CrimsonKairos

Thomas Jefferson coined the "separation of church and state" phrase in a letter to a Baptist group. His point was that the government should not be allowed to show special favors to one religion (no taxes for Mormons) while violating the rights of another religion (double taxes for Catholics). Separation of church and state has nothing to do with letting religious morals guide our elected representatives or the laws they frame. There is no such thing as an unbiased, amoral individual. Everyone believes certain things are right or wrong. I believe gay marriage is wrong, gays think my views are wrong. Everyone subscribes to a set of morals no matter what they say, and they want their morals given the effect of law. Look through history, cultural tradition and especially the American cultural tradition. Marriage has only ever been about members of the opposite sex joining together in a legal relationship beyond mere sexual intercourse for the purpose of pooling funds, resources and abilities in the pursuit of having and raising children. Marriage has nothing to do with love. Let me repeat, because I get so tired of the mantra, "You can't tell me who to love!" Marriage has nothing to do with proving whether or not you love someone. Marriage is about a commitment to stick together and raise children together, even when you can't stand to be in the same room with your spouse because of an argument or something. Heterosexual people shack up all the time without being married and no one says they don't "love each other." I simply refuse to let the issue be twisted out of context because marriage is not a right, marriage is not how you prove to the world that you love the one you're with, and not being married does not mean you don't love people in your life. Let me put it this way: There are plenty of people who don't love each other but are married to each other, and there are plenty of people who love each other who aren't married to each other. If they have enough votes, they can define it to mean whatever they want. The fact that one man in CA can erase the will and votes of 7 million Californians is pretty screwed up. In case people haven't studied U.S. history, this country's organic, founding documents were written by openly Christian or at the least Deist statesmen. Their assertion that we all have rights is tied inextricably with their belief in a Supreme Being, a "Creator" or our God. That was their claim to fame, as it were. In essence they said, "The King of England may think we get our rights from him, but the source of our rights supercedes even the King...God gives us our rights, and no one is sovereign over God." Not really. Marriage is not just a title or a conceptual relationship. Marriage carries with it certain legal benefits that exist in order to "give couples a break" since most married people are trying to have families and let's face it, kids are expensive (mine is, anyway). Homosexual relationships are biologically incapable of creating babies without the external intervention of science and technology. Therefore, since marriage is about two people raising kids and the government and society acknowledging that and giving them certain legal benefits to assist them, gays by definition cannot be married and do not need the legal provisions afforded to married couples. I'm sorry, but adopting a child is a whole world away from bearing a child in your belly for 9 months and then having to recover from either a vaginal or C-section birth. Maternity leave and paternity leave all recognize that fact. What need does an adoptive parent have for maternity/paternity leave? My parents adopted a girl from Thailand in addition to having four boys so I've seen both sides of the coin, and I say that to forestall needless claims that "I don't know what it's like." Yes, I do. Adoption is not the same thing as conceiving and carrying a child. Yes, it is possible for two lesbians to get artificial insemination and have babies the natural way, but whether or not you believe in a God it is clear that is not the way life was created until the present day and that is why marriage has traditionally been about men and women. Since two men can't get pregnant (yet, who knows what they will invent), they also do not need the title of "marriage" to define their relationship. Nope. Study the constitution, and just as importantly, study the writings and thought processes of the constitution's writers to get a glimpse at what they were trying to establish. They came from England where for many years the situation was either "Protestants are evil," or "Catholics are evil" depending on the religion of the monarch at the time. So the church/state thing was meant to correct that and say, "It doesn't matter whether Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses control the government. In either case, they should not be able to take the property or lives of others JUST because they belonged to a different religion." Nowhere did ANY of the founders that I'm aware of, state that they did not want the moral and ethical influence of religious thought to shape and inform the laws of the land. Quite the opposite. In fact, they never foresaw a time when so-called "amoral, non-religious, non-biased, non-judgmental" individuals would clamor for all of the ancient customs of religion and society to be discarded in an attempt to impose an infantile understanding of absolute, pure and unadulterated "equality" for all. Just one example. John Adams wrote: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 I challenge you to dig through the founders' writings and find one major mover and shaker of the times who did not weave allusions to God and religion into their political thought consistently. The Constitution is meant to govern a religious and moral people. If you want to eject religious and moral influence, then either move to another country or amend the constitution. Oh wait, they already amended the constitution in CA, but that wasn't good enough, let's overturn it despite the clearly manifested will of the majority. Not all discrimination has an ugly head; some discrimination is quite beautiful actually. When you are deciding which restaurant to go to, you discriminate based on your personal preferences and/or allergic reactions. When you decide which car to buy, you discriminate based on your color preference or brand loyalty or safety ratings or whatever. Thoughtful discrimination is to be sought after and applauded. People who are very selective are said to have "discriminating tastes" whether or not food is involved. Unfortunately, our culture has been brainwashed by a few atheists-in-civil-rights-champions-clothing who want to eradicate the concept of morality, wise bias and prudent discrimination. We should seek more discrimination, not less. The trap you're falling into is believing that the word "discrimination" automatically and solely refers to racism or cruel treatment of others who are different. That is not the case at all. Discrimination operates in all people's lives. Having the ability to do something, and the right to do something, are not the same thing. The founders of our government had no concept of a God-given right to have children or get married. If there was a right to get married, then government would be permitted to COMPEL you to marry me if I am unmarried because hey, God meant for everyone to be married whether they want to be or not. If there was a right to have children, government would similarly be permitted to force you to have intercourse with someone of the opposite sex because childless people are having their God-given rights violated. Now, there IS a right to life, and government IS permitted to punish and/or execute anyone who violates your right to life in whole or in part. The issue gets so clouded and confused because people lump God-given rights together with man-made-government-issued "rights" that are nothing more than a preference or expression of "how the world ought to be." If it is immoral for an individual to do something, it is immoral and improper for government to do that thing. If we lived in a state of nature without a formal government (think Wild West), do you honestly think God gave you the right to come to my hut and force me to sell my beads to everyone because I'm being mean by not selling beads to our black-skinned neighbor? Further, do you think God meant for you to have the right to take my beads and kick me out of my hut unless I complied with your concept of equality? No. Since the adoption of the Constitution, mankind has so busied itself with inventing and legislating new "rights" that the concept of an inalienable right having to come from God is forgotten and inalienable rights can now come from the local legislature. Back to our Wild West analogy: If I built a bridge over a river on my property and charged people to cross it, maybe I'd charge less for a couple with three kids in tow because I know how hard it is to raise kids. What right would you have to come and put a knife to my throat and say, "You will charge less for everyone whether or not they can have children, or I'll burn your bridge!" That would infringe my right to private property and liberty, to name a few. It would be wrong and I would be justified in physically repelling and/or killing you if you did not leave me alone. But it is somehow okay if a "government" does it to me. Government is merely the union of individuals. Yet that is precisely what government is doing. They are telling me that I have to use my tax dollars to offer legal benefits to people who cannot have children together when those benefits were created to ease the burden of people who DO or CAN have children together. There is no Constitutional right to maternity leave, yet people act like there is. There is no Constitutional right to child tax credits, yet people act like there is. So please, let's keep the discussion of gay marriage on track and in the context of what marriage is: a legal union of members of opposite genders for the purpose of pooling their money and resources to aid them in having and raising a family, a legal union that society recognizes carries with it financial burdens that unmarried or childless people do not face.

