I Would Like Opinions On An Activity My Kids Did In Primary

[Maureen]

I think many of you feel so threatened to think that our leaders could ever teach something untrue...that they could ever be wrong. I allow them the right to be wrong. I sustain their keys and leadership, and if they called me to a position I would fill it willingly. Their priesthood keys do not require me to agree with every single one of their teachings or commentaries on the gospel.

CK, maybe in 40 to 50 years you could be called to the top position and set the matter straight once and for all.

M.

[tiancum]

Honestly CK,

The tone of your posts sound angry, impatient, exasperated, frustrated.

Am I misinterpreting?

I hope so.

If you are indeed struggling with these emotions, may I suggest that you take a step back for a while?

If what you have said is true, then it is our job to find out for ourselves... Through the spirit. You have done your part. I honestly appreciate the position you have offered. It has helped me immensely.

Can we let others believe something you think is false? For that matter, for those of us with different views, can we let CK and others believe something we think is false without insults and anger? It cannot be taught by compulsion. These things are sacred and cannot be taught our way. They have to be taught by the comforter. If it is by any other way, it is not of God. We can not contend over points of doctrine if we plan on preaching and receiving by the holy Ghost.

Honestly, none of us have the authority to interpret the scriptures "officially" for another. The best we can do is give our opinions, and share them. The spirit has to do the rest. It cannot unless we come at this with a spirit of meekness.

[sixpacktr]

CK is simply passionate about this issue. I know he is not advocating that he knows more than the GAs.

I personally adhere to a 2 day atonement, one that began in the Garden, when he took upon himself the sins of the world, and ended on the cross, where he acted as the propitiation for sin, and fulfilled his calling as Savior and Redeemer. Without the cross, Gethsamane meant nothing. My own opinion holds the converse to be true as well (again, my opinion), that without Gethsamane the cross means nothing except that a sinless man died. Something awful and real occurred in the Garden that I don't understand, just as something awful and real occurred on the cross.

So I'd be cautious in accusing him of apostasy, or pride, or high mindedness. Rather, he is advocating that we learn all we can from the scriptures (and I consider the talks given by the GAs to be scripture as well) and then GET A CONFIRMATION BY THE SPIRIT AS TO THE TRUTH OF THINGS. The Spirit is the key, always the key...

[rusure]

CK is simply passionate about this issue. I know he is not advocating that he knows more than the GAs.

Uh, yes he did.

But, you're actually convinced he's an active LDS member that actually avails himself to the teachings of the prophets so you and I differ there, too.

[rosie321]

Crimson, I can't begin to get past the chip on your shoulder. I'll just say that you are not very familiar with the scriptures, you are only familiar with canned responses to try to knock down LDS views. I'm not interested in going to battle with you on that. If you want the chip there, you're welcome to it.

Read Isaiah 53. You don't need to report back to me. I already know what it says. I'm ready to be accountable for it. I would say that you are not.

<div class='quotemain'>You're missing the point. I'm not saying our prophets today have no value, etc. I'm saying that even the prophets today acknowledge that if a teaching contradicts the standard works of the LDS Church, then that teaching is a personal opinion.

You do realize that you come across as having a real issue with ego and humility, don't you? CrimsonKairos is spot on and all the latter-day prophets have been wrong. Um, OK. Bleeding from his pores isn't a solo LDS theology. What is your explanation for what it was that brought about bleeding from his pores?

Why shouldn't Crimson be passionate about truth? Either its true or its not. Isn't that what LDS are taught? If misunderstandings are being created by LDS culture then why not address them? Scriptures also talk about being hot or cold for if you are lukewarm you will be spewed out.

Maybe you should consider the judgement that you and others are handing out on Crimson. You have come across very strong as to what you feel is right also. You are expecting people to accept what you say as final truth on the matter.

Crimson makes some valid points. While the garden and resurrection are all related the point where Christ said "It is finished" and the innocent blood was shed was on the cross. The innocent blood demanded from OT to be spread on the mercy seat. I honestly don't believe or see that what Crimson is saying is outside what prophets and scriptures say if you read and pray about them.

Its unfortunate that you had such a bad experience in your catholic days with the cross. But I hope that you will remember that whenever or wherever atonement was made Christ suffered dearly for us, we should consider that cost and remember it, and live our lives as a testament to that.

<div class='quotemain'>CK is simply passionate about this issue. I know he is not advocating that he knows more than the GAs.

Uh, yes he did.

But, you're actually convinced he's an active LDS member that actually avails himself to the teachings of the prophets so you and I differ there, too.

Its a good thing you will not be in the judgement seat in the final day and the one who atoned for us will have the final swaying say in the matter.

btw yes I do believe that Crimson is a sincere, active member of the church as he is able. I have witnessed the good that he has done in the name of Jesus Christ. That I will testify of at the judgement seat. As for you....?????

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>CK is simply passionate about this issue. I know he is not advocating that he knows more than the GAs.

Uh, yes he did.

But, you're actually convinced he's an active LDS member that actually avails himself to the teachings of the prophets so you and I differ there, too.

Hey rusure,

True. I don't know if CK is active or not, since this is simply a board and I have never personally met him. However, he and I agree on a lot of things, I'm active, and he has never embraced anything that I have seen to be heretical or blasphemous, unlike some others that have visited this board (no names, no fingers, just what I have seen). So yes, I am convinced he is an active member.

I noticed that you don't have a lot of posts here (because you're new) and therefore don't know the stories behind some of the people here. Not my place to say anything about anyone, but I'm comfortable stating he is active and contributing wherever he attends.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>CK is simply passionate about this issue. I know he is not advocating that he knows more than the GAs.

Uh, yes he did.

But, you're actually convinced he's an active LDS member that actually avails himself to the teachings of the prophets so you and I differ there, too.

