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

[tiancum]

sigh, this is not how truth is taught.

[CrimsonKairos]

You're right, it's taught in Church classes absent of scripture references and fueled by warm fuzzies and teary-eyed testimonies.

*CK turns aside, vomits*

Sorry...false doctrine has that effect on me.

By the way, when I wear my CTR ring, it stands for:

"Calvary Truly Redeems"

[checkerboy]

Yeah and you disgust me CK.

Try not to sound so high and mighty you may just be translated soon.

Give me a break.

You my friend are on the road to apostasy.

So basically you ingnore the teachings of latter day apostles and prophets who say that the the SUFFERING in Gethsemane was part of the Atonement.

When one starts to put their own beliefs before the doctrine taught by living prophets one cuts themselves off from the truth.

[Brother Dorsey]

You're right, it's taught in Church classes absent of scripture references and fueled by warm fuzzies and teary-eyed testimonies.

*CK turns aside, vomits*

Sorry...false doctrine has that effect on me.

By the way, when I wear my CTR ring, it stands for:

"Calvary Truly Redeems"

CK...I am hurt....do you honestly believe that the atonement only happened on the cross? And that the teaching of the Atonement starting in the garden of Gethsename as taught by Prophets, Seers and Revalators which you sustain is false doctrine?

Here are a few quotes from these Prophets, Seers and Revelators which you sustain:

“We honor His birth. But without His death that birth would have been but one more birth. It was the Redemption, which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary, which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting. His was a great atonement for the sins of all mankind. He is the Resurrection and the Life, ‘the firstfruits of them that slept’. Because of Him all men will be raised from the grave. (President Gordon B. Hinckley - missionary devotional, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Dec. 15, 2002).

He walks with His disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane, where He atones for the sins of all mankind. As He suffers alone the disciples sleep, wakened by the Savior just before Judas comes with soldiers. (Boyd K. Packer - “His Final Days,” New Era, Apr 2006, 22–27)

The Savior’s precious birth, life, Atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane, suffering on the cross, burial in Joseph’s tomb, and glorious Resurrection all became a renewed reality for us. (M. Russell Ballard, “The Atonement and the Value of One Soul,” Liahona, May 2004, 84–87)

Two thousand years ago, outside Jerusalem’s walls, there was a pleasant garden spot, Gethsemane by name, where Jesus and his intimate friends were wont to retire for pondering and prayer. There Jesus taught his disciples the doctrines of the kingdom, and all of them communed with Him who is the Father of us all, in whose ministry they were engaged, and on whose errand they served. This sacred spot, like Eden where Adam dwelt, like Sinai from whence Jehovah gave his laws, like Calvary where the Son of God gave his life a ransom for many, this holy ground is where the Sinless Son of the Everlasting Father took upon himself the sins of all men on condition of repentance. We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full import of what Christ did in Gethsemane. And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Purifying Power of Gethsemane,” Ensign, May 1985, 9)

Though my personal suffering is not to be compared to the Savior’s agony in Gethsemane, I gained a better understanding of His Atonement and His suffering. In His time of agony, He asked His Father, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”. (Robert D. Hales, “The Covenant of Baptism: To Be in the Kingdom and of the Kingdom,” Liahona, Jan 2001, 6–9)

“We speak of the passion of Jesus Christ. A great many people have an idea that when he was on the cross, and nails were driven into his hands and feet, that was his great suffering. His great suffering was before he ever was placed upon the cross. It was in the Garden of Gethsemane that the blood oozed from the pores of his body: ‘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’ (President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972)

“It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him. The mortal mind fails to fathom, the tongue cannot express, the pen of man cannot describe the breadth, the depth, the height of the suffering of our Lord—nor His infinite love for us” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [1988], 14).

Christ Suffered and Died to Atone for Our Sins The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving his life on the cross. The Atonement Makes It Possible for Those Who Have Faith in Christ to Be Saved from Their Sins The Savior’s atonement makes it possible for us to overcome spiritual death. (Gospel Principles chapter 12)

Through the Atonement—performed by Jesus Christ with His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by His suffering and the voluntary surrender of His life on the cross–He saves you from your sins as you sincerely repent and follow Him. (lds.org - basic beliefs)

He was and is the Son of the Almighty. He was the only perfect man to walk the earth. He healed the sick and caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear. He raised the dead. Yet He suffered His own life to be taken in an act of Atonement, the magnitude of which is beyond our comprehension. Luke records that this anguish was so great that “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground”, a physical manifestation confirmed in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, just a few hundred meters from Gethsemane, included both physical and spiritual “temptations, … pain, … hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer,” said King Benjamin, “except it be unto death”. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Testimony of the Son of God,” Ensign, Dec 2002, 2–5)

[prisonchaplain]

CK...I am hurt....do you honestly believe that the atonement only happened on the cross?

I could be sorrowfully wrong, but perhaps all the consternation this string is generating could be due to a misunderstanding. CK, from what I've read, is contending that the atonement is achieved at the cross. He's also said that it began at Gethsemane.

