The Living Christ

[rosie321]

Forgive me if I sound oversimplistic , but does it REALLY matter WHERE the attonement took place? We all agree that it DID take place...that is what is important to me...I have a tendency to agree with CK on this, maybe from my years as a Baptist, but I believe that Christ paid the price for our sins on the cross and Gethsemane was his agony over what he knew he was facing.

I believe that the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father did not abandon him in the garden, as I read the account, I seem to recall that an angel was sent to comfort him in the garden, he was not alone in the garden.

...but again...does it REALLY matter where the atonement took place? What RALLY matters is that it did...

...just my opinion...

The fact is many LDS think the atonement happened in Gethsemane and that is what is being taken in by the membership. This is reflected in these posts and we even had a Sunday School lesson on it about a month or so ago. The church makes such a big deal about details. Yet it seems as though here there is much confusion or discrepancies when it comes to one of the most important things for the christian/LDS. If no other detail is correct information regarding Christ should be presented as 100% accurate. This is His Church.

This leads to other questions such as is the truth being taught?

Why is the importance of the cross minimized so much?

With all the importance given to leaders are we giving them more power than God. Are they drawing their power from God? If so truth and clarity is not so much to ask for.

[CrimsonKairos]

Do you not consider when the Apostles speak in conference official?

Not the official position of the Church, no. It requires an official declaration or proclamation by the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve to establish an official Church doctrine, in my opinion. To assume that everything spoken at conference is scripture or true is to make where something is said, and not what is said, the touchstone for Truth.

We are blessed with oracles, even Special witnesses that have interpreted it in one way.

Well actually they've interpreted it two ways, if we are to believe you. If Gethsemane was where the price for sin was paid, why do you think it was not even mentioned by name in "The Living Christ?" Did the apostles happen to forget the pivotal point of the atonement when they drew up the document? Talk about an embarassing omission!

So what we have is the apostles unanimously testifying of the atonement without mentioning Gethsemane, but then individual apostles mentioning Gethsemane in their own talks. Either:

1.) The GA's statements about Gethsemane mean what you think they mean, and contradict "The Living Christ" and the scriptures (including latter-day scriptures).

or...

2.) The GA's statements don't mean what you think they mean, and are in harmony with "The Living Christ" and the scriptures.

Is there another explanation I'm missing? Of these two options, I'm going with #2. I think that you are misinterpreting what the apostles are saying...injecting your own meaning into their words. Here's an example of what I mean. Let me parse the quote from Elder Haight that you provided earlier with my understanding of what he meant. My comments are not in bold or italic type and appear in brackets:

When they had sung a hymn, Jesus and the Eleven went out to the Mount of Olives. There, in the garden, in some manner beyond our comprehension, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world. [it was because of the world's sins that Christ had to "go it alone" and sacrifice himself for us. So as the Spirit and God withdrew from Christ, Jesus really did take upon himself the burden of our sins.] His agony in the garden, Luke tells us, was so intense “his sweat was as … great drops of blood falling … to the ground.” (Luke 22:44.) He suffered an agony and a burden the like of which no human person would be able to bear. [if God and the Spirit withdrew from any of us, and we faced a certain arrest, torture and death, we would run away. None of us has the stamina and selflessness required to do what Jesus began in Gethsemane and finished on the cross (speaking of the injustices he suffered...of course the resurrection is important too).] In that hour of anguish our Savior overcame all the power of Satan. [Even facing spiritual abandonment, and experiencing what Satan and sons of Perdition feel being cut off from God and the Spirit, Jesus resolved to drink the bitter cup and go through with his sacrifice. By the time Jesus left Gethsemane, he had completely submitted to the Father's will even though his dread of what lay ahead prompted him to ask three times for God to withdraw the bitter cup. As the blood dampened Christ's skin and he re-committed to go through with the sacrifice, all the misery and hate that comprise Satan's power glanced harmlessly off of our Savior's righteous will.]

I was merely saying that it is up to the prophets today to "officially' interpret the scriptures or "standard of doctrine" for us.

That statement disturbs me. To believe as you do, we must place greater store in the commentary on the scriptures, than in the scriptures themselves. I disagree that the role of prophets and apostles is to authoritatively interpret scriptures for members. Their role is to preside over the Church, guide the exercise of all priesthood keys and ordinances, be God's mouthpiece to the world, and be eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrected glory. I am grateful we have apostles and prophets, and I have a testimony of following their council, heeding their warnings and applying their teachings.

I do not have a testimony that they are entitled to interpret scripture for me, or that they should receive revelations in my place. I have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and do not surrender that gift to the apostles or prophets.

When I posted Elder Haight's talk, i did it simply to say, that he had seen it first hand in vision, and he claimed officially that the Lord did pay for our sins 'in the garden".

See, this is what I'm talking about tiancum. Elder Haight never said what you claim he said. He did not say, "In Gethsemane Christ paid for our sins." He said, and I quote: "There, in the garden, in some manner beyond our comprehension, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world." Yet you have Elder Haight saying Christ paid for our sins in Gethsemane.

This is a prime example of how false traditions get started in the first place. Someone reads Elder Haight's talk, and thinks it means Christ paid for our sins in Gethsemane. Then that person quotes the talk in Sunday school and tacks on their personal interpretation of the talk, and from there, others begin teaching the same thing, and so it goes.

Rosie, if you say that what Elder Haight saw in vision is not true, or say what you know is more true, then so be it.

No, Rosie and I are saying that Elder Haight didn't mean what you claim he did. That's different.

Now Crimson, if you are comparing Elder Haight's vision to some of Mckonkie's words...I guess we are at an impasse.

I'm not comparing the two. I believe Elder Haight's vision. I just don't believe it means what you think it means.

I am going to continue believing what they have said. I simply believe as they have said, that he paid for our sins in the garden.

Funny thing is, I haven't found one talk by any Church leader who uses the exact wording you are such an ardent proponent of. I haven't read one talk where someone says that Christ paid for our sins in Gethsemane.

I have read plenty of talks where apostles say Christ "took our sins upon him" in Gethsemane. I suppose you could say that Christ paid a price in Gethsemane, since he had to be spiritually abandoned by God in order to face alone his unjust suffering starting with his arrest. Because of our sins he had to be left alone in an agony that summoned blood from his pores.

What the apostles have not said is that Christ wasn't slain for the sins of the world. You would have to find a quote from any Church leader saying that Christ's death on the cross wasn't the sacrifice for sin.

You will find no such statement. Ever.

Crimson, if you find any quotes from the prophets saying that Christ did not pay for our sins in Gethsemane, I will read them.

