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

[rusure]

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.

So you believe the best word to sum up what the atonement is is "a covering"? I'd have to see all your references for that, but if we're going to play word association w/o the references, I'm still a little game.

How about the fact that we aren't perfect and that Christ completes us, is our mediator, and therefore "covers us" where we fall short -- which we do -- and is able to do that because of what he went through in the Garden, suffering for each and every sin and infirmity all of mankind would suffer. I think a stronger case can be made that the spiritual covering holds the deeper symbolic meaning.

[prisonchaplain]

I could be wrong, but I still sense that the whole point of difference is not WHAT Jesus did (he atoned for our sins, no doubt), but rather WHERE he did it. Jesus bore our sins, and the penalty for them. It's just that I've always seen that happening on the cross--which is why the Father forsake Jesus. The Father had turn away from the sin-afflicted Christ.

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>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.

So you believe the best word to sum up what the atonement is is "a covering"? I'd have to see all your references for that, but if we're going to play word association w/o the references, I'm still a little game.

How about the fact that we aren't perfect and that Christ completes us, is our mediator, and therefore "covers us" where we fall short -- which we do -- and is able to do that because of what he went through in the Garden, suffering for each and every sin and infirmity all of mankind would suffer. I think a stronger case can be made that the spiritual covering holds the deeper symbolic meaning.

rusure,

I'm not saying it means only "a covering".(Have you read my posts?!?!?) What I am saying is that Tyndale was faced with translating a Hebrew word "kapper" and its cognates, the word "kapper" means "a covering". "Yom Kippur" is the day of atonement, but given that kippur is a cognate of kapper, it implies that it is the day when sins are covered. Atonement means both propitiation and reconcilliation but with the knowlegde that the hebrew word that it is translated from has a specific colouring to it.

The "coiner" of the word coined it because he wanted a new word that carried all of the meanings that I've stated. It has had that range of meanings that he gave by the majority of people throughout the English speaking word for the entire time since he coined it. LDS are free to use words however you want but your going to confuse the rest of us if use words in ways that make no sense for the rest of us.

Crimson layed out dozen of scriptures but with few exceptions little discussion of the scriptures occurred. I thought I'd try a different approach, I'm not trying to show that I'm right and your doctrine is wrong. I'm just trying to show that your using a word that was created with a specific purpose and has been understood nearly universally within that context. Then to request you highlight how that word would be appropriate for the uses that your making of it.

Your second part is closer to what I was after. In a sense your describing the application of the atonement, not the obtaining ot it. Since we all continue to sin the application of the atonement to us must be ongoing. How do you think that realates to the obtaining of it.

It appears that your views on the Garden would make Jesus a better mediator, a more empathetic high priest and many other things. How does the garden obtain atonement?

If you mean atonement merely as a synomyn to reconcilliation then your description of the garden would be appropriate. All I'm asking is you show how your doctrines of the garden covers the semantics that the word atonement covers. (For a lighter note, any mocking of my use of the words semantic, will be veiwed as being anti-semantic.)

[AnthonyB]

I have a solution, could one you of the LDS pass this thread to a GA and then we could have the definitive LDS answer, and then everyone woud be happy! (I'm sure they could answer my questions)

[CrimsonKairos]

...what do you think the options were in Mosaic times to have a symbolic showing of Christ feeling our sins and understanding our needs?

That's one key difference between us, I think. I don't believe Jesus had to feel all of our sins and pains to cover or blot out our sins in God's sight.

I suspected all along that your view about "where" the atonement occurred is partly based on "how" you think the atonement works.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you believe that Jesus had to be spiritually "whipped" in our place so God could dispense the punishment our sins require, while still showing us mercy but not "robbing justice" in the process.

Is that an accurate summary of how you think the atonement works? If so, I understand why you'd focus on Gethsemane, for blood coming from every pore seems a more fitting symptom of such spiritual agony than merely hanging on a cross (which everyone points out alot of other men have done and they can't atone for our sins).

Is this where you're coming from?

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.

Christ wasn't suffering "for himself," as if Christ had to atone for himself (since he had never sinned). What I said was that Christ experienced all we will ever suffer and infinitely more by virtue of his being capable of experiencing more agony due to his perfect goodness and purity. Elder Talmage phrases my view quite effectively (and since it is based on scripture, I share it willingly :))

"It was not physical pain, nor mental anguish alone, that caused Him to suffer such torture as to produce an extrusion of blood from every pore; but a spiritual agony of soul such as only God was capable of experiencing." (Talmage, "Jesus the Christ," p. 613; emphasis mine)

Again, I get the sense that you don't think an atonement for sin can work unless Christ experienced each and every punishment for each and every individual sin, like some cosmic exercise in spiritual accounting. Is this accurate?