What is the controversy here? Do we not all believe that Christ faced the final yea or nay to his mission at the Garden, and that he embraced it. And yet, that He completed that mission at the cross--and then secured the victory of it with the resurrection???

I see full agreement, and yet great disturbance, including charges of near-heresy? Somebody explain, please.

[checkerboy]

Here are two places where CK states that he doesn't believe the atonement started in Gethsemane.

<div class='quotemain'>

The atonement began in the Garden.

Wrong. Christ's preparation to atone was what occurred in Gethsemane, but the sacrifice for sin took place on the cross.

So no, the atonement did not "begin" in Gethsemane. The atonement began when Jesus was arrested by wicked men, and ended with his uttering the words, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit."

[CrimsonKairos]

Yeah and you disgust me CK.

You're welcome.

Try not to sound so high and mighty you may just be translated soon.

Nah, I asked God to let me stay here a little longer.

Give me a break.

I'd much rather give you scriptural doctrine.

You my friend are on the road to apostasy.

If establishing doctrine through the scriptures be apostasy, I am the most inveterate of apostates. B)

So basically you ingnore the teachings of latter day apostles and prophets who say that the the SUFFERING in Gethsemane was part of the Atonement.

Let me put it this way. Christ's dread of his coming crucifixion, coupled with the Father and Spirit withdrawing Their sustaining influence from him so that he could atone alone on Calvary, was what caused Jesus to bleed from every pore in Gethsemane.

If you want to say that makes Gethsemane "part of" the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross, go ahead. My point is that the atoning sacrifice for sin was made on the cross, not in Gethsemane.

When one starts to put their own beliefs before the doctrine taught by living prophets one cuts themselves off from the truth.

I agree. It's a good thing my beliefs are grounded in the standard works which, to be frank, will always "trump" any prophet's teaching if that teaching contradicts eternal truth established in the standard works. Let's face it, policy can change, i.e. whether we practice polygamy or not.

However, the atonement of Christ was fixed and ratified in heaven before any of us even came here.

It is an eternal doctrine, taught in the standard works (the quad), and whenever anyone teaches something contrary to the clear declaration of the scriptures, it is to be rejected.

I notice your entire post, checkers, is based on emotion and not one shred of scripture. At least Bro. Dorsey did some research. Speaking of which...

CK...I am hurt....do you honestly believe that the atonement only happened on the cross?

That's what the standard works teach, Bro. D, so yes. Can you honestly refute or argue against the plethora of scriptures---many of them from the D&C---that I provided, showing that the atonement was on the cross alone?

Of course you can't. So you turn to the teachings of living prophets to override---as it were---the scriptures. This is a grave error.

And that the teaching of the Atonement starting in the garden of Gethsename as taught by Prophets, Seers and Revalators which you sustain is false doctrine?

I sustain their authority, Bro. Dorsey, I don't have to agree with every word that comes out of their mouths. If anything they teach contradicts the standard works, I am duty bound to reject it. Period.

Tell me, if Gethsemane was such an important part of the atonement, why then is there not one word about Gethsemane in the most recent declaration signed by ALL the apostles, "The Living Christ?" Let's see what they say about the atonement:

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

Hmmm, interesting. The apostles themselves define the atonement as consisting of the cross, alone. Did you catch it? Let me highlight the key parts.

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

Wait, no mention of Gethsemane's agony being a necessary component of the atonement? But I thought all those quotes that Bro. Dorsey provided showed conclusively that a majority of the Brethren believe that Gethsemane is part of the atonement for sin?

Here's where we're at: We have individual apostles and prophets giving their view that Gethsemane was involved with atoning for our sins.

But then we have ALL the living oracles of God unitedly declaring that Jesus gave his life to atone for the sins of all mankind. No mention of Gethsemane.

So the apostles seem to be contradicting themselves, and the question becomes, which teachings will we accept? The answer is, we will accept those teachings which are in harmony with the standard works.

Nowhere in the standard works do we read that Christ atoned for sins by his agony in Gethsemane.

Let me be clear: Christ's agony in Gethsemane came about because of his impending atonement on the cross, but the suffering in Gethsemane was in no way part of that atoning sacrifice.

Now let me point out something important, everyone. All of Bro. Dorsey's quotes were culled from speeches, devotionals and books which were not endorsed by all of the apostles together (whereas "The Living Christ" bears the fifteen signatures of all the then-living apostles).

So what sources did Bro. Dorsey's quotes come from? Here are the sources of all the quotes he provided:

(President Gordon B. Hinckley - missionary devotional, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Dec. 15, 2002).

(Boyd K. Packer - “His Final Days,” New Era, Apr 2006, 22–27)

(M. Russell Ballard, “The Atonement and the Value of One Soul,” Liahona, May 2004, 84–87)

(Bruce R. McConkie, “The Purifying Power of Gethsemane,” Ensign, May 1985, 9)

(Robert D. Hales, “The Covenant of Baptism: To Be in the Kingdom and of the Kingdom,” Liahona, Jan 2001, 6–9)

(President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972)

(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [1988], 14).