Bro, it's not so much that I need to find a quote saying Christ didn't suffer because of our sins in Gethsemane (since I do believe that). You'd have to find a quote saying Christ's sacrifice for sin wasn't on the cross.

The difference is that in Gethsemane, when God and the Spirit withdrew from Christ, men were not forcing injustices upon Christ. That was to come with his arrest, trial, conviction and crucifixion. So the suffering of Gethsemane was fundamentally different from what followed.

God and the Spirit were not condemning Jesus as a sinner in Gethsemane, nor were They punishing him for things he hadn't done. They were simply stepping back so that he could proceed alone. Jesus was unjustly treated by men when they condemned him for being a blasphemer and law-breaker, and then killed him for his supposed crimes.

God and the Spirit didn't withdraw from Christ because of anything he had done, but because of what he had to do. The suffering following the garden comprises the injustices that drive Christ's plea for mercy on our behalf.

Forgive any impropriety on my part.

Nothing to forgive. I enjoy discussing this with you. Don't feel like you are offending me just because you disagree with me. I don't mind challenges to my views, nor am I troubled that not everyone will believe as I do. All I want is to have a chance to tell people what I really think the scriptures and apostles have taught about the sacrifice for sin.

What you or others do with that after we've discussed it, is up to you.

All this trust in prophet and leader opinion concerns me greatly. Isn't that putting another mediator between us and Christ? Christ is our mediator.

Well it's not quite the same thing, rosie. The prophets aren't saying, "My interpretation must be believed for you to be saved." The prophets and apostles reveal the gospel ordinances and practices which qualify us to be sanctified by Christ. I've never read one single talk or article where an apostle says, "Unless you interpret Mosiah 3:7 the way I do, you cannot be saved."

Now I do agree that blind trust in the words of prophets and apostles is not what they or the Lord wants us to have. We ought to study their words, prove them by the Spirit, and hold fast to that which is true. The Lord has never guaranteed that every word his servants speak at conferences and elsewhere will be infallible or error-free. That is why we have the gift of the Spirit to aid us in our search for Truth.

Why should we have to go to man as the final say even if it contradicts all that is taught throughout canonized scripture and the majority of writings?

We shouldn't. Now just because a prophet teaches something different from what the scriptures say, does not mean the prophet is mistaken. In the early 1900's, following the Word of Wisdom became mandatory in order to enter the temple, yet D&C 89 specifically says it was not originally given as a commandment. Of course, God can abandon ordinances or requirements whenever He wants (as with circumcision and animal sacrifices), or change them if He sees fit. It's His plan of salvation, and He alone knows how best to administer it to His children.

But the apostles have not come out and said, "D&C 138:35 is no longer true. Even though it was seen in vision, it is no longer accurate to say that redemption was wrought by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The Prophet Joseph F. Smith was in error. The sacrifice for sin was made in Gethsemane."

So that's the problem for tiancum, and that resolves your concern, rosie. The LDS leaders have not come out and said the scriptures are no longer accurate or true. Remember, even latter-day scriptures in the standard works maintain that Jesus was slain for the sins of the world. Here are a few.

And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world. (1 Ne. 11:33)

And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world— (Alma 30:26)

Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Ne. 11:14...and this is Jesus himself speaking)

For, behold, I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe on his words, which are given him through me by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9)

I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one. (D&C 35:2)

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. (D&C 46:13)

Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world. (D&C 53:2)

Behold, thus saith the Lord, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, even he who was crucified for the sins of the world— (D&C 54:1)

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness; (D&C 76:40-41)

And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138:35)

If anything, rosie, the LDS prophets and scriptures have been as clear if not clearer than the New Testament in testifying that Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world. Section 138 of the D&C is an account of a vision by then-Prophet Joseph F. Smith.

There has been no LDS leader who has said that the sacrifice for sin wasn't on the cross.

It's one thing not to mention the cross when discussing the atonement, but it's another thing entirely to explicitly deny that the cross was the site of the sacrifice for sin.

No LDS leader, rosie, has taken the latter position. :)

Man has been wrong before. Even those in church leadership. Just can't understand why some are coming off so harsh against a fundamental truth (or so I thought) of scriptures.

Because false traditions have been taught to them their whole life. I know, it happened to me too. It's not that the LDS leaders have taught it, but more I think that the members have looked beyond the mark and misinterpreted the apostles' words.

While what happened in the garden is important it is not the event that was spoken of as most important by most apostles and prophets

Precisely. Surely the moment when God and the Spirit left Jesus to proceed alone was an important and agonizing moment. However, God doesn't remit our sins because He left Jesus alone. God remits our sins because Jesus allowed wicked men to shed his blood on the cross. The sacrament on Sunday contains the emblems of his death, not Gethsemane:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Cor. 11:26)

The sacrament or Lord's Supper took the place of the Passover feast. In the Passover, a spotless lamb had to be slain and then its blood--which was shed--was wiped on the doorposts and so forth to bring salvation from destruction.

Forgive me if I sound oversimplistic , but does it REALLY matter WHERE the attonement took place?

It does if people are being taught false doctrine about it. Ultimately, the key is faith and repentance. But what do we have faith in? That is what has been occupying my mind lately, and I think I was taught to have faith in a false interpretation of scripture (i.e. Christ suffering the punishment for my sins to pay the price Justice demands).

I believe that the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father did not abandon him in the garden, as I read the account, I seem to recall that an angel was sent to comfort him in the garden, he was not alone in the garden.

Yediyd, I think you're confusing ideas. Imagine the worst you've ever felt due to some sin you've committed. Try to recall the depression, guilt, shame and spiritual darkness that followed whatever it was you did. Now imagine that while you are feeling so rotten, an angel appears, pats your back and says, "You'll be okay." Would it really make you feel any better without the Spirit to fill you with joy and enlighten your mind?

An angel is no substitute for God's influence as conveyed by the Spirit. Also, if you will notice, the angel comes to strengthen Christ (Luke 22:43) before he bleeds from every pore(Luke 22:44), not vice versa.

Since Gethsemane wasn't about Jesus being unjustly treated by wicked men, it didn't matter if an angel or even ten thousand angels appeared to cheer him on through the blood-bursting agony. However, if an angel had appeared to strengthen Christ while he was being scourged or crucified, then that would invalidate Christ's claim that he atoned without any aid (D&C 76:107).

The fact is many LDS think the atonement happened in Gethsemane and that is what is being taken in by the membership...If no other detail is correct information regarding Christ should be presented as 100% accurate.

As I've shown, rosie, latter-day scripture is explicit that Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. Please don't mistake the members' confusion for the Church teaching false doctrine. The Church can't be held responsible for every time someone misreads the scriptures or words of our living apostles.

