Jesus on the Cross

[Justice]

I understand that this is a new idea to a lot of people. It's just one more way to show how needed modern scripture and prophets and apostles are.

This person should be cautious in taking someone else's word to be doctrine. I think if anyone really wanted to know the truth of the matter they should study it and pray for the truth to be revealed to them. I would never ask anyone to take my word for it.

The problem is that many people really don't want to know the truth, they just want to be right.

[beefche]

I bet if PC told you that President Monson's words were of no worth, that his opinion in that would hold no weight with you at all.

But, Vort, in a discussion of sharing beliefs, to tell someone that their opinion holds no weight is like saying, "no matter what you say, I'm not listening to you because you aren't convincing me of anything." I didn't see where sola was trying to convince us of anything. He does not understand why LDS believe the atonement took place over various occasions rather than the one occasion that he believes.

Respective conversations begins with respect. Making a statement such as yours is disrespectful in my opinion. PC can tell me Pres Monson's words are worthless, but I'm not going to then tell him to take a hike (you might, but I won't). His opinion is his and if he shares it in a respectful manner, then I will be respectful.

[Vort]

But, Vort, in a discussion of sharing beliefs, to tell someone that their opinion holds no weight is like saying, "no matter what you say, I'm not listening to you because you aren't convincing me of anything." I didn't see where sola was trying to convince us of anything. He does not understand why LDS believe the atonement took place over various occasions rather than the one occasion that he believes.

Respective conversations begins with respect. Making a statement such as yours is disrespectful in my opinion. PC can tell me Pres Monson's words are worthless, but I'm not going to then tell him to take a hike (you might, but I won't). His opinion is his and if he shares it in a respectful manner, then I will be respectful.

Then if I think your statement here is "disrespectful", does that mean you should not make it?

This is not the "General Discussion" forum. This is the "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum. For someone to come into the specifically named "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum and openly proclaim, "I don't believe all that LDS doctrinal hooey!" seems absurd, on at least two counts:

• Obviously, you don't believe it. If you did, you would be LDS. So what does your proclamation of disbelief add to the discussion?
• What sense does it make to come to an "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum and announce that you will summarily ignore LDS doctrine? It would be like going onto a discussion forum named "Pro-Life Values Discussions" and announce, "I'm a practicing abortionist." What's the point?

Finally, if you think sola's coming onto this particular forum and announcing his disbelief of LDS doctrine is perfectly acceptable, why would you take issue with me for simply stating my own opinion? Since you seem concerned with "fairness", please explain how that is "fair".

[beefche]

Perhaps I am being disrespectful, Vort (and if you really do feel that way, then I would encourage you to report my post that is disrepectful--moderators are not immune to being reported). But your statement seemed very disrespectful to all non-LDS people on this forum. If we are going to limit the LDS Discussion forum to only LDS offering opinions, then we might as well kick off any non-LDS from the board.

I do understand what you are saying. I think I took issue with you pointing it out specifically and being so blunt with your opinion. Honestly, I don't know how you could say that without sounding arrogant.

I do not have any problems with non-LDS people offering an opinion or asking questions, even on the LDS Discussion forum. And, as you stated, the fact that they are not LDS means they do not share our beliefs and thus their opinion is based on non-LDS doctrine.

[Justice]

I'm looking forward to the time when PC or lattelady, or any of our other good non-LDS friends can add their input to the discussion. Let's not turn it into a debate about something else, and possibly get it locked. Please feel free to send each other PMs.

[Vort]

Perhaps I am being disrespectful, Vort (and if you really do feel that way, then I would encourage you to report my post that is disrepectful--moderators are not immune to being reported).

I think your post to me was exactly as disrespectful as was my post to sola -- which is to say, not disrespectful. (But please do tell me if you reported me.) I was offering my opinion, just as sola was offering his.

But you have avoided answering any of my questions, which I will reproduce here for your convenience:

• What does it add to a discussion for a non-Latter-day Saint to say "I don't believe LDS doctrine"? (The obvious response to which is, "Well duh.")
• What sense does it make for someone contributing to a discussion about LDS doctrine to deny it and then say, "I don't believe LDS doctrine"? (See previous obvious response.)
• If you think sola's coming onto this particular forum and announcing his disbelief of LDS doctrine is perfectly acceptable, how is it "fair" for you take issue with me for simply stating my own opinion?