(Gospel Principles chapter 12)

(lds.org - basic beliefs)

(President Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Testimony of the Son of God,” Ensign, Dec 2002, 2–5)

So in essence, Bro. Dorsey, you're asking me to set aside the clear teaching of the scriptures in favor of statements from a missionary devotional; the New Era magazine; the Liahona magazine; the Ensign magazine; "Gospel Principles"; compiled unofficial writings of two prophets; and the LDS website.

That, I will not do.

There is not one scripture in the entire LDS standard works, that teaches that our sins are forgiven because of what Christ underwent in Gethsemane. I know, I've looked. Believe me, I've looked. You can argue that D&C 19 says that, but only if you read it in isolation, apart from the other dozen scripture references that teach that the atonement took place on the cross alone.

The difference is that those who believe Gethsemane is part of the atonement, believe that simply because they were taught it growing up. When asked to provide scriptures establishing that truth, they point to D&C 19 and sometimes Mosiah 3:7.

But what about all the other scriptures that don't say that? Were they all wrong? Or is your interpretation of D&C 19 and Mosiah 3:7 wrong? I think it is the latter, and the Spirit has confirmed this to me.

Basically you guys are arguing that our prophets and apostles are infallible. That is a most false doctrine that the prophets themselves have disavowed. Remember Elder McConkie's teaching about blacks and the priesthood in "Mormon Doctrine," and how that book was edited after 1978?

CK, from what I've read, is contending that the atonement is achieved at the cross. He's also said that it began at Gethsemane.

Not necessarily. I said that Christ reached the "point of no return" in Gethsemane, and that despite the dread and agony of being spiritually abandoned by God and the Spirit, he went ahead and faced the cross anyway.

I believe that my sins can be forgiven even if Christ hadn't bled from every pore in Gethsemane. However, my sins couldn't be forgiven if Christ hadn't been crucified.

The scriptures say this, I'm merely echoing their witness. Why is that so bizarre?

You all would benefit from reading this excellent article about what is and what is not official doctrine.

[CrimsonKairos]

Here's an especially pertinent excerpt from the article I linked to above. J. F. McConkie says:

"Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”

How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? First it must generally conform to what has already been revealed. “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.”

Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church.

Let me repeat this important bit, edited for clarity:

Harold B. Lee...taught that any doctrine...that was not supported by the standard works [constitutes the speaker's] “private opinion.”

So if you all are really so eager to embrace every statement made by LDS prophets, why not start with that one.

[rosie321]

Thanks Crimson.

Your words are true. While I tend to cling to the idea also that the cross was the pivotal point, I do not undercut the importance of Christ's life, Gethsamane or most importantly the resurrection which sealed its relevance to us today.

It is has been very troubling for me as a convert to see the emphasis taken off the cross and onto the garden solely. I believe this is for the reason you stated above to seperate us from other churches and for members it is a "cleaner" less intimidating version of what the atonement was. It's easier to look at the picture of Christ praying in Gethsemane than to look at the cross and contemplate what Christ did for us without experiencing tremendous emotion.

In my time at church I have been distressed by this and how it plays out in individual members. It troubles me most when people make a huge ordeal about speaking of the cross or seeing an image of it somewhere. People find themselves having to always go back to the rule books or to what the general authorities said. As it has been explained to me on my time here on the boards, leaders aren't always speaking as a leader, sometimes they overstep the bounds of their authority, and so always stick with the gospel basics. In this case, as crimson has shown, the leaders seem to be sticking with the same doctrinal fact that the cross was the pivotal point. They do not minimize the other sacrifices that Christ suffered for us either though. One of the differences of the LDS church is that it really addresses the suffering that Christ went through in the Garden. It was in the garden that christ accepted in His mortal mind what should happen. (In the Garden he chose the opposite of Adam Adam Choose death). The few other quotes and scriptures that address the other pieces do not override the countless ones that say otherwise.

I am troubled to at how far members go with their following of the prophets or other authorities and how much emphasis is placed on the church. Its at times as though members place or idolize the prophets and leaders higher than Christ himself (in direct violation to the commandments). The authorities serve Christ. He is their head as He is ours. Serving Him is the reason I go to church and follow as it should be the reason we all should go. Finding a few quotes that suggest something different from what thousands of others have told me about Christ throughout the centuries will not make me abandon what I know inside.

I DO NOT WORSHIP OR FOLLOW THE CHURCH I FOLLOW CHRIST. The church is only a tool to enable me to serve Christ and mold my life after Him and to help others do the same.

Certain facts will never change for me. Christ lived. He suffered greatly so we could return and have our sins forgiven. The act of atonement , as was done in the OT, occured at the cross. The place where the debt was sealed once and for all if we choose to follow Christ and take up our Cross. His grace, Spirit, other members, doctrines, the church itself are there to help us along the way back home.

