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

[rusure]

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!.

I wouldn't say that's it. The reason I wouldn't is that as hard as the atonement is to understand in the first place, unless/until one realizes what Christ did in the Garden -- this is in addition to what happened leading up to that and what happened with his crucifixion, I would venture a guess it is impossible to learn all that we "need to" regarding the atonement -- like having more of a veil over one's eyes than they would otherwise. The gospel of Jesus Christ is light and knowledge and the more we seek to understand him, following his commandments, follow the spirit, follow the prophet, etc., the more light and knowledge is made available to us. Not saying that being taught what happened in the Garden WILL bring all things to one that it could -- there's still our own free will and desires that play into that -- but if one is never taught something or makes themselves available to be taught, it is unlikely that exquisite jewels of knowledge will be thundered down upon them.

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.

Well said.

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.

Well, we'll have to stop here and disagree because you are deciding to take a literal interpretation of "bruising", for example, that they must have been from being beaten (or from being nailed to the cross) and specifically excluding Christ's sacrifice for us in the Garden. Assuming that bleeding from pores does not cause bruising as you must be assuming (I don't know if it does or not -- don't know how the blood resolved itself), "bruising" isn't used literally elsewise.

For example:

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This does not mean that heads are literally being beaten and bruised.

Christ's entire life was dedicated to his ultimate gifts to us so not to diminish all that he did, but he literally took on our iniquities in the Garden and it was that that caused him to bleed from every pore. There's a level of sacrifice Christ made for us there that it appears some are unwilling to acknowledge or accept.

[rosie321]

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)

Perhaps this is where some of the conflict origionates. Some have the gift given to understand that Jesus is the Christ and was crucified for the sins of the world. Most of the Christian world makes the assumption that everyone knows or should know this for a fact. But maybe some have been given greater abilities to understand while others do not know so well and need to trust others on this matter.

I also note that it says "by the Holy Ghost" people know that He was crucified. Not by prophets or apostles. The Holy Ghost overrules the prophets and apostles. The Holy Ghost will lead one to the scriptures and sources that are necessary to understand.

This leads me to consider this other topic. Countless verses direct one not to put their arm in the flesh. Are members putting leaders, imperfect men, whom God has chosen above the counsel of the Holy Ghost or God himself? It concerns me to see some of the comments which suggest that appointed leaders opinions should trump the Holy Spirits place to lead and guide a people in their individual paths. If a prophet says something it is true. Whatever ways in which the spirit personally navigates you through your own path are insignificant. Are we placing man before God? Or will some people never be able to obtain knowledge any other way but through others words?

In this matter as in any other, while I will ponder on the thoughts of others, particularly the authorities, it will be the Spirit who will make their words become alive in me.

[rusure]

This leads me to consider this other topic. Countless verses direct one not to put their arm in the flesh. Are members putting leaders, imperfect men, whom God has chosen above the counsel of the Holy Ghost or God himself?

I think sometimes man puts himself before the Holy Ghost and God. There are countless "intellectuals" who have felt they know better and have driven themselves right into apostasy. They will swear they are right. On some issues, where every latter-day prophet from Joseph Smith right down to Gordon Hinckley say "A" and you are inclined to say "B", do you think that's an issue of relying on the arm of flesh? Who's arm?

[rosie321]

<div class='quotemain'>This leads me to consider this other topic. Countless verses direct one not to put their arm in the flesh. Are members putting leaders, imperfect men, whom God has chosen above the counsel of the Holy Ghost or God himself?

I think sometimes man puts himself before the Holy Ghost and God. There are countless "intellectuals" who have felt they know better and have driven themselves right into apostasy. They will swear they are right. On some issues, where every latter-day prophet from Joseph Smith right down to Gordon Hinckley say "A" and you are inclined to say "B", do you think that's an issue of relying on the arm of flesh? Who's arm?

While I can understand the danger that might arise by people going off on their own-

The authorities are imperfect. The have all sinned. Scriptures make this fact very clear. They come with all their mortal flaws and issues of humanity. They have been placed into positions of leadership by God. If there is a discrepancy between what they say and what a person thinks shouldn't they trust in the spirit? Scriptures plead with us to ask God. Pray continually. Seek after His wisdom. If we are trusting God and following the direction of the Holy Ghost then the truth will be revealed line upon line in the proper dosage thats individually required.

