D&c 19: Rogue Revelation

[CrimsonKairos]

If any of you remember, I posted a rather lengthy explanation of my beliefs regarding how Christ's atonement works, and how his suffering in Gethsemane was not related to making remission of sins possible. You can refresh your memory by going here and skipping down to post #73.

Okay, so the way I left it was that basically all the scriptures in the LDS canon teach that the sacrifice for sin was accomplished by Christ dying on the cross. The only scripture I'm aware of that mentions Gethsemane in connection with suffering for sin (not suffering the punishment of sin) is D&C 19. I did not previously explain how I think this "rogue revelation" as I call it, fits into the scheme of things. I shall do so now.

Basically, I think D&C 19 is about spiritual shock and awe. I think Christ uses a powerful image (bleeding from every pore) to motivate us to repent, even though he didn't bleed from every pore to make remission of sin possible. In essence, I believe D&C 19 is about letting us think something that isn't necessarily accurate in order to motivate us to repent. Whether you have a problem with God using such a method is a topic for another thread. I'm just going to get into why I believe what I do in this regard.

The apparent source of the pervasive LDS "doctrine" that Christ suffered the punishment for our sins in Gethsemane, is found in D&C 19:15-19 which I reproduce below:

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 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—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

That settles it, right? Christ says he bled from every pore because he was suffering for our sins. Right?

I don't think so. To understand those verses, I think it is necessary to go to the beginning of D&C 19 for a rather intriguing revelation about a mystery Christ had previously only told to his apostles of old. Basically, Christ explains that the phrase "endless punishment" does not refer to a punishment without an end. What? Read:

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

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

7 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.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

Did you catch that? Look again at verses 6 through 7 and 10 through 12. Christ says that the phrases "endless punishment" and "eternal damnation" don't mean punishment or damnation without an end. He says they are called endless and eternal because two of his names are "Endless" and "Eternal." So it's a matter of substituting names to get the meaning, to wit:

One of Christ's titles is "Endless." Therefore, "endless punishment" simply means "Christ's punishment," and "eternal damnation" simply means "Christ's damnation." It does not mean punishment with no end, or damnation lasting for eternity.

Are you with me? Okay, so now we know that phrases we always thought we knew the meaning of don't mean what they appear to mean on the surface. Now why would Christ allow this mystery to go unexplained to all but his apostles of old? The answer is surprisingly frank and clear, and is in D&C 19:7 which we read above but which I produce again below:

7 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.

Here's what I get from that admission. Christ is saying that he uses "more express" or specific terminology like "endless punishment" and "eternal damnation" to work upon our hearts. Why? For the presumed purpose of motivating us to repent in order to avoid said "endless punishment" and "eternal damnation." In fact since the beginning of D&C 19 has "repent or suffer" as its theme, it is perfectly logical to assume that the reason Christ wants these "more express" terms to work upon our hearts is to get us to repent so we won't have to suffer.

Now he admits that he lets us think "endless punishment" means punishment with no end even though that's not what he means by the term. He means, "My name is Endless, therefore endless punishment is the punishment I dispense."

It's like taking the phrase "God's punishment," and then replacing the word "God" with one of God's titles such as Almighty, which would give us the term "Almighty punishment." This new term, "Almighty punishment," would merely refer to punishment that God dishes out, not the quality of punishment like we might assume since the word "Almighty" precedes the word "punishment." In other words, the true intent is to show us who administers the punishment, not what specific type of punishment He will be administering to the unrepentant or how long the punishment will last.

Now at this point you may be thinking, "That's like God lying, and God cannot lie!" You can view it any way you want. The fact is that Christ perhaps understands our stubborn and lazy hearts better than we do, and knows what kind of language is necessary to get us to humble ourselves and repent out of a desire to avoid horrible punishment. After all, Christ didn't say "punishment without end." He said "endless punishment" with a specific intent in mind, even though we read it and interpret it to mean something different. God can't be held liable for every misinterpretation of scripture we commit, right? Well, I don't worry about it too much and I don't charge God with being dishonest or sneaky, though some of you might be inclined to.

