John 5:19

[mikbone]

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Assuming that you understand the significance of the above scripture.

Do you believe that you have personally witnessed the atonement?

Edited April 1, 2013 by mikbone

[RipplecutBuddha]

I have had some fairly sacred experiences in my life that were clearly related to it, but no, I don't think I have witnessed it at this point. Nonetheless, there is no doubt in my heart about its reality and essential application to my life :)

[Anddenex]

Nope, not yet.

[beefche]

Do you believe that you have personally witnessed the atonement?

I"m not trying to guess your motivation for this question, but in my opinion, questions such as this is inappropriate.

First, highly spiritual experiences are generally kept sacred (much like we keep the temple details sacred). One of my professers at school used to say, "God does not reveal Himself to blabbermouths." Unless directed by the Spirit, those who have had spiritual experiences should not be sharing those willy nilly.

Second, even if someone only answered "yes" to the question, that invites others to ask for details. Then that places the person in an awkward position--if they say they don't feel comfortable giving details, then why answer at all? If they do give details (again, only if the Spirit directs), then something that may be a spiritual experience is now broadcasted across the world in a public manner.

[pam]

I"m not trying to guess your motivation for this question, but in my opinion, questions such as this is inappropriate.

First, highly spiritual experiences are generally kept sacred (much like we keep the temple details sacred). One of my professers at school used to say, "God does not reveal Himself to blabbermouths." Unless directed by the Spirit, those who have had spiritual experiences should not be sharing those willy nilly.

Second, even if someone only answered "yes" to the question, that invites others to ask for details. Then that places the person in an awkward position--if they say they don't feel comfortable giving details, then why answer at all? If they do give details (again, only if the Spirit directs), then something that may be a spiritual experience is now broadcasted across the world in a public manner.

In addition to this, it can sometimes happen when someone is at their darkest point. This is too personal to share with everyone. So I agree, just answering yes, opens it up to questions of what, where, why, when and how.

[mikbone]

I"m not trying to guess your motivation for this question, but in my opinion, questions such as this is inappropriate.

First, highly spiritual experiences are generally kept sacred (much like we keep the temple details sacred). One of my professers at school used to say, "God does not reveal Himself to blabbermouths." Unless directed by the Spirit, those who have had spiritual experiences should not be sharing those willy nilly.

Second, even if someone only answered "yes" to the question, that invites others to ask for details. Then that places the person in an awkward position--if they say they don't feel comfortable giving details, then why answer at all? If they do give details (again, only if the Spirit directs), then something that may be a spiritual experience is now broadcasted across the world in a public manner.

Sorry you feel this way.

I mean no offense. John 5:19 is a verse that Joseph Smith alludes to within his 1844 April 7 general conference address AKA - KFD. Wherein Joseph Smith states:

"What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before."

To me this implies that Jehovah witnesses Elohim's atonement.

And it made me think. Who really witnessed Jehovah's atonement? The Atonement in my mind took place in the garden of Gethsemane. Surely Elohim witnessed Jehovah's atonement. As well as the Angel who strengthened Him (Luke 22:43). Even Peter, James, and John were asleep at the wheel and missed the most important act of Human existence.

So I asked myself if Jehovah served in a similar maner wherein he served as an Angel who strengthened Elohim during His atonement on Kolob...

Then during sacrament meeting yesterday while singing 136 I know that my redeemer lives, I forcefully realized that I constantly witness the Atonement in my life. No doubt I will have a greater witness during final Judgement, but I did not need to be in the Garden of Gethsemane observing Jehovah in his suffering to wittness the atonement.

Satan probably was present as well watching Christ's suffering, but he did not witness the Atonement.

Edited April 1, 2013 by mikbone

[rameumptom]

I think you are giving one (yours) interpretation on a verse of scripture. It is very possible you are taking it out of context, and so you may want to read the entire chapter and see if the discussion would lead the average person to believe it says what you are implying.

[rameumptom]

BTW, the KFD was NOT a General Conference address, but a talk given at King Follett's funeral. The KFD is NOT doctrine, nor has it been clarified by recent GAs. In fact, when asked about God being man, Pres Hinckley responded that while something in the past has been taught on it, we just do not know enough to really speak definitively on the subject.