Man can put himself before God too. They can go against God and the prophets. But then they are following neither the Holy Spirit or prophets in that case and they will be left to their own devises. They will be judged accordingly.

Regardless of whether people let pride step in or does not alter the fact that the Holy Spirit is given the authority over the prophets. The prophets are there merely to point the way to God and His will not to stand in the place.

[prisonchaplain]

While leaders are held to a higher standard, we shall all be acountable to God for our own spiritual development.

[AnthonyB]

I note a-train's pointing out that LDS may mean something different to the rest of us when they use "atonement". Your welcome to use words however you want but your liable to confuse the rest of us completely if you do so. Given this was a word created in English by Tyndale, and one thing I can be sure of was that he didn't have LDS theology in mind when he coined it. (One could argue that since a Protestant invented the word, his spiritual heirs should get the final say in it use.)

The word that he might have used was reconciliation, which is now used by Catholics for confession, which is an act of personal atonement.

So lets look at the words that can be used...

1) reconciliation -to sit with again

2) propitiation -to appease or make peace with a higher power

3) expiation -to make amends

4) atonement -it appears from my scant reading Tyndale wanted to combine reconcillaition with aspect of propitiation.

So Tyndale used atonement to mean to both bring about a oneness with God and to do so by covering the sins. (The word he was translating included the concept of covering, which is why he thought reconciliation wouldn't do when talking about what happened at Calvary.)

Putting aside whether your views are scriptural or not(whether the common scriptures or LDS specific), can I ask the following questions?

Do LDS believe that sins were covered for by what happened at the Garden, not that it was a preparation for that covering but an actual act of covering of sins is involved? (In which case atonement would be appropriate for using of the Garden in your faith veiw.)

Or do you mean that it was an act that was essential in bringing about the oneness of man and God but didn't involve covering of sins? (In which case reconciliation may be a better fit. Or coining a new word that would cover your meaning without getting tangled with Tyndale's usage which is the original and most widespread meaning.)

Of course you could decide that along with redefining doctrine your prophets can redefine words, to assist in understanding that doctrine. Your welcome to do that, but do expect to confuse everyone else.

[rosie321]

I note a-train's pointing out that LDS may mean something different to the rest of us when they use "atonement". Your welcome to use words however you want but your liable to confuse the rest of us completely if you do so. Given this was a word created in English by Tyndale, and one thing I can be sure of was that he didn't have LDS theology in mind when he coined it. (One could argue that since a Protestant invented the word, his spiritual heirs should get the final say in it use.)

The word that he might have used was reconcilliation, which is now used by Catholics for confession, which is an act of personal atonement.

So lets look at the words that can be used...

1) reconcilliation -to sit with again

2) propitiation -to appease or make peace with a higher power

3) expiation -to make amends

4) atonement -it appears from my scant reading Tyndale wanted to combine reconcillaition with aspect of propitiation.

So Tyndale used atonement to mean to both bring about a oneness with God and to do so by covering the sins. (The word he was translating included the concept of covering, which is why he thought reconcilliation wouldn't do when talking about what happened at Calvary.)

Putting aside whether your views are scriptural or not(whether the common scriptures or LDS specific), can I ask the following questions?

Do LDS believe that sins were covered for by what happened at the Garden, not that it was a preparation for that covering but an actual act of covering of sins is involved? (In which case atonement would be appropriate for using of the Garden in your faith veiw.)

Or do you mean that it was an act that was essential in bringing about the oneness of man and God but didn't involve covering of sins? In which reconcilliation may be a better fit.

Of course you could decide that along with redefining doctrine your prophets can redefine words, to assist in understanding that doctrine. Your welcome to do that, but do expect to confuse everyone else.

I think your observations are very valid about the atonement and reconciliation.