Granted, this is "heavy stuff" and you might need to let this little morsel of meat digest before continuing. For those whose appetites are whetted and not spoiled, I shall continue. If we reduce D&C 19:4-13 to a simple statement, it might read thusly:

I, God, use strong language to motivate men to repent, even though men take my words to mean something that they do not mean.

Sound fair? I think so. Alright, so now we can take this understanding and go back to that troubling passage that makes D&C 19 such a rogue revelation when contrasted with all the other scriptures that talk only of the cross, and not Gethsemane, in connection with Christ's sacrifice for sin. I speak of D&C 19:15-19.

Those who read my previous post will remember that I believe that Christ's sacrifice for sin--the bitter cup he dreaded in Gethsemane--was his arrest, trial, scourging and notably, his unjust crucifixion. I do not believe the sacrifice for sin was his bleeding from every pore in Gethsemane, which I believe was really about Christ gaining a fulness of empathy for all of us. How? Through experiencing or suffering a fulness of every shade of agony, temptation and infirmity in the palette of pain familiar to us mortals. God sent an angel to comfort Christ during this "education" (Luke 22:44) since Christ didn't have to go through this to remit our sins, and hence wasn't required to "tread the winepress alone" as he had to on the cross when he was slain for the sins of the world.

So, suspend your disbelief for a moment even if you disagree with that appraisal (or go back and re-read my previous post and see if you haven't changed your mind). To understand how I harmonize D&C 19:15-19 with the rest of the canon, you must assume that the bitter cup was the cross, not Gethsemane.

What I will do is re-write D&C 19:15-19 to illustrate how I interpret it. I will be applying the principle we learned earlier, which is that God doesn't always mean what we think He means even in the case of forthright terms like "endless punishment." Verse 15 clearly shows that the purpose of this segment of D&C 19 is to move us to repent of our sins. Hence, I will be assuming that God is again using "more express" language to work upon our hearts, just as He did with the terms "endless punishment" and "eternal damnation." Okay, so assuming the bitter cup was the cross, here is how I read D&C 19:15-19. My additions appear in brackets and bold type:

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, [namely, being illegally arrested, tried and crucified without the Father's presence to sustain me on the cross,] that they might not suffer [separation from the Father] if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer [separation from the Father] even as I [suffered separation from the Father on the cross];

18 Which suffering [on the cross] caused myself, even God [the Son], the greatest of all, to tremble because [i began to anticipate the immensity] of pain [i would experience on the cross, alone], and to bleed at every pore [while preparing to die on Calvary], and to suffer both body and spirit [at the prospect of being crucified without the Father at my side]—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup [that was the cross], and shrink [from going through with the crucifixion, even to the point of my asking the Father thrice to remove the bitter cup if He willed]—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I [said, "Father, thy will be done, not mine," and] partook [of the bitter cup which included everything that followed my arrest] and finished my preparations unto the children of men [through my death and resurrection].

Pretty hard to follow, I know. Re-read that a few times and you might see what I do: That Christ loves us immensely and wants to motivate us to repent, even if that means we get the impression from his words that he took the punishment for our sins in Gethsemane, punishment so painful that it made him bleed from every pore, and that if we repent we won't have to suffer a punishment that made a God tremble and shrink from the task of bearing it.

That is what I've been taught all my life: Repent or suffer punishment so horrible that it forced blood out of Christ's pores in Gethsemane. He took that punishment so that if you repent, you don't have to be punished and Justice is fulfilled in that someone took the punishment for your sins even if that wasn't you.

And yet as I showed in my previous post, not one other scripture in the entire LDS canon supports, indicates or justifies such a doctrine. The only scripture in the whole LDS canon that supports this penal-substitution in Gethsemane view of the atonement, is this engimatic passage from D&C 19, a passage that immediately follows God's confession that He sometimes uses strong language He knows we'll misread in order to motivate us to repent of our sins.