[tiancum]

Bro, it's not so much that I need to find a quote saying Christ didn't suffer because of our sins in Gethsemane (since I do believe that). You'd have to find a quote saying Christ's sacrifice for sin wasn't on the cross.

I believe it was both. My original assertion was that the atonement took place for all that final day. Starting in the upper room, and ending with the res. I just think that He did so in the Garden also. indeed, it was also on the cross. If there was a debt, then he did carry the burden for that debt, which is paying for it in part.

About the Apostles interpreting scripture for us. BTW I agree with you about their other duties.

When Pres Hinkley said that the Prophecy of Joel had been fulfilled, he was doing that. I accepted his official interpretation for that. Then we get to pray about it.

maybe were jsut straining at gnats here...lol

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm glad you responded, tiancum. I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you when I challenge your beliefs. I enjoy the discourse. In fact, in replying to your last post, I've discovered how to articulate unambiguously my position about Gethsemane. Thanks, bro. B)

Bro, it's not so much that I need to find a quote saying Christ didn't suffer because of our sins in Gethsemane (since I do believe that). You'd have to find a quote saying Christ's sacrifice for sin wasn't on the cross.

I believe it was both.

Let me be clear.

Saying that Christ suffered because of our sins in both Gethsemane and on Calvary is not the same as saying that the sacrifice for sin took place in both Gethsemane and on Calvary.

It is evident that Christ suffered both in Gethsemane and on Calvary. Are you saying that you think the sacrifice for sin took place in both Gethsemane and on Calvary? What scriptures do you base that on? Because I have like thirty that say the sacrifice for sin occurred when Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. I mean you can't get more explicit than this:

For, behold, I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe on his words, which are given him through me by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9, emphasis mine)

That specifically says that Christ was crucified to make remission of sins possible. Now if this scripture was alone in its witness, there'd be wiggle-room. However, a wide array of about thirty scriptures from all the books of the standard works specify the cross as the place where the sacrifice for sin was made.

I don't get how you can add on that Gethsemane was part of the sacrifice for sin when not one scripture says that.

Tyndale's neologism, "atonement," was created to highlight the result of the sacrifices in the Law of Moses...they made it possible for Israel to be "at one" with God despite their past sins. So the atonement is what makes it possible for us to be "at one" with God, yes? Here is what Doctrine and Covenants says makes "at-one-ment" possible:

I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one. (D&C 35:2, emphasis mine)

Does Christ mention Gethsemane here? No. He says the sacrifice for sin that makes "at-one-ment" possible was his crucifixion.

It's okay to say that in a sense the atonement began--not occurred--in Gethsemane as Christ resolved to go through with his sacrifice, but I do not see how someone can say that the sacrifice for sin took place even in part in Gethsemane. There are no scriptures to substantiate or justify such a claim other than a tenuous reading of D&C 19 versus about thirty scriptures to the contrary not to mention "The Living Christ" document.

Now, if all you are saying is that Christ's suffering in Gethsemane was a result of our sins which made his abandonment necessary, then sure. What I'm trying to do is differentiate between the nature of the suffering in Gethsemane and the nature of the suffering on the cross. Let me put it this way:

By itself, Christ's suffering in Gethsemane does not make remission of sin possible.

By itself, Christ's solitary death on the cross does make remission of sin possible.

To this give all the scriptures and prophets witness. And so do I, in the spotless name of Jesus Christ, the Lamb who died that our sins might too.

[Traveler]

Why on earth would I do that Traveler?

The Spirit's endorsement is enough for me. I need not tell the First Presidency, "The Spirit taught me such-and-such. Is it okay with you that the Spirit taught me this?"

Gimme a break.

You guys crack me up. I lay out the scriptures that all say the same thing. I cite "The Living Christ."

But that's still not enough. The false traditions of our fathers are too deeply ingrained, and you cannot get past your knee-jerk reaction to reject the truth. That's cool. You may say to yourself, "The matter is closed, no further thinking or praying need be done about this topic."

Me? I'm going to continue to shine the light of Truth into the dark corners where false traditions live and breed. The scriptures and the Spirit don't support my position; I support theirs, and their position is clear for those with eyes to see.

Please remember that as you say these things it is not in dark corners but to the saints of G-d, his chosen anointed. Please be careful how you speak concerning the L-rd's anointed.

The Traveler

I would ask one question: Was Jesus' life taken or given at the cross? When the spear pearced his side what came out - blood? or was it water? And what does that mean?

The answer my friend is that Jesus did not die because of the cross - or it would have been blood.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

Please remember that as you say these things it is not in dark corners but to the saints of G-d, his chosen anointed. Please be careful how you speak concerning the L-rd's anointed.

I wasn't talking about the Lord's anointed. They don't teach what so many seem to believe they teach. The dark corners I was speaking of are the hearts and minds of the members who perpetuate the false traditions they have been handed--not by the Lord's anointed, I might add.

When the spear pearced his side what came out - blood? or was it water? [...] The answer my friend is that Jesus did not die because of the cross - or it would have been blood.

Tsk, tsk, Traveler, seems you haven't read your New Testament lately. Let's see what it says, yes?

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (John 19:34)

I don't see your point. Nephi says that Jesus was slain for the sins of the world. Jesus himself in 3 Nephi says that he was slain for the sins of the world. Are you arguing with the Master's words? I'm confused.

Yes, Jesus ultimately had control over when his spirit left his body. The point, however, is that wicked men so abused and tortured his body that a normal mortal would have died. Hence, Christ took that opportunity to separate his spirit from his physical body.

[a-train]

What a strange argument here. Need we be so specific that we mark the very moments the Great Work of the Atonement began and ended? Like I said before, the Atonement began when the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The sacrifice for sin is but a singular portion of that Great Work, but can we claim to know it's beginning and end?

Regardless, without any benefit of any latter-day teachers we all know that it was in the garden that the Lord gave himself over to the scorning, abusing injustice of man's so-called law. We know that it was in His willingness that He gave himself over and so willing was He that He healed the ear of one of His captors wounded in the attempts to spare Jesus from such injustice, which attempts were forborne therefore by the Saviour Himself.

Can there be any argument whatsoever that our LORD gave himself as a sinner into the hands of the law only after arriving on the cross? Did He give himself in the court of Herod? Did He hand Himself over in the presence of Pilate? Was it during His scourging that He was somehow convinced to give Himself? Was it while He silently stood blindfolded and smitten in the night that He decided to ransom us?

