“And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.
Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.
And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.
And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.”
It occurs to my better half that the passage appears to be suggesting that the definition of “fruit” in this particular context, is something other than and in addition to a “broken heart and a contrite spirit”. Additionally, the passage also seems to be suggesting that the definition of “fruit” is also something other than and in addition to the fact that they had “repented of all sins”
Very interesting...
What other fruits could there possibly be, showing they were worthy of baptism, besides having a broken heart and a contrite spirit and repenting of all sins?
I would suggest from the word searches that she did, that the word fruits in this sense, and very possibly in the sense that it is used in the parable in Jacob 5 has to do with a temporal sacrifice and offering that took place before one was admitted into the true Church following the spiritual offering of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and the repenting of all sins.
I would suggest that the term fruits is referring to consecration.
I would show you all of the key word searches that seem to confirm this conclusion but I don’t want to rob you of the joy of doing them.
22 comments:
It's very interesting, look at Moroni 6:1; Who are the ones being baptized,..elders, priests, and teachers were baptized. Then in verse 4 "And after they had been received unto baptism,...they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ;..." So what church did they belong to while they were elders, priest, and teachers?
Luis
Yes.. great Observation.
Apparently these were the more righteous that were not destroyed at the time Christ came down among the Nephites.
So, they already had an existing Church organization with elders, priests and teachers, etc.
They had already been baptized before Christ came. Yet they were required to get baptized again!
I have mentioned in previous posts that EVERYONE will be invited to get baptized when the servants return. This provides a great type and shadow of this principle.
But this passage brings up other questions.
If you read chapters 1-6... if the chronology is accurate, there appears to be a few more "inconsistencies" based on our perception of how things should work in the church!
What about the early saints in this dispensation that were baptized before consecration was taught? Were they then unable to bring forth "Fruit meet" for repentance?
I would assume that the definition of fruit meet is more encompassing then any one word definition. I believe it is just an overall disposition to do good followed by life choices that reflect that disposition.
Inconsistencies...you mean like repenting of sins publicly and taking upon oneself the name of Christ BEFORE being baptized?
That's a rhetorical question.
And I especially like the point Moroni makes about relying alone upon the merits of Christ.
Absolutely wonderful verses.
Anonymous-
"I would assume that the definition of fruit meet is more encompassing then any one word definition. I believe it is just an overall disposition to do good followed by life choices that reflect that disposition."
I believe your assumption is the obvious one that most people make that arrive at an interpretation from a surface reading... that is the reason I did the post... and suggested you do a key word search to find a hidden treasure of knowledge.
In fact by replacing a specific tangible offering with a vague and ambiguous catch-all definition such as the you are suggesting is what largely enables the Saints in the latter days to discount the critical need to consecrate and obey the law of the Gospel contained in section 42.
I am guessing you did not take the opportunity to drill down and do a key word search to see why I am suggesting what I am.
Perhaps I'll show the key word search that I did in a future post.
If you did in fact do a key word search perhaps you would be willing to reply back and show how your search brought forth the very broad definition you are suggesting.
I am suggesting that the scripture being referenced is indicating that an outward, physical, tangible evidence, in the form of some kind of offering and sacrifice was required in addition to the broken heart, contrite spirit and repentance of sins that was also being offered.
I think it is pretty obvious that a person with a broken heart and a contrite spirit that has repented of all their sins would have a general, initial disposition to do good but how would one *demonstrate* that at the time of baptism?
The term "meet" in this sense does not mean "meat" or substance, rather, it appears to mean "Fit or suitable"
The scriptures appears to be saying;
"they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit [fit or suitable for demonstrating] that they were worthy of it.
People were being required to bring forth tangible physical evidence... that they were worthy of this 2nd baptism. (remember, the scripture is speaking of priesthood holders who had already been baptized before Christ appeared among them, they were now being baptized again)
This topic relates to the rich man who asked Christ;
"what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
(He apparently was doing a pretty good job with most of the outer commandments)
The Savior said;
"One thing you lack, Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, [consecrate] and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
The Saints in the New Testament Church were required to lay their possessions at the feet of the Apostles to show forth their fruit meet for repentance. (and were struck dead when they lied about their offerings)...