I hope you have understood my position. I don't so much want you to agree with me, as to understand what you are disagreeing with. Thanks for reading, and I'd love any feedback you care to give.

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm going to have to meditate on this one for a while. My initial reaction is a knee-jerk because of the ingrained paradigm... but hopefully in a day or two I might be able to offer some thoughts (don't bet your farm on it though).

CrimsonKairos,

This is twice (or perhaps thrice) where you've caused me to have to do some really serious thinking. Thank you.

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm still trying to grasp it fully myself! These are just my initial thoughts as I contemplate a new model of atonement theory not taught in Church. Because this has not been taught to me my whole life, I too experience the knee-jerk impulse to shut it out.

But something keeps telling me to think harder, look deeper, etc... I just hope it's a good something telling me those things.

[Doctor Steuss]

Gratuitous bump for myself (for tomorrow).

I read it again. I want to gather my thoughts and sleep on it. I will post something tomorrow (although from the initial thoughts it will probably be highly speculative and shallow in comparison to CK's post).

But a taste of where my current thoughts are leading.

Eternal punishment = Christ’s/G-d’s Punishment

Gethsemane = Christ’s/G-d’s Punishment

My post tomorrow will be less enigmatic, but just wanted something out there other than the gratuitous bump…

[Adomini22]

Ck, interesting posts. I look forward to seeing the replies tomorrow. Isnt there an experience where a member of the 12 or a modern day prophet sees Christ in Getsemane? I have read of such an experience in the Ensign a long time ago. Because while you are right about the lack of canon on the subject, I think modern day prophets uphold the intial belief. Of course, any response of mine to your threads requires time and preparation. I hope no one closes this thread for a while, since we are discussing essential doctrine.

[Guest Yediyd]

This is very thought provoking, CK...I too, have a mixed understanding of the attonement...based on my verious church affiliations and my own understanding of scripture... I am comming to a new and better understanding of redemption in the afterlife as well...(D&C 138)

[Doctor Steuss]

This will most likely be quite disappointing given how long you had to wait CK, for which I apologize.

I think you have done a great job of demonstrating the lack of scriptural support for this rather “unique” doctrine within Mormonism. The main question that stems from saying that Gethsemane wasn’t Christ suffering for our sins is: “Well, what was it for then?”

I think that Christ was indeed suffering for our sins within the garden. But, this suffering was not so that we wouldn’t have to; it is quite possible that the suffering was so Christ would know what we would go through if we were unrepentant. What better way to fill Him with urgency and compassion than to know the very “Eternal punishment” that we would taste if we failed to repent.

There is also the other aspect that you mention; that of empathy. Christ could have had all our sorrows, doubts, pains, struggles, worries, etc. put upon Him so that He would know (in a very real and definite sense) what each of us must go through in life.

The Atonement is kind of a hard subject to wrap your head around (or at least wrap my head around). We talk about it. We speak of Christ’s sacrifice. We express gratitude. But in the end, we really don’t know much about the mechanics of what was done. I tend to think at times that the Atonement (At-one-ment) may have begun at Christ’s very birth, or perhaps even in the eternities before we came here.

Hope the above makes sense. Only got 2 hours of sleep last night.

Also something to ponder:

Mosiah 3:7

And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

His anguish could be an emotional anguish that was so strong that it manifested itself physically(?)

And…

“…that he suffer the pains of all men, which he did, principally, in Gethsemane, the scene of his great agony.”

Note that Elder Romney said that Christ suffered “the pains of all men.”

(Marion G. Romney, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” Ensign, Apr 1985, 3)

Of course, there is the issue of the teachings of modern day prophets concerning this (such as Ezra Taft Benson). But, we know that infallibility is something that we neither prescribe to scripture, nor prophets.