Here's an especially pertinent excerpt from the article I linked to above. J. F. McConkie says:

"Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”

How do we know then, what is “doctrine”, and what is not? First it must generally conform to what has already been revealed. “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said,” wrote J. Fielding Smith, “if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” The standard works, he explains, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.”

Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.” He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church.

Let me repeat this important bit, edited for clarity:

Harold B. Lee...taught that any doctrine...that was not supported by the standard works [constitutes the speaker's] “private opinion.”

So if you all are really so eager to embrace every statement made by LDS prophets, why not start with that one.

[Brother Dorsey]

Tell me, if Gethsemane was such an important part of the atonement, why then is there not one word about Gethsemane in the most recent declaration signed by ALL the apostles, "The Living Christ?" Let's see what they say about the atonement:

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

Hmmm, interesting. The apostles themselves define the atonement as consisting of the cross, alone. Did you catch it? Let me highlight the key parts.

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

Wait, no mention of Gethsemane's agony being a necessary component of the atonement? But I thought all those quotes that Bro. Dorsey provided showed conclusively that a majority of the Brethren believe that Gethsemane is part of the atonement for sin?

I absolutely agree with the First Presidency and the 12...Christ gave his life to atone for the sins of all mankind...his whole life from birth to death through his teachings, example and willingness to obey His Father..

But what exactly is the Atonement? Did Christ simply suffer and die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world....many men, women and children have suffered even greater deaths and for nothing at all. Would you go through what you believe Christ physically suffered and his death to achieve an Atonement for mankind? Sure you would, a few hours of suffering and an agonizing death would be a simple act to do if our God asked us. When I was a child and a member of the Catholic church I used to think, "what's so big about dying on the cross? I would die on the cross too for everybody and then get to be God". But after I joined the true church I learned that Christ suffered alot more than just physical suffering and death. He was spiritually seperated from God, He suffered spiritually the sins of the world an act so great that it caused him to sweat blood. And that this happened in the Garden of Gethename. No, the physical side of His suffering and death was really nothing compared to the spiritual suffering that paid the price for our sins. This is what the church teaches, this is what the Prophets teach and this is what I believe.

CK...if you disagree with what our Prophet says about the Atonement....you could leave the church and start your own. Maybe call it "CK's interputations of scripture of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints", I'm sure you'll have tons of followers.

[rosie321]

<div class='quotemain'>

Tell me, if Gethsemane was such an important part of the atonement, why then is there not one word about Gethsemane in the most recent declaration signed by ALL the apostles, "The Living Christ?" Let's see what they say about the atonement:

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

Hmmm, interesting. The apostles themselves define the atonement as consisting of the cross, alone. Did you catch it? Let me highlight the key parts.

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

Wait, no mention of Gethsemane's agony being a necessary component of the atonement? But I thought all those quotes that Bro. Dorsey provided showed conclusively that a majority of the Brethren believe that Gethsemane is part of the atonement for sin?

I absolutely agree with the First Presidency and the 12...Christ gave his life to atone for the sins of all mankind...his whole life from birth to death through his teachings, example and willingness to obey His Father..

But what exactly is the Atonement? Did Christ simply suffer and die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world....many men, women and children have suffered even greater deaths and for nothing at all. Would you go through what you believe Christ physically suffered and his death to achieve an Atonement for mankind? Sure you would, a few hours of suffering and an agonizing death would be a simple act to do if our God asked us. When I was a child and a member of the Catholic church I used to think, "what's so big about dying on the cross? I would die on the cross too for everybody and then get to be God". But after I joined the true church I learned that Christ suffered alot more than just physical suffering and death. He was spiritually seperated from God, He suffered spiritually the sins of the world an act so great that it caused him to sweat blood. And that this happened in the Garden of Gethename. No, the physical side of His suffering and death was really nothing compared to the spiritual suffering that paid the price for our sins. This is what the church teaches, this is what the Prophets teach and this is what I believe.

CK...if you disagree with what our Prophet says about the Atonement....you could leave the church and start your own. Maybe call it "CK's interputations of scripture of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints", I'm sure you'll have tons of followers.

Christ's life, moments in the garden, time on the cross, resurrection, and post resurrection moments are all very important in understanding Him and the type of people we should be.

But as Crimson stated in above posts the cleansing moment came, the point of love that was made through the nail pierced hands, was at the cross. Much as the sacrifices were made of old. While you may question the importance of isolating this out let me add just a few references from Bible prophets. Add these to the Latterday ones which Crimson stated above.

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."—1 Corinthians 1:23-24. “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1Cor. 2:2).

The importance of the christ was and still is a pivotal point. Why shouldn't Crimson be concerned that Latterday Saints might miss its importance? Why do you feel he should leave the church to start his own for believing this? Classic! For me that idea is where there is a problem. It seems like Crimson is the one on the right path. If Christ's church is so messed up that it can't truly understand the value of what happened on the cross then maybe it is time to shake the dust off the feet and move on I'm sure he will not be punished for being on fire for the gospel.

