rusure

So you believe the best word to sum up what the atonement is is "a covering"? I'd have to see all your references for that, but if we're going to play word association w/o the references, I'm still a little game.How about the fact that we aren't perfect and that Christ completes us, is our mediator, and therefore "covers us" where we fall short -- which we do -- and is able to do that because of what he went through in the Garden, suffering for each and every sin and infirmity all of mankind would suffer. I think a stronger case can be made that the spiritual covering holds the deeper symbolic meaning.

That goes to our physical frame (as resurrection does). Our spiritual being doesn't need a body in the first place to exist -- it was in existence before our physical bodies were. To be exalted beings, we need both, but the atonement wasn't for our physical frame (well, OK, secondarily it was since our physical being suffers with spiritual sin), it was for our spirit. And, don't forget that the atonement is also for us here and now. It is a key part of the plan of salvation that starts with our experience in mortality (and what Satan doesn't want us to understand b/c he has a different plan for us).

Is this purely a hypothetical edge case scenario? Because this isn't at all how I view President Hinckley. Honestly, if I felt this unsure about our prophet and the discerning spirit they should have, I wouldn't be able to sustain them in anything they do, I would need to doubt and spend the entirety of my days and nights getting a confirmation on each piece of teaching that came from them. In that case, I wouldn't raise my hand to say I sustain them or answer to that effect to hold a temple recommend. Actually, I disagree about being bound for apostasy. Apostasy is not a final culminating event, it's a series of steps and it does start with believing that one's own decisions are supreme over matters of doctrine as revealed and taught by the prophet. We can't see it in our life, but can pick it apart with the children of Israel. 1000 years from now, someone could pick it apart in our words/actions even if we can't see it.As to different meanings of terminology, I disagree that that's the issue. From what Crimson has shared, for example, the Savior didn't feel or suffer our sins in the Garden, that was his suffering for himself. That's not a difference in terminology. That's a fundamental difference in understanding what the Savior experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane and what impact that has for each of us individually. If it was all about the Savior there, that really changes the understanding of how the Savior really knows each one of us indivdually, understands our needs, etc. The fallback there is to the God is one big big big God that knows everything just because.

I asked before and you may have answered and I missed it, but what do you think the options were in Mosaic times to have a symbolic showing of Christ feeling our sins and understanding our needs?

I think sometimes man puts himself before the Holy Ghost and God. There are countless "intellectuals" who have felt they know better and have driven themselves right into apostasy. They will swear they are right. On some issues, where every latter-day prophet from Joseph Smith right down to Gordon Hinckley say "A" and you are inclined to say "B", do you think that's an issue of relying on the arm of flesh? Who's arm? While I can understand the danger that might arise by people going off on their own- The authorities are imperfect. The have all sinned. Scriptures make this fact very clear. They come with all their mortal flaws and issues of humanity. They have been placed into positions of leadership by God. If there is a discrepancy between what they say and what a person thinks shouldn't they trust in the spirit? Scriptures plead with us to ask God. Pray continually. Seek after His wisdom. If we are trusting God and following the direction of the Holy Ghost then the truth will be revealed line upon line in the proper dosage thats individually required. Man can put himself before God too. They can go against God and the prophets. But then they are following neither the Holy Spirit or prophets in that case and they will be left to their own devises. They will be judged accordingly. Regardless of whether people let pride step in or does not alter the fact that the Holy Spirit is given the authority over the prophets. The prophets are there merely to point the way to God and His will not to stand in the place. No argument there, of course. But, the question is -- whose arm of flesh is one relying on? No answer needed, just what to keep in mind. And, also to keep in mind that if one thinks that on an important matter of doctrine the Holy Ghost has testified something vastly different to them than to prophets that spend all day every day in the service of their Lord, in the depths of the temple apart from the world where the spirit is so strong, etc., then it becomes a case that the person must therefore believe the prophet has led them astray and that's no doubt why there are so many Book of Mormon believing churches that are not headquartered in Salt Lake.

I think sometimes man puts himself before the Holy Ghost and God. There are countless "intellectuals" who have felt they know better and have driven themselves right into apostasy. They will swear they are right. On some issues, where every latter-day prophet from Joseph Smith right down to Gordon Hinckley say "A" and you are inclined to say "B", do you think that's an issue of relying on the arm of flesh? Who's arm?