In one talk, we have Joseph presumably quoting the verse and giving his own take on it. We do not know how accurately he was quoted, nor did he later expound on what he stated. Brigham Young tried taking it to the next level, and claimed that Adam is our God. Do we really want to go there today, when even someone like Brigham Young (who may have been present for the KFD) was wrong?

[rameumptom]

Finally, Elder Holland recently spoke on Christ's atonement, and he taught that the portion of the atonement in Jesus' mortality concluded on the cross, with the Father leaving Christ alone to finish the work. Yes, the atonement continues on, and I would recommend Blake Ostler's discussions on it, to help understand how it still is active. There are some disconnects happening here with reaching so far back in the past, on one-off statements by Joseph Smith.

[mikbone]

BTW, the KFD was NOT a General Conference address, but a talk given at King Follett's funeral. The KFD is NOT doctrine, nor has it been clarified by recent GAs.

You may want to check out

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2CannonKingFollett-8e1d9165-52f1-4e4a-9950-d55c4d2f701b.pdf

or

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

[mikbone]

In fact, when asked about God being man, Pres Hinckley responded that while something in the past has been taught on it, we just do not know enough to really speak definitively on the subject.

Richard Ostling in his TIME Magazine, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer interview, asked President Hinckley

Question: God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Answer: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Drawing Nearer to the Lord

President Gordon B. Hinckley

Nov 1997 Ensign conference issue

“The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”

[rameumptom]

An old article by Donald Cannon in BYU Studies does not connote doctrine. As I said, it was big stuff in Brigham Young's day. Even Elder McConkie wrote a lot about it. Some form of it may even be true. But it is NOT doctrine. It has never been approved by the quorums of the GAs, nor sustained by the general membership of the Church. Brigham Young or other prophets could have prepared such teachings at any time to be included in the D&C, but never did.

And even if the KFD were to be accepted as doctrine: which version of it? which interpretation of it? Why should we accept your reading of it, rather than Brigham Young's? You see the problem? Donald Cannon does not deal with that in his article.

[mikbone]

Finally, Elder Holland recently spoke on Christ's atonement, and he taught that the portion of the atonement in Jesus' mortality concluded on the cross, with the Father leaving Christ alone to finish the work. Yes, the atonement continues on, and I would recommend Blake Ostler's discussions on it, to help understand how it still is active. There are some disconnects happening here with reaching so far back in the past, on one-off statements by Joseph Smith.

The Atonement took place in the Garden and on the Cross. Many prophets have discussed this. But something important took place in the Garden. This is where Christ came to grips with the atonement. It is interesting that He asked his Father 3 times to 'take this cup from me' but after the Angel came to comfort him. He had the determination to take the bite in his mouth and plow on.

I have read some of Blake Ostler's stuff. He is well educated. And no doubt a successful lawyer and author. But I don't ascribe to his atonement beliefs.

I'll stick with Joseph Smith Jr.

[mikbone]

An old article by Donald Cannon in BYU Studies does not connote doctrine. As I said, it was big stuff in Brigham Young's day. Even Elder McConkie wrote a lot about it. Some form of it may even be true. But it is NOT doctrine. It has never been approved by the quorums of the GAs, nor sustained by the general membership of the Church. Brigham Young or other prophets could have prepared such teachings at any time to be included in the D&C, but never did.

And even if the KFD were to be accepted as doctrine: which version of it? which interpretation of it? Why should we accept your reading of it, rather than Brigham Young's? You see the problem? Donald Cannon does not deal with that in his article.

I thought you were somewhat of a scholar. Are you going to back off and now agree that it was given during general conference?

[Still_Small_Voice]

I see John chapter 5 verse 19 as the Son is just like His Father. It does not mean to me that our Eternal Father was once a sinful mortal man.

[mikbone]

I see John chapter 5 verse 19 as the Son is just like His Father. It does not mean to me that our Eternal Father was once a sinful mortal man.

From my reading of Joseph Smiths April 7, 1844 general conference talk, Joseph seems to imply that Jehovah was able to witness an event that occurred long ago. Neither Joseph nor I implied that Elohim was once a sinful mortal man. The most common interpretation is that Elohim was once a savior just like Jesus Christ. Thus Elohim was once a mortal man, but not sinful...

