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
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.
Mormon 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=)).”
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
You consecrate everything to the Lord when you repent and are baptized.
End of story.
The actual entering into the temporal system of a
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.