I wouldn't say that's it. The reason I wouldn't is that as hard as the atonement is to understand in the first place, unless/until one realizes what Christ did in the Garden -- this is in addition to what happened leading up to that and what happened with his crucifixion, I would venture a guess it is impossible to learn all that we "need to" regarding the atonement -- like having more of a veil over one's eyes than they would otherwise. The gospel of Jesus Christ is light and knowledge and the more we seek to understand him, following his commandments, follow the spirit, follow the prophet, etc., the more light and knowledge is made available to us. Not saying that being taught what happened in the Garden WILL bring all things to one that it could -- there's still our own free will and desires that play into that -- but if one is never taught something or makes themselves available to be taught, it is unlikely that exquisite jewels of knowledge will be thundered down upon them. Well said. Well, we'll have to stop here and disagree because you are deciding to take a literal interpretation of "bruising", for example, that they must have been from being beaten (or from being nailed to the cross) and specifically excluding Christ's sacrifice for us in the Garden. Assuming that bleeding from pores does not cause bruising as you must be assuming (I don't know if it does or not -- don't know how the blood resolved itself), "bruising" isn't used literally elsewise.For example: Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. This does not mean that heads are literally being beaten and bruised. Christ's entire life was dedicated to his ultimate gifts to us so not to diminish all that he did, but he literally took on our iniquities in the Garden and it was that that caused him to bleed from every pore. There's a level of sacrifice Christ made for us there that it appears some are unwilling to acknowledge or accept.

If you say so. Well, yes it was. In fact, all your comments are aimed at all 13M LDS members but more specifically to the LDS in this thread like the OP. In reality, the OP had a right to have her concerns heard for what they were and not be lectured. Wonder if we'll ever see her share a concern here again lest she be berated for not understanding non LDS doctrine. Do you see that it would be infinitely worse for Jesus to be in outer darkness than for us to be? Jesus is perfect. Imagine going from having perfect light to being thrust into perfect darkness, separate from the Father and the Spirit.<snip> OK, so bottom line .... Christ's physical and spiritual torture in the Garden -- to you -- had nothing to do with feeling and understanding what each one of us would go through as we sinned and suffered? Yes, he did. In the Garden. Well, I wasn't raised to believe that. You actually ended up where I was before. I started my own study of the restored gospel in my mid 30's -- having had your current model in my life the years prior. :) So I do NOT get where you're coming from as I consider it to be rich knowledge that you are dismissing. And, preaching to others your own interpretation is very much on the spectrum of apostasy -- just being direct about that. :) We all do little bits of apostasy in our own way, rebel, refuse, grumble, etc. and usually don't just take ourselves with us (which is unfortunate, but human nature, happens all the time), but it's a whole other thing to be an on internet forum not only preaching these ideas, but berating LDS members for not going along with your interpretation which directly contradicts LDS scriptures incl. conference talks. You say you love the general authorities, but you don't love what the prophet just this year said again in General Conference because if he were to say it here, he'd get the same kind of responses from you that ppl here did. This is most definitely not sustaining the prophet in a very public, albeit anonymous, way.

Oh, you’re not the only one. There many (non LDS) Christians that believe exactly as you do! I do find it funny you would say this since it was your rudeness toward other posters that “inspired” me to speak up. And, even though you didn’t allow others their dignity, I didn’t really take my gloves off until the very last post, but now you want to cry victim. Come on, that’s no fun! You're not the only one that took this thread sideways, I'm not sure if you were the first or what, but does anyone remember what the OP posted about?! LOL! It's a little ridiculous that she's been basically flogged with all this atonement talk. Talk about judgmental because she objected to something done with children. As the child's mother, I would expect her heart is more tender to things about children than a typical man would be (sexist, I know -- you can make a note I not only post rudely, but have sexist views -- hehe). Are you drawing the distinction that the Savior did NOT feel every sin and infirmity of mankind's in the Garden? Is that your big beef with LDS beliefs? Your interpretation of the scriptures is that it was only Christ feeling what it would feel like for himself to be in outer darkness that caused the bleeding from the pore? If this is the case, do you feel that the Savior really knows what your burdens are and can lift them? How does he know what they are? Because he is omniscient? Is that the explanation and is sufficient?

Sorry, I wasn't doing it to please or displease you. Being an intellectual defender isn't really necessary to discern or identify spiritual things. How could it be ironic when CK is met head on? He doesn't seem to have a thin skin or shrink when he's addressed right back. If he did, I imagine he wouldn't post as he does. As for a considerable dose of judgment .. yeah, those darn ppl that don't agree with CK! How dare they! Hehe! You do realize you're giving out a "considerable dose of judgment" here, eh? I can't speak for others, but I believe LDS have it right and this doesn't strike a nerve about my beliefs, but it does strike a nerve, if you want to call it that, how much others refuse to acknowledge about the Savior. Ultimately, it makes no difference in MY life what someone else does. I'd rather run on all pistons, but others can do whatever works for them. Meanwhile, we can challenge each other as time and inclination permits.

