Wednesday, April 22, 2009

A misunderstanding

Yes I do! I am trying to work on it. I am a work in progress... but please read the disclaimer on the side panel because this blog really isn't about me.

Let me begin by providing a little context so that everyone understands what is going on it this post.

Someone choosing to remain Anonymous challenged my supposition in the last post regarding the definition of “fruit” in the scripture I was referencing. I responded in a less than humble and diplomatic way which I have been known to do from time to time when Mrs Watcher is not around to edit my replies and posts for “pride and arrogance”.

I did however invite Anonymous to respond with his reasoning for disagreeing with me.

He apparently did respond or at least he thought he had responded with his doctrinal rebuttal.

I never got the reply he sent, either because it was not correctly sent or because I had a “Senior moment” and accidentally deleted it before I left to come down here to Southern Utah on business.

When Anonymous did not see his reply show up, he assumed I had blocked it and took me to task with another reply letting me know what a proud soul I was for wanting to defend my position rather than wanting to sincerely know the truth, etc.

He has since resent his doctrinal response which I DID post in the reply section.

I feel that he brings up some good points and that this provides a great teaching platform so I am also providing his rebuttal in this post as well.

Naturally, I am going to respond to his rebuttal. I am providing his rebuttal in red.

I was really excited to respond to his nasty comments about my character flaws because Mrs Watcher isn’t here to edited my response to him and I am feeling a bit testy right now having been falsely accused and suffering from a wrenched neck, (undoubtedly having to do with the propensity of Israel to be a stiff necked people) however, since his false assumption was a logical one to make, I don’t feel it would be appropriate to post any comments containing his angry accusations… no need to get into a pissing match over a misunderstanding… although I do think his anger towards me is actually triggered by an altogether different doctrinal disagreement that we have, if my intuition serves me correctly…

Although I would like to respond point by point to the rebuttal below, it is getting late and I am not feeling well so my response will be short.

“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.

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=)).”

Dear Anonymous-

The bottom-line of your argument with my post from the reply I am not posting is that it is not necessary to first agree to enter into consecration before being baptized and receiving a remission of your sins, in your opinion, according to your interpretation of the scriptures.

Additionally, you said in the comments above;

“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.”

The short version of my response to your disagreement with me is simply this;

We do not ENTER into consecration and the law of the Gospel when we decide to present our possessions at the feet of the Bishop and/or Apostles or whoever the Lords steward is.

It has nothing to do with which dispensation we are living in or when and/or if the opportunity to receive our inheritance takes place.

It has nothing to do with whether we live during a time when a united order is established or a Zion society is on the earth.

You consecrate everything to the Lord when you repent and are baptized.


End of story.

The actual entering into the temporal system of a
Zion society during this earth life is not the issue.

It is not the beginning point. It is simply the opportunity to make good on living the law of the Gospel (Law of Zion, Celestial law) that you agreed live when you were baptized.

When the scriptures state that we need to repent and be baptized, they may as well say we need to repent and consecrate everything to God because it means the exact same thing.

When you go down into the waters of baptism symbolizing death of the carnal man and you come up out of the waters symbolizing the resurrection into a new life wherein you have been assimilated into Christ, having given up your old name and identity and ego and possessions, you are in the act of consecrating all that you have and all that you are to God.

After that ordinance he may take any and all temporal possessions that you have at any time and in any manner he so chooses according to your own free will and choice because of the new and everlasting covenant that you entered into.

The fact that you would want to be so protective of “your money” after being baptized indicates that you don’t consider the baptismal covenant to be a total consecration of all you are and all you have unto God.

This is where you and I disagree…

Our disagreement really has more to do with the true definition of baptism than with the technicalities of how, when and where God decides to recall all of the temporal poker chips.

Having said that, I now invite you to provide a rebuttal to the other doctrinal issue that I think you have had for some time now. I will not bring it up, but I invite you to... I could be wrong about this hunch... it is just a feeling that I have... because I have been watching.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting!

I can honestly tell you that we have never gotten into another debate on anything, I think you are confusing me with another. You and I have never really interacted online (as far as I know... apart from my reading of your blog).

