Withdrawal Declaration and Statement of Conscience

 We actually put this together several months ago. It has lived in my drafts being reread, tweaked, rephrased and then politely ignored.

From the beginning, we felt genuinely convicted by the Spirit to do this. That part never wavered. What did waver was the timing.

We kept revisiting it, asking whether we were waiting on clarity, courage or just divine intervention - preferably in the form of a neon sign that says “POST IT, YOU COWARDS” (The sign never came. Apparently God prefers we use our agency.)

What finally pushed us over the edge? The courage of a friend who recently posted something very difficult- something that cost her friendships and she spoke her truth anyway. Watching her bravery reminded us that waiting for the "perfect" moment is often just fear in disguise. So, THANK YOU, brave friend, for lighting the match under our hesitant backsides. Your example was the nudge we needed.

 Sometimes the difference between “not yet” and “I’m scared” is thinner than we’d like to admit

Over the months, we chipped away at it here and there, because we wanted the tone to be honest, careful, and fair. We kept thinking, Maybe this isn’t the day…. Maybe tomorrow it’ll feel perfect.… (Narrator: It never felt perfect) 

But today feels like a good day.

Withdrawal Declaration and Statement of Conscience

In April of 2018, our names were added to a document titled A Declaration Concerning The Lord’s Assignment To Us To Write, Adopt, And Add A Statement Of Principles To The Scriptures. After revisiting that period with prayer, reflection and extended conversation, we feel compelled to publicly withdraw our names and to remove our support from the adoption of the current Guide and Standard, also known as the Statement of Principles. We offer this explanation so that our names do not stand for something we didn't fully understand at the time and do not support now.

This statement isn't written against any person or group. It's an attempt to speak truthfully about our own experience, acknowledge mistakes we made, and set the record straight.

---

What we understood at the time

In 2017 and 2018 we weren't close to the center of the movement. We were not part of discussions happening among fellowships and weren't included in meetings between representatives. Although our fellowship was listed on the locator, no one contacted us or asked whether we wished to participate. We didn't know these gatherings had taken place until years later.

Most of our understanding came from scattered comments, assumptions and rumors. We read a few public contributions and studied Jeff Savage’s document as a fellowship, which we appreciated. Beyond that, our knowledge was limited.

We heard that some individuals claimed God had told them their document must be adopted. We heard that others insisted their work was inspired. We heard that Jeff didn't want his document used, or that others doubted it was from God. We did not reach out to verify any of this. We were trusting and naïve.

When the Lots proposal appeared, it was framed as a peaceful and neutral solution, a way to avoid contention and bypass competing claims of revelation. It was presented as the humble path. With the information we had, it seemed reasonable, so we supported it.

Why it seemed fair to us

In our immaturity, drawing lots sounded holy and impartial. It felt like removing ego from the process and placing the decision in God’s hands. It allowed us to avoid conflict, which at the time felt like faithfulness.

We later recognized that this bypassed the very process God commanded in section 157. He called His people to come together by precept, reason and persuasion, not by avoiding conversation. Reasoning together was the refining work He intended. We acted like children running to a parent to arbitrate every disagreement.

God wanted His people to grow into maturity. A wise parent says, you need to learn to work this out together. We did not know how to work anything out. We mistook fear and avoidance for humility.

The process felt vague because we had little context. We trusted those who seemed more seasoned and assumed they understood the Lord’s will better than we did.

We also recall being contacted by someone, who told us that one of us had been nominated for the Lots drawing. We were surprised that anyone knew our names. Being nominated made us feel included for the first time. That sense of belonging softened our judgment and influenced us more than we realized.

How fear shaped our choices

Looking back, we see how much fear influenced us. Fear that time was short. Fear of disappointing God. Fear that hesitation meant we were out of step with the covenant people. Fear pressures people toward haste.

Hurry harms equality. Rushing leaves voices behind. Racing toward a result tramples the slower, quieter, more careful among us. We believed urgency was righteous. We now see that fear driven haste is one of the fastest ways to lose equality.

God gives goals to point us in a direction, but the process is what shapes His people. A goal without a process leaves us unchanged. A process without a goal leaves us wandering. The Lord cares about both.

We feared running out of time while following the God who multiplied loaves and fishes, who commands time itself, and who can give His people all the time they need.

Growth happens on the climb, not by skipping steps. In 2018 we focused on the result and overlooked the formation.

What we learned later 

Only later did we learn that fellowships had sent representatives to discuss the assignment. We had not known these meetings existed. No one contacted us or asked for our fellowship’s voice. Ours was not the only fellowship unaware.