OK...WOW! Crimson has proven himself to be intelligent, thoughtful, and a rigorous intellectual defender of LDS faith here. He is also one of the better "translators,"--explaining LDS theology to evangelicals and other non-LDS Christians who come by here from time to time. So, to hint that CK is anything other than what he says he is spiritually, seems a bit much, imho.

Everyone believes that Jesus suffered and died for our sins. While I believe I've grasped that for many LDS, Jesus pathos at the Garden (especially his sweating blood) involved bearing our sins, and thus at least initiated the atonement, the fact that CK sees the atonement as taking place at Golgotha hardly seems enough evidence to charge him with being a stealth-non-LDS-er.

Something brimming beneath the service...me wonders if part of the reason this is striking a nerve is that some hold the LDS focus on the Garden as a special distinctive that sets the church apart from the rest of christendom. The Garden is a more tender scene than the cross, so teaching salvation from the perspective of Gethsemane seems less judgmental (not so much focus on the stark suffering sin results in). So, implicit in the focus (probably unintentional), is that this Church is a more tender and less judgmental one.

Ironically, CK strong advocacy of his view here is being taken with a considerable dose of judgment, imho.

[rosie321]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>CK is simply passionate about this issue. I know he is not advocating that he knows more than the GAs.

Uh, yes he did.

But, you're actually convinced he's an active LDS member that actually avails himself to the teachings of the prophets so you and I differ there, too.

OK...WOW! Crimson has proven himself to be intelligent, thoughtful, and a rigorous intellectual defender of LDS faith here. He is also one of the better "translators,"--explaining LDS theology to evangelicals and other non-LDS Christians who come by here from time to time. So, to hint that CK is anything other than what he says he is spiritually, seems a bit much, imho.

Everyone believes that Jesus suffered and died for our sins. While I believe I've grasped that for many LDS, Jesus pathos at the Garden (especially his sweating blood) involved bearing our sins, and thus at least initiated the atonement, the fact that CK sees the atonement as taking place at Golgotha hardly seems enough evidence to charge him with being a stealth-non-LDS-er.

Something brimming beneath the service...me wonders if part of the reason this is striking a nerve is that some hold the LDS focus on the Garden as a special distinctive that sets the church apart from the rest of christendom. The Garden is a more tender scene than the cross, so teaching salvation from the perspective of Gethsemane seems less judgmental (not so much focus on the stark suffering sin results in). So, implicit in the focus (probably unintentional), is that this Church is a more tender and less judgmental one.

Ironically, CK strong advocacy of his view here is being taken with a considerable dose of judgment, imho.

Amen!

Thank you PC

[rusure]

OK...WOW! Crimson has proven himself to be intelligent, thoughtful, and a rigorous intellectual defender of LDS faith here. He is also one of the better "translators,"--explaining LDS theology to evangelicals and other non-LDS Christians who come by here from time to time. So, to hint that CK is anything other than what he says he is spiritually, seems a bit much, imho.

Sorry, I wasn't doing it to please or displease you. Being an intellectual defender isn't really necessary to discern or identify spiritual things.

Ironically, CK strong advocacy of his view here is being taken with a considerable dose of judgment, imho.

How could it be ironic when CK is met head on? He doesn't seem to have a thin skin or shrink when he's addressed right back. If he did, I imagine he wouldn't post as he does. As for a considerable dose of judgment .. yeah, those darn ppl that don't agree with CK! How dare they! Hehe! You do realize you're giving out a "considerable dose of judgment" here, eh?

Something brimming beneath the service...me wonders if part of the reason this is striking a nerve is that some hold the LDS focus on the Garden as a special distinctive that sets the church apart from the rest of christendom.

I can't speak for others, but I believe LDS have it right and this doesn't strike a nerve about my beliefs, but it does strike a nerve, if you want to call it that, how much others refuse to acknowledge about the Savior. Ultimately, it makes no difference in MY life what someone else does. I'd rather run on all pistons, but others can do whatever works for them. Meanwhile, we can challenge each other as time and inclination permits.

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry, I wasn't doing it to please or displease you. Being an intellectual defender isn't really necessary to discern or identify spiritual things.

It's true. Smarts are not required to understand Scripture and teaching. The Spirit can illumine any hungry soul. On the other hand, 2 Timothy encourages us to "Study...to show yourself approved...a workman rightly handling the Word of God" (my paraphrase). There is no battle between wisdom and the Spirit. Both can work hand in hand.

How could it be ironic when CK is met head on? He doesn't seem to have a thin skin or shrink when he's addressed right back. If he did, I imagine he wouldn't post as he does. As for a considerable dose of judgment .. yeah, those darn ppl that don't agree with CK! How dare they! Hehe! You do realize you're giving out a "considerable dose of judgment" here, eh?

CK is a big boy, and can defend himself when others all but accuse him of being a pretend LDS member. But, just because he can take it doesn't mean it's right.

And, to respond to the accusation of being judgmental by saying, "Well...your judgmental to call me judgmental," is a bit silly. It's one matter to assess and disagree and explain. Quite another to say suggest that someone is insincere.

I can't speak for others, but I believe LDS have it right and this doesn't strike a nerve about my beliefs, but it does strike a nerve, if you want to call it that, how much others refuse to acknowledge about the Savior.

Nobody denies that Jesus suffered at Gethsemane. We simply don't believe that the spiritual anguish and travail in prayer was where Jesus won us deliverance from the judgment of sin. That happened at Golgotha.

Ultimately, it makes no difference in MY life what someone else does. I'd rather run on all pistons, but others can do whatever works for them. Meanwhile, we can challenge each other as time and inclination permits.

Challenging ideas and reasoning is a beautiful thing. It's one of the exercises that keeps me coming back. Dropping hints about posters' intentions and spiritual status--especially when the target is known and respected--that's another matter, imho.

[CrimsonKairos]

Crimson, I can't begin to get past the chip on your shoulder.