As far as death on cross being so easy- First have you ever tried it?

Second I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you aren't Perfect and neither are any of us. That is why Christ had to die. He was a sinless sacrifice. He was separated from God on the CROSS. (angels supported Him before that, and Simon helped to carry His Cross. But on the cross he freely gave in loneliness. I would agree that the emotional and spiritual torment must have been great. There was a huge price paid so we could have the hope of returning.

The more people recognize the true cost that was paid, and what happened, the greater the world will be.

[Adomini22]

Latter Day Saints missing the importance of the cross? Maybe some do. The apostles and prophets, however do not. Yes, it is obvious to everyone about what "the Living Christ" says. Take a look at Conference talks, or heck, even the scriptures. Gethsemane was a part of it. Pivotal point was the cross, yes of course. Dont cast Gethsemane aside though. I wonder what He, who suffered in Gethsemane, would say to the person who discards that experience.

[rosie321]

Latter Day Saints missing the importance of the cross? Maybe some do. The apostles and prophets, however do not. Yes, it is obvious to everyone about what "the Living Christ" says. Take a look at Conference talks, or heck, even the scriptures. Gethsemane was a part of it. Pivotal point was the cross, yes of course. Dont cast Gethsemane aside though. I wonder what He, who suffered in Gethsemane, would say to the person who discards that experience.

Who said to cast this moment of Christ's life aside? There are many wonderful lessons to be learned from those moments that can help us out. That is one of the beautiful things of the LDS church, I might add. For the church really draws members to pay attention to those moments as well as the other moments in Christ's life.

But that having been said, the point where "it is finished" was spoken and the blood poured out from the sinless sacrifice to offer cleansing-that was at the cross . The apostles and prophets may speak of the important moments such as the garden but none ever state that redemption was made possible through the moments there.

[rosie321]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei8QF40luzc...feature=related

listen to this

[Adomini22]

<div class='quotemain'>

Latter Day Saints missing the importance of the cross? Maybe some do. The apostles and prophets, however do not. Yes, it is obvious to everyone about what "the Living Christ" says. Take a look at Conference talks, or heck, even the scriptures. Gethsemane was a part of it. Pivotal point was the cross, yes of course. Dont cast Gethsemane aside though. I wonder what He, who suffered in Gethsemane, would say to the person who discards that experience.

Who said to cast this moment of Christ's life aside? There are many wonderful lessons to be learned from those moments that can help us out. That is one of the beautiful things of the LDS church, I might add. For the church really draws members to pay attention to those moments as well as the other moments in Christ's life.

But that having been said, the point where "it is finished" was spoken and the blood poured out from the sinless sacrifice to offer cleansing-that was at the cross . The apostles and prophets may speak of the important moments such as the garden but none ever state that redemption was made possible through the moments there.

True. The sacrifice for sin was done on the cross. I am not disputing that at all. The main reason for my post is that the last few posts have been over Gethsemane and the cross, and which does (or doesnt) consist of the atonement. The sacrifice was the cross. Jesus didnt sacrifice in the Garden, but he did suffer, and due to the atonement process, according to my belief.

I personally dont like some of the tones used on both sides over this issue. As CK stated before, the discussion and references about the cross and Gethsemane have been discussed before. However, I hope that we can accept others belief irregardless of what references are shown.

[CrimsonKairos]

I absolutely agree with the First Presidency and the 12...Christ gave his life to atone for the sins of all mankind...his whole life from birth to death through his teachings, example and willingness to obey His Father..

Classic twisting of a plain declaration. Did you notice that the paragraph I quoted from "The Living Christ" was going in chronological order, from Christ's arrest, torture, to mentioning him giving his life, to his resurrection. Yet you would believe that the apostles just threw in a vague reference to Christ's entire mortal "life" in the middle of their logical chronological catalogue of Christ's final agonies?

Whatever floats your boat.

But what exactly is the Atonement? Did Christ simply suffer and die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world...

The atonement is a word invented by Tyndale to convey the meaning of the Hebrew word "kaphar" which means "to cover." So on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) in ancient times, Jehovah told Israel (through Moses) that once a year on that day the High Priest was to kill a goat and sprinkle it's shed blood on the mercy seat ("kapporeth" in Hebrew).

So the word "atonement" was invented to convey the intent of the Day of Atonement ritual. That ritual consisted of killing a live goat and sprinkling it's life blood before God to redeem Israel from their sins. That is what the atonement is...the death of a sacrificial victim who is spotless, sinless and infinite.

And that is exactly what the scriptures teach, as I've shown.

There is no foreshadowing of Gethsemane in the Old Testament ritual of atonement. It has always been about killing a suitable victim. Shedding blood. Killing. I don't know how much plainer it can be. Read the Old Testament. Connect the dots with the New Testament. Confirm the doctrine in the Book of Mormon and D&C.

Where is the confusion coming from?

He was spiritually seperated from God, He suffered spiritually the sins of the world an act so great that it caused him to sweat blood.