Might I suggest another area that I think causes problems is that LDS tend to put more emphasis on the works and salvation being a process. While this is not necessarily a bad thing its harder when focused on works to truly comprehend the atonement as one act and what that one act means. LDS are familiar with such verses as "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" So how does the atonement apply to Latterday Saints? How does the meaning distinguish it from others? Works are a hallmark of the LDS church. Putting emphasis on the cross and one act as other christian faiths do could be seen as minimizing other important things and losing the churches individuality. The atonement being seen as stages garden-cross-resurrection fits into that. But it seems through reading scriptures, despite Latterday comments/revelations the cross is the atoning spot. Your point on the definition of atonement and the distinction with reconciliation is dead on. I would agree that that is where many of the issues on this topic are rising from.

[prisonchaplain]

At the risk of being corny and cliche, I've been taught a really simple way to understand the Atonement--

It's what allows us to be AT ONE-MENT with God.

[AnthonyB]

PC,

Your right, that is the source of the word, "at one", of which there was a middle english word. But Tyndale specifically coined atonement from that word, he could have used reconcilliation, he made a new one cause he wanted to cover the idea of covering in it as well as being "at one", which reconciliation would have already covered.

Given LDS theology it was (for them) an inspired choice cause being "at one" with God fits them much better than reconciliation (ie sitting with God again.)

Maybe we could coin a word for the LDS to use to cover what they mean, as distinct to the historical meaning. So we all wouldn't get confused.

atunionment -the process of becoming at union with God through Jesus life and sacrifice.

[a-train]

I think we are making the thing way more complicated than we need to. Tyndale's word is beautiful and the LDS use it just as he did. There is no need for any new definitions or usage of new terms.

If there were no resurrection in the tomb, could man be raised from the dead to be reconciled to God?

If Jesus' blood had been shed as a propitiation for our sins without any proclamation of the Gospel whatsoever could we avail ourselves of His work and become at one with God?

Had the LORD not said those famous words in Gethsemane and submitted His will to the Father, had the Father let that cup pass Him, would there have been any propitiation for our sins?

The krux of the Atonement is the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God as a propitiation for our sins and all the works of Christ are appendages of that work. He IS the Atonement. Therefore, efforts to disassociate any episode of Christ's existance or any facet of his nature from The Atonement are fruitless, thoughtless, and pointless imho.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I think most LDS persons when hearing the phrase: 'The Atonement of Christ' are thinking of the big picture...the whole of the works of Christ designed to make mankind at one with God.

I understand that. But as AnthonyB pointed out, that's redefining atonement in contrast to how the scriptures define it. The Old Testament and even the D&C describe atonement as shedding the blood of (killing) a sacrificial victim.

That's my complaint, I guess. "Atonement" in the scriptures refers solely to the life that was sacrificed to cover our sins. That sacrificed life was offered on Calvary by our Lord. That is my whole point. And that is why I dislike people injecting Gethsemane into the equation because Christ's blood wasn't shed by wicked men in the garden, and Christ didn't pour out his soul unto death in Gethsemane.

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.

I don't see the difference. Atonement means atonement. There's no atonement with a lowercase "a" and one with an uppercase "A." There was one atonement, and as D&C 76 points out, it was made by Christ in the act of letting others shed his blood.

I think LDS theology needs to embrace a neologism describing Gethsemane's agony, using a word distinct from the word "atonement" to avoid confusion. Atonement is atonement. Period. I don't see anywhere in scriptures where it's defined differently (and as you all know, I love the scriptures B))

Well, we'll have to stop here and disagree because you are deciding to take a literal interpretation of "bruising"...

Well your example from Genesis 3:15 is a good passage to use to illustrate the figurative use of the word "bruising" in scriptures. And if Isaiah 53 only used the word "bruising" without the other descriptors such as "wounded," "chastisement," "stripes," "smitten," "stricken," and "cut off out of the land of the living," then I wouldn't feel confident interpreting "bruising" literally.

However, since Isaiah 53 does include all those other descriptions of physical torture and death, I think it's a stretch to assume that "bruised" is the only descriptor that's not literal. Such an interpretation (that "bruised" is figuratively used in Isaiah 53) clashes with the context that the other words establish (remember the Hebrew words and their definitions).

But THANK YOU for using a scripture to support your view! It's like a breath of fresh air to have the canon being used to discern true doctrine! B)

...[Christ] literally took on our iniquities in the Garden...

What does that mean?