Fantastic thread CK.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for taking time to read, ponder and respond to my post Dr. Stuess. This topic is on my mind constantly of late, and talking to others about it helps me clarify my views and hone my ability to articulate my beliefs.

I think that Christ was indeed suffering for our sins within the garden. But, this suffering was not so that we wouldn’t have to; it is quite possible that the suffering was so Christ would know what we would go through if we were unrepentant.

I would still differentiate this from saying Christ suffered the punishments for sin that celestial law dictates be dispensed when sin is committed. I consider there to be punishments for sin that include intangible things Christ can't experience for us such as forfeiting blessings, becoming spiritually unclean, losing closeness to God. And then there are the effects of us suffering those punishments, and these effects include misery, emotional distress, guilt, and so on.

In other words, I'd compare the punishment for sin, to the sinner having to serve a sentence in jail. I don't believe Christ can do that for us (Alma 34).

I'd compare the effect of that punishment, to the inmate growing depressed and despairing in jail. Christ can experience those effects even if he doesn't actually serve the sentence.

So even though Christ can't experience those punishments, he certainly can experience the effect of those punishments on our minds and emotions (i.e. depression, misery, anger, shame, etc...). That is what I think was going on there in part...in addition to suffering the pains, hungers, temptations, et al, that anyone can experience. This is what I personally believe Mosiah 3:7 and Alma 7:11-12 are talking about.

I tend to think at times that the Atonement (At-one-ment) may have begun at Christ’s very birth, or perhaps even in the eternities before we came here.

Hope the above makes sense. Only got 2 hours of sleep last night.

In a way, yes it makes sense.

Lately, I've been reducing the atonement to the bare minimum that is required to remit sin. In that sense, when I say the word "atonement" now I mean solely the sacrifice that is required to remit our sins and perfect us. I've been placing everything else to the side and asking, "What is it that convinces Heavenly Father to remit our sins and let Christ perfect us?"

In that sense, Gethsemane has nothing to do with the atonement in my view. Why? I don't think Christ had to know what we feel or undergo during mortality, in order to plead his death for us. I don't see Christ saying to God:

Jesus: Father, forgive these sinners who have repented and believed on my name.

Father: Why?

Jesus: Because I allowed wicked men to shed my blood on Calvary; I suffered an unjust death. For my sake, remit/forget their sins.

Father: Wait, but do you know exactly how these sinners feel? Because if you don't, your unjust death alone isn't enough!

That's why I view what transpired in Gethsemane as an unnecessary act as far as remitting sin goes. In other words, I view Gethsemane as an extra gift, the extra mile, something Christ didn't have to undergo but did so out of his love for us and due to his desire to descend below all things. My gratitude for Gethsemane has actually increased even as I set it to the side as not part of the atonement or sacrifice for sin.

Something else to consider:

Suppose I am right, and that Christ didn't need to take upon him our pains and infirmities in order to perform the sacrifice for sin. I can't help but wonder, why did he wait until just before the biggest ordeal of his life (the arrest, trial, scourging, crucifixion) to undergo that pore-bursting process in Gethsemane? Why wouldn't he have experienced our pains, temptations, etc... during his 40 days in the wilderness, for example...and then taken plenty of time to recover his stamina and composure?

Or--and this just struck me--after suffering pains and infirmities in Gethsemane, it would've been okay for Christ to simply "regenerate" or heal himself to 100% health and then face the arrest and ultimate execution on Calvary. If Gethsemane wasn't required suffering, there would have been no objection to Christ healing his body completely before leaving Gethsemane.

Of course, there is the issue of the teachings of modern day prophets concerning this (such as Ezra Taft Benson). But, we know that infallibility is something that we neither prescribe to scripture, nor prophets.

Are you referring to any specific teachings of Pres. Benson? I'd love to review anything I've missed.