I'm well-balanced...I have a chip on both shoulders. B)

Read Isaiah 53.

Love it. One of my favorites. Has been for years.

You do realize that you come across as having a real issue with ego and humility, don't you?

Nope, but now that you've said it, I'll try to be less arrogant if that's what comes across. Just make sure you don't mistake my disagreeing with the GA's interpretation of scripture, to my thinking I'm "better" than them.

Bleeding from his pores isn't a solo LDS theology. What is your explanation for what it was that brought about bleeding from his pores?

First, I never argued that Christ didn't bleed from every pore. Second, I already answered your question in my post just prior to the one where you asked this question, but since you must not have read it, I'll reproduce it here since you asked, with a few clarifications added:

...his preparation in Gethsemane for his impending crucifixion...included God and the Spirit withdrawing Their presence from Christ...since Jesus says he atoned alone (see Psalm 22; Psalm 69; Isaiah 63:3, 5; D&C 133:50)...it was this spiritual "abandonment" that plunged Jesus into the icy darkness of what a Son of Perdition experiences, a change so shocking and abrupt that it prompted Jesus to beg for another way to be made available as his capillaries burst and blood pushed out through his pores.

The tone of your posts sound angry, impatient, exasperated, frustrated.

Am I misinterpreting?

Yes and no. I wish we all could talk face to face. I am a bit frustrated, but I'm not angry. I don't lose any sleep at night if I'm the only one who believes what I do. The reason I'm frustrated is that it seems like those who disagree with me are "playing by a different set of rules" than the ones they insist I play by. In other words, it feels like there's a double-standard, and that is frustrating.

What double-standard? Well, I explain my understanding of the scriptures, using copious scripture references, and I am accused of being an anti-mormon or something. Yet my very accuser uses my exact same approach (quotes prophets and apostles, albeit only one scripture) and he is supposed to be on such high ground. Interesting.

So no, I'm not angry. I'm a tad amused at this point, actually. The reason I keep arguing for my position is not because I want to convince y'all I'm right, but to make sure you understand what I'm saying. I don't care whether you agree or not, but I am not satisfied until I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from, and based on a few responses (mostly emotional knee-jerk reactions) I can tell some people still don't understand what I'm saying. That's all.

If you are indeed struggling with these emotions, may I suggest that you take a step back for a while?

I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm quite fine. I also appreciate your tactful attempt to defuse potentially destructive emotions. rusure could learn quite a bit about how to disagree with dignity by re-reading your and other peoples' posts.

CK is simply passionate about this issue. I know he is not advocating that he knows more than the GAs.

Not at all. They're quite a bit older than me, and the last time I checked, I haven't talked with Christ face-to-face in a waking vision which I'm sure they have.

No, I don't think I know more than them, I simply disagree with their interpretation of a few scriptures. Either way, I don't question their priesthood keys, their right to preside, or their authority to guide the Church. B)

The Spirit is the key, always the key...

Precisely. I don't want to "force" anyone to believe as I do, because the Spirit taught me what I believe. However, I do want to explain myself until I am sure someone understands me, else how can the Spirit confirm or deny my position if it is unclear?

you're actually convinced he's an active LDS member...

As sixpack pointed out, nothing we say about ourselves here can really be validated unless we meet in person, but I'll tell you that I am indeed an active LDS member, I'm in the bishopric of my ward, I am a Seattle Temple veil worker, and I love our General Authorities.

Don't know if you'll believe me, but I figured I at least owed you an explanation of my religious status since you had no clue about it.

Thank you to all those who stuck up for me, even if you disagree with my position. I appreciate your friendship and patience.

[rusure]

I don't lose any sleep at night if I'm the only one who believes what I do.

Oh, you’re not the only one. There many (non LDS) Christians that believe exactly as you do!

rusure could learn quite a bit about how to disagree with dignity by re-reading your and other peoples' posts.

I do find it funny you would say this since it was your rudeness toward other posters that “inspired” me to speak up. And, even though you didn’t allow others their dignity, I didn’t really take my gloves off until the very last post, but now you want to cry victim. Come on, that’s no fun! You're not the only one that took this thread sideways, I'm not sure if you were the first or what, but does anyone remember what the OP posted about?! LOL! It's a little ridiculous that she's been basically flogged with all this atonement talk. Talk about judgmental because she objected to something done with children. As the child's mother, I would expect her heart is more tender to things about children than a typical man would be (sexist, I know -- you can make a note I not only post rudely, but have sexist views -- hehe).

First, I never argued that Christ didn't bleed from every pore. Second, I already answered your question in my post just prior to the one where you asked this question, but since you must not have read it, I'll reproduce it here since you asked, with a few clarifications added:

...his preparation in Gethsemane for his impending crucifixion...included God and the Spirit withdrawing Their presence from Christ...since Jesus says he atoned alone (see Psalm 22; Psalm 69; Isaiah 63:3, 5; D&C 133:50)...it was this spiritual "abandonment" that plunged Jesus into the icy darkness of what a Son of Perdition experiences, a change so shocking and abrupt that it prompted Jesus to beg for another way to be made available as his capillaries burst and blood pushed out through his pores.

Are you drawing the distinction that the Savior did NOT feel every sin and infirmity of mankind's in the Garden? Is that your big beef with LDS beliefs? Your interpretation of the scriptures is that it was only Christ feeling what it would feel like for himself to be in outer darkness that caused the bleeding from the pore? If this is the case, do you feel that the Savior really knows what your burdens are and can lift them? How does he know what they are? Because he is omniscient? Is that the explanation and is sufficient?

[CrimsonKairos]

There many (non LDS) Christians that believe exactly as you do!

And they've had it right for centuries.

now you want to cry victim.

I'm not a victim. My position on the atonement is being misunderstood, though, and that is what this discussion is trying to remedy.

It's a little ridiculous that she's been basically flogged with all this atonement talk.