You said;
"What about the early saints in this dispensation that were baptized before consecration was taught? Were they then unable to bring forth "Fruit meet" for repentance?"
The answer to your question is pretty obvious as you read the history of the church and the modern revelations.
It appears you are new to this blog and don't have the foundation necessary to understand where I am coming from.
If you have further interest and willing to pay a price, you may want to read the interpretation of the allegory of the olive tree found in Jacob a few posts back.. but before you do that, you should go to the very first post and read them chronologically until you get back to this one.
Thanks for visiting...
Watcher
"you mean like repenting of sins publicly and taking upon oneself the name of Christ BEFORE being baptized?"
AMEN!
Younger Dude sent this on my blog a month or so ago and I thought it was very applicable to what fruit is:
He said:
"This really struck me - it makes so much sense that the fruit we need to bring forth is living the law of consecration. That is powerful and true.
I have thought a lot about the law of consecration this last year. I didn’t really know the significance of why it had been on my mind until coming across both yours and Mr. Watchers’ blogs. I went through this period several months ago wondering why we spend our entire lives attempting to get gain.
I was pondering the concept of what would be the purpose of my life if not to make money. It was a weird thought. Like what do you do if your not trying to get monetary gain. From the day you are born the emphasis is get smart, get educated, get a job, make as much money as possible.
There was this weird emptiness, and I found it hard to imagine a purpose without money. The following scripture stuck out to me during one of my third watch studies
2 Nephi 26:31
[31] But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.
Zion is a place where we don’t labor for money. We labor for whatever the Spirit tells us to labor for, right? We give everything to the Lord because it is all His anyway.
It is not money that feeds a man - food feeds a man. The Lord does not require money to feed a man. It is not money that shelters a man - a house shelters a man, and once again the Lord does not need money to provide a roof over someone’s head.
The love of money is a sign we are afraid that the Lord cannot provide. We become so convinced that it is money, not the Lord, that provides for our needs. That is why I love Revelations 3:17
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked;
It is so easy to worship money because it seems to be so real, so here and now, so much closer than God (that is, of course, until the economy collapses).
It makes sense that true faith would manifest itself as the law of consecration, because it is evidence that we actually believe that the Lord is in control and that all things are His.
If any man really believes in a merciful, giving, and all-powerful God, why would he fear giving all he has to that God?
I also like this scripture from Luke20:20-23
20 And he said, This will I do; I will pull down my barns and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits, and my goods.
21 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
22 But God said unto him, Thou fool! This night thy soul shall be required of thee; then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?
23 So shall it be with him who layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.
And yet another one Luke 12:27-28
27 And who of you by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit?
28 If ye then be not able to do that which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?"
I loved what younger dude said and I think the scripture he quoted in Luke 20:20 sure seems to make the point to me also!
I love the idea that baptism, giving your "will" to God, and "the law" as stated in D&C 42 would be what He would require. All that we are and have.
What an amazingly wonderful idea, what a privilege to get to live it, what a responsibility. In my opinion, the only way a people could live it is with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost
Let me preface this by saying I am in complete agreement with Younger Duke and Mrs. Watcher! I just want to grumble a bit about mainstream thought.
I think a consecrated people need also be physically separated from the world at large. I don't think it can be practiced while under state law. Consecration is lived under theocracy, where an individual's needs are met as long as he/she is willing to give all to God. If, at this very moment, I gave all my physical goods to God, in one form or another, my needs would not be filled (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) because the Zion "mechanism" is not in place. Maybe I don't have sufficient faith, but I think consecration is inextricably linked to a Zion city.
I get a little perturbed when I hear a Sunday talk or discussion mangle the meaning of the powerful verse Dude and Mrs. Watcher shared...
But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish (2 Nephi 26:31).By redefining Zion as anywhere and everywhere under a state-controlled government, modern LDS reconcile the two opposing statements in this verse. Namely, the laborer is ALLOWED to labor for money, since that is what is required for him to subsist, as long as he has the INTENTION of giving all at some point when asked. Or, generously speaking, if he contributes a little more to the church and those in need. But why are there needy people? Because they have NO MONEY! So, instead of providing for my neighbor as he provides for me, I give my neighbor money until he can labor for his own. While I think the current state of affairs does allow me to prepare to consecrate by relinquishing what I can, I cannot give everything up and rely on my neighbor to provide, as I supply him in turn. In essence, I'm still just laboring for money, no matter how much I give back.