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.

Who said it was all about the Savior? The only reason Jesus had to suffer such spiritual separation from God and the Spirit was because he had to be alone when he offered the sacrifice for sin on the cross. I sense that you're fiercely committed to the idea that the atonement has no value unless Christ had to tally up all your personal sins and pains and suffer them individually.

That's called "penal-substitution," and is an issue I'm unwilling to argue about since a-train and I discussed it at great length and eventually had to agree to disagree though we both had extensive scriptural support for our various views on the matter.

The fallback there is to the God is one big big big God that knows everything just because.

Or, it could be what I've said multiple times but which you either don't understand or are ignoring. Christ descended below all things which none of us has. Hence, when we metaphorically point out that we've had to drink from a sacrament-cup-sized "bitter cup," Christ points out that he had to drink from an ocean-sized bitter cup.

You don't think that allows him to comprehend and empathize with our ridiculously smaller magnitude of suffering?

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, a-train. I never said Christ's sacrifice for sin was about only fulfilling the Law of Moses ritual of animal sacrifice! I've actually said the opposite this whole time, that it was a sacrifice for sin. The fact that Christ's sacrifice did away with the need for the animal sacrifices which were only given to foreshadow it, is a peripheral and secondary effect of the atonement.

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.

That's the difference. I can. With scripture. I intend to start a new thread laying out these awesome scriptures I recently re-read, re-discovered, and felt guided to piece together to get the big picture.

For the record, even if the GAs somehow misinterpreted or missed this "big picture" portrayed in the scriptures, it would in no way make them "false" prophets or "false" apostles or invalidate their priesthood right to preside and direct Christ's Church in administering salvation to the world.

This distinction in the doctrine of the atonement---while significant to my personal witness of Christ---does not affect our salvation if we repent and forsake our sins.

We have from Joseph Smith himself the testimony that the Saviour bled from every pore, which he attributes to the first-hand witnesses.

D&C 19 is an even clearer witness of this pore-stretching torture in Gethsemane. The problem is that most people stop reading after verse 19, and the key to understanding D&C 19:16-19 comes in the verses following verse 19. I'll get into this in my upcoming thread.

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?

a-train, shame on you. Surely you know I have never said Gethsemane's agony was only about Christ not being able to handle the "mere thought" of his coming crucifixion. I've expressed myself so clearly and so often that I'm rather surprised you'd mischaracterize my views thus.

What I've said consistently was that in order for Christ to offer the sacrifice for sin by himself, on the cross, God and the Spirit had to withdraw their sustaining influence from him, and it was this spiritual separation which Christ had never experienced and which was of an infinite magnitude of intensity, that caused such a violent reaction in his mortal frame that his capillaries burst from the agony.

That's different than saying Christ bled in Gethsemane just because he dreaded his upcoming crucifixion.

I think the only reason he dreaded it was because he knew he'd have to "go it alone," and until his abandonment in Gethsemane, he never knew how real and awful being alone would be, as evidenced by this reaction of our Lord as he neared Gethsemane:

33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;

34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death... (Mark 14:33-34)

Hence his triple-petition for another way, any way, to be made available other than having to hang alone on the cross for 9 hours in a spiritual eclipse whose torture and totality surpasses any misery we can ever feel. Elder Talmage himself theorized that Gethsemane's agony continued on the cross in addition to the physical torture attendant thereto. Notice, however, the use of the speculative phrase "it seems" in this excerpt:

"It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure." (Talmage, "Jesus the Christ," p.661; emphasis mine)

I find it impossible to believe that something entirely beyond the understanding of man did NOT occur that night in Gethsemane.

Of course it did. In fact, almost every time an apostle talks about Gethsemane, they use the phrases, "It seems that," or, "In some way unfathomable to mortal man," or, "We cannot understand exactly what," etc.

"Jesus the Christ" is a prime example. Elder Talmage discusses the episode in Gethsemane in very theoretical terms, saying things like: "In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind." (ibid; emphasis mine)

While I may not comprehend what Christ felt when being plunged into spiritual solitude in Gethsemane, I can certainly comprehend that it did occur. To this give all the scriptures witness, particularly D&C 19 which I'll get to in my upcoming thread.

