Why did Jesus talk about Hell more than anyone else?

[marts1]

The word or thought of hell has different meanings in relation to our final state. Hell can be referred to as any place other then living in the presence of our Father in heaven, in which case there would be many going to hell. The church teaches about three different degree's of glory, two of which are not in the presence of the Father. I myself don't refer these other places as being hell. What I usually refer hell to be is the place that has no glory called outer darkness, of which very few will find.

[Blackmarch]

I was just wondering this today. I'd like to hear some more ideas.

Why is it that Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible did?

This is where my mind goes when I think about it.

Have you ever heard of Apocalyptic literature? It is symbols and signs and dragons and 10-headed beasts and such things as that. You know what it's all about? It's when the human mind is confronted with the divine reality that is so great, that there is no way the mind can understand it or human language can communicate it.

Now what does that have to do with Hell? The reason why I believe that Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone else is... in His divinity, His Godhood, He was the only one who could truly grasp the terror of it.

This view might not match others, but I would really be interested in hearing other view points on why Jesus Christ spoke and warned of Hell more than anyone else in the Bible.

Post your ideas.. thx!

(I know this is not everyones favorite topic, but I'd like to figure it out)

I thought revelations talked more about hell than christ did... but if christ did talk more about it, it's not by much.

Needless to say that even with all the references to hell in the bible, it is really really little info on it.

Probably the big reason that hell is brought up at all is because of the wickedness of the people, because nothing else would inspire them to repent, and so it's a bit of a last chance sort of thing... and also a burden of knowledge thing- he's taught them one side of the picture so he teaches a little of the other side, so that can't say they didn't understand.

He also brings up hell a couple times to correct false views about it.

[CrimsonKairos]

Probably the big reason that hell is brought up at all is because of the wickedness of the people, because nothing else would inspire them to repent...

The scriptures agree with you 100% as do I. Consider the following verses as a whole:

1. And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction. And after this manner do I write concerning them. (Enos 1:23) Note the ideas of persistent exposure to truth and harsh reminders of death and judgment.

2. I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things [the scriptures], which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct. (Mosiah 1:5) Note the idea of persistent exposure to scriptures to prevent personal apostasy Lamanite-style.

3. Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. (D&C 19:6-7) Notice the concept that "express" or strong and clear warnings are what best "work upon our hearts" or persuade us to repent.

The Lord knows what sort of beings he is dealing with and acts accordingly. That is one reason hell is mentioned "so much" whatever that means.

[rameumptom]

In 2 Nephi 28, we are warned about the tricks of Satan. Satan tries to convince us that we can lie a little, dig a pit for our neighbor, and that if we are judged by God, he will give us a few stripes and then save us in His heaven.

This was an attitude that the Jews had in Jesus' day, as well. In reality, the Book of Mormon lays it all out for us. In the Spirit World (the place where spirits await the resurrection) is both paradise and the first hell. This first hell is where all will go who have not repented fully of their sins. Christ understood the significant pains of the place, as he suffered such pains for our sins in Gethsemane and on the Cross.

Alma also understood the pains of this hell. Being a major sinner, he was chastised by an angel, and fell into a coma. Many believe Alma had a near death experience, wherein he went to hell. IN Alma 36, he later explains to his son Helaman that his pains were very exquisite. His guilt filled his mind, and pained him to no end for three days. It wasn't until he fully repented and called upon God to fully forgive him that he was released from hell.

In Doctrine and Covenants 19, Jesus warns us to repent or suffer in hell, even as he, God, had suffered. Clearly, Jesus' love for us includes wanting to help us avoid the great pains and pangs he already suffered for us. All it takes is for us to fully turn ourselves over to him, without any exceptions. We cannot hold onto any sins and expect to not suffer in hell.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's be precise. The scriptures talk alot about the demands of justice, but justice isn't a conscious entity with desires. The phrase is of course symbolic. The One demanding that justice be served and the law administered is He who administers it: Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father isn't sitting by helplessly as some skyscraper-sized rolled up scroll marches in and says, "I--Justice--demand that you be cast out of heaven for your sins!"

No, but God obeys the law of justice. Alma makes that clear.

So when we clarify the phrase to be "The demands of Heavenly Father" instead of the impersonal "demands of justice" we come to an interesting point which I will explain below.