[annewandering]

I do not understand why people back off from the King Folletts Discourse. It is doctrine as far as I am concerned. Admittedly it is out of the usual for Christian doctrine but it is at the foundation of the churches Plan of Salvation. We are all going to get pretty crowded up there in one house. Or three.

If we are to be as God, we have to have the same access to materials He has.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

my understanding is that the KFD was a conference sermon as well as a the funeral sermon of King Follet.

To go to the OP's question, im not sure we can answer that. Witnessing the Atonement, whether we were present at the time when Christ suffered for us I doubt that would be revealed to us, and if it was itd be like everyone said, not to be mentioned.

If you mean being a witness of its reality and power. We can have strong levels of a testimony, we can have witnesses every day about it, but our witness will never be whole or complete until, im guessing, either a calling and election is made sure or until after this life.

I believe I have a witness of the Atonement but only in aspects that pertain to my experiences, as do, as I assume, everyone here who has a testimony. But I don't see myself fully understanding, grasping, and comprehending every part of that great sacrifice until after this life. My prior paragraph suggests to me the only possibility is to live so righteously that your calling and election is made sure.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I do not understand why people back off from the King Folletts Discourse. It is doctrine as far as I am concerned. Admittedly it is out of the usual for Christian doctrine but it is at the foundation of the churches Plan of Salvation. We are all going to get pretty crowded up there in one house. Or three.

If we are to be as God, we have to have the same access to materials He has.

I feel the reason is because there are definitly elements that ring with truth, and open our minds, some of it is so powerful and deep that we dont understand the full importance of everything that Joseph said. This leads to questions that we can't answer, as President Hinckley demonstrates.

To Joseph this was simple and clear, as, to me, is evidenced by the matter of fact and bold tone with which he speaks. But what did he mean with these three make one baptism? That isnt clear, whether something was missed in transcribing or Joseph thought it was self-explanatory, its just not clear. It suggests that words here and there may not be communicated clean to us. Possible more questions.

Now if you deduce the main point and idea that he teaches, then you get a clearer picture of what is taught. However some specific questions like Joseph saying that Christ did that the Father did(quoting the Bible). The context of the Bible verse suggests, being who the Father is as well. If Christ were not like the person that God is, then how could He do the same works? But Joseph emphasizes the doing aspect. All this to suggest that God was once a man who laid down His life and took it back up again. Then Joseph says something about Christ seeing not just knowing what the Father did but seeing. How did that happen? Was Christ there? Did the Father reveal in vision to Christ? Questions like that come up and some people say, "I dont know, its too much for me, this talk is confusing, it teaches this and that and ive never heard it(when some of that stuff which is taught is generally someone teaching their opinion.)" That is why some people move on and dont study it or ignore its contents because they dont understand by reading it once.

In my estimation, take it for what its worth, there is doctrine contained in it, not all of it is understood and therefore cannot(or should not be taught(the parts not understood)). I view it as a personal study that through prayer you may receive a witness of the truth to certain things that are contained in it.

Edited April 2, 2013 by THIRDpersonviewer
Forgot to sum up my second to last paragraph

[mikbone]

Now if you deduce the main point and idea that he teaches, then you get a clearer picture of what is taught. However some specific questions like Joseph saying that Christ did that the Father did(quoting the Bible). The context of the Bible verse suggests, being who the Father is as well. If Christ were not like the person that God is, then how could He do the same works? But Joseph emphasizes the doing aspect. All this to suggest that God was once a man who laid down His life and took it back up again. Then Joseph says something about Christ seeing not just knowing what the Father did but seeing. How did that happen? Was Christ there? Did the Father reveal in vision to Christ? Questions like that come up and some people say, "I dont know, its too much for me, this talk is confusing, it teaches this and that and ive never heard it(when some of that stuff which is taught is generally someone teaching their opinion.)" That is why some people move on and dont study it or ignore its contents because they dont understand by reading it once.

Thank you for your response. You have addressed the question in the original post. It is refreshing to have a conversation dealing with the topic instead of derailing all the time.

I agree with you and appreciate that you have taken the time to ponder the logical progression of the concepts that Joseph Smith Jr. presented.