God provided a covering of skins for them to hide the effects of their sin...The sacrifice system of the Mosaic law, copied this foundation doctrine by using animal sacrifice to cover the sins of the people.

Fascinating correlation. I like the connection between the concept of covering found in God's response to Adam and Eve's transgression, and the ritual sacrifice described by the Hebrew word "kaphar" meaning "to cover."

So you believe the best word to sum up what the atonement is is "a covering"?

You have it backwards, rusure. Anthony didn't arbitrarily choose the idea of "covering" to summarize the word "atonement." Tyndale coined the word "atonement" to express the effect of the Hebrew word "kaphar" which means "to cover."

The Biblical concept of "atonement" is one of covering sins or blotting sins out (as per Isaiah's witness) through the life blood of a suitable offering. If you're questioning someone's summary of the Old Testament system of animal sacrifice which foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice for sin, take it up with Tyndale. He might be a lil' hard to get ahold of, though. :)

Christ completes us, is our mediator...because of what he went through in the Garden, suffering for each and every sin and infirmity all of mankind would suffer.

Again, rusure, do you believe that Christ can't intercede for us or that his shed life blood has no value unless he first suffered every sin and infirmity mankind will suffer? Where does this understanding stem from in the scriptures?

In other words, where in scripture are we taught something like, "Jesus came into the world to be punished for everybody's sins in everybody's place, else no atonement could be made."

The Father had turn away from the sin-afflicted Christ.

It is this interpretation where I differ from many LDS prophets and apostles. You may be surprised to learn, PC, that Elder Talmage (LDS apostle and author of "Jesus the Christ") agrees with you.

However, I cannot. I disagree that God only withdrew from Christ after he had already been hanging there for some time. God and the Spirit withdrew from Christ in Gethsemane so that Christ could exit the garden and face his arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion alone.

My understanding in this regard is, however, based partly on D&C 19, so I don't expect you to agree. :)

[AnthonyB]

Crimson,

So when Jesus called out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", it wasn't the point for you at which the Father forsook Jesus, merely him confirming what had already happend in the garden?

[CrimsonKairos]

Correct.

I believe the pain and spiritual agony of being separated from God and the Spirit since Gethsemane the evening before had continued unabated and understandably, I think, reached a point of climax with the torture of hanging on the cross for hours without rest or reprieve.

Again, though, this is partly based on D&C 19 which is LDS scripture and hence, not likely to be accepted by non-LDS Christians as a valid source of doctrine.

[a-train]

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.

Exactly, just as I said.

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

I was unable to see anything in what followed that contradicted LDS doctrine.

LDS believe the sacrifice for sin was on the cross. What happened on the cross is the crux of what reconciles man to God. I have yet to see anyone LDS or otherwise take a different opinion on this forum.

My only question now is why would there be any impropriety to say that the work of Christ in Gethsemane (which I think we all agree was necessary for the reconciliation of man to God) is an appendage of the Atonement of Christ by virtue of the definition of the term when the term is designed to include the meaning of reconciliation?

-a-train

Krux is a skateboard truck brand. When I said: 'The krux of the Atonement is the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God as a propitiation for our sins...' I was speaking precisely of Calvary.

[Annabelli]

Jesus was to experience everything that mortal person would endure in life. Do we experience Gethsemane and a form of cruxifiction in death?

What would be a Gethsemane Moment in your life? I would think that death would be the same for an individual whether it was a misfortune or a natural state of old age; I do believe that people are consciously aware of death in any circumstance.

I do believe that some people skip the opportunity of Gethsemane, too set in their ways, too prideful, too mean. Gethsemane = a time when we ask for the Lord to forgive us, when we forgive ourselves, when we forgive others, when we make peace with our loved ones. Is Gethsemane the place where we give back the "free agency" that we have been entrusted with?

[CrimsonKairos]

LDS believe the sacrifice for sin was on the cross.

I'm incredibly glad to hear you say that, though many who have posted in this thread would disagree with us.

What happened on the cross is the crux of what reconciles man to God. I have yet to see anyone LDS or otherwise take a different opinion on this forum.