There are countless "intellectuals" who have felt they know better and have driven themselves right into apostasy.

True, and its sad to see. However, I know of few if any who have apostasized by defining doctrine solely from the authorized LDS canon. I am not relying on the scholarly works of others to understand the atonement (as the Bible Dictionary does). Instead, I rely solely on the scriptures themselves, separate from commentary. And, I feel my gratitude for Christ's sacrifice grow daily as I ponder his gift to me, and feel excited about serving others and thrusting in my sickle with might in the Church wherever God needs me.

Not too many apostates relish going to sacrament meeting and bearing testimony in public and going to Sunday school and Elders' Quorum, etc.

On some issues, where every latter-day prophet from Joseph Smith right down to Gordon Hinckley say "A" and you are inclined to say "B", do you think that's an issue of relying on the arm of flesh?

In that case, I would be inclined to think the person was missing out on the teachings of wise prophets. However, this "atonement in Gethsemane" idea really only gained traction around the time of Elder McConkie and the 1981 addition of chapter headings and the Bible Dictionary to the standard works.

I have yet to see where Joseph Smith taught that Christ atoned for our sins in Gethsemane. And even if he did teach that, I would still remain unconvinced unless he brought forth new revelation, announced it to the Church, it was sustained unanimously in General Conference, and added to our canon of scriptures.

Barring that, I would respect Joseph's or any other prophet's right to their private interpretation of scriptures and doctrine as long as it did not endanger the salvation of the saints.

Given this was a word created in English by Tyndale, and one thing I can be sure of was that he didn't have LDS theology in mind when he coined it.

Too true.

Maybe we could coin a word for the LDS to use to cover what they mean, as distinct to the historical meaning. So we all wouldn't get confused.

I agree. LDS theology should coin a new phrase to emphasize any significance we attach to Gethsemane beyond what the scriptures express. I have no idea what that word would be, but anything other than "atonement" would be acceptable.

[a-train]

I don't see the difference. Atonement means atonement. There's no atonement with a lowercase "a" and one with an uppercase "A." There was one atonement, and as D&C 76 points out, it was made by Christ in the act of letting others shed his blood.

'And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.' (Leviticus 16:6)

Certainly this is a very lower case atonement not intended to be confused with The Atonement of Jesus Christ. The OT has a lot of these. That is what I am talking about when I speak of the difference between an atonement in the Law of Moses and The Atonement. Certainly the atonement made by Aaron was only a slight symbolic reflection of the Real Atonement.

The Atonement of Jesus wasn't just an atonement to answer the Law of Moses. It is the work of Christ that raises all mankind from the grave to stand before the judgement bar and be accountable for their own sins and avail themselves of the Propitiation offered to partake of immortality and Eternal Life with the LORD.

Now I am with you 100% as you correct any misconception that the Atonement occured exclusively in Gethsemane, but because He is the Atonement, to disassociate any known aspect of the Saviour or His history from the Atonement seems to be impossible in my view.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

a-train, I liked your example from Lev. 16:6. I can see why you would be inclined to differentiate between an "atonement" and the "Atonement," based on that scripture.

What I get from that scripture in addition, is that the concept of an atonement is always predicated on the killing of a live offering...in Aaron's case, a bullock for a sin offering. I suppose that is what I'm getting at...what any atonement consists of. But I see your point too.

Certainly the atonement made by Aaron was only a slight symbolic reflection of the Real Atonement.

Agreed. Again, though, it is how an atonement is made that I find significant (shedding the life blood of a living offering).

Now I am with you 100% as you correct any misconception that the Atonement occured exclusively in Gethsemane, but because He is the Atonement, to disassociate any known aspect of the Saviour or His history from the Atonement seems to be impossible in my view.

Again, I can see why you'd say that. I suppose my focus remains on how atonements were made in the Old Testament, and it always involved the symbolic sprinkling of the life blood of a slain offering.

So in that sense...in a strictly scriptural Old Testament, Jehovah-given-tradition sense, I do indeed believe that the atonement of Christ is the fullest realization of the Old Testament symbolism, in that Christ gave his life blood on the cross to atone for our sins, just as the Law of Moses (given by Jehovah) required the life blood of a suitable offering in order to effect atonement.