It wasn't directed at her. That's the beauty of discussion boards...discussions spring from unlikely sources.

Are you drawing the distinction that the Savior did NOT feel every sin and infirmity of mankind's in the Garden?

I don't think that Heavenly Father added up all our individual sins and pains into a big ball of misery and then gave it to Christ to swallow. In other words, for Jesus to know what a broken leg feels like, I think he simply needed to experience that pain once, instead of once for every person who broke their leg. Do you see the difference?

So if ten people broke their leg, Jesus only needed to experience the pain of a broken leg once in order to empathize with those ten other people. He didn't need to feel his leg being broken ten times so he could say, "I know how you feel."

Is that your big beef with LDS beliefs?

Well LDS beliefs are---by definition---the beliefs in the LDS canon. I have no beef with the LDS canon. I sometimes disagree with the way it's interpreted (or misinterpreted).

For the record, I'm sure I misinterpret some passages, as I'm far from perfect.

But in relation to the doctrine of the atonement---specifically---the Spirit has tutored me on how all the atonement scriptures fit together as relates to where the atonement happened, and I can't deny that. I also won't judge you for not believing it.

What I don't know is how the atonement freed us from sin, but I do know how it did not work (penal-substitution), and that is another point of disagreement I have with most LDS Christians and Protestant denominations as well. Again, my beliefs about why penal-substitution is false are scripturally-based as well, and I've debated/discussed it in-depth with several wise and scripturally-based members on this board.

Neither of us convinced the other, but we did delve into some fascinating concepts, unlocked the meaning of many scripture passages, etc.

Your interpretation of the scriptures is that it was only Christ feeling what it would feel like for himself to be in outer darkness that caused the bleeding from the pore?

Only what it would feel like for Christ to be in outer darkness? Only?

Do you see that it would be infinitely worse for Jesus to be in outer darkness than for us to be? Jesus is perfect. Imagine going from having perfect light to being thrust into perfect darkness, separate from the Father and the Spirit.

Now imagine you or I---who are imperfect---going from this telestial sphere into outer darkness. Horrible? Sure? But worse than someone going from a celestial sphere to outer darkness? Hardly. The contrast Christ experienced dwarfs in all ways any misery an imperfect sinner would feel.

Christ had always been in communion with God the Father. Always.

We have not always. We know what it is like to have God's presence and the Spirit withdraw from us.

Christ had never been alone, without the sustaining strength of his Father. Since we are not perfect, we literally cannot imagine what a perfect being would suffer during so total an eclipse of the soul.

To say Gethsemane was only about Christ experiencing outer darkness seems to minimize what he underwent. I'm sure he would have wished he only had to experience our misery, since we have a shorter distance to go from telestial light to outer darkness.

Let me put it this way. Imagine outer darkness is a concrete floor. Each of the three degrees of glory (telestial, terrestrial, celestial) are like diving boards perched above the concrete floor. As the glory increases, the height of the diving board increases.

So the telestial diving board might be ten feet above the floor, and the terrestrial diving board might be thirty feet above the floor, and the celestial diving board might be eighty feet above the floor.

So which would hurt more? Falling ten feet? Or eighty feet?

If this is the case, do you feel that the Savior really knows what your burdens are and can lift them?

That's like asking, "If someone has been punched in the face, can they empathize with someone who's only had their nose pinched?" Christ knows all we feel and then some. That's the true beauty of Gethsemane.

First, the Savior knows anything I will feel and beyond by virtue of his Gethsemane-plunge into darkness:

"[Christ] ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;" (D&C 88:6 )

Second, my burdens are lifted as I'm spiritually strengthened, and that strengthening comes from the Father, by the power of the Spirit, for the sake of the Son. So whether Christ has felt every little thing I've felt has no bearing on whether the Father can strengthen me to overcome my trials.

How does he know what they are?

See above.

Because he is omniscient?

Because Christ is omnipathos, in that he has felt everything there is to feel.

p.s. Now that you're asking me questions, trying to get me to clarify my position, we're having a discussion. Remember, I was raised to believe the atonement in Gethsemane model, so I thoroughly understand where you and many others are coming from.

[AnthonyB]

[<div class='quotemain'>The parallels are scattered throughout the OT, I was just wondering if you believe that the LDS views on Gethsemane were preshadowed in the OT like so many other parts of Jesus sacrifice clearly were.

Are you setting up a test that it must needs be that Christ's suffering for our sins, bleeding from every pore, etc. needed to have a foreshadow or it didn't happen or carried no significance? What event could have come close in any way to foreshadowing such an event? A blood sacrifice is "easy" enough to foreshadow. I'm wondering what you could imagine that could possibly foreshadow the spiritual and physical suffering?

Isaiah 53 prophesies how the Savior would suffer the pains of all men, bearing our griefs, carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, voluntarily submitting himself to the iniquity of us all -- http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/53.

Also in there it says, "when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin". So what was offered for our sin? Something physical? Or something spiritual?

It was also prophesied by King Benjamin. I realize you probably won't accept scripture unless it's specifically from the OT or NT, but here you go:

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.

rusure,

No I'm not setting up pre-shadowing as a bar to a doctrine being true, but for a doctrine as important as this I'd personally would have expected it.

I'll reread Isaiah 53, I know parts off by heart but not all of it. My memory currently makes me think that it would favour Golgotha, but I'll reread.

As for Mosiah 3:7, your right I'm not likely to think of it as scripture. The word "hunger" seems to be out of place, unless your implying that he didn't eat in the last supper, which I think very unlikely. Remember the passover was a meal, not the communion/sacrement we have today.

Whether Crimson is wrong or right, surely there is no harm in discussing such a vital area of doctrine, and rereading the verses about it for ourselves and praying for the spirit to lead us all into God's truth. The "narkyness" should be left behind but we should contend for truth with all our souls, which by and large, having read now several posts on it on this forum, is what Crimsons does on this topic.