I think you'd agree that if God were ever unjust He would cease to be God. Stated differently, God would never be or do anything unjust. Agreed?

Agreed.

Would you agree that it is totally unjust to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free? I would.

Yes, unless the innocent individual consented. Which Jesus did. That's why the Father delegates all judgment to the Son. He has purchased us, and so He is permitted to do with us as He deems fit.

Even in human courts of law, just because you volunteer to go to jail for someone doesn't mean the court or law would ever allow that!

In a criminal context, no. But the theory of "redemption" is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Courts are more than happy to allow someone else to step in and provide the funds for the "redemption" of--say--a debtor's mortgage.

So I think the atonement is a bit more nuanced and complex and just without our reach than the simple Protestant "penal substitution theory" suggests. Of course, this is what the scriptures teach about sin, its penalty and God's divine nature (truth and judgment are two of His attributes).

Certainly there are lots of ins and outs, but the concept of "redemption" is fundamental. And when you redeem something, at common law that meant you paid the entire outstanding debt.

There's also Elder Packer, whose explanation provides the basis for a

[CrimsonKairos]

No, but God obeys the law of justice. Alma makes that clear.

Precisely, thank you. So let's continue with that burning at the front of our minds. :)

Yes, unless the innocent individual consented.

So you think that as long as an innocent person is fine with being punished for something they didn't do, an injustice suddenly becomes a just act?

I didn't ask if it was "acceptable" if the innocent person was fine with it, I asked if it was just. Remember, God is not unjust and would never commit an unjust judgment or act.

What scriptures persuade you that if God was to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free, that it would not be unjust as long as the innocent person consented?

The theory of "redemption" is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Courts are more than happy to allow someone else to step in and provide the funds for the "redemption" of--say--a debtor's mortgage.

So you think sinning against our sovereign, superior and governing God is more like a civil offense between members of a community than a criminal offense against the government whose jurisdiction the criminal is under? (This is purely an aside curiosity of mine, I don't think it has much to do with what the scriptures teach about atonement)

...the concept of "redemption" is fundamental. And when you redeem something, at common law that meant you paid the entire outstanding debt.

See, this is why I dislike the analogy of money and debt to how the atonement works. When we sin, it's not like we're "buying something on credit we later can't pay for". Sin is breaking a commandment of God and becoming unclean. Period.

The first fact that makes all of the plan of salvation necessary is this: No unclean thing can dwell with God.

There is no mention of "No debtors can dwell with God" and so forth. Debt is a mortal phenomenon that various ancient and modern prophets have projected onto the process of atonement and remission of sins in order to explain that we can be forgiven due to the actions of a third party.

We don't "buy" our way out of spirit prison and into heaven.

Jesus doesn't "buy" us a ticket out of spirit prison and into heaven.

There is only one overarching requirement that we need to meet to enter God's presence: Be 100% clean.

Now, since no one other than Jesus can remain completely clean (read: innocent of sin) by their own power, we all need someone who can clean our filthy robes and present us spotless to God on the day we are assigned a kingdom of glory.

The atonement is about blotting out the record that we ever sinned (so we become innocent of sin like Jesus, our sins "go away" or are "remitted") and about changing our hearts so that we become the kind of being who doesn't desire to sin any more and who never will sin anymore.

How does being clean and having a divine nature have anything really to do with money and debt and credit?

I am aware of Elder Packer's parable "The Mediator" and years ago on this board I already discussed how I prefer the scriptural descriptions of the atonement though the point of his parable was sound: That when we find ourselves powerless to free ourselves due to our wickedness, Jesus has the ability to remove our guilt and set us free from spirit prison.

Phrases like, "Jesus paid the price for our sins," and "Christ paid the penalty of our sins" all involve that stubbornly-commercial term "paid" or "pay" which perpetuates the debt/credit analogy which to me deviates from the scriptures and introduces unnecessary concepts to the process of cleaning filthy garments and changing our hearts.

When you stick to the plain, simple, literal facts of eternity as the scriptures explain them (no unclean thing can dwell with God; the result of sin is that we become unclean; the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God; et al) the process of atonement as the scriptures describe it becomes an entirely new set of concepts that to me are more accurate and thus to be preferred to less-accurate explanations.