Uh, yes he did.But, you're actually convinced he's an active LDS member that actually avails himself to the teachings of the prophets so you and I differ there, too.

Crimson, I can't begin to get past the chip on your shoulder. I'll just say that you are not very familiar with the scriptures, you are only familiar with canned responses to try to knock down LDS views. I'm not interested in going to battle with you on that. If you want the chip there, you're welcome to it. Read Isaiah 53. You don't need to report back to me. I already know what it says. I'm ready to be accountable for it. I would say that you are not. You do realize that you come across as having a real issue with ego and humility, don't you? CrimsonKairos is spot on and all the latter-day prophets have been wrong. Um, OK. Bleeding from his pores isn't a solo LDS theology. What is your explanation for what it was that brought about bleeding from his pores?

The was his sacrifice, but that was not how he carried out the atonement for each sin and infirmity all mankind would suffer. Do you not believe Christ did that? Well, I asked you one question and you answered another.I asked what you were taught as a Protestant. I didn't ask you what the scriptures say. I already know what they say. I have the same ones. So what were you taught about what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? What is your understanding of it? Are you setting up a test that it must needs be that Christ's suffering for our sins, bleeding from every pore, etc. needed to have a foreshadow or it didn't happen or carried no significance? What event could have come close in any way to foreshadowing such an event? A blood sacrifice is "easy" enough to foreshadow. I'm wondering what you could imagine that could possibly foreshadow the spiritual and physical suffering?Isaiah 53 prophesies how the Savior would suffer the pains of all men, bearing our griefs, carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, voluntarily submitting himself to the iniquity of us all -- http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/53. Also in there it says, "when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin". So what was offered for our sin? Something physical? Or something spiritual? It was also prophesied by King Benjamin. I realize you probably won't accept scripture unless it's specifically from the OT or NT, but here you go: Mosiah 3:7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

I think you meant to say the blood sacrifice is shown in glimpses throughout the OT.Are you saying that blood sacrifice was all that was needed to give us forgiveness for our sins?

I'm not seeing any confusion about the atonement and repentance in this string. As far as I can tell, the center of the discussion is Gethsemane vs. Golgotha. Somehow there is a signficance to Gethsamene (or perhaps some of what most Catholics and Protestants assign to Golgotha is seen as happening at the Garden, instead?). I'm still trying to get at WHAT the different views are, and what the signficance is. As far as I can tell, we are discussing whether the atonement: 1. was prepared for at the Garden 2. was initiated in the Garden 3. or, was actually accomplished in the Garden. I disagree that there isn't confusion. I would say the majority of Christianity outside the LDS Church doesn't have any idea what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane and I can say personally as a former Catholic that there simply wasn't teachings about what happened in the garden and the cross was all that was focused on when it comes to the atonement. Just the ending. To answer your question, Christ sorrowed and suffered for our sins in the garden. That process was Christ atoning for the sins of mankind. The atonement had to be completed with his life being given, but the process in the garden was Christ atoning for our sins.

prisonchaplain, you can work your question in reverse -- What do I (prisonchaplain) understand about the atonement, Christ's sacrifice for me, how the Savior knows me personally, what sin does to me individually, etc. with regard to what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? If you have answers to these questions, then therein lies why it's important to understand what happened there and the role that it played in the overall plan of salvation (of which the atonement and repentance is a key part).

I haven't said that. I don't believe you can separate physical suffering caused by spiritual suffering. Spiritual suffering causes physical suffering, as well, and Christ suffered *all* of that for us in the garden. He felt all of our sins and afflictions. How could one think that there was no burden taken by the Savior for us physically at that time? That couldn't begin to make sense.

confusedgirl, the reality is that sexual indiscretion and sin plagues much of humanity. I assume you have a few months until this friend comes home? Because it sounds like you need to work on repentance some more. Are you familiar with the steps of repentance? If not, I'd be happy to share what I know so that you can make sure you give yourself a chance to have a full repentance and to allow Christ to heal you. Satan is happy when we chain ourselves to our past mistakes and makes us think we are undeserving or "less than" after we misstep so that he can take hold in our lives and keep us from doing the next right things so it is important that you build the armor up around you by following gospel truths and principles, etc. I have mixed feelings on whether you should tell your boyfriend, that is between you and the Lord, but if you do tell him, do not burden him with this while he's gone or even right after his return. If you find the relationship resumes and is headed toward marriage, then that would be the appropriate time and let the spirit guide you on what to tell him so that he can discern what is right for him to do, too. This is something that LDS members get a lot of help with because we can go to our bishop for the more serious sins where Satan can get a foothold and they can give you blessings, specific scriptures they feel inspired to have you read, etc. and keep in touch with you to help you stay on track. The repentance work has to be done by you ultimately, but just know the Savior already knows what you went through and why, he just needs you to come to him to heal you.