Here's my take. Nephi was prophesying what would befall those in the 3rd watch who would refuse to consecrate, and consequently reject the city of Zion. Zion is a place of refuge from the desolation of abomination that is to take place. If you choose to labor for money, you choose to live outside the walls of Zion and face the inevitable destruction on your own; hence, you will perish.
The Lord will cleanse his land (i.e., get rid of any semblance of gov't), Zion will be built, and we can labor for Zion. Until then, I am only laboring for money.
Anybody agree? Maybe I'm being a little to cynical.
Mrs. Watcher ,
What is your blog?
And for anyone who wishes to see first-hand an example of the ambiguous nature of mainstream LDS thought regarding 'laboring for money', just take a look at the current post on the 'Times and Seasons' site entitled 'What do we mean by non-profit?'
Mrs. Watcher, I love hearing from you! Thanks for sharing YD's post.
I think you hit the nail on the head! This is the ultimate test. Will I give all that I am over to the Lord?
Can I give up my traditions, my desires, addictions, my supposed knowlege, etc, etc? All that seems so important to me. Am I willing to lay it all on the alter?
At the same time, I see how much harder this will be for the financially rich. If I had lots of really nice stuff and a pile o' money it would be harder to leave behind/give up. Maybe.
--------------
Watcher, some day maybe you could write up a tutorial on how you do word searches. Like "Key word searches for dummies." LOL
------------------
OK, another thought I had was the section about the Aaronic Priesthood. I have been pondering this section for awhile now, but still don't feel enlightened.
D&C 13
1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
To my knowledge this has not occured yet. Or did it occur in the Kirtland Temple? Is it speaking of consecration or animal sacrifice?
And is it speaking of direct line descendants or not? AND why would the A.P be taken after this offering of righteousness? Will it no longer be needed?
So many questions for such an itty bitty section.
-------------------
Random thought. Do you think we'll be "born again" naked like they did in the primitive church?
NEPT, your point is well taken. I think this is the whole problem with us.
We are told to "live in the world but not be of the world." Seems impossible to me. We are also told to get ourselves a big ol' pile of money. Save your emergency fund, save for retirement, save for college, save for missions. In reality I could never have "enough" money to help the poor! Oh yeah, then there is the massive debt we have to dig out of. LOL
The hardest thing for me in this journey has been realizing the truth about tithing. Talk about key word searches bringing you down.
Our biggest problem now is that we-meaning LDS church- don't give to the poor (hardly at all). Like, 1% of tithes/offerings go to the poor. That makes my want to cry. Don't even get me started on the $2B mall.
I don't really know what we can do until the servants come to us. Honestly, I think we can do a heckuva lot better than what we are but I don't how far we can take it. It does feel like we are stuck in a trap-hamster wheel.
Then the scrips say to flee Babylon and get out of Babylon. I know we have to get it out of our hearts first, then I guess we wait.
Thanks for all the great comments everyone.
I am currently traveling for work and that is why there is a delay in posting comments.
Dear Anonymous
You are wrong. I did not block your rebuttal regarding your views on consecration... I never got it.
I would love to post it for you so feel free to resubmit it and don't forget to hit the submit button this time. (there is a possibility that I just didn't see it download into my desk top before leaving but I highly doubt it.)
I plan on posting your latest reply which states that my "colors are showing", tonight when I am done with work... and I will be responding to your remarks however I would really like to give you the opportunity of having your views heard regarding your doctrinal rebuttal about consecration before I post your angry response based on your false assumption that I had blocked your rebuttal.
Just a quick comment. I have been following this post, and I have done the searches, and others. Last night, I searched out "strange god". In Isaiah 43 JST I wondered what "strange god" meant. I have a feeling that it is money,even a debt based money system, but I wanted to really know. It is found in the verse, "I have declared, and have saved, and I have showed, WHEN THERE WAS NO STRANGE GOD AMONG YOU."
The context of this scripture implies that there are "witnesses and servants" who will not "show and declare" the former things because there is a "strange god" among the people.
"Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled;who among them can declare this, and show us former things?"