Really? Hasn't rusure been arguing that the atonement for sin occurred in Gethsemane? That Christ bled from every pore as he took upon himself our sins and made intercession for us? Remember, rusure quoted Mosiah 3:7 to show that Christ atoned in Gethsemane.

Now, maybe I totally missed the boat and I'm willing to admit I was wrong if I misread all of rusure's posts. So rusure, did I read you wrong, or do you indeed believe that the atonement for sins took place in Gethsemane?

...would there be any impropriety to say that...Gethsemane...is an appendage of the Atonement of Christ...?

I think it's one thing to say that Gethsemane's agony was an appendage of Christ's sacrifice for sin, or atonement. It's another thing entirely to say Christ atoned for our sins in Gethsemane.

I personally would have no scriptural objection to saying Gethsemane was an appendage to or preparation for the sacrifice for sin on the cross.

[CrimsonKairos]

I've started a new thread in the "Gospel Discussion Board" titled: The Bitter Cup of the Atonement.

In it, I share the fruits of my study of the scripture teachings about the atonement of our Lord.

Feel free to respond and post questions, comments, etc. about it in the new thread.

[darrel]

Sorry about the spelling. I guess I need to use the spell check better.

I assume you use the coined word covering as a reference to the Atonement. I'm not sure exactly what it means as it is not a word we use as we teach the restored doctrine of Jesus Christ as revealed by Joseph Smith.

I suppose if it is a word coined by a christian minister to explain his doctrine then I can see it would be a way for him to reinforce his teachings.

My views of Gods plan of Redemption and Salvation for all men is based on my testimony of The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ,

I think for us to debate the literal meaning of Christ's Atonement is an exercise in futility because doing so will not change the extent to which it is applied to us individually.

Gods Plan through Jesus Christ is that all men may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. We must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

I accept Joseph Smiths testimony, through a confirmation of the spirit, God's admonition to him to join none of the churches because "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

Just because the teachings and doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ don't align with the doctrines of men they are true and bring a unity to the faith of those who accept it and will be confirmed as true in due time.

The true doctrines of Jesus Christ are being presented to the world through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[a-train]

I just want to clarify now for those who wonder:

The doctrine of the LDS Church from the beginning has NEVER changed. Mormons believe what all Christians do concerning the work of Christ on calvary. LDS prophets have never taught that what happened at calvary actually happened at Gethsemane.

So why all the discussion about Gethsemane? Christians the world over have long marvelled at Luke 22:44: 'And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.'

Joseph Smith said that it should read more like: 'and he sweat as it were great drops of blood..' The LDS interpretation is therefore that the Saviour literally DID bleed from every pore in Gethsemane.

King Benjamin, a Book of Mormon prophet around 124 B.C. said that 'The Lord Omnipotent' 'shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.' (Mosiah 3:7)

This anguish is manifested in the Saviour's words to his disciples: 'My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.' (Matt 26:38)

The LDS believe that there in Gethsemane, in a manner incomprehensible to man, the LORD took upon Himself the enormous weight of the wickedness and abominations of His people. We believe that from there He quietly carried that anguish of spirit and body through the turmoil of His betrayal, His torture, and all the way to the cross where He finished the infinite sacrifice for sin.

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

Now don't take a detour on that phrase 'shedding of his blood in the garden of Gethsemane'. The meaning here is not to say the same as what happened on the cross, as the mention of His death there comes next. The whole of the work of Christ, be it at Gethsemane, Calvary, the tomb, or elsewhere in reconciling man to God is known as the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

-a-train

[darrel]

Thank you A-Train I think I will be quiet and let you explain the gospel of Jesus Christ, you have a much better knowledge than I do.

[CrimsonKairos]

das, the concept of "covering" is the definition of the Hebrew word "kaphar" that Tyndale translated into English as "atonement," a word he invented to convey the intent of the "Yom Kippur" or "Day of Atonement" ritual sacrifice: to make Israel at one with Jehovah.

LDS prophets have never taught that what happened at calvary actually happened at Gethsemane.

Actually, they have. That is, if you go by the many quotes Bro. Dorsey posted at the beginning of this thread, where apostles and prophets say that Christ atoned for our sins in Gethsemane while bleeding from every pore.

All I know is that D&C 76 clearly says the atonement is the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross. Nothing less. Nothing more. Not the preparation leading up to it. Not the aftermath and resurrection.

Now don't take a detour on that phrase 'shedding of his blood in the garden of Gethsemane'.