All such arguments are ridiculous. We can read plainly in the Gospels that He willingly accepted the will of the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane and gave Himself there to the enforcers of the afflictions through which He would go on that famous Day of the Crucifixion.

I will make no attempt to pretend that I can somehow determine that Christ's efforts of willing sacrifice throughout His life and in the days and nights leading up to that Crucifixion so well proclaimed among us were NOT part of His efforts to save mankind from the fall. I will not attempt to tell you that His bleeding from every pore was for some other reason than the salvation of mankind. I will not assert that His healing of the sick and His casting out of demons was to any other end than their salvation.

Indeed, while the proclaimation of the Gospel is indeed characterized by the startling and vivid image of the Crucified Saviour, it has always been the testimony of the Prophets and Apostles that the LORD was not only therein engaged in the work of our salvation, but is also so engaged this very moment and our only hope is to align ourselves with His current and personal instructions, which instructions are as valid and necessary as anything ever before written or known by any followers of Jesus.

-a-train

[Adomini22]

What a strange argument here. Need we be so specific that we mark the very moments the Great Work of the Atonement began and ended? Like I said before, the Atonement began when the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The sacrifice for sin is but a singular portion of that Great Work, but can we claim to know it's beginning and end?

Regardless, without any benefit of any latter-day teachers we all know that it was in the garden that the Lord gave himself over to the scorning, abusing injustice of man's so-called law. We know that it was in His willingness that He gave himself over and so willing was He that He healed the ear of one of His captors wounded in the attempts to spare Jesus from such injustice, which attempts were forborne therefore by the Saviour Himself.

Can there be any argument whatsoever that our LORD gave himself as a sinner into the hands of the law only after arriving on the cross? Did He give himself in the court of Herod? Did He hand Himself over in the presence of Pilate? Was it during His scourging that He was somehow convinced to give Himself? Was it while He silently stood blindfolded and smitten in the night that He decided to ransom us?

All such arguments are ridiculous. We can read plainly in the Gospels that He willingly accepted the will of the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane and gave Himself there to the enforcers of the afflictions through which He would go on that famous Day of the Crucifixion.

I will make no attempt to pretend that I can somehow determine that Christ's efforts of willing sacrifice throughout His life and in the days and nights leading up to that Crucifixion so well proclaimed among us were NOT part of His efforts to save mankind from the fall. I will not attempt to tell you that His bleeding from every pore was for some other reason than the salvation of mankind. I will not assert that His healing of the sick and His casting out of demons was to any other end than their salvation.

Indeed, while the proclaimation of the Gospel is indeed characterized by the startling and vivid image of the Crucified Saviour, it has always been the testimony of the Prophets and Apostles that the LORD was not only therein engaged in the work of our salvation, but is also so engaged this very moment and our only hope is to align ourselves with His current and personal instructions, which instructions are as valid and necessary as anything ever before written or known by any followers of Jesus.

-a-train

A-train....... that is the best post so far. We dont understand EVERYTHING about the Atonement. I know the basics, the "why", and that is enough for me. Thank you for that post.

[CrimsonKairos]

Yes, of course that is all true a-train.

Let me remind everyone what necessitated this "strange discussion."

When someone claims that the sacrifice for sin was in the Garden, that is false doctrine.

When anyone intreprets an apostle's statement that Christ suffered in Gethsemane because of our sins, to mean that the sacrifice for sin was in Gethsemane, that is false doctrine.

When someone further claims that the apostles teach false doctrine, that I cannot let pass.

The sacrifice for sin--according to Alma 34--is what gives men confidence enough to have faith unto repentance. We are to have faith in Christ's atoning gift. To teach falsehoods about that supreme gift disrespects what Christ did.

When the scriptures are so explicit, especially modern-day revelations in the D&C, there is no excuse for sloppy doctrine, and I am appalled at the attitude of some that "as long as we get the gist of it, that's enough."

To each their own. I cannot abide to believe in lies, nor see others encourage belief in lies.

There is no excuse to believe or teach false doctrine in a day when prophets and apostles walk the earth and the Lord has restored his gospel.

Such is my position.

[a-train]

I can certainly agree that any assertion that Christ's Crucifixion was NOT part of the Atonement is nonsense. Furthermore, Joseph Smith didn't shock the Christian world, nor the six new members of the Restored Church at it's organization with his testimony that the LORD 'was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world'. (D&C 21:9)

However, a great insight on the suffering of our LORD for our sins was given in the words: '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. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 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—' (D&C 19:15-18)

Can any argument be made that our LORD did not specifically speak here of His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane? Clearly, the language in this passage directly connects those sufferings to the availability of repentance to mankind.

Now this IS news to the traditional Christians! LDS members have been aware of that since these passages were given and the unique understanding of the Saviour's Work afforded thereby has been highlighted.

Perhaps there may exist among us some uninformed or misunderstanding persons who take the LDS position to mean that the Atonement was finished as the Saviour departed from the garden that night and His Crucifixion and adjacent sufferings before his death bore NO significance or regard to the Atonement.

Regardless of whatever misunderstandings may exist among us on this matter, the Restored Gospel can sweep them away with one great swipe of the knowledge that our LORD's sufferings for our salvation did not begin and end with the Crucifixion, but that He embarked to save us from the very beginning and 'ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel.' (D&C 128:5) It is with this in mind that we LDS perceive a more tremendous plea in: 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.' (Luke 23:34)

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't think D&C 19 means what so many think it means.

Jesus says he suffered "these things" that we might not suffer if we repent. Then he says that suffering "these things" caused him to bleed and suffer. Kind of redundant to say, "My suffering made me suffer."

It would be redundant, unless "these things" he suffered to make repentance possible are his arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion and not bleeding from every pore.

"But wait," you may say, "How did his arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion make him bleed from every pore when they hadn't even happened yet?"

The answer is simple: Christ's arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion only have virtue if he suffered them alone. Christ in fact informs us that he did suffer those injustices alone (D&C 76:107).

So Christ is saying in D&C 19 that suffering those injustices alone necessitated his losing the Father and Spirit's influence, and that spiritual withdrawal caused him to bleed from every pore.

Christ says as much in D&C 19:20 (which hardly anyone goes on to read after verse 19):

Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. (D&C 19:20)

So let me "rewrite" D&C 19--yet again--to illustrate this point:

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

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer [separation from the Father] even as I [was cut off while suffering unjustly];

18 Which suffering [alone on the cross] caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to [be abandoned in Gethsemane that I might atone alone, and this spiritual withdrawal made me] 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 [of the unjust suffering subsequent to Gethsemane] and finished my preparations unto the children of men [by letting wicked men shed my blood on the cross for the sins of the world]. (D&C 19:16-19)

Can any argument be made that our LORD did not specifically speak here of His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane?