It seems there is a dearth of witnesses, prophets, and servants who can actually show and declare what the Lord wants declared
"let them bring forth their witnesses,that they may be justified;"
It sounds like they will be rejected if they don't bring forth these witnesses.
"or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen;that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior."
What is to be declared and shown has to do with the nature of God
"I have declared, and have saved,"
What is to be declared will have power to save
"and I have showed, when there was no strange god among you;
therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord,that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand; I will work, and who shall let it?"
I take it the witnesses and servants are Joseph and Sidney and the others that we are all talking about. But they will not declare or witness while there is a "strange God" among the people.
I am not stating that I am certain, and I am interested in what OWIW has to say, but I found this interesting, and did a search to find out what the Lord considers to be "strange". I found the following answers:
Psalm 81:8 Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee; O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me;
9 There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god.
10 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt; open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.
Deuteronomy 32:9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
10 He found him in a desert land, [I doubt they had money in this place]and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.
11 As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:
12 So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.
13 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.
15 ¶ But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him [and probably turned to the use of money], and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.
Anyway you all can do the search and see for yourself. The clincher is in Daniel 11. It says this strange god is a god of force. This goes against "without compulsive means it shall flow unto the forever".
It isn't just the rich who will have a hard time giving up all, we poor people, or I should speak for myself. I find it impossible to stop working for money, and leaving it all to the Lord, with "mouth open" ready to receive.
I had another thought about just preasts, teachers, and deacons being baptized, as it says in Moroni 6.
A while back I read an interesting article on some interesting symbolism in the way we currently take the sacrament. The symbol implies that there are no Melchizadek priesthood holders officiating in any of our meetings, and this is why the aaronic priesthood officiates over the sacrament. Here is the link.
http://www.geocities.com/eleazarbenyair/sacrament.htm
Glad to know you will post it, if you never received it then none of my comments mattered but you can post them as well if you like...
My definition of "fruit meet" is more traditional then yours, I recognized that although I readily admit that I am not usually a person that embraces the traditional church definitions, it just so happens that in this case I feel the traditional definition is the correct one.
If I was one of those lovers of traditions then I would not have already read ALL of the post on this blog as well as ALL of the posts on "OneWhoisWatching". I am getting the impression that you have assumed just because someone disagrees with you on this point, that they have never looked at the scriptures in the ways that you look at them. Of that they are not "students" of the scriptures. Perhaps I am wrong in that feeling.
I like your blogs and I agree with much that is said. Not all, but much.
"I am guessing you did not take the opportunity to drill down and do a key word search to see why I am suggesting what I am."
In this case I will admit that I did not do the keyword search because I do not feel that your interpretation is correct. Perhaps I will do the keyword search later today (and maybe I will come back with my tail between my legs... I am good at eating my humble pie when necessary, I have had plenty of experience doing so).
"In fact by replacing a specific tangible offering with a vague and ambiguous catch-all definition such as the you are suggesting is what largely enables the Saints in the latter days to discount the critical need to consecrate and obey the law of the Gospel contained in section 42."
I don't disagree with this. We have been watering down the scriptures and the truth for well over 100 years and all it does is take us further away from the Lord. That does not mean that every "different" viewpoint is correct however.
"I am suggesting that the scripture being referenced is indicating that an outward, physical, tangible evidence, in the form of some kind of offering and sacrifice was required in addition to the broken heart, contrite spirit and repentance of sins that was also being offered."
This would seem to fit in accordance with the true definition of tithing, which as you know, requires an initial payment off all excess, then followed by payments of 10% but I still don't buy the fact that that is required for baptism... let me tell you clearly why.
Mormon 8:32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.
So, Moroni specifically condemned churches that say you must pay money to be forgiven of your sins, yet your argument is that a person must commit to consecration to be baptized (forgiven of their sins).
This is wrong in my opinion, regardless of what the keyword search produces.
I do not think that consecration is wrong, I know that it is the way the Lord wants us to live, but just like I feel that the LDS church is wrong in requiring a commitment to tithing before baptism (Mormon 8:32) I feel that your interpretation is wrong due to the same principles. God's Nature may limit the progression of individuals for not living consecration but according to the scriptures it would be horribly wrong to deny a person repentance of sins because they did not pay you money.
