A Couple Deep Thoughts I've Had.

[Dr T]

Hi Bill,

WElcome. ARe you suggesting that judgment is unjust?

[Newbert_Zero]

I wonder how Christ was perfect from the beggining when we were just intellegences. What would God have done if Christ never was. Without a perfect being the plan wouldent have worked either.

[Adomini22]

Dude, I was going off of what I have read. Cause I like to read. It is written by a couple of people, hinted by others, about the necessary part of the council. Just as CK has stated, the role of a Savior will always be part of the plan. That cant change. Some think that there are biblical scriptures that support the notion that there was more than one savior. The scripture that says ( And I am not making my opinion here) Jesus does nothing of himself, but what the Father did. What Jesus has done, he has seen the father do. (I am paraphrasing it, but it is not misconstrued. Source is Teachings of Prophet JS, by the way) Hence, this could support the notion that there had been a Savior before Jesus. There was a God before ours as well, yes? Hence a plan that REQUIRED a council for our sake, something to be planned. Was ours different? Maybe. Maybe. Does it matter right now? NO. But, Lucifer saw an opening. Now why would the "lightbearer", who had even surpassed all of us except maybe Adam, see an opening? You would think he would have learned from other plans made, other celestial beings on how to get to where they are. After all, we are like millions of years old. He thought he could do it because he thought he had a chance. So, just the thought that he saw an opportunity to upsurp the throne...... doesnt that say something as well? Truly, the thought is provoking to an extent, but God knew all along, and still knows the end result. He is perfect, and even IF the plan was different, it was perfect for us. Does that help the discussion a bit? I am not stating my opinion, I have written was has been discussed and written about. Some sources.... Duane Crowther (LDS), JS (references above), and a few in Journal of Discourses, but I dont know the exact entries. Have at it guys....

[Traveler]

I've been thinking about this for a while and i realized that either i don't understand this right or satan is contradicting himself. Because satan was against the plan of salvation and he didn't want us to have agency right.

It is also said somewhere in second nephi that there must be opposition in all things because if we didn't know bad we wouldn't know good. So if lucifer never became satan gods plan wouldn't have worked because we wouldn't be tempted and we wouldn't have had the experiences and earth that we go through now.

So I'm wondering if satan is just dumb and didn't realize that he was helping Gods plan or if he did realize it and he is actually working with God to make his plan work, which sounds really weird.

Another thing I was thinking about is this. We are supposed to become like God right? that implies that God was once like us and had to become a God too. If it is a cycle then why did we have a meeting in heaven about the plan of salvation if thats the way its always been? Perhaps our God became a God using a different way such as the plan of somthing and Satan thought that the plan of salvation wouldn't work and that is why he rebelled and tryed to prove that it wouldent work which brings me back to my first thought.

Wow after reading what I wrote it sounds very confusing but just try to understand what I'm saying and ask me If you don't know what I'm talking about.

Satan is not dumb - he understood the plan of G-d better than most that read the bible and other scripture and think they know about what Satan tempted Adam and Eve to do in regard to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There was a way that Adam and Eve could have used their agency that Satan fears and he very carefully altered in a way to take away that agency. First we need to understand agency (see my post on agency in the grace verses works thread - near the end).

What many think G-d ought to be (see the post of Dr T to me in the Fall in Heaven thread) is exactly what Satan projects for himself - the G-d over both good and evil - the G-d of all. Thus there is no real agency. By our actions we become proxies for G-d for good or proxies for Satan. Realizing that Satan wants control of all. G-d's plan is that we become like G-d and proxies of his, sacrifice, service and compassion and not proxies or agents of any evil.

It is my opinion that any religion that teaches that we can enter the kingdom of heaven while we are still agents of evil have made a mistake and believe in the wrong G-d. As Jesus said we are agents of him whose will we do. And G-d's will is that we become good. It is understanding the difference between good and evil that many fail to grasp.