That is not the question, a-train. The question is whether "these things" Christ speaks of in verse 16 were his arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion, or his bleeding from every pore.

Bleeding from every pore is a single event, yet Christ speaks not of "this thing," but "these things" or plural things.

"Wait," you say, "if Christ's bleeding in Gethsemane was not the sacrifice that makes remission of sins possible, why would he use the agony of Gethsemane and not Calvary to motivate us to repent?"

For the same reason that Christ reveals earlier in D&C 19:6-7 (emphasis mine):

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.

So why would Christ choose to use the image of a God bleeding from every pore to motivate us to repent, instead of the image of a God hanging on a cross? Because it is "more express" and so that it might "work upon our hearts" to move us to repentance.

Many men have been crucified, but only one Being in the history of eternity has bled from every pore. Perhaps Christ understands our minds better than we do, and knows that we find the thought of Christ bleeding from every pore to be more potent and awful than the thought of him being crucified, since many other mortals have undergone that same agony.

That is my testimony. Christ is saying in D&C 19 that his suffering on the cross caused or made necessary his spiritual abandonment which resulted in his bleeding from every pore. And Christ is saying that if we don't repent, we will lose the Spirit which was so awful an experience in totality that it made him, a God, bleed from every pore.

The message is clear, and if we are not looking at D&C 19 in a vacuum but in conjunction with all the other scriptures that talk about the atonement or sacrifice for sin, this reading is the only one I'm aware of that maintains internal harmony within holy writ.

...the Restored Gospel [contains] the knowledge that our LORD's sufferings for our salvation did not begin and end with the Crucifixion...

True. Christ suffered in Gethsemane because of our sins, and Christ suffered on Calvary because of our sins.

That does not mean that the sacrifice for sin took place in Gethsemane and on Calvary. There is a difference.

That is what so many LDS members have been misunderstanding when they read the statements of our apostles and scriptures. I used to misunderstand it too, but now I feel that the Truth has been unrolled like a scroll, and I truly see for the first time what Christ suffered in Gethsemane, why, and how it relates to his sacrifice for sin on the cross.

Just take some time and think about it. It's taken me about a year to arrive at the understanding I now have. I wouldn't expect someone else to accept in a week or month what it took me a year of studying to grasp.

Then again, I'm probably not the brightest bulb in the box, and the rest of you may comprehend it much quicker than I did. Of course, I didn't have anyone explaining it so nicely for me. B)

[a-train]

I don't think D&C 19 means what so many think it means.

Jesus says he suffered "these things" that we might not suffer if we repent. Then he says that suffering "these things" caused him to bleed and suffer. Kind of redundant to say, "My suffering made me suffer."

That's what the scripture says man. 'Which suffering caused myself... to suffer both body and spirit...'

Call it redundant, call it whatever you want, that's how He worded it.

Regardless, my point is this: Why are we trying to say that the LORD's Sacrifice which enables repentance and the salvation of mankind is either the Crucifixion or Gethsemane? Can't it be both? I just don't see what we are trying to accomplish here.

I've stated my position that the Atonement is not only the Crucifixion, but is ALL the Saviour has done from before the Foundation of the world to this day including Eden, Sinai, Gethsemane, Calvary, and Golgotha, Bountiful, the Sacred Grove, Kirtland, etc.

There is a tendency to imagine that Jesus suffered a certain amount on the cross or what-have-you and that each forgiven sin is matched to a given portion of that suffering. Even if that is true, let the LORD do the accounting, for we know that the Atonement is infinite and the accounting thereof is not possible with a finite mind. Besides, we are not familiar with the currency of suffering for sin, for as the Saviour said: 'how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.'

We are therefore doubly unqualified to do the accounting for the Atonement, but we must understand that it is far more than we can measure and the Saviour has made sacrifice after sacrifice of both body and spirit from before the foundation of the world.

Was his humble birth a sacrifice? Could He have been born rich? He created the earth, He could have lived in complete luxury, but did not. Was this a sacrifice for the salvation of men? Where does His sacrifice (described as infinite and eternal in the scriptures) begin and end?

Perhaps He could have been off doing something far more pleasurable than leading the disobedient children of Israel through the wilderness.

Perhaps He could have been enjoying something much different than leading the rebellious latter-day saints to Utah. Perhaps He is sacrificing something right now.

We honestly can't say, but we CAN say with certainty, that his sufferings in Gethsemane AND on the cross were for the salvation of mankind and neither were for nought.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

We're talking in circles, a-train, which while fun for awhile, does tend to make me dizzy.

Regardless, my point is this: Why are we trying to say that the LORD's Sacrifice which enables repentance and the salvation of mankind is either the Crucifixion or Gethsemane? Can't it be both?

No, a-train, it cannot be both. Why? Not because I say so, but because the scriptures say very clearly that the sacrifice that makes remission of sin possible was on the cross. Period. I mean the Lord himself says it like six times in the D&C alone...but we're supposed to ignore that and focus on what D&C 19 might mean?

That's why this seems crazy to debate. It's clear. There need be no confusion or false doctrine.

I've stated my position that the Atonement is not only the Crucifixion, but is ALL the Saviour has done from before the Foundation of the world to this day including Eden, Sinai, Gethsemane, Calvary, and Golgotha, Bountiful, the Sacred Grove, Kirtland, etc.

This is important, a-train. This is where we're having our difficulty. You're defining the atonement to mean everything Jesus has ever done that contributes to the salvation of mankind. And I agree, that is certainly a viable way to define it.

However, I am speaking solely about the sacrifice for sin on the cross. The sacrifice for sin...not a sacrifice here or there, but the sacrifice which was foreshadowed by the Passover lamb's death, and by the goat's death and blood on the Day of Atonement.

When the scriptures speak of sacrifice for sin and when Paul says Jesus fulfilled the law of sacrifices for sin with his last sacrifice...the word sacrifice is literally a synonym for killing. Do you see the distinction I'm making?

I'm not saying you can't call Christ being born in a cave "a sacrifice" for mankind. I'm not saying growing up on a carpenter's salary instead of in a palace as he deserved was not "a sacrifice."

What I'm saying is that the Law of Moses, Day of Atonement, Holy of Holies, sprinkling of the shed blood of a sacrificial victim all revolve around killing in the act of offering sacrifice for sin.

That is my point. As defined and described by the Old Testament and Jehovah's law of performances and animal sacrifices, the sacrifice for sin involves killing a spotless victim, and therefore when the scriptures speak of the sacrifice for sin, they are talking about Jesus allowing wicked men to shed his blood on the cross.