Yes, but you're not extending that concept far enough. It is evident from Isaiah and the D&C that Christ claims he performed the atonement alone, without aid. Hence, God and the Spirit had to withdraw from him. Hence, he truly was alone in Gethsemane so that by the time he was arrested, he could say he went through the string of injustices alone.

So he was still alone on the cross. So if you think the agony of Gethsemane was bad, tack on the misery of hanging from the cross for 9 hours (or was it 6?). Intensity aside, the point is that atonement has always been based on killing a spotless offering.

No, the physical side of His suffering and death was really nothing compared to the spiritual suffering that paid the price for our sins.

Really? And Christ has told you that, has he? Because he was spiritually alone on the cross...which means Calvary entailed more pain and agony than Gethsemane alone ever did.

This is what the church teaches, this is what the Prophets teach and this is what I believe.

Actually, if you read "Jesus the Christ" (which I don't view as superior to the standard works, but I know lots of you do), Elder Talmage says that the agony of Gethsemane recurred on the cross, prompting Christ's query, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" But you probably already knew that.

CK...if you disagree with what our Prophet says about the Atonement....you could leave the church and start your own.

Or you could read the scriptures without filtering them through what you think our prophets have taught. Just throwing that out there.

Maybe call it "CK's interputations of scripture of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints", I'm sure you'll have tons of followers.

Not really. You see, few mormons actually read the standard works. Instead, they sup on superstition, they perpetuate fallacies, and they cling to non-canonical teachings, wholly shunning the clear declarations of even the D&C in favor of some warm-fuzzy they cannot bear to part with. No, I don't think I'd have many followers at all, for that would require actually searching the scriptures instead of reading D&C 19 alone and thinking the matter has been settled.

True. The sacrifice for sin was done on the cross. I am not disputing that at all.

Well the sacrifice for sin is what "atonement" means. Killing a spotless victim, shedding innnocent blood.

The Day of Atonement in ancient Israel was not about inflicting all the punishments for all the sins of Israel upon some poor goat. The goat wasn't made to suffer until blood gushed from its pores. The goat simply had to be killed, and its blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies.

The sacrifice was the cross. Jesus didnt sacrifice in the Garden

Thank you. Then you do believe the scriptures after all. The atonement was wrought on the cross, as so many scriptures declare, including these:

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;

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 76:41, 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)

[prisonchaplain]

I SAID: CK, from what I've read, is contending that the atonement is achieved at the cross. He's also said that it began at Gethsemane.

Not necessarily. I said that Christ reached the "point of no return" in Gethsemane, and that despite the dread and agony of being spiritually abandoned by God and the Spirit, he went ahead and faced the cross anyway.

I believe that my sins can be forgiven even if Christ hadn't bled from every pore in Gethsemane. However, my sins couldn't be forgiven if Christ hadn't been crucified.

The scriptures say this, I'm merely echoing their witness. Why is that so bizarre?

All right...the atonement was prepared for at Gethsemane, rather than being initiated there. The difference is not so significant to me, but I can see from this string that the nuance is very significant for LDS theology.

[CrimsonKairos]

To be honest, it's not really significant to most LDS members. Or should I say, it's only significant because of the underlying issue: the infallibility of LDS prophets and apostles.

Apparently most members here think that LDS general authorities are flawless, always right, never wrong, 100% accurate in all their utterances just because of the priesthood office they hold. How sad.

That's the source of my lament, that my fellow LDS members' gratitude for living oracles has morphed into a Pharisaic, white-knuckled grip on anything and everything the prophets and apostles say as gospel truth (no pun intended...well okay, there was). In this sense, it is indeed as if they embody the sarcastic observation that, "When the Brethren have spoken, the thinking has been done."

I just hoped there were more people who could verify truth through the gift of the Holy Ghost and his guidance, and not just by doing a fact-check against statements by prophets and apostles that have not been included in the LDS canon and which in some instances contradict the LDS canon.

I'm just being hyper-specific based on a personal witness I received from the Spirit over a year ago while reading scriptures regarding the atonement and the cross.

I believe the majority of LDS members have a distorted or wholly inaccurate view of the cross's role in our salvation, and I believe they have this incorrect view because they haven't read the actual scriptures that talk specifically about the atonement.

That's all I'm arguing in favor of, really:

Taking time to read all the scriptures and then drawing a conclusion about what they all say.

Conversely, most people draw a conclusion and then search for supporting scriptures.

Of significance is the fact that there are only two scriptures in the entire standard works that support the atonement in Gethsemane theory.

I just find that odd. And sad. Because I think the cross and Day of Atonement symbolism are potent and beautiful reminders of God's love and Christ's unwavering devotion to us.

Ultimately, whether we all agree on where the atoning sacrifice for sin took place (Gethsemane, Gethsemane + cross, or just the cross) we all agree that through Jesus Christ's suffering, blood and death we may all be justified, sanctified and granted a mansion in the Father's kingdom.