The Traveler

Dude, I was going off of what I have read. Cause I like to read. It is written by a couple of people, hinted by others, about the necessary part of the council. Just as CK has stated, the role of a Savior will always be part of the plan. That cant change. Some think that there are biblical scriptures that support the notion that there was more than one savior. The scripture that says ( And I am not making my opinion here) Jesus does nothing of himself, but what the Father did. What Jesus has done, he has seen the father do. (I am paraphrasing it, but it is not misconstrued. Source is Teachings of Prophet JS, by the way) Hence, this could support the notion that there had been a Savior before Jesus. There was a God before ours as well, yes? Hence a plan that REQUIRED a council for our sake, something to be planned. Was ours different? Maybe. Maybe. Does it matter right now? NO. But, Lucifer saw an opening. Now why would the "lightbearer", who had even surpassed all of us except maybe Adam, see an opening? You would think he would have learned from other plans made, other celestial beings on how to get to where they are. After all, we are like millions of years old. He thought he could do it because he thought he had a chance. So, just the thought that he saw an opportunity to upsurp the throne...... doesnt that say something as well? Truly, the thought is provoking to an extent, but God knew all along, and still knows the end result. He is perfect, and even IF the plan was different, it was perfect for us. Does that help the discussion a bit? I am not stating my opinion, I have written was has been discussed and written about. Some sources.... Duane Crowther (LDS), JS (references above), and a few in Journal of Discourses, but I dont know the exact entries. Have at it guys....

The scriptures are very clear - there was more than one "Messiah" or Anointed one in heaven with the Father.

The Traveler

[Adomini22]

Oh, I hear ya. But I wasnt trying to state my opinion, just writing what I have heard. That may help the discussion. But correct you are, Traveler. I just try to word it so it doesnt seem like I am stating an opinion, only what I have seen in books...

[Adomini22]

I wonder how Christ was perfect from the beggining when we were just intellegences. What would God have done if Christ never was. Without a perfect being the plan wouldent have worked either.

Well, not to overkill my presence on this board, but from what I understand, was that Jesus is Jehovah, who attained Godhood in the premortal existence..(my missin president states that maybe this was possible since he was the only one sinless in that state). Before Jesus came to the earth, he was Jehovah.

[CrimsonKairos]

Jesus is the only spirit child of God to have obeyed God perfectly from the moment he was in a position to obey or disobey.

He is the only Child of God who is worthy to dwell in God's presence.

Hence, he is the only one who can bring us back to God.

We must share his perfect obedience...photocopy his spiritual record, so to speak.

Once we repent of our sins, covenant with him to do better, and deny ourselves of ungodliness...then is his grace sufficient to sanctify us through his blood, that we become holy, clean, without spot, and worthy of dwelling with God.

But first, our sins must be remitted...or rather, the record of them must disappear. Once we become perfect in Christ, it would be pointless for God to point to our past transgressions, since God might as well accuse Jesus of having sinned. Once we become "one" with Jesus and share his perfection of character and submission, then we are ready to have our sins blotted out and become "one" with God the Father.

The one name that will forever echo through the corridors of eternity is that of our Savior, whether you use the Hebrew version, or Greek, or Latin, or English. Glory be to:

Yeshwah Mashiakh

Iesous Christos

Jesu Christi

Jesus Christ

[Newbert_Zero]

How was Christ perfect from the beggining though. Isn't it really weird that it just so happens that just one person was perfect which is exactly what God needed? I don't think it was coincidence.

[sixpacktr]

Newbert,

I'm not sure that there was only one that was perfect. Christ took upon him the mission to be our Savior, but perhaps there were others, but that was not the mission they were to perform (remember, Christ was the 1st born as well, so maybe that has something to do with it?). I would believe (IMO...) that the HG is and has been completely sinless as well, but his mission is different than Christ's was, and I believe that we will be just slightly, very, very, very slightly, less grateful to him than to Christ because without the HG we cannot know truth...

I take that back (editing here). We will have a different gratitude towards him than we have towards Christ, I believe...