[john doe]

Play nice, boys. You may agree to disagree, but let's stop the attacks and try to be polite to each other in our disagreements. After all, this thread is about the atonement, and should be addressed in a more respectful manner, not only towards each other, but also towards the subject matter.

[rusure]

And they've had it right for centuries.

If you say so.

It wasn't directed at her. That's the beauty of discussion boards...discussions spring from unlikely sources.

Well, yes it was. In fact, all your comments are aimed at all 13M LDS members but more specifically to the LDS in this thread like the OP. In reality, the OP had a right to have her concerns heard for what they were and not be lectured. Wonder if we'll ever see her share a concern here again lest she be berated for not understanding non LDS doctrine.

And they've had it right for centuries.

Do you see that it would be infinitely worse for Jesus to be in outer darkness than for us to be? Jesus is perfect. Imagine going from having perfect light to being thrust into perfect darkness, separate from the Father and the Spirit.

<snip>

OK, so bottom line .... Christ's physical and spiritual torture in the Garden -- to you -- had nothing to do with feeling and understanding what each one of us would go through as we sinned and suffered?

And they've had it right for centuries. Because Christ is omnipathos, in that he has felt everything there is to feel.

Yes, he did. In the Garden.

Remember, I was raised to believe the atonement in Gethsemane model, so I thoroughly understand where you and many others are coming from.

Well, I wasn't raised to believe that. You actually ended up where I was before. I started my own study of the restored gospel in my mid 30's -- having had your current model in my life the years prior. :) So I do NOT get where you're coming from as I consider it to be rich knowledge that you are dismissing. And, preaching to others your own interpretation is very much on the spectrum of apostasy -- just being direct about that. :) We all do little bits of apostasy in our own way, rebel, refuse, grumble, etc. and usually don't just take ourselves with us (which is unfortunate, but human nature, happens all the time), but it's a whole other thing to be an on internet forum not only preaching these ideas, but berating LDS members for not going along with your interpretation which directly contradicts LDS scriptures incl. conference talks. You say you love the general authorities, but you don't love what the prophet just this year said again in General Conference because if he were to say it here, he'd get the same kind of responses from you that ppl here did. This is most definitely not sustaining the prophet in a very public, albeit anonymous, way.

[CrimsonKairos]

If you say so.

The scriptures do.

In reality, the OP had a right to have her concerns heard for what they were and not be lectured.

Her concerns were heard. And addressed. You must not have read the whole thread.

OK, so bottom line .... Christ's physical and spiritual torture in the Garden -- to you -- had nothing to do with feeling and understanding what each one of us would go through as we sinned and suffered?

You're not listening, are you? I said Christ has suffered way more than anything we could ever suffer. Thus, he knows everything we can and will go through. I don't know how much plainer I can say that.

And they've had it right for centuries. Because Christ is omnipathos, in that he has felt everything there is to feel.

Yes, he did. In the Garden.

That's what I said. When Christ was left alone spiritually in Gethsemane, he was plunged from celestial heights to the depths of darkness, a descent whose torture exceeded anything we can suffer.

Where you're getting confused is in thinking that Christ had to feel everything we feel to atone for our sins. That's nowhere taught in the scriptures. As taught by Jehovah (who is Jesus), the concept of atonement has always demanded the death of an innocent sacrifice.

If you think I'm dismissing what Jesus underwent in Gethsemane, you aren't listening because I've said multiple times how amazing and difficult and torturous Gethsemane's agonies were to Jesus. My point, though, is that the scriptures do not teach that Jesus freed us from sin just by being abandoned in Gethsemane.

His blood had to be shed. To this give all the scriptures witness.

And, preaching to others your own interpretation is very much on the spectrum of apostasy -- just being direct about that.

So the prophets are on the road to apostasy? Because what they teach about the atonement being somehow in Gethsemane is nowhere in the scriptures. Oh wait, I forgot, once someone becomes a General Authority, they have a brain transplant, become omniscient, perfect, infallible, and unable to err in interpretation or doctrine...because if they ever displayed signs of being imperfect or mortal like you and I, God would strike them down as false prophets.

What I'm teaching is what the scriptures teach. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The scriptures don't support my doctrine; I support the scripture's doctrine. It's not my doctrine. It's Christ's.

...berating LDS members for not going along with your interpretation which directly contradicts LDS scriptures incl. conference talks.

If I've berated anyone, it's been for doing what you just did: claiming the scriptures teach something that they do not.

Mosiah 3:7 does not say Jesus atoned for our sins in Gethsemane. What the first half of Mosiah 3:7 does is describe Christ's 40 day fast. What the second half does is describe what Christ suffered as a necessary step in preparing to atone on the cross. It says that "blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and abominations of his people." It's simple, really. Let's track it backwards.

1.) To atone successfully, Christ had to make the sacrifice alone (as I've already shown Christ has said);

2.) To be alone, God and the Spirit had to withdraw their sustaining presence from Christ;

3.) Being left to himself thrust upon Jesus the miseries of outer darkness, infinite torture for an infinite God.

4.) This agony caused Christ's capillaries to burst, producing the visible symptom of bleeding from his pores.

So why did all this have to occur? So Christ could proceed alone to the cross and there atone. Atone for what? For "the wickedness and abominations of his people," as King Benjamin taught. That is what Mosiah 3:7 is teaching. In no way does King Benjamin say, "And Christ will bleed from every pore as the sacrifice for sin." However, we do have prophets like Nephi teaching that Christ would be lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world (1 Ne. 11:33).

D&C 19:16-19 explains the exact same thing. I've devoted other threads to that scripture alone, but I'm not sure you'd be interested in how it breaks down. If you are, I'd be happy to point you to it.

So for you to say that I'm teaching something the scriptures don't support is a stretch of the greatest magnitude. If we're going to get down to scriptural support, there are over a dozen scriptures (many from the D&C) that teach the atonement was the death of Christ on the cross. There are only two scriptures that ambiguously mention Gethsemane in connection with the atonement.