The cross is not the only important thing about Christ's life. He did many wonderful things and taught many wonderful doctrines that are worthy of consideration and respect. At the same time, we cannot dismiss the cross as an element of and symbol of Christ's divine role. When Christ introduced himself to his Old World and New World disciples after his resurrection, he specifically emphasized the wounds of the crucifixion in order to identify himself to them. Without Easter there'd be no Christmas. Without Passover there'd be no Easter. I can understand why some people might not want to wear the cross. I personally don't think I would, but I would support others wearing one if that is how they remind themselves of their faith and Savior. We LDS wear special clothing with special symbols to remind us of our faith and Savior, the only difference is we wear it under our every-day clothes. So the issue isn't "can you wear something that reminds you of Christ." The issue is: "Do I personally like your choice of Christian symbolism?" I see no reason to look down on others for how they choose to remind themselves of their Savior. I would suggest none of us has the copyright on "correct worship" and we should all be tolerant of different modes of worship and reverence.

Don't remember anyone saying that. The scriptures are clear: we are forgiven when we have faith in Christ, confess our sins and forsake them. We are assigned a kingdom of glory based on our works, or the works we would have done had we been given the opportunity (desires of the heart, all that good stuff). Just because someone repents does not mean they go to the Celestial Kingdom. Everyone will be forgiven eventually (except Perdition). Not everyone will go to the Celestial Kingdom eventually. "But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come." (D&C 59:23)

Yep.

If that is what the scripture teaches... Only half true. Works figure heavily into the equation. Seems pretty self-contradictory, but whatever. Pretty weak hypothetical. Paul not only knew the 10 commandments, he knew the Jewish law of his day and believed it, and their law (even Moses said so) dictated that blasphemers be given the death penalty. Paul believed Stephen was blaspheming. It wasn't until his trip to Damascus that Paul realized his previous beliefs had been wrong. Again, pretty weak example. I think that's irrelevant. I think the point is that if someone ends someone else's probationary period before God wanted it to end, then that person needs to have a consequence. Of course God will sort out manslaughter versus premeditated murder in the end, but for the honest-to-gosh-murderers, there is a punishment affixed.

Everyone in this thread who thinks "murder" referred to in D&C 132:26-27 is merely the taking of mortal life, is wrong. There have been plenty of threads on this board over the years showing that the "murder" or "shedding of innocent blood" refers to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, denying Christ's living reality as Savior once a sufficient witness has been granted. Killing other mortals has nothing to do with the point of this passage. The best David--as a murderer--can hope for is the Telestial Kingdom. It's in D&C 76. No mystery there.

Sure. It's simply a matter of connecting the dots. D&C 19 says if you don't repent you will suffer for your sins yourself. Seriously? It's the natural consequence of breaking God's commandments. Obey = prosper; disobey = suffer. Of course not. Since when is suffering redemptive? That's the point of the punishment: if you reject Christ's cleansing grace, you will suffer the full punishment for your sins and remain unclean. Hopefully, sure, but no guarantees. Remember, we are granted a kingdom of glory based on our works, our covenants, et al. Everyone will ultimately be "forgiven" of their sins (except Perdition's boys), but not everyone will have wrought good works or done the good they knew to do. That's the difference.

See D&C 138:58-59. Even if you end up going to the Celestial Kingdom, if you have sins you didn't repent of in mortality, you will need to repent of them in the spirit world prior to your judgment and assignment to a kingdom of glory. Everyone can suffer a penalty for sins in the spirit world: the only qualifier is whether you repented in mortality or not; it doesn't matter what kingdom you eventually inherit.

No offence taken. Because I read what the scriptures say differently, I'm fine with people disagreeing and I'm fine with being wrong as well. I know the story. I've read it many times in the past. I have no problem with your take on it.

This has been an interesting debate. I don't know that this has anything to do with the current discussion, but I personally feel that at some point in Christ's life (perhaps when he was 12 who knows) the Lord pierced the veil and regained not only his premortal omniscience but a fulness of his premortal memory as well. 6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John’s record is hereafter to be revealed. 7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was; 15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. 16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; (D&C 93:6-7, 15-16) This is John the Baptist recording that he saw a fulness of Christ's glory, in mortality. Unless John wrote this record after his death and resurrection, he saw the Son's fulness of glory in mortality which means Christ did have a fulness of the Father's glory before his resurrection. Also, there is a sense that the "grace for grace" progression of Christ that John is documenting was a premortal progression since verses 7-14 talk about Christ in premortality and it is these verses that mention the "grace for grace" progression to the fulness of glory. One last thing that jumped out at me. These verses seem to say that Christ received this fulness in mortality: 3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one— 4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men. 5 I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest. (D&C 93:3-5) What did Christ receive from the Father while in the world as mentioned in verse 5? The previous verse just mentioned the Son receiving a fulness of the Father, so it would be reasonable to assume that fulness is what Jesus is speaking of in verse 5. I don't believe that Jesus was ever "mistaken" or "guessed wrongly" about anything. I do believe that Old Testament prophets could be and sometimes were "mistaken" and spoke inaccurately at times as well.