Since Christ was the firstborn, is this whole thing with Lucifer-->Satan simply a younger brother that is jealous of his older one??

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm not sure that there was only one that was perfect...I would believe (IMO...) that the HG is and has been completely sinless as well...

The scriptures say that Christ is the only sinless Child of our Father.

Why would the Holy Ghost have to have been sinless too? Because he's a God? We may become joint-heirs with Christ one day and become Gods, but all of us have at some time sinned.

As long as we're speculating, why does the Holy Ghost have to be a spirit child of God the Father at all? Anyway, I just wanted to opine that I think Christ is the only sinless Son of our Heavenly Father.

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

I'm not sure that there was only one that was perfect...I would believe (IMO...) that the HG is and has been completely sinless as well...

The scriptures say that Christ is the only sinless Child of our Father.

Why would the Holy Ghost have to have been sinless too? Because he's a God? We may become joint-heirs with Christ one day and become Gods, but all of us have at some time sinned.

As long as we're speculating, why does the Holy Ghost have to be a spirit child of God the Father at all? Anyway, I just wanted to opine that I think Christ is the only sinless Son of our Heavenly Father.

I've always taken that to mean the only sinless one that has been upon the earth up to now, not necessarily since the plan was submitted. I've always been curious about those children that will be upon the earth during the millenium, if they too CAN be sinless, since Satan is bound and unable to tempt people....

[CrimsonKairos]

It's one thing to be sinless in mortality, but Jesus Christ is the only one who has obeyed Heavenly Father from "day one," whatever that was, i.e. spirit birth, etc...

Hence, Jesus is the only being who can say, "I have always obeyed the Father in pre-mortality, mortality, and will do so forever. I alone have the right to dwell with God due to my perfect obedience and goodness."

The rest of us haven't always obeyed or done the right thing, not even in pre-mortality. So I believe.

[Guest Yediyd]

It's one thing to be sinless in mortality, but Jesus Christ is the only one who has obeyed Heavenly Father from "day one," whatever that was, i.e. spirit birth, etc...

Hence, Jesus is the only being who can say, "I have always obeyed the Father in premortality, mortality, and will do so forever. I alone have the right to dwell with God due to my perfect obedience and goodness."

The rest of us haven't always obeyed or done the right thing, not even in premortality. So I believe.

I'm with you on this one CK, I had a dream a long time ago that gave me a glimpse into the pre-existence, and that glimpse taught me that we were NOT perfect in premortality-mortality. I know we had a lot to learn then and we have a lot to learn now, as well as more to learn later in the spirit world to come. I am looking forward to the experience...

[Maureen]

...As for Satan, I think his pride prevents him from seeing the beginning from the end. In the Garden of Eden, he thought to disrupt the plan by tempting Eve, thinking he was causing a catastrophe, when in actuality he furthered it by allowing Adam and Eve to have children....

GENESIS – Chapter 1

27 So God created man in his own aimage, in the image of God created he him; male and bfemale created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be afruitful, and bmultiply, and creplenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have edominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for ameat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for ameat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very agood. And the evening and the morning were the bsixth day.

GENESIS – Chapter 2

7 And the LORD God aformed bman of the cdust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the dbreath of life; and eman became a living fsoul.

16 And the LORD God acommanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest bfreely eat:

17 But of the atree of the bknowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the cday that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely ddie.

18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be aalone; I will make him ban help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a awoman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and aflesh of my flesh: she shall be called bWoman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a aman leave his bfather and his mother, and shall ccleave unto his dwife: and they shall be eone flesh.