In the end it comes down to one of two things based on whether we repented and asked for changing grace or not (see Rev. 20:12-15):

1. Our sins are blotted out of the "books" that chronicle our "works", and our name is found in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Or...

2. Our sins remain recorded in the "books" that chronicle our "works", and our name is blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life.

[FunkyTown]

I'm uncertain, Crimson, why you hate the imagery of debt and debtor's prison so much to represent Hell.

After all, in Luke 12:57-59, Jesus spoke of the debt owed by mankind to God and then goes on to describe the destruction that awaits in Luke 13.

I'm just saying... If Jesus used debt and debtor's prison as an analogy to describe Hell, you might do well to accept it might be an apt analogy.

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm uncertain, Crimson, why you hate the imagery of debt and debtor's prison so much to represent Hell.

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.

After all, in Luke 12:57-59, Jesus spoke of the debt owed by mankind to God and then goes on to describe the destruction that awaits in Luke 13.

I'm not sure that is what those scriptures were talking about. How do you get that?

[Carl62]

I was just wondering this today. I'd like to hear some more ideas.

Why is it that Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible did?

What I find even more interesting is that since most of mainstream Christianity teaches that God and Jesus are one in substance and thought and that Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven for us living in the last 2,000 years, then why didn't Jesus (God) speak not one word about hell in the entire Old Testament, which covered a span of 4,000+ years? So did those people who died during that time all the sudden wake up in front of some guy with horns and a pitchfork waiting to throw them in a fiery lake, where they were going to burn forever and ever without ever hearing a word of warning of their impending fate? Is this a fair and just God? Why would you believe that a merciful God would ALLOW such a thing? This seems absolutely beyond comprehension of a loving and just God.

[JohnOF123]

What I find even more interesting is that since most of mainstream Christianity teaches that God and Jesus are one in substance and thought and that Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven for us living in the last 2,000 years, then why didn't Jesus (God) speak not one word about hell in the entire Old Testament, which covered a span of 4,000+ years? So did those people who died during that time all the sudden wake up in front of some guy with horns and a pitchfork waiting to throw them in a fiery lake, where they were going to burn forever and ever without ever hearing a word of warning of their impending fate? Is this a fair and just God? Why would you believe that a merciful God would ALLOW such a thing? This seems absolutely beyond comprehension of a loving and just God.

I can sum it up with these words. And I'm only saying it like all this to try to capture the true reality of sin.

"If God were fair, everyone that has ever lived should die right now.. and go to hell for all of eternity."

You have done sins, so dark, so awful, that you wouldn't even want to tell your very best friend. If I could play a DVD to a crowd of everything you have ever done, every vile thought you have ever had, you would run away and never come back to show your face again. I know this because I too am a man, and the Bible tells us this.

We've sinned against a Holy and perfect God. An infinite God worthy of infinite glory. Even one lie to this God is deserving of an infinite hell. The men in the OT were saved the same way: By faith in a righteousness not of their own, outside of themselves. And eternal destruction was indeed taught in the OT. And for the many people without the Torah, the law was written on their hearts. God has a way for them. Jesus is the one who said it: I am the way, the truth and the life, NOBODY comes to the Father, except though him. Isn't this why we preach the gospel to the world?

The only thing God ever did that was unfair, was to provide a way for sinners to be saved and enter into His Kingdom.

Edited February 23, 2010 by JohnOF123

[marts1]

I agree with all of that John accept for the last sentence.

[JohnOF123]

I agree with all of that John accept for the last sentence.

Ok I can understand you thinking that, but what would be the most "Just" thing a judge on Earth could do.

Let's say you committed a crime on the streets. No, lets say you committed tens of thousands of them. Is the judge bound to let you free, or if he really is "just" should he condemn you?

I would say that a just judge HAS to condemn us, or he is not just. That is the biggest problem in the gospel. If God is Just, then how can he overlook our sins? He did not have to provide a way, and as far as fairness goes, He could give all of us what we "really" deserve and still be both fair and just.