I was flipping through the scriptures tonight, and found some awesome cross-references and correlations which I might share in the near future.

[darrel]

I would like to thank A-Train CrimsonKairos and other scholarly LDS posters for strengthening this forum along the lines of LDS Doctrine. Other opinions and beliefs are good for reference, comparison, and discussion and bring validity to the beautiful truths of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[rusure]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>This leads me to consider this other topic. Countless verses direct one not to put their arm in the flesh. Are members putting leaders, imperfect men, whom God has chosen above the counsel of the Holy Ghost or God himself?

I think sometimes man puts himself before the Holy Ghost and God. There are countless "intellectuals" who have felt they know better and have driven themselves right into apostasy. They will swear they are right. On some issues, where every latter-day prophet from Joseph Smith right down to Gordon Hinckley say "A" and you are inclined to say "B", do you think that's an issue of relying on the arm of flesh? Who's arm?

While I can understand the danger that might arise by people going off on their own-

The authorities are imperfect. The have all sinned. Scriptures make this fact very clear. They come with all their mortal flaws and issues of humanity. They have been placed into positions of leadership by God. If there is a discrepancy between what they say and what a person thinks shouldn't they trust in the spirit? Scriptures plead with us to ask God. Pray continually. Seek after His wisdom. If we are trusting God and following the direction of the Holy Ghost then the truth will be revealed line upon line in the proper dosage thats individually required.

Man can put himself before God too. They can go against God and the prophets. But then they are following neither the Holy Spirit or prophets in that case and they will be left to their own devises. They will be judged accordingly.

Regardless of whether people let pride step in or does not alter the fact that the Holy Spirit is given the authority over the prophets. The prophets are there merely to point the way to God and His will not to stand in the place.

No argument there, of course. But, the question is -- whose arm of flesh is one relying on? No answer needed, just what to keep in mind. And, also to keep in mind that if one thinks that on an important matter of doctrine the Holy Ghost has testified something vastly different to them than to prophets that spend all day every day in the service of their Lord, in the depths of the temple apart from the world where the spirit is so strong, etc., then it becomes a case that the person must therefore believe the prophet has led them astray and that's no doubt why there are so many Book of Mormon believing churches that are not headquartered in Salt Lake.

[rusure]

Again, I can see why you'd say that. I suppose my focus remains on how atonements were made in the Old Testament, and it always involved the symbolic sprinkling of the life blood of a slain offering.

I asked before and you may have answered and I missed it, but what do you think the options were in Mosaic times to have a symbolic showing of Christ feeling our sins and understanding our needs?

[rosie321]

<div class='quotemain'>Again, I can see why you'd say that. I suppose my focus remains on how atonements were made in the Old Testament, and it always involved the symbolic sprinkling of the life blood of a slain offering.

I asked before and you may have answered and I missed it, but what do you think the options were in Mosaic times to have a symbolic showing of Christ feeling our sins and understanding our needs?

Working under the assumption that the atonement occured at the cross by the shedding of the blood one has to see that Christ was different from all the other sacrifices. He was not an animal. He was the Son of God and yet subject to all human emotions and desires. He did not have to sacrifice himself for us. He had the choice. But He knew His Father's will and He chose to see that people would have the opportunity to return to Heavenly Father. A choice that was lost to us all because of the fall..

The very act of Him going to the cross showed that he felt our sins and understands our needs. (Not sure why Gethsamane would be necessary to fully address this need). Christ great love and feeling the pain of our sins was revealed in His choice of his final words on the cross. The words showed concern for His mother, spoke comfort to the thief next to Him, their were the words spoken in emotional torment "Abba Father why hast thou forsaken me," and probably the most powerful words of care were "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The words Christ spoke on that cross show me clearly that he bore the price of our sins and understands our needs. The moments that were suffered in Gethsemane are powerful reminders of His love too and should not be discounted. Those moments in the Garden alone could not have offered us the hope of salvation the way that the death on the cross did.

[rosie321]

<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>This leads me to consider this other topic. Countless verses direct one not to put their arm in the flesh. Are members putting leaders, imperfect men, whom God has chosen above the counsel of the Holy Ghost or God himself?