Hahahaha, you know me too well, a-train. :) Seriously though, I do think it's misleading for Elder McConkie to force the phrase "shedding blood" to refer to Christ sweating blood in Gethsemane, as the phrase "shedding blood" is only ever used in ALL of scripture to refer to killing.

The reason I think that's important is because of all the scriptures that say that Christ's blood was shed as an atonement for our sins. Someone unknowingly reading the BD entry under "atonement" would walk away thinking, "Oh, so the atonement was in Gethsemane too." But it wasn't.

Now can someone please give me the "Pharisee of the Year" award? *he said self-deprecatingly*

The whole of the work of Christ, be it at Gethsemane, Calvary, the tomb, or elsewhere in reconciling man to God is known as the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

But that's not what the scriptures say, a-train. I just can't get past that no scriptures teach that all of those things are the atonement for sin. They all say the atonement was the crucifixion for the sins of the world.

I'm not arguing that the ONLY important thing Christ ever did was to die on the cross. I'm simply saying that the scriptures define the atonement as the sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross. Now I won't argue that Christ's whole life was spent teaching and serving us and trying to help us know how to be sanctified and worthy of inheriting a mansion in God's presence after our resurrection and judgment.

But the thing that actually makes it possible for us to return to God, the thing that gives force and power to the ordinances of the gospel, is the atonement of Christ upon the cross. To this give all the scriptures witness.

3 Ne. 27 and D&C 76 both teach that the gospel is the glad tidings that Christ came into the world to be crucified for the sins of the world and to sanctify the world. That is the sacrifice for sin; that is the atonement for sin; that is where Christ's blood was shed; that is the good news. That is the gospel.

Everything else, as awesome and staggering and significant as it may be, is either but the lead up to or the descent from that lamb slain on the cross.

[a-train]

Everything else, as awesome and staggering and significant as it may be, is either but the lead up to or the descent from that lamb slain on the cross.

Or from the foundation of the world.... if in your in Rev. 13:8 or Moses 7:47.

-a-train

PS I just re-read all of Dorsey's quotes and was unable to locate any quote that said anything to the effect that the Atonement was limited to the events in Gethsemane.

[AnthonyB]

das,

Firstly have you read my signature....

"Human creeds have made more heretics than Christians, more parties than reformations, more martyrs than saints, more wars than peace, more hatred than love, more death than life." -Alexander Campbell

I don't think you could call me an advocate of creeds!

If you would indulge me some history....

William Tyndale was not just a "christian minister", he is the man responsible for the first complete translation of the new testament into modern english. The KJV which LDS recgonize as scripture is largley based on Tyndale's work and in large parts follows his work verbatim.

He not only gave english the word atonement but Jehovah as well. He is often consider to be the second only to Shakespeare as the most influential person on modern english. He was matyred for his work on translating the bible.

To give you one quote to remember...

"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!"

If your going to venerate Jospeh Smith for translating the Bom et al, then I think you could show at least some respect to man principally behind the KJV translation.

a-train,

I have no qualms with the way you put it. If a mans whole life can be summed up in his greatest achievement then all that led to the acheivement can be seen to bear some part of that acheivement. As long as the other parts are not seen to be the full equal of crux of it all.

I don't however feel that others have always meant the same as you, whether that be through poor expression (something I'm equally as guilty of), ignorance of the real truth, or just being in error; I don't know them well enough to tell.

[darrel]

AnthonyB I will agree that men were inspired to bring to pass the protestant reformation and to bring the Writing of the Jews to the world however incomplete they were.

I do believe that it was done so the world would be more accepting of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ when the Lord was ready to reinstate His Doctrine among men.

Imagine what would have happened to Joseph Smith or any other Prophet called of God to restore the COMPLETE teachings of Jesus Christ if it happened during the 1000 year reign of the Popes in Rome. Those protestant marters never claimed to have the full gospel but only wanted to break away from the tyranny of the established religious power. Their contributions however helped to bring about changes which prepared the way for the Gospel to be Restored by Revelation.

I believe Joseph Smith contributed more to the understanding of Gods plan of Salvation than any other man on earth except Jesus Christ.

The persecution He and the early Latter Day Saints suffered at the hands of the denominations and even to an extermination order by the Govenor of Illinois stands as a paralell to the persecution and distruction of the Early Day Saints after the Crusifixion of Jesus Christ.