You can say that Christ made a sacrifice in Gethsemane by letting God and the Spirit abandon him.

You can say that Christ suffered because of our sins in Gethsemane, since our sins mandated that he die alone on the cross.

What you cannot say is that the sacrifice for sin that the Law of Moses foreshadowed was offered in Gethsemane. Well, you can say that but you'd be teaching contrary to the scriptures and oracles of God.

There is a tendency to imagine that Jesus suffered a certain amount on the cross or what-have-you and that each forgiven sin is matched to a given portion of that suffering.

And that idea of Christ "taking my whipping in my place" is false, because not one scripture teaches that. In fact, scriptures like Alma 34 teach the opposite, namely that it is not just to punish an innocent person for the sins of the guilty. Yet this "tendency" to believe in straight this-for-that penal-substitution in Gethsemane persists despite not on shred of scriptural evidence aside from D&C 19 which must be read in the context that is established by all of the other scriptures that talk about what constitutes the sacrifice for sin!

Where does His sacrifice (described as infinite and eternal in the scriptures) begin and end?

The list of sacrifices or selfless acts of service Christ has done for mankind is indeed limitless.

But the sacrifice for sin...the act that Jehovah foreshadowed by commanding spotless animals to be slain and their life-blood to be sprinkled on the altar...yes, that sacrifice for sin occurred on the cross.

So yes, the sacrifice for sin can have its beginning and ending pinpointed with scriptural accuracy. Did Christ say on the cross, "It is finished" or did he not?

Perhaps He could have been enjoying something much different than leading the rebellious latter-day saints to Utah. Perhaps He is sacrificing something right now.

Again, I'm not trying to say Christ has not made many sacrifices if by that you mean choosing to do difficult, tedious, selfless things in the service of God and man such as bearing with people like me.

What I am trying to say...and I don't know how much clearer I can be...is that within the framework of the Law of Moses, the sacrifice for sin that the High Priest offered up required the death of an innocent animal and the use of its life-blood on the Mercy Seat as a means of turning away the wrath of God.

So with that in mind, my friend, I say that the sacrifice that makes remission of sins possible occurred on the cross when Jesus died at the hands of wicked men. That we can say with certainty. That we can state clearly and without apology or ambiguity.

And that is all I've been trying to say.

Many people have been asserting that the great and last sacrifice that fulfilled the need for animal sacrifice, was offered by Christ in Gethsemane.

This the scriptures clearly do not teach. Why is it so horrible that I make this distinction and correct this error? I am doing nothing remarkable or strange, merely reiterating what God has revealed to man from the beginning of the world:

5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.

6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. (Moses 5:5-7, emphasis mine)

So yes, we can speak of the sacrifice for sin in terms of the animal sacrifices that God has commanded man to observe from Adam until the resurrection of Christ. And these animal sacrifices...which involved killing the animals...were a similitude or parallel to the sacrifice that the Son of God would make for the sins of the world...on the cross.

In other words, of all the sacrifices that Jesus has made for us, of all the things he has given up or done that were difficult or unpleasant or selfless, the sacrifice that makes remission of sin possible is his unjust death.

Jesus does not ask God to remit our sins because Jesus grew up poor, or had to wear sandals, or was teased by the kids at synagogue, or had to put up with Israel's stubbornness in the wilderness for forty years, etc...

Christ asks God to remit our sins because of 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," (D&C 45:3-5).

We honestly can't say, but we CAN say with certainty, that his sufferings in Gethsemane AND on the cross were for the salvation of mankind and neither were for nought.

Yes, Christ's suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross was endured in the pursuit of mankind's salvation, but the suffering in Gethsemane was not The Sacrifice for sins (capital "T" and capital "S") that had been foreshadowed for millenia before Christ's birth.

Can we agree on all this? I see your point, and I think I've pared my beliefs down to their most basic form and clarified my use of the term "sacrifice" to refer to the Law of Moses sacrifices. I don't know what else to say.

[a-train]

Now we are getting somewhere. I see your position and it is different from what I thought you were saying, at least somewhat. It seems the whole issue is shrouded in semantic detours.

You are correct, that the Death on the Cross of the Great Last High Priest alone fulfilled the shedding of blood as required by the law of Moses once and for all, Gethsemane alone would NOT have fulfilled that. In NO way am I saying otherwise. Nor am I pretending the Work on the Cross was but the smallest part of the 'big plan'. It is the krux of the whole Work of the Atonement.

However, this was not ALL that the Atonement required. If that was ALL He did, we would remain unable to repent and return to live with the Father. What took place in the garden was also necessary for the salvation of mankind. Unless, the Father just wanted to give Jesus some extra undue torture for no real reason. (sorry for the sarcasm)

If you have a minute, read page 613 of Jesus the Christ. (I don't feel like typing all that). I'm sure you've read 'The further tragedy of the night, and the cruel inflictions that awaited Him on the morrow, to culminate in the frightful tortures of the cross, could not exceed the bitter anguish through which he had successfully passed.' p 614

It is clear that Talmage also said of Gethsemane: 'In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Saviour took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world.' p 613 He then quotes D&C 19.

Calvary is at the center of the Atonement, but it didn't negate the need for Gethsemane, nor did it turn Gethsemane to a walk in the park.

The semantic issue is this word ATONEMENT. I think in most places, throughout LDS history the word has been used to describe the whole work of Christ. Fullfilling the law of Moses is only a singular portion of the much greater ATONEMENT. Sacrifice for sin is a portion. I know you understand all this. I see plainly that you do and that you have so stated.

The resurrection three days later is another major component of the Atonement. Imagine the resurrection was omitted. We could not repent. Well, perhaps we could, but we could not be saved. Again, you know all this.

My only issue with you is this: 'By itself, Christ's solitary death on the cross does make remission of sin possible.' The statement is technically true, but salvation from sin's effects does NOT come from the cross alone.

This is what the LDS difference really is. We are looking at more than JUST a remission of sin, but a full restoration of all things and the presentation of the earth and the family of Adam in a glorious immortal state of spotlessness to the Father.

What has thrown me from the first post is your 'view of the atonement not happening in Gethsemane'. I took that to mean that your position was that Gethsemane was not a part of the Atonement at all.

In all, I think we are in agreeance, just out of semantics. Of course, we have already talked about penal substitution.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Now we are getting somewhere. I see your position and it is different from what I thought you were saying, at least somewhat. It seems the whole issue is shrouded in semantic detours.

A conclusion I share.

What took place in the garden was also necessary for the salvation of mankind...It is clear that Talmage also said of Gethsemane: 'In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Saviour took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world.' p 613 He then quotes D&C 19.