The last thing that keeps nudging my brain is that the angel was sent to strengthen Christ in Gethsemane. If Gethsemane was in any way part of the sacrifice for sin, then sending heavenly aid would--to me--be a contradiction of Christ's claims throughout scripture that he tread the winepress of God's wrath alone.

If Gethsemane wasn't part of the atonement or sacrifice for sin but was instead about Christ voluntarily suffering our pains and temptations to better understand us, then I can totally see Heavenly Father sending heavenly aid to strengthen Jesus during such a horrible ordeal.

No angel was sent to strengthen Christ on the cross.

Christ asked God why He had abandoned him on the cross.

It just seems so clear to me that as with the Law of Moses, the atonement for sin involved shedding the blood of a spotless offering...killing it...not transferring the punishment of the repentant adulterer to the lamb by stoning it in the adulterer's place.

[Doctor Steuss]

Are you referring to any specific teachings of Pres. Benson? I'd love to review anything I've missed.

Thank you for yet even more great thoughts CK. I will try to find the specific Ensign article. While I'm hunting it down though, I just thought I'd throw in another scripture into the mix:

Isaiah 53

4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

[CrimsonKairos]

One of my favorites.

I take certain parts of that literally, i.e. he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities = the scourging and crucifixion.

The chastisment of our peace, to me, refers to the scourging (Luke 23 and Hebrews 12).

With his stripes we are healed = his suffering, bleeding and death on the cross.

Isaiah is the man.

[Doctor Steuss]

It appears my memory was flawed slightly as I only had one part of the talk in mind (the last sentence), but his previous statements may provide some context (maybe):

You are all familiar with the facts. On the night Jesus was betrayed, He took three of the Twelve and went into the place called Gethsemane. It was there He suffered the pains of all men, “which suffering,” He said, “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” (D&C 19:18).

In spite of that excruciating ordeal, He took the cup and drank! He suffered as only God could suffer, bearing our griefs, carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, voluntarily submitting Himself to the iniquity of us all, just as Isaiah prophesied.

It was in Gethsemane where Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane where His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane where He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him.

Ezra Taft Benson, “Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ,” New Era, Dec 1980, 44

Here's one from President Hinckley that I found while searching (he appears [somewhat] to state that it started in the Garden and ended on the cross):

“We honor His birth. But without His death that birth would have been but one more birth. It was the Redemption, which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary, which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting. His was a great atonement for the sins of all mankind. He is the Resurrection and the Life, ‘the firstfruits of them that slept’ (1 Corinthians 15:20). Because of Him all men will be raised from the grave.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Inspirational Thoughts,” Liahona, Feb 2007, 2–6

Also, the Gospel Principles manual and Gospel Fundamentals manual tend to have Gethsemane as the place where "Jesus suffered for the sins of all mankind."

Of course this doesn't necessarily mean it is an unmovable "truth." What is interesting is that other than the manuals, as I searched, it kind of went back and forth between people. Some saying it was the "sins of mankind" that He suffered in the Garden, and some saying it was the "pains of mankind" He suffered.

I think there is much to your line of thinking CK, and I have thoroughly enjoyed watching/reading as you have shared your thought process. Again, thank you.

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm glad you've enjoyed our discussion Dr. Stuess. I've enjoyed your comments too.

What really mystifies me is why the prophets or anyone for that matter would teach that in Gethsemane Christ made redemption possible, when the only scripture that suggests that in any way is D&C 19.

It's like they're ignoring the 20 or so scriptures that point to Calvary as the site of the sacrifice that remits sin, and clinging to that single handful of verses in D&C 19.

I mean, shmeck, even D&C 138...the last canonized revelation (not counting Official Declarations)...even D&C 138:35 disproves the Gethsemane theory:

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.

I think alot of it has to do with tradition and the lingering undercurrent within the LDS Church to sideline the cross in order to set ourselves apart from non-LDS Christianity.

I have no problem believing redemption was worked out in part in Gethsemane...I just would like scriptural basis for it, y'know?