[rusure]

My kids brought a Christmas tree ornament home. It was a nail with a red ribbon tied around it. They had a little poem that said what it symbolized: the nail is obvious and the ribbon represented his blood.

I can't imagine this activity was in a manual or intruction book approved by the Church for Primary.

I've only been a member for 6 years, but spent over 35 years as a Catholic staring at the figure of the Savior on the cross all my life while attending mass. There are many things I really like about the LDS Church and one is that our faith and practices are devoid of the more scare tactic methods to get people to "believe". Our faith and practice is full of light, happiness, hope, etc. and yet in my experience it is Mormons that truly seem to understand the atonement. When I first saw the Testaments film in Salt Lake in 2000 before joining, I could not understand why EVERYONE around me was weeping so much. When I returned to see the film after my own baptism, it was then that I understood. Yet, the films the church uses don't go the lengths of Mel Gibson's Passion film. I appreciate that Mormons seem to "get it" without being beat over the head with the gore.

Anyway, I doubt that hand out would have been approved and I think it was a bad choice to give children. I have 2 children just baptized this year and so I'm thinking of how I would feel if they had been given this and, honestly, it would have seemed more like something I would have expected out of the pentecostal type church I checked out once associated with a private high school I considered for my older daughters (and chose not to send them to).

So that's my 2 cents from someone NOT indoctrinated in "the cross is bad" sentiment that some think "all" Mormons are.

[prisonchaplain]

I would have expected out of the pentecostal type church I checked out once associated with a private high school I considered for my older daughters (and chose not to send them to).

Sneaky little buggers, we are!

BTW: The two extremes here would sound like this:

No to the nail and red ribbon: Scare tactics, sensationalism, not authorized materials or lesson

Yes to them: A bloodless gospel is no gospel at all. Jesus' passion is our passion. If we do not see the pain, we will not understand the love.

I would not judge either side, but cannot escape the notion that prohibiting lessons that examine Christ's suffering and his bloody, torturous death try too hard to sanitize the Atonement--which, after all, was via an execution.

[tiancum]

I guess that is where we differ CK. I am ok with that. We can still err in doctrine and still be good men... we can believe differently and still be on the right path.

I see it differently. I see modern prophets as having the authority to interpret the scriptures. Sure they can err...

But honestly, I believe that most of the prophets are speaking from experiences they have had first hand. I do not know if all of them have seen Him face to face. But i know that most have. I believe this because of hearing many of their accounts. I believe their accounts....Things I do not feel at liberty to talk about here.

I believe that is the whole point to learning about Him. We can learn all the facts, but as Joseph said, we should do all we can to receive a sure witness of Christ. It does not come alone from study, it comes from being tested to the limits, and have learned how to look inward and have sacrificed all for the gospel of repentance.

I know that we all can receive a sure witness.

CK, if your studies have taken you to this sure witness, then be patient with those who have not had it. I teased you before, but it was all in fun. I would expect no less of you.

[rusure]

<div class='quotemain'>

I would have expected out of the pentecostal type church I checked out once associated with a private high school I considered for my older daughters (and chose not to send them to).

Sneaky little buggers, we are!

BTW: The two extremes here would sound like this:

No to the nail and red ribbon: Scare tactics, sensationalism, not authorized materials or lesson

Yes to them: A bloodless gospel is no gospel at all. Jesus' passion is our passion. If we do not see the pain, we will not understand the love.

I would not judge either side, but cannot escape the notion that prohibiting lessons that examine Christ's suffering and his bloody, torturous death try too hard to sanitize the Atonement--which, after all, was via an execution.

I don't consider it sneaky that the pentecostal church did things differently. If it was sneaky, I wouldn't have known about these things in just a few encounters. :)

FWIW, I do not consider saying something isn't authorized being an "extreme" position. You do?

I would also hotly contest your idea that unless we make sure our children see the execution in all its gore that LDS don't have a deep understanding of the atonement. I don't want my children to feel pity for Christ simply because he suffered. Anyone would feel pity at that, even to see a terribly guilty man suffer in that same way. That falls far short, IMO, of truly understanding what the atonement is, what the plan for this life was from the foundation of this world, what the atonement did for us, and how Christ understands our sufferings and afflictions and is our mediator. At 8 and 10 years old, there is no way no matter how you want to teach it that these children could possibly understand the atonement fully. Heck, find an adult that does. The point is there's no point in hammering them over the head w/gore trying to force an understanding. Doesn't work that way.

The worst suffering was not on the cross, either. I guess my kids wouldn't understand that until they went through the spiritual suffering that Christ did and I made them bleed through every pore -- or at least a few? Or made them watch someone ELSE bleed through at least a few pores?

P.S. I'm new here, but I have a question ....

Are posts here from active LDS members about something about church or practices typically up for debate by non LDS members?

[prisonchaplain]

I don't consider it sneaky that the pentecostal church did things differently. If it was sneaky, I wouldn't have known about these things in just a few encounters. :)

I was being lighthearted.