This Church had to leave the geographical boarders of This Free United States of America in order to have peace to impliment and practice the Restored Gospel.

Even today this Church is called a Cult, and non-christian, and is still persecuted to a degree by many denominations who preach and teach their congregations that "mormons are evil".

Again I say this is The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as prophesied throughout the scriptures. It is the stone cut out without hands, prophesied in Danial, which will roll forth and fill the whole earth.

The Growth of the Church while slow at first is gaining momentum in many parts of the world. It's influence for good has been felt in every free country, and many not so free. The Humanitarian Activities of this Church are usually the first on the scene of disasters and often the resources for other agencies activities around the world.

Many apponants of the church do not see the dynamic activities within the church in all areas of influence ie Education, Family Values, healthful living, Boy Scouts, and posative contributions in all areas of our society.

I would challenge you, AnthonyB, or anyone else who cannot see the Fruits of This Church, "by their fruits ye shall know them" , to open your eyes and ears to see and hear the truth.

I suggest we stop straining at knats and look beyond prejudice or preconceived ideas of who, what, and why this Church is The True Church of Jesus Christ restored to the Earth to bring about the salvation of those who are willing to hear, see, and speak the truth.

I suggest a reasonable discussion of the points of doctrine would be more productive than debating meanings which cannot be unified without Revelations From Heaven.

[CrimsonKairos]

das, I don't think AnthonyB ever argued for or against the verity of the latter-day Restoration through Joseph Smith.

Anthony's comments have been restricted to the doctrine of the atonement, the Hebrew concepts it sprang from, and the word origins of the term "atonement."

Did I miss something?

[darrel]

My apologies if I have been out of line. I was responding to the reference of the reformers contributions and got carried away. Perhapse I should be in the testimony catagory.

[CrimsonKairos]

Hey, the more testimony the better. :)

I just didn't know if I had missed a comment that was deleted by another moderator or something that prompted your stirring witness of the Restoration. Thanks for sharing it with us.

[AnthonyB]

das,

I am not a member of any denomination and I belong to no church but the church I believe Christ founded. (I attend a congregation but I personally make no claim on any name but Christian, and seek only to be a follower of Christ.) True followers of Christ have often been persecuted by others who claimed to follow Him but I do not feel bound by any wrong actions of other groups to the LDS people or their church.

Sorry if you think I'm straining at gnats, some truths are very precious and we can become zealous in defending them. My bible says to contend for truth but to do so in love, if you think I have been unloving in my responses then I beg your pardon and am truly sorry.

I have not purposefully or knowing denigrated your prophet or your church, and given this is an LDS board and I am a guest on it, it would be incredible rude of me to do so. (My defence of Tyndale is based on a deep respect for a man, I consider a true follower of Christ, you are free to make you own conclusion on his contribution to Christ's church.)

As for seeing the actions of your church, I live in Australia and have personally to my memory only meet LDS people once in my entire life. That was nearly 25 years ago, when growing up in my hometown a small city in the Mallee region of Victoria, one of the girls invited some missionaries to attend a house group that I attended. (Truthfully she thought that the both had the same first name... Elder. You have to remember that we thought Americans have strange names like Chuck (to throw up or hurl), or Randy (an overly amorous boy)) They seemed pleasant enough, although I did think it odd they were wearing long pants and ties on a 46 degree celsius day (about 115 farenheit). I make no claims as to the furit or lack thereof of your church, I simply do not have a large enough sample for verification.

I actually quite like the LDS version of the gospel and would probably in many ways have less trouble with it than many Christians. However I have to stand where I believe Christ would have me and currently I can honestly say that I have no testimony or witness that I should become LDS. (Would you think the agressiveness of your post more likely to win me then say a-train's or Crimson's contributions?)

As for revelation, that is where I believe perhaps "the" crucial difference between myself and the LDS. I currently percieve that you believe truth must come from revelation. I hold that truth comes by revelation but mediated by the gifts that God gives. Revelation is no good, if I lack the gift to hear or understand it, all the revelations in the world will avail me nought. One of the primary gifts for understanding God has given me in is my abiblity to think and reason and I will not lightly toss away the gifts that I believe God has so generously given me.

That is a big topic and OT for this discussion, it is one I have been pondering and have the intention of requesting a discussion with a-train on it, once I have fully prayed and pondered. So I would request that you refrain from commenting until I raise the topic, when you may feel free to aid your thoughts and revelations.