I think sometimes man puts himself before the Holy Ghost and God. There are countless "intellectuals" who have felt they know better and have driven themselves right into apostasy. They will swear they are right. On some issues, where every latter-day prophet from Joseph Smith right down to Gordon Hinckley say "A" and you are inclined to say "B", do you think that's an issue of relying on the arm of flesh? Who's arm?

While I can understand the danger that might arise by people going off on their own-

The authorities are imperfect. The have all sinned. Scriptures make this fact very clear. They come with all their mortal flaws and issues of humanity. They have been placed into positions of leadership by God. If there is a discrepancy between what they say and what a person thinks shouldn't they trust in the spirit? Scriptures plead with us to ask God. Pray continually. Seek after His wisdom. If we are trusting God and following the direction of the Holy Ghost then the truth will be revealed line upon line in the proper dosage thats individually required.

Man can put himself before God too. They can go against God and the prophets. But then they are following neither the Holy Spirit or prophets in that case and they will be left to their own devises. They will be judged accordingly.

Regardless of whether people let pride step in or does not alter the fact that the Holy Spirit is given the authority over the prophets. The prophets are there merely to point the way to God and His will not to stand in the place.

No argument there, of course. But, the question is -- whose arm of flesh is one relying on? No answer needed, just what to keep in mind. And, also to keep in mind that if one thinks that on an important matter of doctrine the Holy Ghost has testified something vastly different to them than to prophets that spend all day every day in the service of their Lord, in the depths of the temple apart from the world where the spirit is so strong, etc., then it becomes a case that the person must therefore believe the prophet has led them astray and that's no doubt why there are so many Book of Mormon believing churches that are not headquartered in Salt Lake.

Time at the temple does not guarantee one is fully experiencing the spirits leadings. The flesh can still take over.

I would argue the point that Isn't it possible to spend time in the temple and still not heed God? I think of Eli and his wicked sons in the OT. They were removed because of their wickedness. Samuel was prepared to take their place.

The temple has seen money changers that were not doing the will of God. Moses was in the presence of God, came down from the mountain, saw how the people had sinned and broke the tablets God had handwritten on.

Attendance at the temple, or personal worship is ineffective without the spirit leading or God's actual leading. Prophets, apostles and such are not completely infallible. Humanity might kick in and cause them to lose sight. I would agree with your assessment though that the odds are in the favor of the prophets actually following the Lords leading. They have not devoted their lives to serving God and been chosen by God to serve in this capacity if there wasn't a purpose for it.

In this particular instance, I'm not so sure we are all as far apart as we might think. It is possible, as Andrew suggested that the different meanings of terminology used may be the source of much of the disagreements here. Its hard to explain the true value and beauty of spiritual things in our human words. Everyone has a different understanding but it doesn't completely mean the prophets have completely lost it or that those who don't see in the same way are bound for apostasy.

[rusure]

Time at the temple does not guarantee one is fully experiencing the spirits leadings. The flesh can still take over.

I would argue the point that Isn't it possible to spend time in the temple and still not heed God? I think of Eli and his wicked sons in the OT. They were removed because of their wickedness. Samuel was prepared to take their place.

Is this purely a hypothetical edge case scenario? Because this isn't at all how I view President Hinckley. Honestly, if I felt this unsure about our prophet and the discerning spirit they should have, I wouldn't be able to sustain them in anything they do, I would need to doubt and spend the entirety of my days and nights getting a confirmation on each piece of teaching that came from them. In that case, I wouldn't raise my hand to say I sustain them or answer to that effect to hold a temple recommend.

It is possible, as Andrew suggested that the different meanings of terminology used may be the source of much of the disagreements here.

Actually, I disagree about being bound for apostasy. Apostasy is not a final culminating event, it's a series of steps and it does start with believing that one's own decisions are supreme over matters of doctrine as revealed and taught by the prophet. We can't see it in our life, but can pick it apart with the children of Israel. 1000 years from now, someone could pick it apart in our words/actions even if we can't see it.

