Flyonthewall

There are some thoughts out there that the flood was not really "worldwide" in a literal sense, but in the same sense that Cesar ruled that the "whole world" should be taxed. It may have happened in a limited geographical area, or it could have been an allegorical story. What the scriptures do tell us is that Pharoh, a decendent of Noah, played a big part in the Egyptian civilization.

This is the second time I have heard a non-LDS state or imply that Jesus had an anxiety attack in the garden. I am not sure I follow this line of thinking. The Son of God has an anxiety attack, even after being ministered to by an angel? Please remember that garden was a private event. All those that were with Him did not witness it as they were sleeping. Yet somehow, and for some reason this event made it into the scriptures. Jesus had to tell His apostles about it, and what purpose did it serve to include that the Lord had an axiety attack? It was the weight of the sins of the world that caused the Son of God, the greatest of all, to tremble with pain and hope for another way, not fear. The garden is where it began, the cross is where it ended.

To be honest, I didn't think "baka" was bad, I heard "bakarashii"(foolish) used a lot by native speakers. As a missionary, I never really got a good feel of what was a swear word or expression. There was a phrase that I heard others use, and was cautioned not to repeat when I repeated it, but wasn't sure if it was mearly impolite or an actual swear word/phrase...it involved the Japanese word for "poop" and baka. Piman(green pepper) is a way to call someone an airhead or dumb/stupid.

Well, I suppose you could say that Jesus was merely looking ahead to the cross, but that is a stretch. It would be like saying that He had an anxiety attack in the Garden. No. Fortunately, we have scriptures and prophets that state explicity that the price for sin was paid, for the most part, in the garden. The suffering and agony in the garden was not caused by worrying about a future event, but was caused by a current process.

This too is accurate. His crucifixion was part of the atonement. It is sin that separates us from God. Paying the price for sin, laying down His life, and resurrection were all required to put us "at one" with God again.Remember that the cross was a public event, the garden was not.

I think Vanhin layed it out nicely, but if you will, let's look at the passage again: This is Jesus stating, that for those to do not repent, their suffering will be beyond our comprehension... Then He states that He has already suffered these things so those who repent do not have to... Those who do not repent will have to suffer as Jesus suffered. Jesus then describes that suffering... This is the suffering He took upon Himself so that we would not have to if we repent. Where did this suffering take place? Littlelady, where does the bible state that the kind of suffering that is described here took place? The garden. Gethsemane. The "oil press". No where else, including on the cross, did Jesus blead from every pore, and "would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink". What do you call it when Jesus states that He suffered that we may not have to if we repent? Is this not paying the price of sin? Is this not atoning for sin? You have asked where in the scriptures teach that it was the garden that the payment of sin was made, and we have showed you. To us it is plain. You may not share the same point of view on this and that is okay. You asked, we showed. You did not ask to convince you of it, that must come from within yourself. In the mean time, can you not see why D&C 19 is the origin of this teaching? You have asked who the first prophet was to teach this, and we have answered - The revelation came through Joseph Smith so Joseph Smith was the first one in these latter days.

The first thing that comes to mind is:

I know you may be looking for a scripture that explicitly states that it is the garden where Christ atoned for the sins of the world, and D&C 19 is it. D&C 19 stands on its own: the suffering in the garden is what Christ endured so that we do not have to if we repent. This is paying the price of sin, taking upon Him the sins of the world. The cross was the public event that most people focus on, but the garden was a private event that Jesus endured. It is no accident or incidental event that is included in the Bible. Look at each of the accounts in the Bible. We mortals can relate to physical pain, which Christ endured, but very few of us can really relate to the depth of spiritual agony that ocurred in the garden. It is here, in the garden that He was in agony, even after an angel came to strengthen Him, so much so, that He sweat great drops of blood, AND wanted not to have to drink of the bitter cup. The agony in the garden caused God, the greatest of all to tremble and want an easier way, this is what no other human could have done. His blood was shed in the garden, but not by another, but was freely given by Himself. This is what gave meaning to His death on the cross. As others have stated, crucifixion was not unique to Jesus, many others died on the cross. Jesus was the only one to have taken the sins of the world upon Himself, suffered so that we don't have to. It is on the cross that He laid down His life. It is from the tomb that He was resurrected.

The origin of this teaching stems from D&C 19, which was a revelation that came to Joseph Smith. If you are looking for an actual sermon that includes this, then that would be very large search, as many leaders have taught it and you would have to filter out all the later sermons that have it. It is a very common teaching that nobody need cite an earlier reference other than D&C 19. John Taylor referred to this teaching - Joseph Fielding Smith is quoted with this teaching -

I understand that the doctrine of the church can be a bit hard to nail down as all church leaders will teach doctrine, but not everything they say is considered doctrine, especially if they are taken out of context. A lot of times critics will take several snippets from several church leaders, put them together and claim they mean something different than was originally put forth. The links I posted are from lds.org, and they are there so you can read the entire message in the context it was used. D&C 19 is the only one that I know of the specifically points to the garden of gethsemane as the event that Christ suffered so that others may not suffer.

Yes, I linked to Elder McConkie's article in my first reply...He has such a better way with words than I do...:)

In my opinion, forgiveness is for the person that has been offended. Forgiveness is to harbor no ill will, anger or hatred towards the person that wronged you. It is the anger and hatred that will do the most damage to the person that holds on to it.