That's what I meant by that last sentence.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, my first response got deleted before I could hit "submit", so let me try again:

I don't disagree with you, Crimson, that the debt analogy--like all analogies--has its limits. That said: it is scripturally warranted; so while we can acknowledge its problems I don't think we ought to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Paul thought the comparison fitting. So did Isaiah. (I'll hunt down refs later, if you want).

What scriptures persuade you that if God was to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free, that it would not be unjust as long as the innocent person consented?

D&C 45:3-5, for starters.

I see nothing in scripture saying it is unjust for one person to voluntarily discharge a debt on behalf of the person who originally incurred it. Elder Packer certainly seems to think it's possible; and apparently so did most of the people who were responsible for the one hundred and sixty nine instances of the word "redeem" in scripture.

So you think sinning against our sovereign, superior and governing God is more like a civil offense between members of a community than a criminal offense against the government whose jurisdiction the criminal is under?

Well, the "court of law" analogy has its limits, too. Civil and criminal courts don't have "administering justice" as their primary goal; the primary goal is to preserve a well-ordered society. "Justice" is a means to that end and, as such, is not paramount; that's why courts can show leniency and permit plea bargains.

We don't "buy" our way out of spirit prison and into heaven.

Jesus taught that this was, at least in theory, possible.

Jesus doesn't "buy" us a ticket out of spirit prison and into heaven.

Nephi thought so.

How does being clean and having a divine nature have anything really to do with money and debt and credit?

I think both analogies contribute to the material point that Jesus does for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Phrases like, "Jesus paid the price for our sins," and "Christ paid the penalty of our sins" all involve that stubbornly-commercial term "paid" or "pay" which perpetuates the debt/credit analogy which to me deviates from the scriptures and introduces unnecessary concepts to the process of cleaning filthy garments and changing our hearts.

But Jesus perpetuated that analogy Himself.

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.

But it seems to me you're now faulting an analogy for not being sufficiently literal. I could as easily nit-pick your preferred cleansed-robes analogy by pointing out that God really doesn't give us magic clothes that get dirty every time we sin, either.

[marts1]

Ok I can understand you thinking that, but what would be the most "Just" thing a judge on Earth could do.

Let's say you committed a crime on the streets. No, lets say you committed tens of thousands of them. Is the judge bound to let you free, or if he really is "just" should he condemn you?

I would say that a just judge HAS to condemn us, or he is not just. That is the biggest problem in the gospel. If God is Just, then how can he overlook our sins? He did not have to provide a way, and as far as fairness goes, He could give all of us what we "really" deserve and still be both fair and just.

That's what I meant by that last sentence.

I cannot compare God's court to man's in this instance.

[CrimsonKairos]

Paul thought the comparison fitting. So did Isaiah.

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.

D&C 45:3-5, for starters.

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.

I see nothing in scripture saying it is unjust for one person to voluntarily discharge a debt on behalf of the person who originally incurred it.

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.

Elder Packer certainly seems to think it's possible; and apparently so did most of the people who were responsible for the one hundred and sixty nine instances of the word "redeem" in scripture.

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.

"Justice" is a means to that end and, as such, is not paramount; that's why courts can show leniency and permit plea bargains.

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)?

Jesus taught that [paying our own debt] was, at least in theory, possible.

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.

Nephi thought so.

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?

I think both analogies contribute to the material point that Jesus does for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Agreed.

But Jesus perpetuated that analogy Himself.

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).

But it seems to me you're now faulting an analogy for not being sufficiently literal. I could as easily nit-pick your preferred cleansed-robes analogy by pointing out that God really doesn't give us magic clothes that get dirty every time we sin, either.

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.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Crimson -

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.

I'm not convinced the idea of spotted garments is really superior, though. It seems to me they both connote different aspects of the Atonement, so I think it depends on which aspect you want to emphasize.

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.

Did Jesus go into Gethsemane willingly, or did He not?

Does Jesus, in D&C 45, ask the Father that that offering be applied to His followers? Or does He not?

You keep going back to the commercial analogy, but as the scriptures say, when we sin we don't incur a debt, . . .

What scripture says that?

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.

Well, yeah; in a civil context, that's what happens when the debt is paid.

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.

Point taken, but in Elder Packer's parable Christ is not the bank. Christ is the Friend and Mediator.

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.