25 And they were both anaked, the man and his wife, and were not bashamed.

From my understanding of Genesis, it seems clear that God had intentions for Adam and Eve to procreate before they had disobeyed him. In Chapter 1 of Genesis, God blessed Adam and Eve and commands them to Be afruitful, and bmultiply, and creplenish the dearth. In Chapter 2, their creation goes into more detail. God creates Adam, commands him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then creates Eve. It goes on to describe their relationship (and it seems their children’s’) because it describes in an indirect way that children will eventually grow up and leave their parents and start families of their own - by marrying (man and wife) and procreating (being naked and not ashamed). Who’s to say that before Adam and Eve had disobeyed God that they had not already had sex? They could have had an ideal life in company with God, in a beautiful environment, raising children. But they made the choice to believe the serpent and maybe even think that the “grass was even greener” if they ate what they were told not to eat. And to their discovery they found it not so and their rosy home and life became difficult. Still married and still able to make babies; but now those babies too would have to live in different circumstances not the former idyllic life their parents were once living.

I believe Satan (big cheese of the third angels who rebelled) was given permission to “make trouble” which is exactly what he did. And he’s probably been enjoying himself ever since.

M. :)

[CrimsonKairos]

The LDS view (unless I'm mistaken) is that Adam and Eve were innocent in Eden...meaning innocent like children, unashamed of their nudity, unaware of what sex was, etc...

Left to themselves, we don't believe they would ever have had children. That's one reason why Adam partook of the fruit with Eve. He knew he had been commanded to stay with Eve, and also to have children with her.

But if she was kicked out of Eden for transgressing and he didn't eat and stayed in Eden, he'd be disobeying God's commands to stay with Eve and multiply (which they'd know how to do once the fruit of the tree had "enlightened" them ).

In the end, they both made wise choices and provided all of us with the chance to come to earth.

[sixpacktr]

I would say innocent in not knowing good from evil. I don't think that they were celibate, but that is just my opinion. Perhaps their bodies were in such a state that they couldn't have children? And the fall activated whatever and allowed reproduction...

This is all conjecture at this point. I know that Jesus's mission was to be Savior of the world(s), and others, including us, have missions of other sorts that fulfill the Plan of Happiness. Again, I guess we'll find out later the small details...

[Iggy]

It's one thing to be sinless in mortality, but Jesus Christ is the only one who has obeyed Heavenly Father from "day one," whatever that was, i.e. spirit birth, etc...

Hence, Jesus is the only being who can say, "I have always obeyed the Father in pre-mortality, mortality, and will do so forever. I alone have the right to dwell with God due to my perfect obedience and goodness."

The rest of us haven't always obeyed or done the right thing, not even in pre-mortality. So I believe.

I don't agree with you on this. I believe that the 2/3 of the Hosts of Heaven did obey Father in every way. Because we are here on earth, we are from that 2/3 of Hosts.

I agree with you that once we obtained our mortal body, we have sinned.

Some greatly, some not so greatly. Some have repented, been baptised, received the gift of the Holy Ghost, received their endowments, and in-between they have sinned. Little sins, larger sins, bigger sins. They have repented, not repented. Only Jesus knows for sure. We strive to be obedient. That is but one of our goals.

[Adomini22]

<div class='quotemain'>

It's one thing to be sinless in mortality, but Jesus Christ is the only one who has obeyed Heavenly Father from "day one," whatever that was, i.e. spirit birth, etc...

Hence, Jesus is the only being who can say, "I have always obeyed the Father in pre-mortality, mortality, and will do so forever. I alone have the right to dwell with God due to my perfect obedience and goodness."

The rest of us haven't always obeyed or done the right thing, not even in pre-mortality. So I believe.

I don't agree with you on this. I believe that the 2/3 of the Hosts of Heaven did obey Father in every way. Because we are here on earth, we are from that 2/3 of Hosts.

I agree with you that once we obtained our mortal body, we have sinned.

Some greatly, some not so greatly. Some have repented, been baptised, received the gift of the Holy Ghost, received their endowments, and in-between they have sinned. Little sins, larger sins, bigger sins. They have repented, not repented. Only Jesus knows for sure. We strive to be obedient. That is but one of our goals.