Hahaha, more like for the week!

I agree. :)

And for me, He did and it was. :)

What happened in Gethsemane you asked? I'm going solely on what the scriptures say. Let's see together. We know that Christ had to atone alone, he had to be able to invoke mercy for his own sake and because of what he alone accomplished: And his voice shall be heard: I have trodden the wine-press alone, and have brought judgment upon all people; and none were with me; (D&C 133:50) So Christ offered the sacrifice for sin by himself without any spiritual or external aid (as we shall see). Of course we have this heart-rending scripture to attest to this: And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34) Did Jesus question a spiritual separation while praying in Gethsemane? Of course not because it had not yet occurred fully, and the Father was very much involved in comforting Christ during his capillary-bursting agony: And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. (Luke 22:43) If the atonement took place in whole or in part in Gethsemane, then Christ is lying when he says he did it alone. However, the scriptures are clear that the atoning sacrifice for our sins was on the cross where Christ was very much alone, and not in Gethsemane where his loving Father sent a special angel (perhaps Adam? who knows) to comfort Christ as he approached his betrayal, arrest, illegal trial, false accusations, undeserved flogging and horribly unjust execution. So what made Christ bleed from every pore? The only answer I can offer is from that powerful passage in D&C 19:16-20. After Christ warns Martin Harris to repent or suffer the punishment that made Christ bleed from every pore, Christ says significantly in verse 20: Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. (D&C 19:20) Let's truncate that to the salient bits again: these punishments...you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. Christ says that what made him bleed from every pore was loss of spiritual communion, a spiritual withdrawal or necessary abandonment. And why would the Father and the Spirit withdraw their influence and sustaining comfort from Jesus? They cut themselves off from Jesus so he could offer the atoning sacrifice alone, as he said in three places that he did (D&C 76:107; 88:106; and 133:50). Okay, you say, so how does Jesus losing total communion with the other members of the Godhead make blood come out of his pores? That I don't know and I don't think the scriptures explain it. I can guess though, based on some scriptures I've found. It seems to be related to the concept that anguish of spirit and mind can manifest themselves physically. Think of the most stressed or worried you've ever been. Heck, just think of the first time you gave a talk or asked a girl on a date or did something you were nervous to do. Were your palms sweaty? Was your breathing labored? Was your heart pounding? Did your stomach feel like it was tied in knots? Did you have a headache? Were you about to faint? See how the following verses describe the physical effect of distress or guilt or worry: Behold, my soul is rent with anguish because of you, and my heart is pained; I fear lest ye shall be cast off forever. Behold, I am full of the Spirit of God, insomuch that my frame has no strength. (1 Ne. 17:47) O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just. (2 Ne. 26:7) And now, my brethren, I wish from the inmost part of my heart, yea, with great anxiety even unto pain, that ye would hearken unto my words, and cast off your sins, and not procrastinate the day of your repentance; (Alma 13:27, emphasis mine) The common theme in all these verses is that a righteous person can literally feel physical pain because of their concern for their wicked brethren. Someone full of the love of Christ cannot bear to think of any being inheriting the misery and torment reserved for the unrepentant wicked. Consider these two examples together and see if it doesn't make some sense. I'm not 100% sure, but this is where I feel the Spirit leading me in regards to Gethsemane and what happened there. The first verse talks about the Nephites' concern for the wicked Lamanites; the second talks about Christ's concern for all the wicked children of God: And again, when they thought upon the Lamanites, who were their brethren, of their sinful and polluted state, they were filled with pain and anguish for the welfare of their souls. (Mosiah 25:11) ...for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah 3:7) That strikes my soul powerfully as I think of Gethsemane. Now, a bit more on why Christ bled from every pore. Jesus was a God in premortality and he was the only child of God who had and would obey the Father perfectly in the First and Second Estates. Hence, Jesus had always enjoyed 100% communion with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Jesus never had known what it was like to "be on his own" spiritually, to have no source of comfort outside himself. Now we know from D&C 76:81, 86 that even those in the lowest degree of glory, the telestial kingdom, will have the presence of the Holy Ghost in eternity. Who are the only ones who have absolutely no communion with any member of the Godhead in eternity? D&C 76:32, 36-37 teaches us that the sons of perdition are the only ones on whom the second death will have any power, that is, they will be completely cast off and cut off from God the Father, God the Son and God the Testator. So Jesus--in Gethsemane--had to be left alone by the Father and the Spirit so Christ could complete his sacrifice alone. He essentially was cut off from the Godhead (besides his own divinity which is the only reason he could continue on and triumph) and experienced what a son of perdition experiences. Think about that. Weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth are a few descriptors used to portray the experience of those eternally damned souls cut off from the Godhead. Notice the contrast here since I think it is the juxtaposition of full communion with no communion that caused such anguish that Christ's capillaries burst from the anxiety, and blood came upon his body instead of sweat. Picture going from 85 degree water to 80 degree water (Fahrenheit). Not a bid difference and so not a big shock to the system, right? What if you were dumped from a tub of 200 degree water into the Arctic sea? Bigger contrast, bigger difference, bigger shock. Another example: let's say that the ground represents spiritual abandonment, what sons of perdition feel, no communion whatsoever. Let's also say that we all stand on diving boards equal in height to our righteousness: the more righteous we are, the higher the diving board. While I try to please the Father and keep His commandments, I am imperfect. So for me, to go from my current level of righteousness to no communion might be like jumping off a 10 foot diving board onto the pavement. It would hurt, but the distance between my starting point to the ground was not terribly great to begin with. Now take Christ who is perfectly righteous. His diving board must be at least two miles high in this example. Well when he was left to himself in Gethsemane by the Father and Spirit, that would be like Jesus walking off a diving board and falling for two miles before he hit the pavement. The greater the contrast, the greater the shock. Is there any contrast greater than going from perfect communion with the Father to no communion with the Father? I don't know of anything else that contrasts as sharply as the Godhead and sons of perdition in outer darkness. Consider the effect of spiritual