Yes, but if you read on down past the first definition there are other connotations of the word; so we'd have to go on a case-by-case basis if you're trying to assert that "redeem" never denotes a commercial context. I'd be interested to see, in such a discussion, what you make of--say--Isaiah 52, and Paul's open referrals to our having been bought.

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"?

Not literally; but the phrase originates from a practice where that was precisely what happened. We use the phrase so often that we no longer stop to think about the commercial underpinnings; but they are still there.

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)?

I think that's another thread entirely!

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.

I think you're missing a subtle distinction. In 3 Nephi 26, Jesus isn't saying we can't pay the debt because there's no one who would accept that payment; He's saying we can't pay it because we lack the resources to do so.

In other words: "You're there 'til you've paid the debt (and, by implication, there is Someone who would take that payment), but you don't have any money to pay."

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?

Again, you're faulting allegory for not being sufficiently literal. To use the filthy-robes analogy here would make even less sense. How does doing someone's laundry get them out of prison?

If it's not a commercial matter, I can't fathom what sense of "redeemed" Nephi might be talking about. Remember, if it's releasing from servitude--the only way you do that is by buying the servant and setting him free. (Or you can go to war and slay the slave/prison master and all his heirs. That in itself is an awesome analogy, but I'm not aware of any use of "redeem" or its Greek/Hebrew equivalents in this sort of context. Would be interested to hear if you have any resources on that.)

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.

Only if you can positively rule out the possibility that the creditor had in fact purchased those debts from a third party--a common practice then and now, and a possibility which I don't think you can rule out from the text.

At any rate, the material point is that the Lord saw the notion of "debt" as fitting both Simon's and the penitent woman's respective situations.

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).

That being the case, why did Jesus have to go into Gethsemane at all? Why wasn't the cross enough?

If Jesus wasn't bearing our iniquities in Gethsemane, then what on earth was He doing?

[Moksha]

The theory of "redemption" is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Courts are more than happy to allow someone else to step in and provide the funds for the "redemption" of--say--a debtor's mortgage.

The idea of redemption in the sense of being the result of God's Grace is much more profound and comforting.

[CrimsonKairos]

Hi JAG.

I'm not convinced the idea of spotted garments is really superior, though. It seems to me they both connote different aspects of the Atonement, so I think it depends on which aspect you want to emphasize.

I guess. The ultimate goal of repentance and atonement is for us to be found spotless before God's throne (Moroni 10).

Did Jesus go into Gethsemane willingly, or did He not?

Does Jesus, in D&C 45, ask the Father that that offering be applied to His followers? Or does He not?

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.

What scripture says that?

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.

I'd be interested to see, in such a discussion, what you make of--say--Isaiah 52, and Paul's open referrals to our having been bought.

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"?

I think that's another thread entirely!

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."

I think you're missing a subtle distinction. In 3 Nephi 26, Jesus isn't saying we can't pay the debt because there's no one who would accept that payment; He's saying we can't pay it because we lack the resources to do so.

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.

To use the filthy-robes analogy here would make even less sense. How does doing someone's laundry get them out of prison?

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)

Only if you can positively rule out the possibility that the creditor had in fact purchased those debts from a third party--a common practice then and now, and a possibility which I don't think you can rule out from the text.

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...?

That being the case, why did Jesus have to go into Gethsemane at all? Why wasn't the cross enough?

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.

If Jesus wasn't bearing our iniquities in Gethsemane, then what on earth was He doing?

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.

Edited February 24, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[Just_A_Guy]

CrimsonKairos, I appreciate your patience and will spend some time thinking about what you've posted. But for the time being, I do want to respond to the following:

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.

Again--I will look at the scriptures you have cited; but I think it is very clear that this statement puts you outside the realm of LDS orthodoxy.

From the Gospel Principles manual, page 61:

The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross.

From Preach My Gospel (what we teach to our converts), pages 51-52:

To fulfill the plan of Salvation, Christ paid the penalty for our sins. . . . When the Father asked His Beloved Son to pay the price of the world's sins, Jesus was prepared and willing. The Atonement included His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and His suffering and death on the cross, and it ended with His Resurrection.

The following quotations appear in CES' New Testament manual, The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, on pages 172-173; I cite their original sources in each quote header.