As to different meanings of terminology, I disagree that that's the issue. From what Crimson has shared, for example, the Savior didn't feel or suffer our sins in the Garden, that was his suffering for himself. That's not a difference in terminology. That's a fundamental difference in understanding what the Savior experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane and what impact that has for each of us individually. If it was all about the Savior there, that really changes the understanding of how the Savior really knows each one of us indivdually, understands our needs, etc. The fallback there is to the God is one big big big God that knows everything just because.

[a-train]

Again, I can see why you'd say that. I suppose my focus remains on how atonements were made in the Old Testament, and it always involved the symbolic sprinkling of the life blood of a slain offering.

So in that sense...in a strictly scriptural Old Testament, Jehovah-given-tradition sense, I do indeed believe that the atonement of Christ is the fullest realization of the Old Testament symbolism, in that Christ gave his life blood on the cross to atone for our sins, just as the Law of Moses (given by Jehovah) required the life blood of a suitable offering in order to effect atonement.

I think we are getting down to the big reason for the LDS perception of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

What occured at Calvary fulfilled the Law of Moses and was therefore the ultimate Atonement in that regard. What we are getting at though is that there is something more. Jesus didn't come to save us from the Law of Moses alone, He didn't come simply to fulfill the Law of Moses and be done. He came to make fallen man at one with God. His Atonement answers the ends of the higher law also.

If all the Saviour did was save us from the Law of Moses, we would still remain fallen and lost. The fall and subsequent death of our first parents came before the Law of Moses. Jesus came to redeem all of their family from that fall. Many of the often referenced Book of Mormon passages speak of the atonement of Christ as a remedy for the fall of Adam; 2 Nephi 9 for instance. I think it would therefore be narrow-sighted of us to imagine that His Atonement is nothing more than the fulfillment of the Law of Moses.

We have heard from even our GAs that what took place in Gethsemane was just as much a part of raising the family of Adam to immortality and eternal life as what took place at Calvary or at the tomb. I can hardly refute the notion. Certainly a dialogue occured on a level of which we mere sinners can have but the tiniest fraction of understanding. We have from Joseph Smith himself the testimony that the Saviour bled from every pore, which he attributes to the first-hand witnesses. Those witnesses also tell us an angel appeared strengthening Him.

Now let us consider this: Many men endured the sufferings of scourging and crucifixion just as Jesus did without the help of any strengthening angel. Did the Eternal God need strengthening to endure the mere thought of it on the night before? I find it impossible to believe that something entirely beyond the understanding of man did NOT occur that night in Gethsemane.

What we are therefore to understand about the Atonement of Jesus Christ is that it is much bigger than what we understand now. I doubt we have any more than a tiny glimpse of the scope, the value, or the shape of the infinite Atonement of Jesus Christ. It is for that reason that faith in Him is the first principle of the Gospel.

-a-train

[AnthonyB]

a-train.

The idea of covering for sins is not Mosaic but goes back to the very beginning of the story, the atonement is not just the completion of the Mosaic convenant.

When Adam and Eve sinned God killed animals (the first mention of blood sheding in the bible) to make a covering of skins. God provided a covering of skins for them to hide the effects of their sin. Of course these were only a temporary covering.

The sacrifice system of the Mosaic law, copied this foundation doctrine by using animal sacrifice to cover the sins of the people. However the cover did not remove the sins, only covered them.

Jesus at Calvary, and only at Calvary finished this work in several ways. His death covered our sins for eternity. When God looks at us He now sees Christ. He sees His perfection not our sin, we have His righteouness as a covering for our unrighteousness. We are covered by Christ, or in Paul's oft used terms we are "in Christ".

Secondly by sacrificeing His body, He procured for us a new body or tent (ie covering). One that is incorruptible and worthy of eternal life not the failing flesh that is of this dispensation.

The following appears to be contrary to LDS doctinre but I'd love a response to it....

The penalty of sin is death. All men until Jesus when the died were held captive by death. Jesus had not sinned therfore when he was murdered, he could not by held by death since he was under no penalty. This is why He is the resurrection. The ressurection could only be procurred by his righteous death. This event only occurred at Calvary.

Everytime we take communion we proclaim our need of His blood and His body. We remember his sacrifice but also his ressurection. We are also looking forward to when we are given our new bodies (or covering) at the ressurection and have a meal with Him in those new bodies. I can see how you can inlcude the blood idea into Gethsemane but cannot see how it can cover the body/covering paradigm revealed in scripture.