This is why I feel that way, it seems clear that the scriptures are against your viewpoint, in this case.
""what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
(He apparently was doing a pretty good job with most of the outer commandments)
The Savior said;
"One thing you lack, Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, [consecrate] and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.""
In this case the rich your man was wanting to inherit eternal life, not to simply repent. Gaining eternal life is a process, baptism is an action. The man did not ask "what must I do to be baptized". In this case you compared apples to oranges.
"It appears you are new to this blog and don't have the foundation necessary to understand where I am coming from. "
This was an assumption, and it was incorrect.
"If you have further interest and willing to pay a price, you may want to read the interpretation of the allegory of the olive tree found in Jacob a few posts back.. but before you do that, you should go to the very first post and read them chronologically until you get back to this one."
Been there, done it, enjoyed most all of it.
"The answer to your question is pretty obvious as you read the history of the church and the modern revelations."
Please elaborate on this in that it was my main concern and you really didn't say much about it. Are you referring to the fact that the early saints fell away because they did not live consecration?
If so I agree with you, that is the main reason why they fell away (and not completing the temple as you state in precious posts... which I have read=)).
Love Monster
You said;
"Last night, I searched out "strange god". In Isaiah 43 JST I wondered what "strange god" meant. I have a feeling that it is money,even a debt based money system, but I wanted to really know. It is found in the verse, "I have declared, and have saved, and I have showed, WHEN THERE WAS NO STRANGE GOD AMONG YOU."
I must confess that with the wealth of information that Isaiah floods us with, there have been so many passages that have kept me occupied over the years that those particular passages have never jumped out at me and therefore I have never done an in-depth search on them.
I must say that after my initial reading of your remarks, your interpretation of "strange gods" seems very plausible and probable to me.
Sometime ago I noticed that several OT prophesies speak of the Lord destroying the "images" when Babylon falls.
Although our current system of Idolatry in America is deep and broad and we worship images in many forms, and at different levels, I think the images we have on our coin and paper fiat currency are perhaps at the top of the list regarding Gods anger because the money system we have come to worship enables the proud and greedy to exploit and make slaves out of the the humble.
It robs the poor, the widow and the fatherless and creates a competitive system where people want to excel one above the other.
We know that one of the primary stumbling blocks of the Gentiles is riches and that God will destroy the riches of the unrepentant Gentiles nations in the end times.
"They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity." Ezek 7
Although statues and pictures of people and other forms of images violate Gods laws to Israel and are an abomination to God, I must believe that the occult images and images of hero worship on our money are among the most abominable.
May the Lord God destroy it fast and completely when the appointed time comes.
Great shall be the fall of Babylon!
Great find.
TruthSeekerToo
You said;
"OK, another thought I had was the section about the Aaronic Priesthood. I have been pondering this section for awhile now, but still don't feel enlightened.
D&C 13
1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
To my knowledge this has not occurred yet. Or did it occur in the Kirtland Temple?...
And is it speaking of direct line descendants or not? AND why would the A.P be taken after this offering of righteousness? Will it no longer be needed?"
TruthSeekerToo,
You bring up a topic that is near and dear to my heart because this is something that I had an incorrect understanding of for many years.
Frankly, I felt for a long time that the "acceptable offering" of the Sons of Levi that John was referring to was the offering of the Kirtland Temple. I therefore assumed that the Aaronic Priesthood was taken from the earth at that time back in 1836. (this belief showed up in some of my pontifications and I am hoping to avoid getting stripes for my misunderstanding. luckily few people read or believe what I have to say)
I have since been forced to revisit that topic with a greater and more in depth search by my son and daughter-in-law.
I now believe that John the Baptist was referring to the following passages in Malachi;
"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness."
I feel that the Aaronic priesthood has continued on the earth and will continue on the earth until the Seer and the Spokesman return and the righteous are purged and refined.
I wish I had a greater understanding of why and how the Aaronic priesthood plays such an important role beyond enabling the preparatory gospel and the preparatory baptism to be on the earth. Nevertheless, according to the allegory it appears to have something to do with keeping the roots nourished between the 2nd and 3rd watches.
TruthSeekerToo
You also said;
" Random thought. Do you think we'll be "born again" naked like they did in the primitive church?"