FWIW, I do not consider saying something isn't authorized being an "extreme" position. You do?

IMHO, if by "unauthorized" one hints at heretical, then it would be extreme. For example, if the lesson was indeed on the Atonement, and the teacher wanted to let the children understand a bit about Jesus' sacrifice, and was brought before a heresy counsel because the symbols were not authorized, that would be extreme.

If on the other hand, the bishop pulled the teacher aside, and said, "The lesson was on Gethsemane, and you really went off-topic with those symbols. Some of the parents were concerned about the departure, so next time you wish to infuse some creativity, check with us first--that would not be extreme.

I would also hotly contest your idea that unless we make sure our children see the execution in all its gore that LDS don't have a deep understanding of the atonement.

I didn't say that. I presented as an opposite extreme, that a bloodless gospel misses the point. IMHO, the nail and ribbon explain the sacrifice without wallowing in blood and gore.

I'll address the 2nd half in a later post.

P.S. I'm new here, but I have a question ....

Are posts here from active LDS members about something about church or practices typically up for debate by non LDS members?

Debate? I've offered some observations, but do not have the hubris to think that my opinions would lead to changes in your church's policies. We seem to be discussing areas of discretion, not non-negotiable dogma.

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I would have expected out of the pentecostal type church I checked out once associated with a private high school I considered for my older daughters (and chose not to send them to).

Sneaky little buggers, we are!

BTW: The two extremes here would sound like this:

No to the nail and red ribbon: Scare tactics, sensationalism, not authorized materials or lesson

Yes to them: A bloodless gospel is no gospel at all. Jesus' passion is our passion. If we do not see the pain, we will not understand the love.

I would not judge either side, but cannot escape the notion that prohibiting lessons that examine Christ's suffering and his bloody, torturous death try too hard to sanitize the Atonement--which, after all, was via an execution.

I don't consider it sneaky that the pentecostal church did things differently. If it was sneaky, I wouldn't have known about these things in just a few encounters. :)

FWIW, I do not consider saying something isn't authorized being an "extreme" position. You do?

I would also hotly contest your idea that unless we make sure our children see the execution in all its gore that LDS don't have a deep understanding of the atonement. I don't want my children to feel pity for Christ simply because he suffered. Anyone would feel pity at that, even to see a terribly guilty man suffer in that same way. That falls far short, IMO, of truly understanding what the atonement is, what the plan for this life was from the foundation of this world, what the atonement did for us, and how Christ understands our sufferings and afflictions and is our mediator. At 8 and 10 years old, there is no way no matter how you want to teach it that these children could possibly understand the atonement fully. Heck, find an adult that does. The point is there's no point in hammering them over the head w/gore trying to force an understanding. Doesn't work that way.

The worst suffering was not on the cross, either. I guess my kids wouldn't understand that until they went through the spiritual suffering that Christ did and I made them bleed through every pore -- or at least a few? Or made them watch someone ELSE bleed through at least a few pores?

P.S. I'm new here, but I have a question ....

Are posts here from active LDS members about something about church or practices typically up for debate by non LDS members?

To answer your question about discussing policy....YES.....this a board that is open to all....nothing wrong with expressing an opinion as long as its done within the rules of the site....hope you stay around and get to know some of us and join in on our discussions.

[AnthonyB]

my kids have all seen the lamb of god. for one of our chruch's productions i thought it was rather vivid and very emotional. we've talked to the kids about it numerous times. the only problem we had with showing it to the kids is the oldest is very dramatic, likes to act things out and all. he was about 3 or so the first time he saw it, he went around saying something that you would swear was another language and then would spit in your face. now it's kinda funny actually. we had to have a talk about if you are gonna act out a character the "bad guys" aren't really the ones you want to be. we were able to put a stop to it. we've also had to teach the reverence that comes with jesus and that we don't "play" some things. we do act out stories sometimes but it's not in make it up as you go play time. if that makes any since.

their primary teachers came to us once and asked how we'd like the scripture stories taught (my kids are the primary), that the scriptures can be graphic. we agreed they can be, don't try to make it graphic but if it's in there teach it. my older boys knew what lepercy (?sp) was before they started school, lol even had a game which included lepercy. they know what happened after daniel got out of the lions den, and what david did after the stone hit goliath.

meanwhile the neighbor kid the same age told me johna was a cucumber. ???lol?? to each his own.

Almom,

Explaining the cucumber thing. It is probably from a video series called "Vegie Tales", were they run through bible stories using cartoon vegies to tell the story. They are very funny, but I thnk get the bible stories over quite well to 7-11 year olds. I think Jonah was a cucumber in the Jonah one. (See the advantage of having non-LDS around, otherwise you'd never know about why Jonah was a cucumber.)

To everone else,

Do LDS read bible stories to their kids, my 5 year old gets a bible story every night, we've been through two different ones a couple of times. Surely the cruxifiction is a central part of the redemption story.

I can't help but feel that the LDS attitutude to the cross is driven partly by your reaction to the possbile misuse of it elsewhere.