So either the two scriptures you cite (Mosiah 3:7 and D&C 19:16-19) are right and the dozen other scriptures are wrong, or the dozen other scriptures are right and the interpretation of Mosiah 3 and D&C 19 is wrong. The Spirit has taught me which is the case.

It's like someone saying: "The sun comes up because the rooster crows." Of course we know the rooster crows because the sun comes up; the sun doesn't come up because the rooster crows.

Similarly, many of you are saying that Christ atoned for our sins because he bled in Gethsemane, whereas the unanimous message of the scriptures is that Christ bled in Gethsemane because he had to atone alone on the cross.

You say you love the general authorities, but you don't love what the prophet just this year said again in General Conference...

You do know that you can love someone and respect them without agreeing with every single thing they say, right? Above all else, I love Truth, and that love comes before all other loves, I'm afraid.

This is most definitely not sustaining the prophet in a very public, albeit anonymous, way.

Opinion noted.

[CrimsonKairos]

rusure, you asked me to re-read Isaiah 53. Let's review the most salient verses and see what Isaiah says:

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. (emphasis mine)

Verse five there is full of descriptors highlighting the physical abuse and torture inflicted on Christ during his scourging and crucifixion. Even more significant is the fact that Isaiah prophesied that Christ would be wounded and bruised and chastised and given stripes for what purpose? For our transgressions, our iniquities, and to heal us and bring us peace. That is what the atonement is about. Healing our sin-sickened souls and granting us the peace of knowing we are clean after we repent.

If you want to go a little deeper (which I always do) we can look at the Hebrew words used in Isaiah 53:5. If you click on this link you will be taken to a site showing the verse, with little blue numbers above and to the right of the main words in the verse. These numbers correspond to "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" which lists the Hebrew words from which our KJV was translated, as well as the definition of those original Hebrew words.

Instead of making you click on all the numbers, I thought I'd reproduce them here for your edification. If you wish, you can click on the numbers below and you will be taken to the site listing the full definitions and word information. The "H" before each number signifies it is a Hebrew word being defined (as opposed to Greek in the NT).

Wounded = H2490 "Chalal" meaning: "To PERFORATE, PIERCE THROUGH and intrans. TO BE PIERCED THROUGH or WOUNDED."

Bruised = H1792 "Daka" meaning: "to break in pieces, to crush."

Chastisement = H4148 "Muwcar" meaning: "discipline, chastening, correction."

Stripes = H2250 "Chabbuwrah" meaning: "a stripe or bruise, the mark of strokes on the skin."

Going on to verse eight now:

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (emphasis mine)

This is an incredibly important verse. Notice that Isaiah says Christ was "cut off out of the land of the living" meaning Christ was killed. And why was Christ killed? Isaiah says it is because of the transgressions of the people that Christ was stricken or killed or wounded or bruised or chastised or beaten with stripes. All vivid descriptions of Christ's scourging and crucifixion at Roman hands. Here is the Hebrew word from which "cut off" was translated.

Cut off = H1504 "Gazar" meaning: "To cut in two; to cut down; to cut off, destroy, exterminate."

Was Christ "cut off out of the land of the living" in Gethsemane, or on Calvary? Was Christ "taken from prison and from judgment" in Gethsemane, or on the way to Calvary?

Before I continue, its important to note what the word "soul" means here. As usual, here's the Strong's breakdown.

Soul = H5315 "Nefesh" meaning: "Breath, the breath of life; the soul, by which the body lives, the token of which life is drawing breath, the seat of which was supposed to be the blood; the soul is also said to live, and to die, to be killed, to ask, to be poured out (inasmuch as it departs with the effused blood)."

Note that this same word, "nefesh", is the word used in 1 Kings 17:21 which describes Elijah's attempt to bring a child back to life, as here:

And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again.

Now notice how Isaiah describes Christ's soul and its role in the atonement. Here are verses 10-12:

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his aknowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

So it is clear that Isaiah is using the word "nefesh" which refers to the breath of life, or being alive, and not to some abstract spiritual concept. So how does Isaiah describe Christ's "nefesh" or "soul" or "breath of life" in relation to the atonement? Let me cut Isaiah 53:10-12 down to the specific mentions of Christ's "soul" and see whether it is reasonable to assume it refers to Christ's time in Gethsemane or on the cross:

10 [...] when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin [...]

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul [...] he shall bear their iniquities.

12 [...] he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Remember soul means "breath of life, or life itself."

- So Isaiah is clearly trying to teach us that Christ gave his "life's breath" as an offering for our sins (v.10).

- Christ bore our iniquities during the travail or tribulation of his "life's breath" (v.11).

- Christ made intercession for transgressors and bore our sins when he was numbered with transgressors and when he poured his "life's breath" out unto death (v.12).

Was Christ numbered with transgressors in Gethsemane or on Calvary? (v.12)

Was Christ's life breath in travail in Gethsemane or on Calvary? (v.11)

Was Christ's life breath offered as a gift in Gethsemane or on Calvary? (v.10)

Are there other examples in the scriptures of people's souls ("nefesh" or life breath) being in travail and being poured out unto death? Why yes there is, in Genesis 35:16-18. Here, Rachel is giving birth to Benjamin. Notice how the concepts of "travail" and "hard labour" are linked, and how the result of this "travail" was Rachel's "soul" departing or dying.

16 And they journeyed from Beth-el; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.

17 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also.

18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin.

This is identical to Christ's experience on the cross. During the travail of his "soul" on that cursed tree, Christ labored fiercely for the redemption of the wicked. After this hard labor, Christ "gave up the ghost" and died as the NT records.