Welcome, Dangirl, and congratulations on your upcoming baptism. Joining the church 6.5 years ago changed my life. I didn't have full knowledge on what an impact it would have even at the time. The knowledge you gain as a member is so sweet and such a gift, it's hard to describe. I hope you and your son feel like you're home. :)

I'm not sure I understand this. The scourging was probably the most physically painful. It was on the cross that Jesus sensed the separation from his Father, "Why have you forsaken me?" The sweating of blood at Gethsamene does demonstrate that Jesus was under incredible stress and duress. He was engaged in spiritual warfare--mainly with his own will (Father...let this cup pass from me...nevertheless, not my will but thine be done). Yet, I still cannot fathom how this mental battle supersedes the physical and spiritual happenings at Golgotha. Perhaps you can explain? I think that humans can probably more easily understand physical pain vs. spiritual pain and that's why humans tend to identify only with the physical suffering Christ endured (which was horrific that is true). I think it is a more advanced concept, if you will, to understand spiritual suffering. Christ took on the cumulative sins and afflictions of all mankind in the Garden. We cannot imagine that. We can't imagine even what it would have been for him to take on just ours alone. He fell on his face, the suffering was so great, and said, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." With the cross, the physical pain resulted in death which was an end to the torture, but in the Garden, there was no end and could not be until he had endured for us both spiritually and physically. Please don't think I'm saying the cross was a piece of cake. This discussion certainly isn't to convince you that his dying on the cross didn't hold any significance or was a simple feat. It is to point out what too many miss about what happened in the garden and what it did for us and that Jesus Christ did that for usand what he went through. Hehehe! Oh, if only you were a prophet, huh? Unless you are asserting the prophet, current and past, are false prophets, then it is you that is not using the scriptures and who are denying the prophets' clear and specific teachings which as you are probably missing is what scriptures are.So let's go back ... What are scriptures? Writings recorded by prophets? What do the scriptures of this day look like? Conference talks also published in writing, Ensign articles, etc. Why do you find it easier to believe in dead prophets only? When you're ready for it, you'll understand it, too.

Depends on whose baptism you want. If it's Christ's, then the requirements would be those he set out. Does he proscribe the method, manner, authority, etc.? I believe he does. Same as above.But, there is a difference between the power and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The gift of the Holy Ghost as a full-time companion is via certain steps, but all mankind has the opportunity to be influenced by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is how we can come to know the truth of God as one of the Holy Ghost's main purposes is to testify of God to man to know the truth of Him. Efficacious? Depends on what the desired result is. There is a lot of good that comes from doing good things with good intentions. Does it give someone an ordinance by default? Can a law by fulfilled by accident? No, I don't think so. I do not believe a Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, etc. baptism has the capability of producing ALL the desired results a baptism by "proper priesthood authority" does.

We are counseled to do daily scripture reading with our children so I would imagine most members at some time or another read the scriptures with their children (take turns reading) whether it's daily or less frequently so the kids get it straight, so to speak. We used Old Testament, etc. stories when they were younger, but my youngest are 8 now so have been able to read the scriptures directly quite well for a while. We also watch videos we've bought from church distribution and the crucifixion is depicted on them (though, again, not in all the same manner as Mel Gibson's movie did). You have to keep in mind that LDS also study the suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane where the Savior actually did the atoning for our sins. I've never seen a video that showed bleeding from the pores, though. OK, thanks for the clarification. I think it's hard enough to discuss amongst one's own faith as it is and get differing opinions. I just wondered about this b/c I might tend to share certain things or ask for opinions differently knowing the context the discussion would be in. April 2007 conference, the prophet spoke of the atonement in one of his talks also in a somewhat chronological fashion:He was the great Creator. It was His finger that wrote the commandments on the Mount. It was He who left His royal courts on high and came to earth, born under the most humble of circumstances. During His brief ministry, He healed the sick, caused the blind to see, raised the dead, and rebuked the scribes and Pharisees. He was the only perfect man ever to walk the earth. All of this was part of His Father’s plan. In the Garden of Gethsemane, He suffered so greatly that he sweat drops of blood as He pleaded with His Father. But this was all a part of His great atoning sacrifice. He was taken by the mob, appeared before Pilate with the mob crying for His death. He carried the cross, the instrument of His death. On Golgotha He gave His life, crying out, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1 His physical death completed the sacrifice and made way for the resurrection for us all, but had he ONLY been crucified and had not suffered in Gethsamane, he would not have completed that which was needed to pay the price for our sins and stand as our mediator. Suffering on the cross didn't accomplish that end. Both the Garden and the cross had to happen (the cross to make the sacrifice complete so what happened in the Garden wasn't for naught).