As for this topic, I am satisfied with a-train's explanation and if they be indicative of the LDS view, am more thn satisfied that it is a reasonable view.

[rusure]

Crimson, we definitely disagree and you definitely do not believe the prophet or General Authorities know as much as you do on the atonement.

I LOL at Anthony's suggestion to send a ocpy of this thread to the GA for a response.

Anthony, it wouldn't matter for anyone that's already discounted what any GA said in favor of their own personal testimony of this issue. I can show you scores of writings that GAs have ALREADY said. Would that change your mind? It's easy enough to search on lds.org. I'm pretty sure I already posted something President Hinckley said in conference this year, but it's not believed by Crimson, for example. I have no mission to disprove Crimson or get into scripture bashing. The matter is settled for me and I'm not turning back to an understanding of God based on darkness when we have the benefit of a prophet, first presidency, etc. Yeah, I'm a sheep. I can assure you, too, that if it was known that CK was proselyting as he is, he would have to answer for this. It's one thing to have your own opinion and quite another to be out preaching against LDS doctrine publicly. This isn't a church of chaos where members are encouraged to preach their own doctrine. There's a big difference between obtaining one's own testimony on an issue vs. preaching contrary doctrine publicly.

Anyway .... moving on ....

So when Jesus called out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", it wasn't the point for you at which the Father forsook Jesus, merely him confirming what had already happend in the garden?

Can I be a bit of a topic changer?

There's been a lot of discussion about what the Savior did and where, the LDS POV about what happened vs. other Christian views that the Garden wasn't about the atonement at all, etc. ... but there have been a lot of references to Christ and his father so ....

How do non LDS Christians reconcile the whole dynamic going on between the Father and the Son with regard to your belief in the trinity? Is there a father and a son that exist at the same time?

[CrimsonKairos]

Crimson, we definitely disagree and you definitely do not believe the prophet or General Authorities know as much as you do on the atonement.

Yes, I think Elder McConkie misused the phrase "blood which was shed" to describe blood coming from Christ's pores in Gethsemane, as explained in the Bible Dictionary entry under "Atonement."

A trifling detail to some; a misleading and critical error to me.

I have no mission to disprove Crimson or get into scripture bashing.

I hardly think any of us has engaged in scripture bashing. My heart is free of contention, and scripture study only becomes scripture bashing when there's contention involved.

The matter is settled for me and I'm not turning back to an understanding of God based on darkness...

By all means, retain your personal beliefs if they bring you peace and comfort. For you to characterize the revelations in the LDS canon as "darkness," though, is a bit over the top don't you think?

...if it was known that CK was proselyting as he is, he would have to answer for this.

How so? Would I be excommunicated for quoting too many scriptures?

It's one thing to have your own opinion and quite another to be out preaching against LDS doctrine publicly.

I agree. As Harold B. Lee explained, the LDS canon is called the "standard works" because they set the standard for LDS doctrine. We are to measure every man's doctrine against the standard works to see if they agree with the revelations of God.

Please, if I've said anything that contradicts the standard works, let me know. If I have not done so, then your charge that I'm preaching against LDS doctrine is incorrect, and I would appreciate an apology for so strong and so false an accusation against me.

There's a big difference between obtaining one's own testimony on an issue vs. preaching contrary doctrine publicly.

Again, what have I said that contradicts the standard works? My doctrine is the doctrine of the LDS canon. My doctrine is LDS doctrine.

Please show me what I've said anywhere that contradicts the standard works, or withdraw your accusation and apologize. Thanks.

p.s. Nice signature. A bit long, but nice. B)

[AnthonyB]

rusure,

I was brought up to think the "trinity" a man created word, and to prefer bible words and expression to discuss bible things. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of the trinity, just don't see it to be a shibboleth for entrance into heaven.

I think you'll find that only oneness/modalist believe that the Father and Son don't exist in different places at the same time. Trinitarians would have no problems in seeing the Father in heaven and the son on Earth. Infact they see all three in action at Jesus baptism, Jesus being baptised, the Father speaking from heaven and the Holy Spirit descending to Jesus.

I personally expect that Jesus will retain his ressurected body in heaven, and had thought that was a fairly uncontroversial view until mocked for it on another board I have posted on. Despite scriptural support and posting support for it from several major systematic theology writers.

I think PC would give more a thorough answer being from a church that activley choose trinitarianism.