But your statement seemed very disrespectful to all non-LDS people on this forum.

That it seemed that way to you hardly establishes your opinion as fact.

If we are going to limit the LDS Discussion forum to only LDS offering opinions, then we might as well kick off any non-LDS from the board.

Red herring. I neither said nor suggested any such thing.

I do understand what you are saying.

Based on what you have said above, I seriously doubt it.

I think I took issue with you pointing it out specifically and being so blunt with your opinion.

Heaven forbid I offer an honest opinion on a discussion board.

Honestly, I don't know how you could say that without sounding arrogant.

Yet somehow I manage to pull it off!

EDIT: You know, I have to modify my first statement. Your post to me was not "exactly as disrespectful" as was mine to sola. Yours was much more disrespectful because it was much more personal. I wrote nothing about sola personally; I merely noted that his disdain for LDS doctrine rendered his opinions of little gravity in this forum. In contrast, you called me out by name, claiming I had acted badly. So in retrospect, I would say that you did indeed treat me much more disrespectfully than I treated sola.

But I'm not worried about it. I'm just waiting to read your answers to my questions that you ignored before.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Vort

[Misshalfway]

Then your opinion holds no weight here.

The only problem I have with this statement is that it seems to be speaking for all of us or describing an attitude of all the LDS people who post here which isn't exactly accurate. Had you said, "Your opinion holds no weight with me", then I wouldn't say anything.

[Vort]

The only problem I have with this statement is that it seems to be speaking for all of us or describing an attitude of all the LDS people who post here which isn't exactly accurate. Had you said, "Your opinion holds no weight with me", then I wouldn't say anything.

You are correct, of course. My assumption was that, when a non-Latter-day Saint discussant enters a forum specifically dedicated to "LDS GOSPEL DISCUSSION" and proclaims that he doesn't believe LDS doctrine, all intelligent participants would recognize the discussant as one who states obvious facts as if they were profound insight, and would therefore assign no relevance to his statements.

But I could certainly be wrong. Maybe there are indeed folks on this very forum who, upon hearing someone say "If you don't breathe every few seconds, you will turn blue", would respond, "Wow, that's fascinating. Why do you think that? Can you tell us more?"

And perhaps those on a forum dedicated to discussing pro-life topics who read a new participant's statement "I'm an abortionist, and you are all wrong!" would likewise say, "Hey, that's really amazing. Thanks so much for the insight."

But I doubt it.

[SolaFide]

I appreciate your answer but you didn't explain why Christ bled from every pore.

Sorry. I assumed it was self-evident. Jesus shed blood due to the extreme anxiety He was under. But He was not bearing sins here. Nothing in Scripture states that He was, which is what I am contending.

Edited December 3, 2009 by SolaFide

[SolaFide]

Then your opinion holds no weight here.

Then you simply dismiss those who do not agree with you? You have the right, but with all do respect, silence is admission of error.

[SolaFide]

I didn't say it was worthless. I said it held no weight. And it doesn't. This is an LDS site, so obviously LDS beliefs predominate. Saying "I don't believe in the gift of prophecy" (despite clear teachings of that gift in the Bible) makes your opinion of no consequence.

You misunderstood my point. I am not dismissing the gift of Prophecy that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians. I am contending that it is different from prophecy in the Old Testament sense that existed up to John the Baptist.

[Vort]

You misunderstood my point. I am not dismissing the gift of Prophecy that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians. I am contending that it is different from prophecy in the Old Testament sense that existed up to John the Baptist.

Prove it from the Bible. So far you have been doing a lot of brickbat-throwing and haven't backed up any of your peculiar doctrine from scripture.

[Justice]

So, He didn't bleed from every pore while on the cross, but He did while in Gethsemane.

Doesn't that say something about the suffering He endured while in Gethsemane?