I hope not... I may chose the demands of justice over the celestial glory if that is the case as I am not into streaking!
Your question is however a very interesting one.
I do know that scholars have made a compelling case that anciently baptisms were done in the raw.
We came into this life naked and we enter the next life naked, etc.
As I recall, some scholars think it was done modestly with the female candidates going completely unto the water up to their necks before the priesthood officiator arrives, while others seems to think it was an open group event with multiple people from both genders watching.
Either way seems problematic to me from a carnal point of view since the officiator is also believed to have presented himself naked while preforming the ordinance.
Certainly this would be a humbling if not humiliating experience that would require us to become as little children to be unaffected or embarrassed.
I recently read an interesting post by an LDS couple who are naturalists and they share why they feel that lifestyle is compatible with the gospel.
They brought up some interesting points about how their son and daughter don't have the same temptations and hang ups about sex and pornography like other children because they grew up in the naturalist environment.
It kind of seems like history would have made note of Rigdon doing it in the raw... so for that reason I lean towards the belief that maybe we can still have something on.
Thank you for your X-Rated question, my readership will undoubtedly double from 5 to 10 people as this response gets emailed to friends.
Anything for the readership!!!
Yes, I certainly don't relish the thought of being dunked in my birthday attire. It is just one of those random things that pops into my head sometimes.
That, and I've been reading some of the apocrapha. In one, Jesus tells the apostles that they must trample their clothing.
Of course, some of my google searches brought up interesting things like Job getting naked to worship and praise the Lord and Isaiah being a naturalist for 3 years.
My ~nearly~ 2 year old is an aspiring naturalist, too! LOL
Thank you for giving your insight into the Aaronic Priesthood. I have held on to that promise, but realized that if the offering was done that the promise didn't hold anymore. I have always felt it was a future event.
After posting I felt impressed that the lower priesthood is swollowed up in the higher priesthood. That answers my question of needing the A.P. after the offering is accepted.
Here is a neat church history book. I was trying to learn when we started ordaining 12 year olds to the A.P. as I have a son soon to be 12. It is very interesting. The relevent info begins on page 81, although I'm sure there could be other cool stuff in the book.
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/jmh&CISOPTR=18224&REC=6
----------
Love Monster,
I ran across that website a week ago. I liked the page on the sacrament and the page on the building symbolism of the Kirtland Temple and Nauvoo, etc.
The rest of the site bothered me.
Love Monster,
You asked me :
"What is your blog?"
I have a health blog listing some on the herbal remedies, etc. that our family keeps having me write down for them that we have used through the years :
www.getmewell.wordpress.com
I also have a religious blog that I created when asked about scriptural beliefs about the health blog. I have two whole posts.
www.digestingtruth.wordpress.com
Thank you for asking.
NEPT:
You said:
“The Lord will cleanse his land (i.e., get rid of any semblance of gov't), Zion will be built, and we can labor for Zion. Until then, I am only laboring for money
Anybody agree? Maybe I'm being a little to cynical.”
I agree . I appreciate the fact that your thoughts are scripturally based.
It appears that the Lord is saying in the following scripture that those who don’t live consecration are not worthy to abide among His saints.
He also says that by living the law of consecration the land of Zion is sanctified and made holy and that is what makes it possible to keep his statues and judgments in Zion.
D&C 119 states:
Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.
6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you.
The Lord talks about vanity and unbelief and how this is what brought the church under condemnation. He states that they need to remember the Book of Mormon and the former commandments, not only to say but to do.
In section 38 the Lord had told the church he was going to give them “the law” in Ohio (section 42 which includes consecration) so they could “escape the power of the enemy”. They of course had already received this when he gave section 84.
They must live these commandments in order to bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom. They were told also that this would pollute His holy land if they didn’t do it.
D&C 84 states:
54 And your a
minds in times past have been b
darkened because of c
unbelief, and because you have treated d
lightly the things you have received—
55 Which a
vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of
Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new a
covenant, even the
Book of Mormon and the
former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—
58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.
59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.
We have learned that vanity and unbelief had already brought the church under condemnation. Here, in this section, the Lord defines vanity, or that their faith is vain if they are not living consecration.