I just joined this board today. I've long been active in online forums, but a few months ago pulled back from activity in all but those that supported the things I need to be doing, if that makes sense. I'm an adult convert after spending over 35 years as a Catholic and was recently sealed in the temple with my husband (a lifelong member) and my 2 youngest children from a prior marriage. Joining the church was like coming home. I have a very strong testimony which is a good thing because things have come at us from left and right since I joined the church. It's a privilege to have been given the opportunity to know about the gospel. I still feel very much like a child in my knowledge which is hard because I can be accomplished in other areas of my life, but oh well, better now than never! LOL! I also like to debate religion and politics so have a thick skin, but am still feeling my way on this site and wondering what areas are debate-ish and which are more for discussion and fellowship (surprised to see debate on a primary question board). I struggle also with Relief Society and the way a lot of Mormon women seem friendly on the outside but are kinda clique-y. I don't care on the one hand -- I'm very busy and have family and friends, but it makes Relief Society a kind of bittersweet experience, too. I think also because I'm Catholic that the loudness before Sacrament Meeting and Relief Society is also a little unnerving. Part of that's my problem and part of that I think is something members should be a little more respectful of (time to be quiet and reflect). So that's the short version :) and I hope I can contribute! ETA: Should have said because I WAS CAtholic that the loudness .... No, that wasn't a Freudian slip. LOL!

Sneaky little buggers, we are! BTW: The two extremes here would sound like this: No to the nail and red ribbon: Scare tactics, sensationalism, not authorized materials or lesson Yes to them: A bloodless gospel is no gospel at all. Jesus' passion is our passion. If we do not see the pain, we will not understand the love. I would not judge either side, but cannot escape the notion that prohibiting lessons that examine Christ's suffering and his bloody, torturous death try too hard to sanitize the Atonement--which, after all, was via an execution. I don't consider it sneaky that the pentecostal church did things differently. If it was sneaky, I wouldn't have known about these things in just a few encounters. :) FWIW, I do not consider saying something isn't authorized being an "extreme" position. You do? I would also hotly contest your idea that unless we make sure our children see the execution in all its gore that LDS don't have a deep understanding of the atonement. I don't want my children to feel pity for Christ simply because he suffered. Anyone would feel pity at that, even to see a terribly guilty man suffer in that same way. That falls far short, IMO, of truly understanding what the atonement is, what the plan for this life was from the foundation of this world, what the atonement did for us, and how Christ understands our sufferings and afflictions and is our mediator. At 8 and 10 years old, there is no way no matter how you want to teach it that these children could possibly understand the atonement fully. Heck, find an adult that does. The point is there's no point in hammering them over the head w/gore trying to force an understanding. Doesn't work that way. The worst suffering was not on the cross, either. I guess my kids wouldn't understand that until they went through the spiritual suffering that Christ did and I made them bleed through every pore -- or at least a few? Or made them watch someone ELSE bleed through at least a few pores? P.S. I'm new here, but I have a question .... Are posts here from active LDS members about something about church or practices typically up for debate by non LDS members?

I've only been a member for 6 years, but spent over 35 years as a Catholic staring at the figure of the Savior on the cross all my life while attending mass. There are many things I really like about the LDS Church and one is that our faith and practices are devoid of the more scare tactic methods to get people to "believe". Our faith and practice is full of light, happiness, hope, etc. and yet in my experience it is Mormons that truly seem to understand the atonement. When I first saw the Testaments film in Salt Lake in 2000 before joining, I could not understand why EVERYONE around me was weeping so much. When I returned to see the film after my own baptism, it was then that I understood. Yet, the films the church uses don't go the lengths of Mel Gibson's Passion film. I appreciate that Mormons seem to "get it" without being beat over the head with the gore.Anyway, I doubt that hand out would have been approved and I think it was a bad choice to give children. I have 2 children just baptized this year and so I'm thinking of how I would feel if they had been given this and, honestly, it would have seemed more like something I would have expected out of the pentecostal type church I checked out once associated with a private high school I considered for my older daughters (and chose not to send them to). So that's my 2 cents from someone NOT indoctrinated in "the cross is bad" sentiment that some think "all" Mormons are.