When reading the scriptures, I notice that people often look past the events being described and wait to see it in black and white. It's kind of like seeing a plane crash but not believing it until you read it in the paper the next day. Just because it doesn't say He suffered the weight of the world while in Gethsemane doesn't mean He didn't... when it certainly describes this type of suffering.

I don't know how much more plain the writers of the Gospels could have been about Christ's suffering in the Garden. Clearly, it was not in anticipation of anything... it was real, immediate, and of such intensity He bled from every pore. Or, more than man can suffer and live. Bleeding from every pore describes a pain much greater than any physical suffering.

It's up to you, though. You can continue believing what you have always believed, or you can read those passages and desire to know if there is more.

But, keep in mind that we believe there are other scriptures, or other words of the Savior to be read. We have more revelation than the Bible. This other revelation helps us understand passages in the Bible that may be vague, misinterpreted, or removed entirely.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Justice

[john doe]

Let's get back on topic or I'll shut this down and invite Justice to repost his thread.

[sleepless3977]

if i may add a small comment here.....

the whole purpose of my post in this thread was to really enquire as to whether Sola believed in modern day revelation or whether he believes this has ceased. As he has stated he does not believe that revelation is given to man any more through a living prophet, which is his belief and I'm fine with that.

This being the case, then there is no way to show that the suffering Christ did in the garden of Gethsemane holds any wait into him taking the sins of the world upon himself there as he is correct that the bible does not discuss this, but it does not specifically say that when Christ was on the cross that he bore all the sins of the world there either.

we as latter-day saints allow men to worship how where and what they may, but i agree with what vort has said to this point regarding the topic.

[Misshalfway]

In the spirit of getting back on topic....This is one of those subjects that partly goes to the heart and soul, at least to mine, and also (with all due respect) interesting and somewhat disturbing that other faiths don't recognize it.

To try and comprehend what it must have meant for the Savior to voluntarily experience the extremeties of suffering even more than man can suffer before he even made it to the cross is, for me as follower of Christ, awe inspiring and sobering. Had the Atonement stopped there, I would feel a tremendous debt and love for this measure of the offering. Yet, it isn't the end but the beginning of something that caused even God such incredible pains of every kind. I really don't even have the words to adequately explain how important this event is to my understanding and my belief system.

[lattelady]

Sleepless3977,

you mentioned in your last post that it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus bore our sins on the cross. I started a thread on this same subject that was later locked; if you read through some of my posts on that thread, I listed verses from the Bible about Christ being crucified for our sins.

[Flyonthewall]

This is the second time I have heard a non-LDS state or imply that Jesus had an anxiety attack in the garden. I am not sure I follow this line of thinking. The Son of God has an anxiety attack, even after being ministered to by an angel?

Please remember that garden was a private event. All those that were with Him did not witness it as they were sleeping. Yet somehow, and for some reason this event made it into the scriptures. Jesus had to tell His apostles about it, and what purpose did it serve to include that the Lord had an axiety attack?

It was the weight of the sins of the world that caused the Son of God, the greatest of all, to tremble with pain and hope for another way, not fear.

The garden is where it began, the cross is where it ended.

[Misshalfway]

Sorry. I assumed it was self-evident. Jesus shed blood due to the extreme anxiety He was under. But He was not bearing sins here. Nothing in Scripture states that He was, which is what I am contending.

Is there anything in scripture that says he wasn't?

[bytor2112]

Sola, if you re-read what Justice wrote, you will see that LDS believe the atonement took place in the Garden and on the cross. He began to suffer for the sins of the world while in the Garden, continued that suffering while on the cross and finished His atonement when He was resurrected.

Sola claims to be LDS......perhaps he should change his profile to reflect reality.

[bytor2112]

The scriptures state that he was in an agony....meaning pain. I am sure that the author of Luke could have said that he was filled with anxiety.

[john doe]

Yeah, I'm not so sure that Jesus had a panic attack so bad that he sweat drops of blood. Sounds like grasping at straws in an effort to not agree with LDS to me.

[Guest]

Where's PC? I was hoping he'd chime in...

[pam]

It has been decided by the head moderators to close this thread. Since it is just rehashing the same things over again that were in the last thread about the Garden of Gethsemane, we feel those that have wanted to have had the opportunity to respond.