When I had read the April 7, 1844 sermon many years ago I was immediately struck with the imagery.

If Jehovah witnessed Elohim's atonement then there are a few ways that He could have done so.

1) Jehovah's spirit pre-dates our spirits vastly. Perhaps Jehovah was a spirit while Elohim went through his mortal trial and Jehovah was able to witness this event in person.

2) Perhaps Jehovah did not witness the atonement of Elohim directly but some time after Jehovah was spiritually created He was able to somehow earn his Calling and Election while still as yet an unembodied spirit and during this event He was able to see a vision of Elohim's atonement, wherein He was able to understand the significance of the ordinance.

3) There are other possibilities... Some of which should not be written in a public forum.

Either way, I don't believe that anyone else in our pre-mortal existence understood the gravity of the plan that Elohim presented and Jehovah volunteered to execute. Excepting for perhaps Lucifer, but I find his soul as an Enigma...

Edited April 3, 2013 by mikbone

[mikbone]

my understanding is that the KFD was a conference sermon as well as a the funeral sermon of King Follet.

You are correct.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2CannonKingFollett-8e1d9165-52f1-4e4a-9950-d55c4d2f701b.pdf

The above document that I previously linked, describes the known historical background of the event.

I feel that calling the Sermon the King Follett Discourse really does it a disservice.

Many people think of the talk as an address during the interment of an fairly unknown person - King Follett. King Follett actually died almost a month prior to the sermon, on March 10, 1844.

Instead the sermon was giving during Joseph's final General Conference. Joseph was to be martyred 3 months later. The audience was anywhere from 5,000 - 20,000 saints by reports. He spoke without notes for a period of 2 hours and 15 minutes. And there are 6 separate accounts that we have of the sermon. Joseph Fielding Smith's amalgamation found in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith is the least accurate version. I originally fell in love with the sermon after reading The Words of Joseph Smith by Ehat & Cook. But now, with the advent of the internet we have the ability to go to the original source. Please see - April 7, 1844 Floating Titles

Why any saint would not want to study and ponder the last conference address of Joseph Smith Jr. is beyond me.

The following words are quoted directly from the Clayton Report version of the sermon

This is some of the first principles of the gospel about which so much hath been.--You have got to find the beginning of this history & go on till you have learned the last--will be a great while before you learn the last. lt is not all to be comprehended in this world. I suppose that I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not in the Bible--you would cry treason. So many learned and wise men here--

From the above, I read that Joseph Smith wanted to reveal more unto the saints. But there were many saints and even church authorities who refused to listen to any doctrine that was not explicitly stated within the Bible. So he refrained from teaching more important doctrines. It is obvious from reading Joseph's history that he felt not only persecuted from without but also from within the church. When modern latter-day saints wish to disown the KFD it seems to me that Joseph Smith is speaking the above words to them directly...

Edited April 2, 2013 by mikbone

[RipplecutBuddha]

I think it's more along the lines of the fact that we aren't doing all we can with the doctrine we have right now. Do we really think we're ready for more on top of it?

I think it is very much in not only God's wisdom but very much his mercy also that we haven't been given any more at this point. We've got a lot of catching up to do with what we have now.

[mikbone]

I think it's more along the lines of the fact that we aren't doing all we can with the doctrine we have right now. Do we really think we're ready for more on top of it?

I think it is very much in not only God's wisdom but very much his mercy also that we haven't been given any more at this point. We've got a lot of catching up to do with what we have now.

Absolutely.

Why would we be given any more meaningful revelation when we are reluctant to learn and study the material that has already been given us?

I would love to have the record from the lost ten tribes...

Edited April 3, 2013 by mikbone

[pooter1]

I can honestly say I have no idea what this post is about.I thought we all witnessed the atonement in the spirit world. Can someone explain to me in primary language what this is about?

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I can also see in Joseph Smith's use of the Bible, that he used it so not only could members not have a question about what he is teaching, but people who only use the Bible for their study. I grew up in the south and people there really take the Bible as their authority on scripture. And Joseph Smith is using that authority to teach doctrine.

I don't want to talk too much, because this is very sacred text or doctrine being discussed, and a public forum just doesn't seem right on this occasion.