Currently, I reject the idea that Gethsemane had anything to do with making remission of sin possible. But I'm always open to further light and truth.

[BenRaines]

CK, I have not read the whole thread but a brief idea. Was redemption/atonement not a process and could we have Calvary without Gethsemane? I would suggest that both were necessary and one was the culmination of the process. Gethsemane would have been useless without Calvary and Calvary useless without ressurection.

Just my two cents.

Ben Raines

[CrimsonKairos]

See, that's where I have a problem.

I totally do think we could have been redeemed and had our sins remitted without Gethsemane.

I know of no scriptures that say otherwise...excepting D&C 19 which I discussed in the OP.

Why do you think Gethsemane was necessary? Or, how did what Christ suffered in Gethsemane help convince God to remit our sins?

[Adomini22]

I dont know, CK. Gethsemane was certainly something that was different from the cross, regarding suffering. My thoughts........had Jesus bled from every pore, wouldnt his garments be red? Wouldnt someone take a first look at him and be a little shocked at what they saw? Unless the angels presence had something to do with it..... I think Gethsemane started the process of the atonement. Someone earlier hit it on the nose. Christ had to suffer like that to understand our infirmities. My belief alone. Christ was perfect, hence he did all that was necessary.

[begood2]

See, that's where I have a problem.

I totally do think we could have been redeemed and had our sins remitted without Gethsemane.

I know of no scriptures that say otherwise...excepting D&C 19 which I discussed in the OP.

Why do you think Gethsemane was necessary? Or, how did what Christ suffered in Gethsemane help convince God to remit our sins?

CK,

IMHO, I feel that the process of the atonement was started in Gethsemane and completed on the cross! My sister and her friends have a thread on this same subject on http://www.mormonteenworld.proboards52.com...0071&page=1

I was asked by one of there members (Glenbob), if I would post his thoughts on here for you to comment on since he is not a member of this site. See below:

glenbob

Youth of Zion

member is offline

Joined: Jun 2007

Gender: Male

Posts: 32

Karma: 6

[ Exalt | Smite ] Re: Sacrament Water

« Reply #6 on Aug 15, 2007, 6:48am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found a good quote by President McConkie:

"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 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 and he prepared himself to rise above them all."

(McConkie, DNTC, 1:774-75. --Quoted from The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, Course Manual Rel. 211-212. Second Edition, Revised. C. 1978, 1979.)

[CrimsonKairos]

That's all well and good, but no one is answering my question.

Let's get down to specifics, yes?

1.) Someone please tell me how you think Christ's suffering in Gethsemane helps him convince God to remit our sins. That's what the atonement is about, really: remission of sins.

Sure the resurrection brings us back into the presence of God, but we get that gift automatically. There needn't have been a sacrifice for sin in order for us to be resurrected.

So again, and I think I'm being relatively clear here, someone, anyone, explain how you think Christ's suffering our pains and temptations has anything to do with God remitting our sins for Jesus's sake.

See, when I say "atonement" I'm thinking of what makes remission of sin possible. So for anyone--apostle or otherwise--to say that the atonement began in Gethsemane, the suffering in Gethsemane must somehow contribute to bringing us remission of sins.

2.) Also, Elder McConkie breezed right past the fact that the angel was sent to comfort Christ, yet Christ claims he performed the sacrifice for sin alone (see Psalm 22:11; Isa. 63:3; D&C 76:107; 88:106; 133:50).

p.s. I have the utmost respect for Elder McConkie's teachings and writings. The Messiah Series changed my testimony profoundly. However, just because "an apostle said so" isn't good enough when dealing with the atonement. We must examine the scriptural evidence and draw a conclusion based on their message, instead of drawing a conclusion and then searching the scriptures for evidence to support that conclusion.

