brown
#32 Adrian Larsen
#30 Tausha Larsen
#105 Christian Meyer
# 62 Jeff Savage

I would personally like to thank all who offered their services. Again there were 184 who volunteered or were volunteered and accepted to participate in this drawing of lots. As I saw this effort mature I was amazed and said to myself quite often, “so this is how this is done.” Well, at least this is how it was done by us.

You can watch or listen to the whole process by clicking on one of the links in the previous post.

As entertaining as that may be, it doesn’t show the many hours of preparation which went into making that 19 minute presentation possible. There were well over a hundred who, in one manner or another, made it possible to get that video produced. We give a heartfelt thanks to the 184 mentioned above whose names were in the spittoon for the drawing. And there were almost 400 who voted to accept drawing of lots, as the means for getting a group together who will now produce a Statement of Principles, to take to our Lord for acceptance.

May God’s Spirit and blessing accompany these who develop this Statement and all those who have participated in this process. Our prayers are with you.

Keith Henderson

Results of drawing of lots

On November 12, 2017 lots were drawn in order to form a committee which will compose a Statement Of Principles. There were 184 individual names submitted from which 14 were drawn by Elaine Henderson. The first 7 names will comprise the committee with responsibility to compose the statement. The other 7 names will, in the order they were drawn, comprise a pool of alternates, if needed.

The first 7 numbers drawn are: 52, 198, 36, 44, 186, 175, and 96.

The second set of 7 numbers drawn are: 38, 133, 181, 32, 30, 105, and 62.

Listen to drawing of lots here.
Watch drawing of lots here.

Check on this website tomorrow after 9AM to see a matching of names with the published numbers.