I have to totally disagree with you. There has always been free agency, and where there is free agency, there is the opportunity to choose the wrong thing. EVERYONE HAS DONE IT. Saying you were perfect aka sinless aka obeying the Father in any way in premortality completely defeats the purpose of even coming to earth. We are seperated from the third of the host who heaven who followed Lucifer because we didnt openly rebel. WE DIDNT FIGHT GODS PLAN. That doesnt mean we were perfect, not by a long shot.

[CrimsonKairos]

Adomini, thank you for your concise and substantive comment. You are correct.

[Guest BillP]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Ck is right. The last few posts have been really good. I personally enjoyed the one about the anger. I have heard some things regarding different plans, why there needed to be a council, etc. But I wont comment on that cause there is still alot I dont know. I do think, however, that the council was done regarding the plan, and the council is eternal, hence, every person was present, those who were before us, and those who will follow long after us. Isnt it interesting that one of the first things shown to prophets was the council where it all began? That is totally awesome.

Please do that is the other thing I am very interested to learn about. Ive been wondering if there were different plans.

The comment on Justice is quite interesting, particularly when Joseph Smith indicated one of God's necessary attributes is Justice, and Judgement.

Joseph indicates "We have in the revelations which he has given to the human family the following account of his attributes;" Knowledge, faith or power, justice, judgement, mercy, and truth. Considering these identified atrributes some scriptural accounts create an conundrum.

[CrimsonKairos]

Alma 34 describes wonderfully the interaction of mercy and justice.

If you wanna talk about intriguing scriptures, how about Alma 34:16 which says that "mercy can satisfy the demands of justice..."

"Wait," I can hear you say, "I thought mercy was the opposite of justice? How can mercy satisfy justice?"

Therein lies the beauty of the atonement...which is not penal-substitution. Sorry to all you warm-fuzzy-addicts who like to think that in Gethsemane Christ was suffering the punishment for their individual sins. Not how it happened.

[sixpacktr]

Alma 34 describes wonderfully the interaction of mercy and justice.

If you wanna talk about intriguing scriptures, how about Alma 34:16 which says that "mercy can satisfy the demands of justice..."

"Wait," I can hear you say, "I thought mercy was the opposite of justice? How can mercy satisfy justice?"

Therein lies the beauty of the atonement...which is not penal-substitution. Sorry to all you warm-fuzzy-addicts who like to think that in Gethsemane Christ was suffering the punishment for their individual sins. Not how it happened.

CK,

Elaborate, please?

[CrimsonKairos]

Let's review a few of the main theories about how Christ's atonement makes it possible for sinful man to return to dwell with God. The names of the theories are followed by the name/s of their originators and/or proponents, plus a brief summation of the theory.

Ransom Theory: Origen (3rd Century)

Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.

Satisfaction Theory: Anselm of Canterbury (11th Century)

Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ's death is substitutionary; he pays the honour instead of us...for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow" (Cur Deus Homo Bk 1 Ch 8). By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

Penal Substitution: Aquinas (13th Century) and Calvin (16th Century)

Penal substitution...means that Christ is punished (penal) in our place (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice, so God can justly forgive. It is...a specific form of satisfaction doctrine which focuses on God's justice being satisfied by Christ's bearing the punishment meant for sinners.

The theory taught in the LDS Church is pretty much the penal-substitution theory, specifically that Christ didn't just pay "a" price for our sins, but that he suffered the specific punishments for our individual sins. I have grown to reject this theory of the atonement. These are my personal views based on scriptures, study, prayer and pondering. I may be wrong, and my views are still fluid at this point. Here's what I meant about Gethsemane not being where Christ suffered the punishment for our individual sins. Please indulge the simplistic question and answer format.

1.) What is Christ's atonement about? What's it for? To give us the ability to be "at one with God."

2.) What are obstacles to being "at one with God?" Sin and death.

3.) Why does sin prevent us from being "at one with God?" Sin makes us unclean. No unclean thing can dwell with God.

4.) Why did Christ sacrifice himself? To remit our sins.