banishment on beings like you and I who don't have anything close to perfect communion with the Father: Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. (Mosiah 2:38) Wow. Being filled with pain and anguish like a fire so great it cannot be put out and that burns inside us forever! Think of the biggest building you've seen on fire, and of all the firemen with their pitifully small hoses trying to douse the raging inferno with puny streams of water, an inferno so great it cannot be quenched. Now imagine that fire inside yourself, forever. If that sort of spiritual anguish would occur in you or I who only has the influence of the Holy Ghost with us in this life, how would the Son of God feel if he were to be suddenly cut off spiritually from the Father? ...for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah 3:7) You will probably say, "But the beginning of verse 7 says Christ suffered temptations and pain, hunger, thirst and fatigue and that's what made him bleed!" I would disagree, and if you ignore the versification (which was added later and was not inherent in the sacred text itself) you will see that up until verse 7 King Benjamin has been summing up the high points if you will of Christ's mortal experience. So what could that temptation and hunger and thirst and fatigue refer to? Remember Jesus's 40 days in the wilderness? 40 days without food = hunger 40 days without water = thirst 40 days without sustenance at all = fatigue and pain What happened after the 40 days? Oh yeah, those three famous temptations when Satan tried to tempt Christ to made a rock into bread, to worship Satan in return for worldly riches and glory, and to prove Christ was the Messiah by jumping off the top of the Jerusalem temple. And the last part of the puzzle? Can anyone survive 40 days without food. I think so. Can anyone survive 40 days without water? Nope, the longest I've heard of is 3-5 days. So during those 40 days did Jesus suffer "even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death"? Yes. I don't think the first half of verse 7 has anything to do with Gethsemane, and if you look through the rest of the chapter and the scriptures in fact, you will see that the phrase, "For behold" serves as sort of an exclamation point at the start of a sentence to emphasize the importance of what comes next, or to indicate a change in topic from what has just preceded it. You needn't share my opinion about that, but I feel the scriptures say it is true and that is a huge key in understanding the rest of verse 7 and indeed Gethsemane as a whole. If you disagree, for argument's sake assume you agree for a moment. Continuing on: The key word in verse 7 is "for" as in "for the wickedness and the abominations of his people." As a preposition, "for" can mean a number of things according to my dictionary: on behalf of, e.g. These parents aren't speaking for everyone. having as a purpose or function, e.g. She is searching for enlightenment. having (the thing mentioned) as a reason or cause, e.g. I could dance and sing for joy. Let's plug those various meaning into Mosiah 3:7 and see if Gethsemane's experience comes into a little clearer focus. The substitution will appear in bold: Substitution #1 ...for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish on behalf of the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah 3:7) How was Jesus suffering on behalf of our wickedness in Gethsemane? In order to atone for our sins, Jesus had to sacrifice his life BUT, in order for that sacrifice to be valid Jesus had to do it alone which meant he had to have the Father withdraw His sustaining influence and that occurred in Gethsemane in preparation for Christ's arrest and everything that followed. Substitution #2 ...for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish in being left alone to overcome the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah 3:7) Same as the previous explanation: Christ had to be left alone in order for his imminent crucifixion to have validity and force. Substitution #3 ...for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish because of the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah 3:7) Same thing as well. How would our wickedness and abominations be a cause of Christ's agony in Gethsemane? Our sins require a Savior to save us. The Savior has to be crucified for the sins of the world. For that sacrifice to "count" Jesus had to do it alone. To do it alone Jesus had to be cut off from the Father which happened in Gethsemane (apparently by degrees because according to Luke he doesn't bleed from every pore until the third and last time he goes and prays by himself; it's like God is easing Christ into the spiritual separation which is in line with what we know about God being merciful). So what is the deal with the angel being sent to strengthen Christ in Gethsemane? This is completely my own opinion not based on a specific scripture per se but rather based on what I know of God's nature from the scriptures as a whole: to me it seems the Father was trying to give some comfort, any comfort, to His Son as the spiritual separation was nearly complete, a separation the Savior had never experienced and which caused horrible agony in our Lord. Seeing or even feeling an angel/spirit from heaven is great and all, but when you're cut off from God and the Spirit, an angel's presence is not exactly comforting or even helpful. Remember, the scriptures teach that it is the Spirit that fills our souls with joy (D&C 11:13), and the love of God is the most joyous thing we can feel (1 Ne. 11:22-23). The contrary is also true: without the Spirit we cannot feel God's love, and without God's love we cannot feel true joy but instead, only misery and anguish. That is my understanding of what the angel was about in Gethsemane, but my beliefs are far from complete and I am open to new insights and revelations as they come from the Spirit and scripture study. That's pretty much what I wanted to share with you and anyone else who is interested. The truth is in the scriptures, and the scriptures cannot be tossed aside, ignored or rewritten to harmonize with the statements of any Church member high or low or any Church curriculum material which change every few years with updates anyway. The content of the scriptures doesn't change often (last time was D&C 138). The scriptures don't support my doctrine, I support the scripture's doctrine. If that doctrine "flatly contradicts" any number of Church books or addresses I am fine with that. As Joseph Smith said, "Truth will cut its own path." I have the personal duty to try every man's doctrine--no matter who that man is--by measuring it against the standard works of the Church. If I find something I think will shed greater light upon the gospel then I see no impropriety in sharing it publicly or privately. - I thank God for preserving and restoring so many scriptures to give us doctrine today. - I am grateful that Jesus loved me enough to endure the anguish of Gethsemane and the brutality of Calvary. - I know Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the remission of my sins. - I know Jesus rose from the tomb with healing in his wings and salvation in his hands. - I know Jesus Christ can save me from my sins if I repent and come unto him. - I know this Church is restored of God. - I know Christ has chosen apostles to preside over and give counsel to his Church. - I am grateful we have living prophets today to guide us in the trials and troubles that are unique to this dispensation of the earth's history. To God alone the glory, now and ever.