So back to Isaiah 53. We have to ask ourselves: Is an unbiased, straightforward reading of the chapter along with considering the original Hebrew words more indicative of Christ's experience in Gethsemane, or on Calvary? I've actually learned alot in preparing this post, so I'm glad I had the chance to participate in this discussion. I love learning new things.

Isaiah's message is, to me, a poignant portrayal of the Son of God's offering of his life's breath on the cross by which he intercedes for transgressors like me.

To God alone the glory.

p.s. This post is an example of what I mean when I say "reading the scriptures." Not just assuming we know what the words mean, but studying and searching and pondering before concluding.

p.p.s. By the way, a few posts back you cited Isaiah 53 to show that the word "soul" referred to the spiritual agony in Gethsemane, I quoted D&C 88:15 which says the soul is both the spirit and the body, to refute your claim. But I was wrong to compare the two. The Hebrew word "nefesh" in the KJV does not correspond to Joseph Smith's use of the word "soul" in D&C 88:15.

Isaiah's intent was to refer solely to the life force in a mortal being; their breath; their blood; their life. Joseph Smith was using "soul" to encompass both the spiritual body and the physical body of man. So Isaiah and Joseph Smith were talking about two different things, and until I looked up the Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, I incorrectly assumed that the word "soul" meant the same thing in Isaiah 53 and D&C 88.

So, here's a public example of how I sometimes misinterpret passages of scripture. I'm glad I've discovered the true meaning of the word "soul" in Isaiah 53, as it unlocks the true meaning of Isaiah's message.

[prisonchaplain]

I've just figured out why many of us pentecostals are even more adamant about the atonement happening at Golgatha: WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS HEALING IN THE ATONEMENT!. Granted, this is one of those doctrines that even many other evangelicals disagree about. But, when we see Isaiah proclaiming, "By his stripes we are healed," we see a promise of physical healing. "He was wounded for our transgressions," (spiritual healing--forgiveness of sins), and the promise of peace could be seen as mental or psychological healing.

The only way of reading healing into the atonement is if it happened at the cross. Although, Crimson does shed light on idea that Jesus experienced the weight of our sins at Gethsemane--and that this was perhaps even more difficult for him.

[CrimsonKairos]

Crimson does shed light on idea that Jesus experienced the weight of our sins at Gethsemane--and that this was perhaps even more difficult for him.

By itself, Gethsemane's agony would be more intense suffering than crucifixion by itself. However, Christ was alone on the cross too, so he could pour out his soul unto death without external aid and thus complete a valid sacrifice.

So Gethsemane's agony necessarily followed Jesus from his arrest to the moment when he gave up the ghost on the cross. Thus, I personally believe that Calvary was twice as painful as Gethsemane (spiritual abandonment + physical agony of crucifixion). Gives new meaning to scriptures like these:

...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... (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)

41 ...[Jesus] came into the world...to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world...

69 ...Jesus the mediator of the new covenant...wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:41, 69)

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)

To God alone the glory for the free gift of salvation bought with the life blood of our Messiah.

[a-train]

I am just entering this conversation, and perhaps someone has already mentioned this, but it would be important to avoid ambiguity in the term Atonement here.

The LDS Bible Dictionary under the heading Atonement, speaking of the Saviour says: '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.'

This definition which is most widely used by LDS folks would place the location of the Atonement in a multitude of neighborhoods spanning many millennia. This definition is used commonly in LDS writings and teaching aids and should be taken into consideration when discussing the matter with LDS persons.

With that, it becomes very clear that we can naturally expect the vast majority of LDS folks to possess an instinctive reluctance to agree with statements that the whole of the Atonement is limited to Calvary or anywhere else for that matter.

Now, ambiguity can arise because atonement under the law of Moses was a singular event that fulfilled the demands of the law and little more. The Atonement of Jesus Christ under this definition is the whole of His work to bring about the salvation of mankind which includes the fulfillment of the law of Moses, but also much more.

So, hopefully this can put at ease many concerns held at all points on the spectrum in this discussion.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

The LDS Bible Dictionary under the heading Atonement, speaking of the Saviour says...

I wasn't aware that the Bible Dictionary was given by revelation. In fact, it was pretty much the product of that vigorous gospel scholar and apostle, Elder McConkie.

While I admire many of his writings, particularly the "Messiah Series," Elder McConkie seems to have completely missed the scriptural meaning of the phrase "shedding of blood," since he uses that term to refer to Christ bleeding from every pore.

It is clear from scriptures that "shedding of blood" does not equate to "sweating blood" (see Gen. 9:6; Lev. 17:3-4). "Shedding of blood" always refers to the act of killing, of spilling the life blood of a living victim.

There is not one instance in scripture where Christ's loss of blood in Gethsemane is referred to as "shedding of blood."

So I take great exception to Elder McConkie's use of that term in the Bible Dictionary entry under "Atonement."

It's no surprise, really, since the chapter headings which were added to the standard works around 1981 where also written mainly by Elder McConkie. The chapter headings were not given by revelation, but rather reflect Elder McConkie's interpretation of and commentary on the scriptures themselves.

It is Elder McConkie---I believe---who really sparked the "atonement in Gethsemane" belief with chapter headings such as these, which are nothing more than his commentary on the scriptures:

King Benjamin continues his address—The Lord Omnipotent shall minister among men in a tabernacle of clay—Blood shall come from every pore as he atones for the sins of the world—His is the only name whereby salvation comes—Men can put off the natural man and become saints through the atonement—The torment of the wicked shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone. About 124 B.C. (Chapter Heading, Mosiah 3, Book of Mormon; emphasis mine)

Even though Mosiah 3 nowhere says that Christ would atone for our sins by sweating blood, Elder McConkie feels comfortable saying Christ would atone for our sins in Gethsemane based on this part of Mosiah 3:7

...for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

No mention of interceding for the transgressor; no mention of bearing his people's iniquity; no mention of bleeding from every pore in the act of redeeming mankind.