5.) What does "remission of sins" mean? Remission involves something "going away" or being removed. It comes from the Latin word remittere which means "to send back, restore." The "remission of sins" that comes after repentance involves redacting our "spiritual record," "whiting out" our misdeeds if we repent, so that we become as innocent as if we'd never sinned. Our innocence is restored, our guilt (speaking in legal terms) is remitted.

6.) When we repent, are our sins remitted because Jesus took the punishment for our individual sins upon himself? How would suffering the punishment for our sins make our record clean? Paying a debt doesn't automatically remove the record that shows we incurred the debt in the first place. Serving a sentence in jail doesn't erase your criminal record or conviction...it merely makes you guilty but forgiven.

7.) So if Christ didn't suffer the punishment for our individual sins, what was his suffering about? He needed to suffer something so unjust that merely invoking that injustice would arouse a fulness of pity in God the Father's heart, sufficient to move God to extend mercy to us, "remit our sins," erase them, remember them no more, hold them against us no longer, consider us innocent of sin and worthy to dwell with Him.

8.) What was the injustice that Christ suffered? Christ was tried as a criminal, convicted of blasphemy against God on the false testimony of hired witnesses and the misinterpretation of his words by the High Priest, convicted of a crime deserving the death penalty, scourged for crimes he never committed, and ultimately executed with the guilty even though he--the perfect Son of God--had never sinned or done anything worthy of chastisement, let alone execution.

9.) But I thought Christ took the punishment for our specific sins upon himself in Gethsemane, and that's what made him bleed from every pore! What are the chief punishments or consequences of our sins, really? Loss of the Spirit, distance from God, forfeited blessings. Horrible as those things are, they aren't sufficient to cause capillaries to burst and force blood through the skin's pores.

10.) So what made Christ bleed from every pore in Gethsemane? Mosiah 3:7 says that Christ suffered temptations, pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue to a degree that would kill a normal mortal. It also says that his anguish for our wickedness and abominations contributed to his bleeding from every pore. I believe it was this combination of mental, spiritual and physical suffering that caused a sensory overload so great that it caused Christ's capillaries to burst from the strain. I believe this suffering involved knowing what every mortal can or would feel, descending below all things so that Christ could ascend above all things, so no one could claim they had suffered something Christ hadn't, so he could be a perfect High Priest, touched with our infirmities and temptations, and familiar with the thoughts of everyone from a pedophile, to a murderer, to a schizophrenic, to a battered child, to a starving family, to a repentant sinner, etc...

11.) But Christ asked God to take away the bitter cup in Gethsemane! Doesn't that prove it was there that Christ atoned for our sins? Not necessarily. After suffering in the Garden, Christ and his apostles were about to leave when they were confronted by the High Priest's servants who sought to arrest Jesus. When Peter strikes off the ear of Malchus, here is what Jesus says to Peter as found in John 18:10-12

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

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?

Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

Christ says that if Peter were to fight off the guards and officers, then Peter would be stopping Christ from drinking from the cup God had given him to drink. After saying this, Christ allows himself to be taken and bound. I believe this shows that it was not Gethsemane where Christ drank from the bitter cup and atoned for our sins (not by suffering their punishment, but by suffering unjustly at the hands of wicked men). I believe it was Christ's illegal arrest, mock trial, cruel scourging and unjust execution which comprises the bitter cup of suffering which prompts God to forgive us "for Christ's sake," because of what he suffered out of love for us.

12.) I thought the cross was just a necessary evil to bring death to Jesus so he could be resurrected and conquer death. Is the cross more than just how Christ died? Let's see what Jesus says about the matter, in 3 Nephi 11:11, 14 (emphasis mine):

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.

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.

What proof does Jesus give that he is the Savior, that he has atoned for our sins? He offers his scars of the crucifixion and says he was slain for the sins of the world. He didn't say, "Here is my robe stained with blood when I bled from every pore while suffering the punishment for your sins in Gethsemane." He said he was slain for our sins, directly after mentioning that he had drunk from the bitter cup the Father had given him.