[rosie321]

[b

]1.) Someone please tell me how you think Christ's suffering in Gethsemane helps him convince God to remit our sins. That's what the atonement is about, really: remission of sins.

agreed

Sure the resurrection brings us back into the presence of God, but we get that gift automatically. There needn't have been a sacrifice for sin in order for us to be resurrected.

Disagree with you slightly here. Without the resurrection Christ would still be dead. Being spotless his sacrifice would provide temporary redemption of sins just as the animal sacrifices provided. Christs sacrifice was different. His resurrection helped to show that. Christ died and overcame death. Part of the power of the resurrection is that he suffered all and then rose. If it weren't for that we would have no hope.

So again, and I think I'm being relatively clear here, someone, anyone, explain how you think Christ's suffering our pains and temptations has anything to do with God remitting our sins for Jesus's sake.

See, when I say "atonement" I'm thinking of what makes remission of sin possible. So for anyone--apostle or otherwise--to say that the atonement began in Gethsemane, the suffering in Gethsemane must somehow contribute to bringing us remission of sins.

understanding what your major point is I agree with you that there is that what happened on the cross is where the actual atonement or releasing of sin took place. But in the garden there was the point of decision to do God's will or not. To acknowledge and confirm what that will is. To find the strength to do what needed to be done. In our individual lives that is a majority of the battle. We cannot find the atonement relevant in our lifes without this important stage.

.

However, just because "an apostle said so" isn't good enough when dealing with the atonement. We must examine the scriptural evidence and draw a conclusion based on their message, instead of drawing a conclusion and then searching the scriptures for evidence to support that conclusion.

Agree. Ask God -James 1:5 and search the scriptures. On an issue as important as the atonement make sure that you understand.

[rosie321]

Had a visual breakdown come to mind about the atonement process.

Take the cross +

break it to three parts - l -

1. - garden

2. l crucifixtion

3. - resurrection.

While 1 and 3 are a part and meaningful. Number two, the crucifixion is the crux of it all. It is the point The needed thing to bring it all together. Without it the others are pointless. The center drives the point home and is grounded.

[tiancum]

It's like taking the phrase "God's punishment," and then replacing the word "God" with one of God's titles such as Almighty, which would give us the term "Almighty punishment." This new term, "Almighty punishment," would merely refer to punishment that God dishes out, not the quality of punishment like we might assume since the word "Almighty" precedes the word "punishment."

Well, I would say it would change it to Almighty's punishment or Eternal's punishment instead of "Almighty punishment." It changes the meaning to take away the possessive.

I thought your assertions were intriguing, and I like your style.

All of this discussion coming from all of us begs the question, to what end should we learn about the Atonement?

Joseph once said that all of us can have the witness he had of the Savior. To see Him face to face as one man talketh to another. What a wonderful discussion if that is our goal.

[CrimsonKairos]

But in the garden there was the point of decision to do God's will or not. To acknowledge and confirm what that will is. To find the strength to do what needed to be done. In our individual lives that is a majority of the battle.

Okay, I can see how someone could say that the atonement began in Gethsemane if what they mean is that it was there that Christ resolved to drink the bitter cup (which I think was the crucifixion).

However, most people say the atonement began in Gethsemane and mean that his bleeding from every pore was the result of him suffering the punishment for our sins in our place so we can be forgiven.

I don't think that's how the sacrifice for sin works, and I don't think that's where it took place. I don't think the scriptures support such a view either, and that's what I'm trying to get people talking about. Where are the scriptures that support this "atonement in Gethsemane" view? (I know you agree that sins were atoned for on the cross, rosie, I'm talking to everyone else who still insists that Gethsemane's suffering somehow goes to remit our sins)

[tiancum]

Crimson, there are many scriptures that say that Geth. was part of the Atonement. I will site a few.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, He suffered so greatly that he sweat drops of blood as He pleaded with His Father. But this was all a part of His great atoning sacrifice. He was taken by the mob, appeared before Pilate with the mob crying for His death. He carried the cross, the instrument of His death.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Things of Which I Know,” Ensign, May 2007

His atoning and redemptive suffering in Gethsemane and on Golgotha’s hill are the greatest acts of love ever performed.