All it says is that Christ would bleed from every pore because of his anguish over our wickedness and abominations.

Yet I'm sure everyone reads that chapter heading (like I know I used to), and then thinks, "Oh, King Benjamin taught that Christ sweat blood in Gethsemane to atone for our sins." But the scripture doesn't say that.

All the other scriptures about the atonement explicitly identify the purpose of Christ's mortal mission of mercy, and that purpose was to be crucified for the sins of the world. In light of what the actual scriptures teach, Elder McConkie's interpretation becomes tenuous and nothing more than his personal opinion (which he's entitled to, and which I respect even if I can't agree with it based on scriptural evidences).

This definition is used commonly in LDS writings and teaching aids and should be taken into consideration when discussing the matter with LDS persons.

That's why I discuss the atonement with my fellow LDS brothers and sisters: because they have accepted chapter headings as doctrine, and commentary instead of the canon. Of course I'm aware of this common misconception, I used to labor under it as well.

Now, ambiguity can arise because atonement under the law of Moses was a singular event that fulfilled the demands of the law and little more.

That's the point: to redeem us from the many instances of personal disobedience to the gospel laws we are called to live by. Ancient Israel was called to live by the Law of Moses and all that entailed. In our day, we are called to live by other gospel laws that are just as important even though they differ dramatically in substance from the previous dispensation under Moses.

What else is there to redeem us from, if not the demands of the gospel law we have covenanted to obey?

Resurrection comes free since we didn't eat the forbidden fruit and cause our deaths. We would all be resurrected whether Christ atoned for our sins or not.

The atonement is about "covering" or "blotting out" our sins and writing our names in the Book of Life, changing us into perfect, innocent, divine heirs of eternal life.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ under this definition is the whole of His work to bring about the salvation of mankind which includes the fulfillment of the law of Moses, but also much more.

But nowhere in the scriptures is the atonement defined as including Christ's whole life or the resurrection. The atonement is solely about being our Mediator with God to wash us from our sins in his shed life blood.

That is what the scriptures teach.

That is what the scriptures teach.

That is what the scriptures teach.

Maybe if I say that three times, it will penetrate the ubiquitous indoctrination born of chapter headings replacing scripture study. :)

Let me reproduce a few of the many explicit scriptures which point to Calvary, not ambiguously gesture in the direction of Gethsemane, as the site where salvation was purchased.

...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... (D&C 35:2) This is Christ himself speaking!

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) This is Christ himself speaking!

41 ...[Jesus] came into the world...to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world...

69 ...Jesus the mediator of the new covenant...wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:41, 69)

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)

Why is there not one short, simple, explicit declaration like those above, identifying Gethsemane as the place where Christ atoned for our sins? Ask yourself that question, but more importantly, ask God to tell you the answer through the Spirit. That is how I obtained my witness, it was not revealed to me by flesh and blood.

I'm not stupid enough to think that my words alone can illuminate the truth about the atonement on the cross. But without my words or someone else's words, the Spirit has nothing to confirm or deny. Hence I acknowledge that all of us share the same destination on our search for Truth: the Spirit of God, and personal revelation.

[peanutgallery]

Sorry CK, but I am going to trust prophets and apostles before I trust you. There is a reason they were called to their position and you were not. I am pretty sure that they have more revelation than you do about the scriptures. I am blown away that you honestly think you know and understand the scriptures better than every single prophet and apostle.

I agree with rusure that saying something that goes directly against LDS doctrine is apostasy.

And yes, the Bible dictionary was created through revelation and inspiration just as every single conference talk is.

[CrimsonKairos]

Sorry CK, but I am going to trust prophets and apostles before I trust you.

I'm not asking you to trust me at all. I'm suggesting that we read the scriptures without twisting their plain meaning. I don't even enter into the equation, pg. It's about Christ and his scriptures and his atonement and what the scriptures teach about it.

I've never asked you to "trust me." I've repeatedly, doggedly, passionately, obsessively, zealously pled with all of you to trust the LDS canon to set the doctrinal standard against which we are to measure every teaching and opinion for accuracy and validity.

And yes, the Bible dictionary was created through revelation and inspiration just as every single conference talk is.

Wow. Who told you that? Whoever it was, they lied inexcusably and blatantly.

Actually, the Bible Dictionary was the result of exhaustive studies of scholarly texts, ancient writings such as those of Edersheim and Farrar, et al.

Once more, friends, listen closely:

I don't think I'm smarter than the prophets and apostles.

I do think the LDS canon is of greater doctrinal significance than the opinions of prophets and apostles or anyone if those opinions are at odds with the canon.

Don't put words in my mouth. Thanks. And as always, let's rely on the scriptures for doctrine, not Ensign articles and Bible Dictionaries.

This culture of clinging to commentary instead of the canon reminds one of the worst excesses of the Jewish legalistic obsession, wherein the Talmud and Targum and other commentaries by learned Rabbis became the source of doctrine instead of the Old Testament itself.

We all know what happened to Judaism when commentary gained preeminence over canon.

[a-train]

CK,

My quoting of the Bible Dictionary wasn't for you. It was for everyone else. I think most LDS persons when hearing the phrase: 'The Atonement of Christ' are thinking of the big picture, not just the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, Gethsemane, the cross, or any singular portion of that big picture; but the whole of the works of Christ designed to make mankind at one with God.

I think because of this, we need to make certain we are all discussing the same thing. If one said: 'The whole of the Atonement was accomplished in Gethsemane.' I (and I think the majority of LDS persons) would cry 'Oops!' But if one says that something beyond the understanding of man occured there, something that Christ and Christ alone endured, something that was crucial to the Atonement, whether it was nothing more than a preparation for the coming events of the following day or something more, I can present little argument against it.

What is at battle here is the ancient use of the term atonement, and our modern use of the term with regard to THE ATONEMENT, meaning the Atonement of Jesus Christ for all mankind.

-a-train