Orthodox LDS doctrine is laid down in the standard works. The word "orthodox" comes from the Greek roots "orthos" meaning "straight or right" and "doxa" meaning "opinion". So orthodox LDS doctrine is the "right opinion" or the "true opinion" and our official doctrine comes from the standard works. Perhaps you remember reading this quote: "It makes no difference," stated President Joseph Fielding Smith, "what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. "You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. "Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4). Please note this before I get going: just because an apostle or prophet teaches something which seems to stretch beyond what the scriptures themselves teach does not invalidate their authority, calling or presiding authority. Elder McConkie (among others) was wrong on blacks and the priesthood, he acknowledged it after 1978, changed his opinion, revised "Mormon Doctrine" accordingly and went on with his apostleship. If a person's testimony is based on the apostles and not the standard works and the Spirit's witness, then such a testimony is bound to shake if not fall at some point because none of the apostles are infallible or perfect (though pretty darn near!). Such people who base their testimonies on men are bound to spring to the defense of anything those men have said which are not supported by the scriptures, because if the men are wrong, then that person sees their testimony as "false" and then they are left with no guidance, witness or anchor. I know Jesus Christ restored his Church through Joseph Smith, complete with valid priesthood authority, Church organization, exalting ordinances and modern scripture. I don't care if all 15 apostles left the Church, I would still belong to it, pay tithing to it and worship God in the name of the Son through the Spirit. My testimony is not of the perfection of the apostles or what they teach. My testimony is of the divine calling of those men to serve as apostles, special witnesses of Christ's resurrection and role as our Savior from sin. The apostles' testimony is not valid or invalid based on whether their addresses and talks are 100% accurate or not. Their testimony is from the Spirit and is true: Christ is our Savior from sin and he did rise from the tomb in glory. How the atonement makes it all possible is a mystery as many of them admit (Joseph Fielding Smith, Talmage, McConkie, et al). So if in trying to explain their understanding of the atonement they use terms and concepts that seem at odds with the scriptures, I am not bound to believe those concepts and I certainly am not going to turn a blind eye to what the scriptures plainly teach. Does that mean they suddenly don't have authority to preside over my priesthood and direct the exercise of it? No. Does that mean their testimony of Christ is false? No. Does that mean Christ did not call them? No. What does it mean? That they are mortal like me, that they are entitled to their opinions, that they have the right to be wrong from time to time, but that when it comes to the official, orthodox doctrine of Jesus Christ's Church, the standard works have the last word. I do not feel threatened when the apostles make mistakes, misspeak or have blatantly incorrect views on gospel topics. Christ never promised us robotic perfection in our leaders which is why sustaining any leader is a serious commitment because it involves overlooking the faults of others and overcoming our own. Their calling is not to be theologians, scripture experts or flawless preachers (though they usually approach all of those qualities pretty darn close). Their calling is two-fold: to bear special witness that Christ died, rose from the dead and is our only source of salvation from sin on conditions of repentance (see Acts); and, to direct the Church's exercise of priesthood keys and authority and to preside over the ordinances, organization and members of Christ's kingdom (see D&C). I explicitly testify that the apostles and First Presidency are called of God as prophets, seers and revelators; that I am subject to their authority in performance of ordinances or the execution of my duties and callings; that the Lord gives modern guidance to us through them; and finally, that the truth of the Church's restoration stands independent of whether or not every single thing the apostles say and write is inspired, or even accurate. Okay, continuing on with my actual post now that I have removed any ambiguity about my personal testimony and support of our General Authorities. I find it interesting that the quotes you provided in defense of the "atonement in Gethsemane" position were all from secondary sources outside of--or commentaries on--the standard works. I do have to thank you for your resourcefulness. It is clear you spent more than just a passing moment gathering the quotes you did, so I appreciate your sincerity. But let us turn to the primary source of official doctrine--the scriptures themselves--and consider what they teach plainly: 40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us— 41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness; (D&C 76:40-41) These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:69) 2 And reflecting upon the great atoning sacrifice that was made by the Son of God, for the redemption of the world; 35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138:2, 35) Where are the companion scriptures to these examples, that teach that the atoning sacrifice for sin occurred in Gethsemane? Not scriptures that could be interpreted to mean that, not that allude to it, not that might mean that, but that clearly state, "Jesus offered the sacrifice for sin in Gethsemane?" On the contrary, we have multiple scriptures all attesting to the opposite: It is to Calvary that we look for the atoning sacrifice for sin. ...the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9) Let's shorten that to its most salient bits: Jesus was crucified for the remission of sins. Who so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God. (D&C 34:2) Why no mention of Gethsemane? Doesn't what he suffered there consist of part of the sacrifice for sin by which we become his sons through spiritual rebirth following repentance and baptism? Not according to the scriptures, and I'm talking over 27 scriptures not just one or two random verses. The pattern of the standard works teaches that the atoning sacrifice for sin was on the cross of Calvary. Let's read some more, I love these! I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one. (D&C 35:2) What is the meaning of Tyndale's neologism "atonement"? (Tyndale invented the word to stand in for the Hebrew "kaphar" which means "to cover, blot out"). At-one-ment means being "at one" with God. When the Lord speaks in the first person and declares that he was crucified so that we may all "be one" with him and the Father, I don't know what else there is to say on the matter. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. (D&C 46:13) This testimony wasn't given to me for the first 23 years of my life because I wasn't studying the scriptures as a whole to learn about the atonement. The only scriptures I really honestly would quote about the atonement were Mosiah 3:7 and D&C 19:16-19 since that is what much of the Church literature focuses on. Once I studied the scriptures--all of them--for myself instead of just accepting the commentary on them by Church leaders I discovered an expanded doctrinal picture. Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world. (D&C 53:2) BEHOLD, thus saith the Lord, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, even he who was crucified for the sins of the world— (D&C 54:1) Are you starting to notice a pattern here? This is all from the Doctrine and Covenants, the most recently added scripture to the standard works or canon of LDS doctrine. Like I said, this is not just one or two scattered passages. This is a pervasive pattern of doctrine all pointing to the same overarching truth: Christ sacrificed his life so our sins could be remitted. Therefore while he was on the earth, he offered for a sacrifice his own life for the sins of the people. (JST Hebrews 8:4) For this is in remembrance of my blood of the new testament, which is shed for as many as shall believe on my name, for the remission of their sins. (JST Matt. 26:24) What does "shedding blood" refer to? Sweating blood? Not according to the scriptures. "Shedding blood" is an idiom that always means taking away someone's life. It doesn't even have to involve blood leaving the body as we see here: Yea, and I will suffer even until death, and I will not recall my words, and they shall stand as a testimony against you. And if ye slay me ye will shed innocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day. (Mosiah 17:10) So Abinadi being burned alive was considered to have had his "blood shed." Another: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. (Acts 22:20) So Stephen being stoned to death was considered to have had his "blood shed." I have looked, and looked, and looked JAG. There is not one scripture that uses the idiom "blood shed" or "shedding blood" or any of its variations to mean anything other than killing and taking away life. Please, if you find a scripture that contradicts that pattern and uses "blood shed" or "shed blood" to mean sweating blood let me know. I'm serious. Absent such explicit contradiction in the scriptures, we have no authority to change the meaning of the Savior's own declarations about what the redeeming sacrifice for sin consists of: his blood being shed on the cross. I don't care who says otherwise or what position in the Church they hold, the scriptures and Christ's own scriptural utterances in the standard works are supreme. Now, let's use the scriptures to clear up some issues that the quotes you provided brought up. Did Jesus drink the bitter cup of the atonement in Gethsemane? Not according to the scriptures: And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. (3 Ne. 11:11) So Jesus teaches that he drank from the bitter cup in taking upon him the sins of the word. What did Jesus do to take upon him the sins of the world? We have but to look three verses further in the same chapter, to wit: Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Ne. 11:14) So Jesus was slain for the sins of the world, and Jesus drank from the bitter cup in taking upon him the sins of the world, so: the bitter cup was the crucifixion. The scriptures make this clear, including this wonderful little verse that is only found in the Gospel of John. After Peter cuts of Malchus's ear in an attempt to prevent Christ's arrest outside of Gethsemane, this is what we read: 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? 12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, (John 18:11-12, emphasis mine) So after Christ leaves Gethsemane with its attendant misery and pore-stretching agony, Peter is told that Christ has not yet drunk from the cup that he was praying would be removed from him. It is a future event, not in the past. Was Christ really praying in Gethsemane to not have to go through with being crucified alone, without the Father or Spirit's divine influence? According to the scriptures, yes. Consider this bit: 34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (Mark 14:34-36) Notice that Jesus uses the terms "the hour" and "the cup" synonymously and prays that it (the hour/cup) might pass from him. What hour and cup did Jesus wish he did not have to face? Continuing in the same chapter: And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. (Mark 14:41) The hour had come for Jesus to be "betrayed into the hands of sinners" with all that entailed (arrest, trial, mocking, scourging, crucifixion). That was the figurative "hour" that Jesus was praying to have pass from him if it were possible. This is attested in the other gospels as well: Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. (John 7:30) These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. (John 8:20) 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. (John 12:23-24, 27) Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. (John 13:1) Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. (Matt. 26:45) 52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? 53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. (Luke 22:52-53) Now the arrest of Jesus is the critical pivot point, the fulcrum of that night, because it was his arrest that led to his death on the cross. These scriptures illustrate that it was everything starting with the arrest and ending with his death that constituted "the hour" and "the cup" Jesus wished to avoid: Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32) Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. (Matt. 26:31) 46 And [the soldiers] laid their hands on [Christ], and took him. 50 And [the apostles] all forsook [Christ], and fled. (Mark 14:46, 50) "The hour" to come would include the apostles abandoning Jesus and running away for safety at his arrest. This all happened as prophesied. So what happened in Gethsemane, you asked? See my next post.