D&C 104 states:
54 And again, a commandment I give unto you concerning your stewardship which I have appointed unto you.
55 Behold, all these properties are mine, or else your faith is vain, and ye are found hypocrites, and the covenants which ye have made unto me are broken;
56 And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards.
57 But, verily I say unto you, I have appointed unto you to be stewards over mine house, even stewards indeed.
In this next section, 117, we are also told that we must gather upon the land of Zion and upon her stakes for a defense. ( In the third watch Far West is one of the places of refuge from the “calamity” that the Lord tells us is coming in D&C 1. )
The land that we gather upon is already holy (I think ancient Book of Mormon people already lived consecration on it) and shall be made most holy.
We already learned in section 119 what makes a land holy, the living of consecration upon it.
D&C 117 states:
6 And that the a
gathering together upon the land of Zion, and upon her stakes, may be for a defense, and for a refuge from the storm, and from wrath when it shall be poured out without mixture upon the whole earth.
7 Let the city, Far West, be a holy and consecrated land unto me; and it shall be called most holy, for the ground upon which thou standest is holy.
8 Therefore, I command you to build a house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.
I look forward to the privilege of getting to live the Lord’s laws upon His sacred land in a gathered condition. To actually be taken care of as a people both spiritually and temporally is a blessed thought. I pray for Him to prepare us to receive this law so that we “may bring forth fruit meet “for our Father’s kingdom. So that we may worship Him.
As I was scanning the BoM, I noticed that they lived under the Law of Moses, that being said...they were baptized under the Law of Moses..whats really baptism? Is it covenant making? I tend to think so, so if they had Gospel of Christ presented to them..that would have more covenants..it doesn't make sense for a lesser baptism to work for a baptism with greater covenants.
Its like a contract for businesses, for the 1st contract, you sign or handshake. When the policies change...don't you have to resign or handshake for the new contract. Now I don't view Baptism as like a handshake or signature, since its an agreement with the Lord. But hopefully it might portray the concept better.
But anyways..that's going to be a challenge for us Lds...since that part blindness, has lead us to believe that we are living under the Gospel of Christ. When we are really living under the Gospel of Abraham...which is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 84:27) More commonly known as the Preparatory gospel..odd I don't see the gift of the Holy Ghost in there..hmm. But Baptism of Fire might be known as remission of sins.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(New Testament | Acts 2:38)
But what more is in Gospel of Abraham. Sealings and Blessings, administered by the Patriarchal Priesthood...but do those who do such things really have the authority?
The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 107:40)
I also came across this
54 Yea, will ye persist in supposing that ye are better one than another; yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren, who humble themselves and do walk after the holy order of God, wherewith they have been brought into this church, having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and they do bring forth works which are meet for repentance—
55 Yea, and will you persist in turning your backs upon the poor, and the needy, and in withholding your substance from them?
(Book of Mormon | Alma 5:54 - 55)
A huge purpose of consecration is to make everyone equal. The Lord came down like a man, to be equal with us. If we cant be equal with ourselves, how can we be equal with Him.
A rich man who has been rich all his life says, I had to sacrifice everything in one day. While the poor man who has been poor all his life says, I've sacrificed my whole life, are we different...no.
We sacrificed vain things, while the One who asks us to do it, proves He didn't sacrifice in vain.
15 And the poor and the meek shall have the gospel preached unto them, and they shall be looking forth for the time of my coming, for it is nigh at hand—
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 35:15)
I love music, this song matches with the post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R43PaCDKnhY
Fabled
"A rich man who has been rich all his life says, I had to sacrifice everything in one day. While the poor man who has been poor all his life says, I've sacrificed my whole life, are we different...no.
We sacrificed vain things, while the One who asks us to do it, proves He didn't sacrifice in vain."
Fabled, what a beautiful post! Thank you so much.
I needed this. Now I know that the rich aren't asked to sacrifice more than the poor.
Oh the goodness and glory of God! It takes my breath away.
--------------------
I still have so many questions.
We have been commanded to do things that we feel we can't do right now.
Yet, the scriptures say:
1 Nephi 3:7
And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.
I get so confused. Are we not allowed to live the higher law because of iniquity? If we want the blessings of the C.K. we must abide that law.
Post a Comment