I found this too: LDS.org - Liahona Article - From the Garden to the Empty Tomb This has several past church presidents as well as James E. Talmage, author of Jesus The Christ, as listing D&C 19 as the scriptural reference to the suffering in the garden as when He took upon Him the sins of the world. The atonement spanned several places, and simply speaking, He suffered in the garden, died on the cross, and was resurrected from the tomb. Each piece was needed, the atonement would not have been complete without any one of the pieces.

Yes, both parts are necessary. The suffering in the gardenfor the most part, was for the sins of the world, and the suffering on the cross and eventual death and resurrection were all part of the atonement. The Atonement was not complete until the resurrection. I am not saying that He did not suffer on the cross, or that His suffering on the cross was not also part of the payment for sin, but according to the verse that I cited, it is the suffering in the garden that Jesus points to that was the worst of it, and the type of suffering those that do not repent will experience.

As I see it, Christ is stating that He suffered these things so that those that repent do not have to(atonement/paid the price of sin), and those that do not repent will have to suffer even as He did, which caused Him to bleed from every pore and suffer both body and spirit, and would that He did not have to drink from that bitter cup. The cross was yet to come, and His suffering was not over, but the suffering that caused Him to bleed from every pore, and not want to drink the cup, was in the garden.

D&C 19 might be what you are looking for: Doctrine and Covenants 19

Here is what LDS.org has to say about Spirit Prison/Hell: Many LDS view "Hell" and "Outer Darkness" as the same. The difference being one is a temporary place, the other is permanent. Spirit prison becomes "hell" for those that do not repent and must pay the price of their own sins. When they are released from "hell" or spirit prison, they inherit a kingdom of glory, where as sons of perdition go to Outer Darkness, which is more of the same.

Here is a link to an article by Bruce R. McConkie, a member of the Quorom of the Twelve Apostles: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Purifying Power of Gethsemane And here is a link to the Atonement as explained on LDS.org: Atonement of Jesus Christ be sure to read the "additional information" link.

And of course the famous dialogue with God...Eve fessed up, but Adam tried to put it back on God: "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat"...lol(jk). It just sounded that way!

Not sure about 2 women before Eve, but according to some traditions, Lilith was Adam's first wife, and due to an argument, was rejected and Eve was created. Lilith then became some sort of a demon figure.

The Great Archives determine you to have gone by the identity: Paul West Known in some parts of the world as: Curse of The Nosferat The Great Archives Record: Old and insane - the Nosferat are terrors of Eastern Europe. I coulda told ya I'm old and insane!

When I first read about the Trinity, I had thought that the Trinity and Godhead concepts were very close, if not essentially the same thing. If essence or nature equivocates to purpose, function, testimony, etc. then it is the same concept. P.S. I tried to thank you for replying, but got a note that my account doesn't have that access or that it has been de-activated. THANKS for your response!

PC,I hope you can help my misunderstanding on this issue. This is a big blind spot for me about the Trinity(not the only blind spot, but the biggest). As you stated, in the Trinity, there are three persons but only one God. From my point of view, if all three persons are individually God, then there are three Gods. However, time and time again, Trinitarians say no that's not right. Then in my mind, the Trinitarian God is not a specific person, but the container, called "essence" or "nature" that these persons reside in. The individuals themselves are called God, but only because of the container. I am sure I am missing some peice of the equation, or maybe because of my LDS upbringing, my mind isn't wired in a compatible way for understanding this, but I really would like to understand this. Hopefully, your presence here, may give you an understanding of LDS thinking that can help make this easier to understand.

There have been many wonderful responses to your original post, and I hope mine won't be considered "hate" because that is not what I am intending... There was a talk given some years ago by one of the Bretheren about a person who wished the Lord would take away their burden....I don't recall all the details, but what stuck in my mind was this...One evening this person had to return home after being out all day doing errands, and had to be home by a certain time...at the end of the errands, this person looked at their watch and noticed that they had a little less time than required to get home given the distance away they were...so they said a little prayer to remove their burden. While on the way home, a storm started to blow in, and this person had to ride in to a headwind, virtually guaranteeing that they would not get home on time. On top of that, the rain started to fall making the trip home miserable on top of being late. When they got to within the last half mile of their house, this person mumbled under their breath "thanks for nothing!" at God, for not helping their situation. As this person got into their house, they saw the clock on the wall and noticed that not only did they make the journey faster than they had ever traveled before, they made it home in plenty of time for what they needed to be there for.(I'm hoping someone will come up with a link for this talk, as it hit me in a special, helpful way, and I don't think I did it any justice here) The Lord had not taken their burdens away, but bouyed them up, and strengthened them to make their burdens light. I guess what I am trying to say is, don't look for the Lord to take away your burdens, because He will never do that. He will help you through them, strengthen you, and make them lighter. You describe yourself as quiet, and never been able to make any freinds. I don't know what that means, but I have learned over the course of my years, that I have needed to step out of my comfort zone, for my own good, and for my own growth. Since I don't know specifics about you, glean what you can of what may help, and do it. Maybe this is a good place to start, but it won't be the end all, be all answer you want. That will come through your efforts, and that of the Lord. I wish you well in you endeavors.

I can certainly understand where you are coming from...after my kids left the terrible twos, they entered the "tyrannical threes" and "frightful fours", one is now in the terrifying teens.