Hi JAG. I guess. The ultimate goal of repentance and atonement is for us to be found spotless before God's throne (Moroni 10). First, Gethsemane is not where the sacrifice for sin took place. And yes, Jesus did go there willingly because he was going there to pray to his Father for help to endure the coming horrors starting after his arrest and culminating in his giving up the ghost on the cross. Second, I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking if Christ atoned voluntarily because of course we are taught in Primary that he volunteered. I was asking if voluntary submission to unjust treatment changes the nature of the treatment from unjust to just since that is what you seem to be asserting. If I understand your responses thus far, you have said: 1. Yes, it is unjust to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free. 2. BUT, if the innocent person is okay with it, that treatment suddenly can be viewed as just in some way or other. This is of course to me incomprehensible since by definition justice requires that innocence be rewarded and guilt be punished. My point in all this is that the atonement cannot possibly operate the way most people in the Church think it does because it would require God to be unjust and if He were unjust He would cease to be God. 11 ...Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. 12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered;... (Alma 34:11-12) If God punishes Jesus for sins I commit, even if Jesus volunteers to "take my whipping," you still have someone punishing an innocent person and letting the guilty (me) go free which is absurdly unjust. So that cannot be how the atonement remits our sins, if we believe the scriptures about God being a just God. You're smart, you can go to scriptures.lds.org and do a word search. I'll start you off though: D&C 88:35 says when we break a law, sin, we become filthy and 1 Ne. 10:21 says the wicked are unclean and must be cast off forever so as to preserve the spotless nature of the kingdom of God. Isaiah 52:3 says we are redeemed without money. That's my point. The scriptures don't teach that the atonement is about Christ paying anyone anything that we owe. Seriously, if "redeem" means to "buy back" and if we are "bought back" without money, how in the world is that considered being "bought back"? Here's my definition of justice, then: Administering the law with its attendant punishing of illegal acts and rewarding legal acts. So the only way for mercy to rob justice is if the law is not administered. But if there's a law that says, "IF you repent, THEN your sins can be forgotten," then you have sins being forgiven which is a merciful act, but that forgiveness is extended in accordance with a law and hence mercy and justice both coexist. I don't hear anyone talking about that, it's always just, "If we aren't whipped for our sins, and if Jesus isn't whipped for our sins, then no one has paid the price of justice and God cannot forgive us." I don't read that anywhere in the scriptures and the God I worship is not some punishment-hungry whip-wielding God who cannot be at peace until He has had every last pound of flesh that "justice demands." And that is how a hair is split. :) You're playing word games now. Whether you can't pay your way out of jail because there's no one to pay (which I never said) or whether you can't pay your way out of jail because you have no money, the point is you can't pay your way out of jail. Because God said so. Let me go over this one last time and I'll actually quote the scriptures in case your internet crashes after you pull up this post and can't check the scriptures for yourself. Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever. (1 Ne. 10:21) But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy. (1 Ne. 15:34) And he doth not dwell in unholy temples; neither can filthiness or anything which is unclean be received into the kingdom of God; therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness. (Alma 7:21) And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out. (Alma 7:25) 19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. 20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. (3 Ne. 27:19-20) O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day. (Mormon 9:6) And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. (Moroni 10:33) When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. (D&C 76:107) 58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, 59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. (D&C 138:58-59, emphasis mine) Here is a very graphic example where the Lord equates the high priest being forgiven his iniquity with having his filthy garments removed and replaced. 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. (Zech. 3:3-4) And one more: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 Jn. 1:7) So basically you're saying, "Unless Jesus said, 'Such-and-such is not what I mean by this,' then you can put words in Jesus's mouth." Okay...? Friend, the cross was enough. Gethsemane was not the atonement, it was the precursor to it, the point of no return, the prologue, the preface, the very last moment before it. This do all the scriptures teach. Now THAT is an entirely different thread. The short answer? Read Mark 14:35, 41. Here are some things to start you off with, see if you can piece together from the verses what they have in common and what they teach about Gethsemane and about everything AFTER Gethsemane. This is a major part of what I have found after several years of specific scriptural study into the atonement: Matt. 26:45 Mark 14:35, 41 Luke 22:53 John 7:30 John 8:20 John 12:23, 27 John 13:1 John 16:32 Mosiah 15:5, 7 Hebrews 2:18 What was the atonement about then? How are we reconciled? Where and what was the sacrifice for sins? Isaiah 53:12 Matt. 26:28 Romans 5:7-11 1 Cor. 5:7 1 Cor. 15:3 Eph. 2:13-16 Hebrews 8:4 JST 1 Pet. 2:24 1 Ne. 11:33 Mosiah 15:12 Alma 33:22 Hel. 14:17-18 3 Ne. 11:14 3 Ne. 27:14 D&C 18:11 D&C 20:22-23 (v. 22 = Gethsemane; v. 23 = Calvary & Aramithaean Tomb) D&C 21:9 D&C 27:2 D&C 34:3 D&C 35:2 D&C 46:13 D&C 53:2 D&C 54:1 D&C 76:40-41 D&C 76:69 D&C 138:35 Moses 5:5-7 Moses 7:55 You'll notice 12 of those references are from the Doctrine & Covenants. I don't know how much more plain the standard works can be, personally, but I don't expect you to have been exposed to all of these scriptures before. In the Church materials we are usually referred to just Mosiah 3:7 and D&C 19:18 which refer to Gethsemane which the scriptures teach was not the site of the atoning sacrifice for sin. It was where the Spirit and the Father withdrew from Christ so he could complete the atonement alone unaided as he says he did in D&C 76:107, 88:106 and 133:50. Was Christ alone in Gethsemane? Of course not. See Luke 22:43. Doesn't it seem odd to you that if Gethsemane was where the sacrifice for sin was offered, that there would only be one New Testament reference, one Book of Mormon reference and one D&C reference to it? Besides which, neither Luke 22:44 nor Mosiah 3:7 nor D&C 19:18 identifies the anguish in Gethsemane as the sacrifice for sin, while there are over 27 scriptures that I've found that identify the crucifixion as the sacrifice for sin. The Lord himself says it multiple times, especially in the D&C. The LDS Standard Works teach explicitly a cross-centric salvation. Read through the scriptures I provided references to. Think about them. Maybe read them again. Pray about them. See what you find on your own and share it with others too.