Many individuals felt confused or left out as a result of limited access and understanding, not from rejection of the work itself.

Although a numerical majority supported the Lots document, it was not a fully informed or fully inclusive majority. It reflected uneven access, partial understanding, misplaced trust, and often fear or pressure.

Our regret toward those whose voices were overshadowed  

We recognize that our signatures contributed to an impression of unified consensus that did not reflect reality. We didn't intend to silence anyone, but our names may have reinforced a narrative that was unfair to sincere and concerned voices.

We regret that our participation lent weight to the idea that raising questions was contentious or obstructive. We were not in a position to judge motives, and we don't believe the declaration should have portrayed people that way.

For any role we played in overshadowing or minimizing the voices of others, even unknowingly, we are sorry.

A growing concern about the nature of the document itself 

Over time, another concern became harder to ignore. What we were calling a Statement of Principles did not actually function like one.

Principles are meant to be simple, durable and generative. They are foundational truths that can guide judgment across many situations without prescribing specific outcomes. A true principle remains useful even as circumstances change.

What emerged instead functioned far more like a framework, a settlement or a set of conclusions about outcomes. It described arrangements, boundaries and processes, but offered relatively few underlying principles that could be applied broadly, especially by those new to the work.

At the time, we assumed our discomfort came from our own lack of understanding. We trusted that others saw clarity where we did not. With distance and reflection, we now see that the tension was not about unity itself, but about a mismatch between the assignment given and the result produced.

A document can be sincere, careful, and well intended, and still miss the purpose it was meant to fulfill. Recognizing that distinction has been central to our change in understanding.

Where we stand now

After years of reflection, we understand mutual agreement, equality and the Lord’s intentions differently. We believe:

• Real unity grows through patient reasoning, not bypassing discussion.
• Mutual agreement requires access, understanding and inclusion.
• Fear of running out of time undermines equality.
• Raising concerns is not disputation.
• The Lord gives time when His people seek Him sincerely.

We now believe that true unity must be grounded in shared principles that are simple, durable and widely understandable, not merely in agreement over outcomes or structures.

We still believe in following the Lord and that unity matters. 

Our withdrawal

With respect and no animosity, we withdraw our names from the April 6, 2018 declaration and ask that they no longer be counted as supporting its claims or conclusions.

We also withdraw our support for the adoption of the current Guide and Standard, also known as the Statement of Principles. We do not believe it fulfills the purpose the Lord described in section 157. We take this step so that our names reflect our present light rather than our past confusion.

A final word

We offer sincere regret to anyone who felt unheard, overshadowed, or discouraged during the process. That was never our intent. If reconciliation is ever needed, we welcome it. Our desire is peace, understanding, and healing.

We remain committed to Christ, to His doctrine, to humility, to charity and to walking according to His Spirit. We trust that as we do so, He will shape His people into those who can reason together, love one another and build something that truly honors Him.

We take this step as a matter of conscience, and with respect for all who are sincerely seeking to follow the Lord.

Nephi Barlow

Kim Barlow

I spent way too long hunting for the “perfect” song for this post. Regret anthems? Apology bops? Songs about belated wisdom and “oops, we maybe shouldn’t have signed that”? I auditioned them all. Justin Bieber’s “Sorry” showed up, did a little twirl and got sent home (too glossy and resolved). This isn’t resolved. It’s raw. 

Then it hit me. The song that fits isn’t polished or profound. It’s rough-edged, a little chaotic, and weirdly sincere. I’m sharing the clean version because we’re classy like that. This track knows remorse the way a hangover knows regret, bone-deep, unfiltered, and still somehow danceable. It sounds like showing up to fix your mess at 6 a.m. after a night of spectacularly bad choices, not proud of yourself but willing to face what you broke.

Over the years, this song has soundtracked more than a few girls’ nights. We may have even invented our own ridiculous choreography to it. 😳 No footage exists, thank every merciful angel in heaven. Full disclosure: we 100% did not spin the edited version back then. But here’s the clean cut now, sitting next to a very serious post about conscience and course correction.

Because sometimes owning your mistake doesn’t sound like a hymn. Sometimes it sounds like a rowdy Southern rap-rock banger about a guy who wrecked everything and ended up talking to the bartender while waiting for the consequences to arrive. Imperfect. Ironic. Still honest.

So pull up a stool, friends. This one’s on me.

(And if you're humming the chorus already... you're welcome. Or I'm sorry.... Maybe both?)