Gethsemane certainly was the beginning--not the heart--of the sacrifice for sin, since I believe it was there that Christ was left alone. Being spiritually abandoned (for lack of a better term) was the necessary first step in offering a valid sacrifice for sin, so I do believe Gethsemane is where Christ bent down and "took upon him the burdens of the sins of the world."

The key is that he did not "put down" the burden of our sins as he left Gethsemane. His work of sacrificing for sin was not complete by the time he was arrested, yet that is what I've been taught my whole life in the Church. Christ bore the burdens of our sins all the way from the garden to the grave, in that he had to be alone for that entire span of time.

'The further tragedy of the night, and the cruel inflictions that awaited Him on the morrow, to culminate in the frightful tortures of the cross, could not exceed the bitter anguish through which he had successfully passed.' p 614

I've read "Jesus the Christ" twice, so I do recall the passage you cite. I feel that it would be harder to suffer the pains of crucifixion on top of spiritual withrawal, compared to just spiritual withdrawal as in Gethsemane. Perhaps Talmage meant the pain of crucifixion--taken by itself--was in no way worse than being completely cut off from God. Perhaps not. I think we agree the difference is semantic and not substantive.

Calvary is at the center of the Atonement, but it didn't negate the need for Gethsemane, nor did it turn Gethsemane to a walk in the park.

Agreed. 100%. I hope my focus on Calvary being the site where the sacrifice was offered did not come across as me trying to de-value or minimize what Christ went through in Gethsemane. I do not treat lightly a God bleeding from every pore.

I think in most places, throughout LDS history the word has been used to describe the whole work of Christ. Fullfilling the law of Moses is only a singular portion of the much greater ATONEMENT.

The majority of the time, I've been using "atonement" as a synonym for "sacrifice for sin." In the broader context of eternity and the plan of salvation, I agree that the atonement embraces more than just Calvary.

My only issue with you is this: 'By itself, Christ's solitary death on the cross does make remission of sin possible.' The statement is technically true, but salvation from sin's effects does NOT come from the cross alone.

Right. Adam brought death into the world through his transgression. That needed to be reversed. The earth was cast from God's presence. That needed to be reversed. Man became carnal, sensual and devilish. That needed to be reversed.

All of those things are obstacles beyond the obstacle of remitting sin. I agree that while Calvary makes remission of sin possible, it takes more than just having the record of our sins blotted out to be saved from all the effects of sin. At least, I hope I'm not departing on a semantic detour from what you were trying to say.

What has thrown me from the first post is your 'view of the atonement not happening in Gethsemane'. I took that to mean that your position was that Gethsemane was not a part of the Atonement at all.

At first, I did believe that. Then I abandoned the notion that Mosiah 3:7 meant Christ suffered the hunger, thirst, fatigue and temptations at the same time as his bleeding in Gethsemane. As a sidenote, I actually think the hunger, thirst, fatigue and temptations is a description of Christ's 40 day fast, but that's another topic. :)

Once I viewed Gethsemane as the place where God and the Spirit left Christ to proceed alone, then Gethsemane took on a very important role in the atonement that I had not previously grasped. Thanks to these discussions, my understanding has changed in significant ways. For that I am actually really grateful.

In all, I think we are in agreeance, just out of semantics. Of course, we have already talked about penal substitution.

Yep, most of this has been semantic and not substantive disagreement. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on the penal-substitution thing. B)

[a-train]

Here is a vivid portrait of why anyone would get real opposition from the LDS people to the notion that Gethsemane was not part of the Atonement. The Bible Dicitonary says:

'Jesus Christ, as the Only Begotten Son of God and the only sinless person to live on this earth, was the only one capable of making an atonement for mankind. By his selection and foreordination in the Grand Council before the world was formed, his divine Sonship, his sinless life, the shedding of his blood in the garden of Gethsemane, his death on the cross and subsequent bodily resurrection from the grave, he made a perfect atonement for all mankind.' (BD Atonement)

It is for this reason of definition that substituting 'Atonement' for 'sacrifice for sin' creates a semantic detour that LDS folks won't take.

As far as LDS persons who are of the opinion that the Atonement was over when Jesus left Gethsemane, they'd better crack those scriptures open a little further. To be honest, that is a new one on me. I haven't known LDS people of that opinion before.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Not that the atonement was over per se (since most people think the atonement includes the resurrection as is fair to assume), but that the sacrifice for sin was over by the time Christ left Gethsemane.

I do have to take issue with using the BD to settle the issue. It was largely written by Elder McConkie, and was in no way a revelation nor in my mind is it superior to revelation or scripture. I don't think it was sustained as part of the canon when introduced in 1981, any more than the index or topical guides are considered canonized revelations.

While it may not be popular to use the word atonement to mean the sacrifice for sin, Christ himself is comfortable doing just that:

These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:69, emphasis mine)

Strictly speaking, I know of no scriptures that include the resurrection as part of the atonement, since the Old Testament atonement for sin was not concerned with symbolizing or addressing man's resurrection from death. There is the symbolic "wave offering" of the firstfruits of the harvest, about three days after the Passover feast, but I'm just saying that I think the LDS members have shifted the word atonement from its original scriptural meaning, to include things not originally intended by the word.

Even so, I will be careful in the future to take pains to explain that I don't view all of salvation as relying solely on Christ's death on the cross. The resurrection, etc... necessitates other divine acts and victories not encompassed by Christ's crucifixion, and even though the scriptures define the word "atonement" strictly within the context of remitting sins, I will not assume everyone I speak to understands or believes this to be true.

Hopefully, by so doing, I can avoid any further misunderstandings over our Lord's mind-numbing and soul-saving sacrifice.

[a-train]

While I used the BD to demonstrate the common LDS definition of 'Atonement', the inclusion of saving components such as the resurrection haven't simply been casually lumped into the term by lazy latter-day sunday speakers.

Speaking precisely of the resurrection, Jacob says: 'Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption.' (2 Nephi 9:7)

Again he says: 'For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.' (2 Nephi 9:26)

It is difficult to extricate the resurrection from the 'atonement' Jacob is speaking of here.

However, in 2 Nephi 10:25, Jacob says: 'Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine.' It would appear here, that his definition of the atonement would NOT include the resurrection.

Regardless, in our modern language, we have adopted the use of the term 'Atonement' to describe the whole of the saving work of Christ for mankind and we are therefore compelled to be more specific when speaking only of a specific component of that great work such as the sacrifice for sin or the resurrection.