The bitter cup was his crucifixion, not Gethsemane. Gethsemane was the point of no return, where Christ begged God three times to offer another way to make remission of sin possible. After three requests and three declarations of submission to God's will, Christ was ready to drink from the cup of the crucifixion.

3 Nephi 27:13-15 records Christ saying this (emphasis mine):

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

Again, Christ says the gospel consists of the fact that God sent him to be crucified. He doesn't mention Gethsemane. He doesn't mention suffering the punishment for our individual sins so that God can be satisfied that at least someone was punished, even if that wasn't us.

13.) Then how come the sacrament prayer refers to Christ's blood being shed for us? He shed blood in Gethsemane, right? The phrase in the sacrament prayer and in other scriptures is, "his blood which was shed." This is a common way of referring to being killed or murdered. Ask anyone what this sentence means, "A man's blood was shed," and they'll tell you it means he was killed. God himself shows this with His declaration in Genesis 9:6 about murder:

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The active phrase "shedding man's blood" and the passive equivalent, "having your blood shed," both mean killing and/or murder. "We are to remember Christ's blood which was shed for us," means, "We are to remember that Christ was slain for us." It doesn't mean, "Christ bled from every pore to bring us forgiveness." I believe Gethsemane wasn't about making forgiveness possible. I believe Gethsemane was about Christ voluntarily experiencing every pain and anguish mankind can suffer in order to be able to empathize with us and know what sinners feel like. It was an "extra gift" not required to atone for sin; it was going the extra mile as it were, out of his deep love for us.

14.) I'm still not sure. Is there anything else that would support the idea that Christ atoned for our sins on the cross and not in Gethsemane? Surely. In Psalm 69:20, Isaiah 63:3, 5 and D&C 88:106 (among others), Christ says that he has "trodden the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God" by himself. He alone accomplished it. If he had any help at all, he couldn't say, "I did it alone. Forgive them for my sake." If he had any help, we would have two or more Saviors responsible for atoning for our sins, and we know there is but one Mediator between God and man, even Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

Now was Jesus alone in Gethsemane? No. An angel was sent to strengthen him in his deepest agony. Ah, but on the cross Jesus asked the piercing question: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" It was on the cross that Jesus was left to himself, with no outside support from God or the Holy Ghost or anyone else. It was on the cross that the earth groaned and shook as a result of the injustice being perpetrated against its creator, Jesus. No such phenomenon occurred during the agony of Gethsemane, because no injustice was being forced upon the Savior there.

15.) Are there any other scriptures that talk about this? Here are a few:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:18...note the connection between being saved due to the cross.)

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (Ephesians 2:16...the cross is the mechanism of reconciliation.)

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Col. 1:14, 20...note that it is by the blood of the cross that we are reconciled, not the blood of Gethsemane.)

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26...notice that in the Law of Moses, the people were forgiven due to the slaughter of a spotless animal...not by stoning the animal in place of the adulterer, or by making the animal suffer excruciating pain. Simply killing the sacrifice and using its blood was required.)

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24...again, Christ took our sins upon him, so to speak, on the cross.)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18...Christ suffered for sins by being unjustly put to death, not by bleeding from every pore.)

And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world. (1 Nephi 11:33...again, Christ's blood was shed--he was murdered--for our sins.)

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 Nephi 11:14...again, Christ himself says he was killed for our sins, but makes no mention of his agony in Gethsemane in connection with suffering for our sins.)

I find it interesting that of all the scriptures that talk about how Christ makes remission of sin possible, they all talk solely about the cross with the exception of D&C 19 which mentions bleeding from every pore. So what does all this mean? Is it some huge conspiracy to cover up the fact that Christ suffered for our sins in Gethsemane? Were the writers of the New Testament, Book of Mormon and the D&C all deceived and that's why they only talk about the cross in connection with our sins being remitted?

Or is it simply that Christ didn't take our punishments so we wouldn't have to (which is impossible since Christ can't become spiritually unclean), but instead, suffered an unjust death capable of moving the Father to extend mercy and remove the demand that we stay out of His presence?