Where and under what circumstances was the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God made? Was it on the Cross of Calvary or in the Garden of Gethsemane? It is to the Cross of Christ that most Christians look when centering their attention upon the infinite and eternal atonement. And certainly the sacrifice of our Lord was completed when he was lifted up by men; also, that part of his life and suffering is more dramatic and, perhaps, more soul stirring. But in reality the pain and suffering, the triumph and grandeur, of the atonement took place primarily in Gethsemane.

It was there Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world on conditions of repentance. It was there he suffered beyond human power to endure. It was there he sweat great drops of blood from every pore. It was there his anguish was so great he fain would have let the bitter cup pass. It was there he made the final choice to follow the will of the Father. It was there that an angel from heaven came to strengthen him in his greatest trial. Many have been crucified and the torment and pain is extreme. But only one, and he the Man who had God as his Father, has bowed beneath the burden of grief and sorrow that lay upon him in that awful night, that night in which he descended below all things as he prepared himself to rise above them all.

The suffering of the Son of God was not simply the suffering of personal death; for in assuming the position that He did in making an atonement for the sins of the world He bore the weight, the responsibility, and the burden of the sins of all men, which, to us, is incomprehensible. . . . [elipses in version as cited in study manual--JAG].

Groaning beneath this concentrated load, this intense, incomprehensible pressure, this terrible exaction of Divine Justice, from which feeble humanity shrank, and through the agony thus experienced sweating great drops of blood, He was led to exclaim, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me".

Christ's agony in the garden is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and to cause. The thought that He suffered through fear of death is untenable. . . . [Ellipses added by me--JAG] In that hour of anguish Christ met and overcame all the horrors that Satan, "the prince of this world" could inflict. . .

In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world.

And finally, from recent Church publications (including a conference address):

But the Savior understood that many of the shouts of praise and acclamation would be temporary. He knew that soon He would ascend to the Mount of Olives and there, alone in Gethsemane, take upon Himself the sins of the world.

The most important parts of this story—the Savior’s atoning work, consisting of His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane, His crucifixion, and His triumphant rising from the tomb—are well known to Latter-day Saints.

Even when the pain of these families cannot be compared to the agony the Lord endured in Gethsemane, it has enabled me to better understand the Savior’s suffering and Atonement. There is no infirmity, affliction, or adversity that Christ did not feel in Gethsemane.

The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the following in the Doctrine and Covenants:

“Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

“Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men” (D&C 19:18–19).

Jesus Christ was the only one capable of performing the magnificent Atonement because He was the only perfect man and the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. He received His commission for this essential work from His Father before the world was established. His perfect mortal life devoid of sin, the shedding of His blood, His suffering in the garden and upon the cross, His voluntary death, and the Resurrection of His body from the tomb made possible a full Atonement for people of every generation and time.

Now, by posting all these quotes, I'm not trying to imply I'm afraid of scripture study or want to have doctrine spoon-fed to me. But the simple fact is--your quotation above flatly contradicts most of these quotes.

So again--I will read, consider, and pray about what you've written; and I appreciate the time and effort you've put into providing it. But whatever revelation may come, I will not "share with others" the idea that Gethsemane was not part of the Atonement, or that the Atonement is limited to what happened on the cross. I have no right to publicly contradict the Church's established teachings.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[CrimsonKairos]

Again--I will look at the scriptures you have cited; but I think it is very clear that this statement puts you outside the realm of LDS orthodoxy.

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.

[CrimsonKairos]

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).

Now, by posting all these quotes, I'm not trying to imply I'm afraid of scripture study or want to have doctrine spoon-fed to me. But the simple fact is--your quotation above flatly contradicts most of these quotes.

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 no right to publicly contradict the Church's established teachings.

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.

[marts1]

When I hear about members not agreeing with church approaved manuals or books or general conferences, it reminds me of how most people in the christian world don't accept added scripture such as the Book of Mormon. I myself regard most of if not all of these inspired words the same as I do the standard works. If I'm wrong I'm sure God would let me know where I was going wrong if it was important enough.

[CrimsonKairos]

If I'm wrong I'm sure God would let me know where I was going wrong if it was important enough.

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

[marts1]

No problem with that.

[CrimsonKairos]

I agree. :)