I agree anna. The Temple President probably had in mind, "The Lord will grant the spiritual, righteous wish of your heart for your faithful temple attendance." Not saying I wouldn't want to shoot an elk (I don't care so much if everyone likes my daughter). I probably wouldn't meditate on those things in the temple, though, and that's just me, and no, that's not a flame either.

I feel the same way, so you must be right! Seriously, I agree.

Both great men. Both don't persuade me that the debt/credit analogy is the most accurate explanation of how the atonement works. It is the most easily comprehended and that is why I think it is so pervasive. I'm not saying ban all references to commercial interactions in relation to the atonement, I'm saying if accuracy is the goal another approach is to be preferred. What in those verses teaches us that an innocent consenting to unjust punishment transforms an unjust act into a just one? Seriously, I can't get that at all from those verses, I really am asking. You keep going back to the commercial analogy, but as the scriptures say, when we sin we don't incur a debt, we dirty our spirit. In dealing with the sins of the world, Jesus wasn't paying a bank or anything close to it, he was pleading for the case to be thrown out of court and the charges dropped. The criminal/legal analogy is far closer to what the scriptures describe as the effect of sin. So basically I am saying that I don't care what the scriptures say about the propriety or acceptability of one person paying off another person's debt because that has nothing at all to do with the actual effect of sinning and how Christ deals with it. The only thing the debt idea has in common with redemption is the concept of a third party intervening to help someone who can't help themselves, and the idea of a defense lawyer far better approaches Christ's role than does that of a bank making loans. Which is why I avoid talking about the atonement in commercial terms because they are so woefully inadequate to sketch the general shape of the subject at hand. First, I don't think something just because lots of other people do, be they apostles or whatever else. I believe something if I feel the Spirit confirm it. Am I perfectly in tune all the time? Certainly not, but I try to be. Second, let's get to the word "redeem" because it seems that is the sole issue you're stuck on. Just because the word "redeem" comes from Latin roots that mean "to buy back" doesn't mean that every time the word "redeem" appears in the scriptures it is in a commercial context. Sometimes its the closest thing a translator can come up with to match albeit imperfectly the intent of the original text. Take the word "redeem" as it appears in the KJV Old Testament. The Hebrew word ga'al is the word that is translated as "redeem" yet the Hebrew word connotes a kinsman taking vengeance on behalf of their family, of a brother begetting a child with his dead brother's wife, etc. "Redeem" is an English substitute for richly varied Hebrew and Greek words. The New Testament Greek is more uniform with its focus on the marketplace, money, payment, etc. "Redeem" can mean to release from servitude, and Paul speaks of Christ releasing us from having to serve the Law of Moses (which no one can) through his death and introduction of Melchizedek priesthood which supercedes Levitical trappings and rules (see Hebrews, most of it actually). The Hebrew word that Tyndale translated as "atone" or "atonement" is kaphar which means to cover or blot out. Read Isaiah 44:22 which ties the concepts of blotting out or covering our sins with being "redeemed" (remember the Hebrew word ga'al which means much more than paying money to someone, it points to kinship and familial ties, rather apropos since Jesus is our brother, no?). So if you can read about being "redeemed" and not instantly think of money and debt, I think that is closer to the heart of the matter. We both know the word "redeem" can mean many things. When someone makes a sacrifice in order to correct a selfish act in the past, we say they are "redeeming" themselves. Do we mean he is "buying himself back from a creditor"? Of course not, in this context "redeem" means to go from a guilty, cursed status of some kind to a forgiven, more blessed status. Money/debt/credit/owing/paying are far from the only things the word "redeem" can be used to refer to, as we saw with Isaiah 44:22 for one example. Maybe I should have asked this first. What do you mean when you say "Justice"? What is justice to you in a general sense, and in the gospel sense (if they are different)? Quite the opposite, friend. If you turn to 3 Ne. 12:26 which is an expanded version of Matthew 5:26, we find the Lord teach definitively that we cannot "pay our way out of jail." See here: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison can ye pay even one senine? Verily, verily, I say unto you, Nay. (3 Ne. 12:26, emphasis mine) That's quite different from claiming Jesus taught we can theoretically pay our way out of jail. We can suffer the penalty for our sins, but we cannot blot them out or change our natures. So any prophet who uses the word "redeem" automatically intends a commercial context as you contend? Interesting. Nephi says he was redeemed from hell. If it really is a commercial matter, who did Jesus make a payment to in hell to release Nephi? Agreed. Hmmm. I guess we'll disagree on that. The analogy you reference is not about a 3rd party paying someone else's debt off. It's about a creditor forgiving the debtors without anyone making any payment at all. That is in fact how I think the scriptures portray atonement and redemption, but that is another thread entirely. Briefly, the scriptures teach me that Jesus isn't asking the Father to transfer the literal punishment for our sins to his shoulders so we can be forgiven; the scriptures teach me that Jesus is asking the Father to "drop the charges" against us for Christ's sake and due to what Christ underwent at the hands of wicked men (D&C 45:3-5). You could, but that'd be silly. Dirty robes and dirty spirits have much more in common than a creditor paying someone else's debt and our sins being blotted out.

All this speculation amuses me immensely. Thanks.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I certainly don't think everything important to know about the Old Testament prophets is included in the Old Testament. I think alot of interesting records simply no longer exist but in the end it will be fun to find out all the details.

Cue the Twilight Zone theme music.

How would one even begin to go about verifying that?

What do you mean by "a prophet's word?" Sometimes Jehovah changed his mind. Remember in Isaiah 38 when Isaiah tells the ill King Hezekiah, "The Lord says you're about to die, get your house in order while there is time." But then Hezekiah prays and asks Jehovah for mercy. And the Lord sends Isaiah back with a complete reversal of his former prophecy, "Yeah, the Lord actually says that now you will live for 15 more years and to prove it, he will make the shadow on your sundial go back ten degrees." Interesting how the Lord can reverse himself and his prophets' prophecies, yes? There is a distinct difference between being a false prophet and being a fallible prophet. A false prophet implies that someone is lying about their prophetic authority and intentionally saying false things to lead God's people astray. A fallible prophet implies an imperfect man chosen to be God's mouthpiece, a man who is still entitled to his own opinions (right or wrong) on a variety of things, but who does not lead the Church away from salvation when his opinions are wrong. Brigham Young said some confusing things about Adam-God. BUT...President Young never taught the Church to pray to Adam, or that you were going to be excommunicated if you disagreed with him. That is the difference between being fallible and false: the one is imperfect and makes mistakes, the other lies and intends to deceive.

Imagery of hell is not what I was talking about. I was actually discussing how the whole concept of debtors/creditors isn't the most accurate way to discuss the atonement since debt/credit revolves around the concept of money, and salvation revolves around the concept of spiritual purity/cleanliness. Whether you are in debt or not has nothing to do with whether you are spiritually clean or not. A debt implies you "owe" something to someone. When we sin, we don't "owe" God anything because we didn't "borrow" anything from Him. When we sin we become unclean, not bankrupt. That is what I was talking about. I'm not sure that is what those scriptures were talking about. How do you get that?