Still, I was unaware that there were any of the opinion that the sacrifice for sin took place in Gethsemane and was finished before the Saviour's departure therefrom. I would then ask: 'What then was accomplished on the cross?' 'If all that was required was that he 'give up the ghost' after His suffering in Gethsemane, what was the purpose of His passing through such great pains before so doing?'

-a-train

[Adomini22]

Never heard of anyone thinking like that either. Gethsemane and Calvary were both needed, together. No one can say otherwise, except for ignorant fools who dont read scriptures.

[tiancum]

nobody ever said that Calvary wasn't part of it.

We just felt you were wrong when you said that Gethsemane was not necessary. Even I from the start 3 threads ago stated that they were both part of the atonement, and it culminated with the resurrection.

The scriptures we posted were to that end. Gethsemane was essential. Thanks for clearing it up.

As for me still believing that he did suffer (pay for our sins) at least in part in Gethsemane. It is a belief, that does indeed come to me in part by Bruce R. mainly from his talk "the purifying power of Gethsemane" and other talks. Part of it has come through the spirit.

All of this talk is well and good, but what i think is more important is for all of us to strive for a first hand witness of these events. It is the difference between knowing about him, and knowing him.

[Palerider]

just for the discussion here....it says this in the Bible Dictionary

Gethsemane- the garden across the brook Kedron, on the slope of the Mount of Olives to which the Lord went on leaving the upper room on the night of his betrayal

Golgotha- A skull. The Aramaic name of the place where Christ was crucified. It is uncertain why it received this name-possibly because it was a round bare spot, bearing some likeness to a bald head. It was outside the gate but close to the city and to some highway.

Calvary- A Skull. The name by which the KJV denotes the place where our Lord was crucified. Calvary is merely an English form of the Latin word calvaria which is itself a translation of the hebrew word Golgotha, a skull. The poplar expression Mount Calvary is not warranted by any statement in the Gospels. There is no mention of a mount in any of the narratives of the crucifixion.

Like I said....I added this just for curiosity and discussion.

[Josie]

Looking at LDS.org under Atonement, this is what we read:

As descendants of Adam and Eve, all people inherit the effects of the Fall. In our fallen state, we are subject to opposition and temptation. When we give in to temptation, we are alienated from God, and if we continue in sin, we experience spiritual death, being separated from His presence. We are all subject to temporal death, which is the death of the physical body (see Alma 42:6-9; D&C 29:41–42).

The only way for us to be saved is for someone else to rescue us. We need someone who can satisfy the demands of justice—standing in our place to assume the burden of the Fall and to pay the price for our sins. Jesus Christ has always been the only one capable of making such a sacrifice.

From before the Creation of the earth, the Savior has been our only hope for "peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come" (D&C 59:23).

Only He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. From His mortal mother, Mary, He inherited the ability to die. From His immortal Father, He inherited the power to overcome death. He declared, "As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26).

Only He could redeem us from our sins. God the Father gave Him this power (see Helaman 5:11). The Savior was able to receive this power and carry out the Atonement because He kept Himself free from sin: "He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them" (D&C 20:22). Having lived a perfect, sinless life, He was free from the demands of justice. Because He had the power of redemption and because He had no debt to justice, he could pay the debt for those who repent.

Jesus's atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. In Gethsemane He submitted to the will of the Father and began to take upon Himself the sins of all people. He has revealed some of what He experienced as He paid the price for our sins:

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

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

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

"Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men" (D&C 19:16–19; see also Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7).

The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified—"lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world" (1 Nephi 11:33).

On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all.

Jesus Christ redeems all people from the effects of the Fall. All people who have ever lived on the earth and who ever will live on the earth will be resurrected and brought back into the presence of God to be judged (see 2 Nephi 2:5–10; Helaman 14:15–17). Through the Savior's gift of mercy and redeeming grace, we will all receive the gift of immortality and live forever in glorified, resurrected bodies.

Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins. But we can be forgiven and cleansed from the stain of sin if we "apply the atoning blood of Christ" (Mosiah 4:2). We must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

See also Baptism; Death, Physical; Death, Spiritual; Eternal Life; Faith; Fall; Forgiveness; God the Father; Gospel; Justice; Kingdoms of Glory; Mercy; Ordinances; Plan of Salvation; Repentance; Resurrection; Salvation

—See True to the Faith (2004), 14–21

Is this not the ultimate authority?

[CrimsonKairos]

When we give in to temptation, we are alienated from God, and if we continue in sin, we experience spiritual death, being separated from His presence...We need someone who can satisfy the demands of justice—standing in our place to assume the burden of the Fall and to pay the price for our sins.

That statement is self-contradictory. It says Justice demands that the punishment for sin is separation from God. Then it says that Christ paid the price for our sins in our place. That would mean that Christ must be separated from God in our place...not just temporarily. Sinners are eternally cast off (1 Ne. 10:21). Yet we know that Christ is not eternally cast off from God. So that theory makes no sense when you actually get down to nuts and bolts.

Christ paid "a" price in the process of offering the sacrifice for sin, but Christ did not pay the exact penalty we merit due to our sins, because that would require that he spend eternity being banished from God's presence. Justice's demands are overpowered, not complied with. I continue to be amazed that this theory of penal-substitution in paying Justice's demands is so prevalent when there are no scriptures that say that. The only statements to that effect are from stuff like "Mormon Doctrine," or curriculum materials, etc...

Sorry, I'm sticking with the scriptures folks.

The Savior was able to receive this power and carry out the Atonement because He kept Himself free from sin.

Yet Alma 34 explains that a just law does not transfer the punishment of a guilty person to an innocent person. That would be robbing justice. Christ had to be innocent of sin so that his death would be an unjust death and more horrible in God's mind than His withdrawing Justice's demands of us if we repent.

Because He had the power of redemption and because He had no debt to justice, he could pay the debt for those who repent.

That doesn't even make sense, nor is it grounded in scriptures. It's commentary on and interpretation of the scriptures, and I don't buy it. Then again, this is probably headed towards semantics and not substance.

Is this not the ultimate authority?

Um, no. It's not scripture. It's Church curriculum material. I don't consider the Institute manuals as equivalent to the standard works. "True to the Faith" is like the Institute manuals.

[a-train]

Christ had to be innocent of sin so that his death would be an unjust death and more horrible in God's mind than His withdrawing Justice's demands of us if we repent.

What scriptural authority do we have of that? What verses say that the Atonement doesn't fulfill Justice, but convinces God to negate it?

-a-train

[Josie]

Hmmmmm, maybe I should have said that to me, the Church is the ultimate authority and I think the Church takes great care in the explanations they post on that site. I have great confidence in the explanations given on that site.