Consider the potent words of the prophet Zenos:

And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me, therefore I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son. (Alma 33:11, emphasis mine)

Zenos didn't say that God redirected the punishment from him to Christ. Instead, Zenos merely says that God turned his judgments away from him because of Christ, period. No one else had to take the punishment, it was simply cancelled for Christ's sake.

Lastly, let me point to D&C 45:3-5 where Christ reveals the plea he issues to the Father on behalf of all repentant souls who believe on his name (emphasis mine):

Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

Because Christ allowed himself to suffer scourging and crucifixion unjustly, because of this supreme injustice that outweighs and outshines all other injustices done to any other being, Christ can convince God to erase our sins or forget them if we repent, for Christ's sake alone.

Let's say we have repented, and been reborn, and become perfect in Christ, and that Christ asks God to remit our sins and consider us to be innocent of sinning so that we might dwell with Him and be "at one." If God were to refuse Christ's plea, it would be saying, "Your sacrifice was pointless, you died at the hands of wicked men for nothing, because I will not remit their sins even though they have become perfect in you and will not sin anymore."

For Christ's sake, God forgives us. If we bring forth fruits meet for repentance, deny ourselves of ungodliness, become perfect in Christ, then is his grace sufficient to sanctify us that we become holy, without spot...and then our sins are remitted and we may return to live with God (see Moroni 10:32-33).

It is with this knowledge that I offer the same prayer all sinners must offer in their quest for remission of sins:

For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great. (Psalms 25:11, emphasis mine.)

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. This excerpt comes from the book "The Infinite Atonement" by Tad R. Callister.

On more than one occasion, a devoted mother pleaded with Abraham Lincoln for the life of a son who had committed a serious offense while serving in the Union forces. Often, touched by that mother's own sacrifice for her country, Lincoln granted the pardon. Perhaps he thought, "Not for your son's sake, but for your sake I will pardon him."

When enforcing justice magnifies an injustice suffered by an innocent person, justice is overpowered by the bowels of mercy (Alma 34) and the demand that someone be punished is withdrawn. Thus, mercy satisfies justice. So it is with us sinners, our Father's demand that we be kept from his presence due to our sins, and the unjustly crucified Lord who convinces God to forgive repentant souls for his sake and because of his unjust suffering.

I hope this has made sense. I'm not seeking to prove I'm right. More than anything, I'm trying to get people to step back, examine the "penal-substitution in Gethsemane" theory, and ask themselves, "Is this really how the atonement brings remission of sins? Is it really about Gethsemane? What reasons do I have to believe this other than the traditions of my parents?"

[sixpacktr]

Thanks CK,

You make a lot of good points, and I'll have to chew on this for a while. I have believed that there were two stages to the atonement: the part in Gethsamane, where he took upon himself the sins and sufferings of the world; and the cross, where he finished the work and tread the winepress alone, so that his victory over Satan was complete. Both parts were necessary.

I'm not sure about your point that he didn't take upon him our sins and sufferings, though. Not saying you're wrong, and as I said, you gave me some food for thought and study, but it seems that several GAs have stated as much (our sins, our sufferings, etc.).

Anyway, thanks for elaborating!

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm not sure about your point that he didn't take upon him our sins and sufferings, though.

I do believe Jesus suffered because of our sins, but I don't believe he suffered the specific punishments that our sins require. And further, I don't believe Gethsemane had anything to do with making remission of sins possible. I view it as more of a lead-up to the bitter cup that was the trial, scourging and crucifixion.

Not saying you're wrong, and as I said, you gave me some food for thought and study, but it seems that several GAs have stated as much (our sins, our sufferings, etc.).

I've read several quotes from GA's to that effect, and I really wonder what they base their comments on. For the longest time I gave it no thought until one night while reading Alma 34 a light went on in my head. Not sure I've got it figured out yet, but I'm no longer a believer in penal-substitution atonement, and I find no scriptural basis for the view that it was Gethsemane where the sacrifice for sin was offered (other than D&C 19).