Vaughn J. Featherstone, “‘However Faint the Light May Glow’,” Ensign, Nov 1982

He, by choice, accepted the penalty for all mankind for the sum total of all wickedness and depravity; for brutality, immorality, perversion, and corruption; for addiction; for the killings and torture and terror—for all of it that ever had been or all that ever would be enacted upon this earth.

In choosing, He faced the awesome power of the evil one who was not confined to flesh nor subject to mortal pain. That was Gethsemane!

Boyd K. Packer, “Atonement, Agency, Accountability,” Ensign, May 1988

Gethsemane was indeed part of a something we cannot begin to fathom,only through the holy ghost. I am thankful that we have special witnesses of Christ to clear up the confusion concerning points of doctrine. They are our modern scripture. I am grateful for that.

[CrimsonKairos]

Again, you're not answering my question.

I too can find loads of quotes from GA's saying Gethsemane is part of the atonement.

What I want is a clear expalanation of how someone, anyone, thinks Christ suffering what we suffer gets Heavenly Father to remit our sins.

I don't want quotes saying "what" the atonement is, I want scriptures (canonized, tiancum) supporting "how" the atonement works if you believe Gethsemane is involved in remitting sin at all.

Am I being unclear? No one seems to address my questions.

[Adomini22]

Let me take a stab at it. Gethsemane happened so Christ could say that he experienced all things, the effects, pains,etc of his people. The suffering in the garden was different from the suffering on the cross, but both were necessary in order that Christ could know and understand.... there is a scripture saying such. How does it affect our remission of sins? well, jesus, now knowing what we could go thru if we dont repent, can say to the Father, " Hey, I plead on behalf of this person to come back to your presence. I suffered all that they could suffer, but if they dont have to suffer if they repent. I paid the price of justice. It was paid. "

Gethsemane was necessary for the remission of sins to take place. It was loosing the bands of justice on us, if we repent. That is the answer to your question. Thru Gethsemane, Jesus is our Advocate to the Father. If anything else, CK, it was knowledge first, so justice could be paid. Making sense? How could Jesus be our Advocate without knowing all the trials and sufferings of his people? How could true justice be paid?

[tiancum]

Again, you're not answering my question.

I too can find loads of quotes from GA's saying Gethsemane is part of the atonement.

What I want is a clear expalanation of how someone, anyone, thinks Christ suffering what we suffer gets Heavenly Father to remit our sins.

I don't want quotes saying "what" the atonement is, I want scriptures (canonized, tiancum) supporting "how" the atonement works if you believe Gethsemane is involved in remitting sin at all.

Am I being unclear? No one seems to address my questions.

I was merely responding to you when you said; (see you were asking two different things)

I don't think that's how the sacrifice for sin works, and I don't think that's where it took place. I don't think the scriptures support such a view either, and that's what I'm trying to get people talking about.

It did. According to modern revelation, it simply did, according to those that Christ chose as His mouthpieces. You most likely won;t find clear doctrine on it in "canonized scripture" but that is what the living oracles are for. It is their "official duty" to interpret the scriptures for us, as a church. It is still scripture...

As for the other part of your question...

What I want is a clear explanation of how someone, anyone, thinks Christ suffering what we suffer gets Heavenly Father to remit our sins.

Simply, He didn't suffer what we suffer. He suffered what Gods suffer. And frankly, through modern revelation, some of it happened in the Garden.

I bet you have studied Cleon Skousen's thoughts on the Atonement. They might sort some things out....Or then again...

Good luck on your journey, I hope you find the answers. A good gauge that your answers are grounded is if they gel with those who have seen him face to face. That is why I keep mentioning the Modern Prophets. They have seen Him, I know it, they have a Special witness of His atonement and have seen it with their own two eyes.

Peace out Bro