At this point we will just have to agree to disagree. You still feel that consecration of physical belongings is a requirement of baptism and I still feel that while it is a gospel requirement it is not a baptismal requirement. I still hold that people being expected to give money (or any physical thing) to be baptized is not the way the Lord works.

But again, thanks for posting my reply for others to read.

Regarding the !#@%!.... I hardly think it was that bad and from where I was coming from (my belief that you were intentionally not publishing my response to avoid discussing possibilities of your post containing incorrect doctrinal assumptions) I think that what I wrote was fairly direct and straightforward.

The comment about "pride" was obviously not as applicable as I initially thought it was (although you have to admit that your initial reply treated me like I just didn't "get it" which I admit added fuel to the fire=)).

In closing, I intend to continue reading your blog, I have found some great information and plan on continuing learning. Of course, we both know that i will gladly speak up if I think I have something to add=).

Have a great day!

Anon... (I am wondering if I should post my real name... but this is far more fun=)

However, as i stated previously, I am used o eating humble pie and will gladly do so know. Since you have informed me that you simply never received my post

TruthSeekerToo said...

Well, the gospel is baptism. So in that regards consecration is baptism which is the gospel.

D&C 39:6
And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

You could bury all your stuff in the ground and "hide it up unto the Lord" as a consecration. Although that probably shouldn't be done until all the poor people are fed.

Helaman 13:19
19 For I will, saith the Lord, that they shall hide up their treasures unto me; and cursed be they who hide not up their treasures unto me; for none hideth up their treasures unto me save it be the righteous; and he that hideth not up his treasures unto me, cursed is he, and also the treasure, and none shall redeem it because of the curse of the land.

When Jesus told the rich man what he needed to do to enherit eternal life He didn't say "bring me all your money" He said sell it all and give it to the poor.

In my mind it is not so much "giving" or "paying." We are leaving it behind. Leaving behind the physical world to be born spiritually.

Is it all semantics? Maybe.

Anonymous said...

I think that you are both right in some respects and both equaly wrong in your pride and foolishness. You should both humble yourselves and remember that man is but Dust and we are all unworthy beings before an all
knowing powerful God.
15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth abeset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.
11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have atasted of his love, and have received a bremission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own cnothingness, and his dgoodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of ehumility, fcalling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing gsteadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel.
Let us remain ever Brothers and feed on the Love of Christ and not have the dificullties that the Lord rejected his church. Remember bretheren.
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not acharity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of aprophecy, and understand all bmysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the apoor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 aCharity bsuffereth long, and is ckind; charity denvieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
• • •
8 Charity never afaileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
• • •
13 And now abideth afaith, bhope, ccharity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity
I love you all!!

TruthSeekerToo said...

OKAY, it is very hard to understand the comments and where they are directed when everyone calls themself anonymous. Are the two anon posts from the same person???

I don't think it is necessery to tell people they are prideful and foolish. Especially if you aren't even going to pick a handle do it with.


I apologize for my rant. =)

Anonymous said...


I am the first Anon, the second post about "both" being prideful (I assume me and OneWhoIsWatching) were not posted by me, but another anon. From now on I will be Anon 1=). I will pick a handle soon enough but I want to get a blog up first.

Baptism can be seen as just being everything and consecration can be seen as just hiding up your stuff in the earth to God (but that would most likely not be a very effective consecration).

I guess I am just trying to bring up the danger in making the scriptures say what ever we want them to instead of what they do. They never say that consecration is included with baptism, of course the "consecration mentality" (the willingness to consecrate) should certainly be present but actually requiring all to give up what they have, that comes later in the gospel, still required, but it is not required AT baptism, the scriptures never say so.

In regards to my needing to give up my "pride and foolishness"... like Watcher, I agree. Don't we all? That is something that is in the scriptures...


TruthSeekerToo said...

Anon1-thank you for distinguishing yourself!
I agree we are all prideful. I just disagreed with the delivery. Probably because of my pride. ;)

What is baptism? Rebirth. Spiritual rebirth.

We have an outward ordinance that we participate in to symbolize it. But the outward oridinance is actually pretty meaningless. We miss the point when we focus on the outer rituals.

D&C 22
1 Behold, I say unto you that all aold covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.
2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the alaw of Moses, neither by your dead works. 3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

So, I guess my question would be, if baptism isn't the outward ordinance what is it?