This is the crux (a-train was that missing spelling deliberate to hide that crux means cross?), at Calvary Christ procurred not only reconcilliation but by his propitiation a covering of our sins. His body gave us the complete not temporary covering, only at Calvary did that occurr. Elsewhere, like at Gethsemane, His many actions helped bring about reconcilliation to God. Only at Calvary however was a covering for sin obtained through his body. That is not to disparage or minimize what he suffered at Gethsemane, which appears to be the full reversal of Adam in the garden. Adam choose his own will, Jesus choose his Father's will.

When Tyndale coined the word, he wanted a new word that would include not just reconcilliation and propitiation (both of which come from Latin words) but the concept of covering of sin through sacrifice. Any move to apply this word elsewhere dissapates the force of it and the gift that noble man of God left the English language.

[rusure]

Secondly by sacrificeing His body, He procured for us a new body or tent (ie covering). One that is incorruptible and worthy of eternal life not the failing flesh that is of this dispensation.

That goes to our physical frame (as resurrection does). Our spiritual being doesn't need a body in the first place to exist -- it was in existence before our physical bodies were. To be exalted beings, we need both, but the atonement wasn't for our physical frame (well, OK, secondarily it was since our physical being suffers with spiritual sin), it was for our spirit. And, don't forget that the atonement is also for us here and now. It is a key part of the plan of salvation that starts with our experience in mortality (and what Satan doesn't want us to understand b/c he has a different plan for us).

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>Secondly by sacrificeing His body, He procured for us a new body or tent (ie covering). One that is incorruptible and worthy of eternal life not the failing flesh that is of this dispensation.

That goes to our physical frame (as resurrection does). Our spiritual being doesn't need a body in the first place to exist -- it was in existence before our physical bodies were. To be exalted beings, we need both, but the atonement wasn't for our physical frame (well, OK, secondarily it was since our physical being suffers with spiritual sin), it was for our spirit. And, don't forget that the atonement is also for us here and now. It is a key part of the plan of salvation that starts with our experience in mortality (and what Satan doesn't want us to understand b/c he has a different plan for us).

rusure,

Adopting an LDS viewpoint, wouldn't the procurement of the ressurected body, being the entrance to being exalted beings and thus a major reason for us enduring our mortal life be the crux of Jesus life.

Anyway back to "atonement", the Hebrew word "kaper" is the OT word for atonement. It means "a covering". Given the symbolism of the clothing of Adam and Eve, and the NTs use of us being clothed in Christ, I struggle to see how any of the marvellous things LDS believe Jesus did at Gethsemane could be "a covering".

I have shown how Calvary can be shown to offer a covering for both our bodies and spirits, in line with the eternal purposes of God outlined from the very beginning of the bible.

Tell me how Gethsemane is "a covering" and I'll understand why you apply the word atonement to it. Otherwise IMHO your better off using another word.

[darrel]

Christ's doctrine goes further back than Adam and Eve. We were all assembled in a grand counsel before the world was even created.

There the Plan of Redemption was presented where Christ volunteered to take upon him the sins of all men if they would but repent and keep his commandments.

Satan and 1/3 of all spirits rebelled and were cast down to earth to provoke men to follow him.

All spirits born to the earth accepted this Plan of Redemption at that great council. Jesus Christ willingly took upon himself our sin on condition of our obedience..

The culmination of his atonement was the death he suffered and his subsiquent resurrection which opened the way for all men good and evil to be resurrected either to eternal hapiness or eternal misery.

[AnthonyB]

das,

I've had the pleasure of having the LDS plan of salvation laid out before. (Do you mean council not counsel? Although given my horrific spelling I should be last to be picky.)

Does what happened at Gethsemane having anything to do with providing a covering, spiritual or physical?

I know that you mean something different when you use atonement, but I can't help feel if your going to talk about events in Jesus life that don't encompass providing "a covering" as part of what they mean then reconcilliation or another word of your creation would be a more appropriate word then one that was coined specifically by a known person at a known time with a known purpose, namley to cover reconcilliation, propitiation and covering.