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

[rusure]

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.

We are counseled to do daily scripture reading with our children so I would imagine most members at some time or another read the scriptures with their children (take turns reading) whether it's daily or less frequently so the kids get it straight, so to speak. We used Old Testament, etc. stories when they were younger, but my youngest are 8 now so have been able to read the scriptures directly quite well for a while. We also watch videos we've bought from church distribution and the crucifixion is depicted on them (though, again, not in all the same manner as Mel Gibson's movie did). You have to keep in mind that LDS also study the suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane where the Savior actually did the atoning for our sins. I've never seen a video that showed bleeding from the pores, though.

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.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I think it's hard enough to discuss amongst one's own faith as it is and get differing opinions. I just wondered about this b/c I might tend to share certain things or ask for opinions differently knowing the context the discussion would be in.

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.

April 2007 conference, the prophet spoke of the atonement in one of his talks also in a somewhat chronological fashion:

He was the great Creator. It was His finger that wrote the commandments on the Mount. It was He who left His royal courts on high and came to earth, born under the most humble of circumstances. During His brief ministry, He healed the sick, caused the blind to see, raised the dead, and rebuked the scribes and Pharisees. He was the only perfect man ever to walk the earth. All of this was part of His Father’s plan. In the Garden of Gethsemane, He suffered so greatly that he sweat drops of blood as He pleaded with His Father. But this was all a part of His great atoning sacrifice. He was taken by the mob, appeared before Pilate with the mob crying for His death. He carried the cross, the instrument of His death. On Golgotha He gave His life, crying out, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

His physical death completed the sacrifice and made way for the resurrection for us all, but had he ONLY been crucified and had not suffered in Gethsamane, he would not have completed that which was needed to pay the price for our sins and stand as our mediator. Suffering on the cross didn't accomplish that end. Both the Garden and the cross had to happen (the cross to make the sacrifice complete so what happened in the Garden wasn't for naught).

[CrimsonKairos]

...had he ONLY been crucified and had not suffered in Gethsamane, he would not have completed that which was needed to pay the price for our sins and stand as our mediator.

I hear this alot. Would you mind sharing the scriptures which have led you to believe this? When I say scriptures, I mean from the LDS standard works.

Both the Garden and the cross had to happen (the cross to make the sacrifice complete so what happened in the Garden wasn't for naught).

Again, would you please share the scriptures which teach this doctrine? I've searched the scriptures thoroughly, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a scripture teach what you assert above.

p.s. It seems most of you are ignoring the core of my recent posts: The LDS prophets and apostles themselves have stated that the standard works are the measuring stick against which we hold every teaching, to see if it is in line with the revealed and canonized word of God. Pres. Lee taught that if any teaching contradicts the standard works, then that teaching is merely someone's opinion and not a truth revealed by God. So again, let's set aside all the nice Ensign articles and commentary on the scriptures, and let's look at the scriptures themselves.

Someone, anyone, please share with me the scriptures that teach that Gethsemane was where Christ atoned for our sins. We've already acknowledged that many of you interpret D&C 19 and Mosiah 3:7 to support the "atonement in Gethsemane" view. But are there more than just two scriptures that teach this fundamental doctrine upon which our entire religion and salvation is based?

[prisonchaplain]

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?

I'm not sure I understand this. The scourging was probably the most physically painful. It was on the cross that Jesus sensed the separation from his Father, "Why have you forsaken me?" The sweating of blood at Gethsamene does demonstrate that Jesus was under incredible stress and duress. He was engaged in spiritual warfare--mainly with his own will (Father...let this cup pass from me...nevertheless, not my will but thine be done). Yet, I still cannot fathom how this mental battle supersedes the physical and spiritual happenings at Golgotha. Perhaps you can explain?

[CrimsonKairos]

It's like I've been saying...we LDS have been taught some very false (read: non-scriptural) ideas about the atonement

I just wish we weren't so misinformed about the foundation of Christianity and salvation: the sacrifice for sin.

[checkerboy]

Ck you are obviously at odds with the entire leadership of the church (as there have been several quotes given from them about the atonement) and I would guess 90% of it's members.

But your point really doesn't matter.

Whether or not the atonement happened on the cross or in the garden or a combination of both, is irrrelevant. The relevant fact is that the atonement did happen. So if I believe in Christ and that he atoned for my sins, it doesn't really matter how he did it.

In fact I know of know doctrine that states we have to know how the atonement was realized.

Elder Snow of the Presidency of the Seventy was at my stake conference last weekend. He said in his talk, "We may never understand in this life how the atonement was accomplished."

And it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Just be thankful that it was accomplished.

Remember though contention is of the devil.

Oh that last part is scriptural by the way

3 Ne. 11: 29

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

[tiancum]

Yeah and you disgust me CK.

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

Give me a break.

is that contentious?

You both could have handled it better.

[rusure]

<div class='quotemain'>

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?

I'm not sure I understand this. The scourging was probably the most physically painful. It was on the cross that Jesus sensed the separation from his Father, "Why have you forsaken me?" The sweating of blood at Gethsamene does demonstrate that Jesus was under incredible stress and duress. He was engaged in spiritual warfare--mainly with his own will (Father...let this cup pass from me...nevertheless, not my will but thine be done). Yet, I still cannot fathom how this mental battle supersedes the physical and spiritual happenings at Golgotha. Perhaps you can explain?

I think that humans can probably more easily understand physical pain vs. spiritual pain and that's why humans tend to identify only with the physical suffering Christ endured (which was horrific that is true). I think it is a more advanced concept, if you will, to understand spiritual suffering. Christ took on the cumulative sins and afflictions of all mankind in the Garden. We cannot imagine that. We can't imagine even what it would have been for him to take on just ours alone. He fell on his face, the suffering was so great, and said, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." With the cross, the physical pain resulted in death which was an end to the torture, but in the Garden, there was no end and could not be until he had endured for us both spiritually and physically. Please don't think I'm saying the cross was a piece of cake. This discussion certainly isn't to convince you that his dying on the cross didn't hold any significance or was a simple feat. It is to point out what too many miss about what happened in the garden and what it did for us and that Jesus Christ did that for usand what he went through.

It's like I've been saying...we LDS have been taught some very false (read: non-scriptural) ideas about the atonement

I just wish we weren't so misinformed about the foundation of Christianity and salvation: the sacrifice for sin.

Hehehe! Oh, if only you were a prophet, huh?

p.s. It seems most of you are ignoring the core of my recent posts: The LDS prophets and apostles themselves have stated that the standard works are the measuring stick against which we hold every teaching, to see if it is in line with the revealed and canonized word of God.

Unless you are asserting the prophet, current and past, are false prophets, then it is you that is not using the scriptures and who are denying the prophets' clear and specific teachings which as you are probably missing is what scriptures are.

So let's go back ...

What are scriptures? Writings recorded by prophets?

What do the scriptures of this day look like? Conference talks also published in writing, Ensign articles, etc.

Why do you find it easier to believe in dead prophets only?

It's like I've been saying...we LDS have been taught some very false (read: non-scriptural) ideas about the atonement

I just wish we weren't so misinformed about the foundation of Christianity and salvation: the sacrifice for sin.

When you're ready for it, you'll understand it, too.

[prisonchaplain]

Let me see if I understand this--and I'll restate in oversimplistic terms. It is the understanding of most LDS that Jesus took on the spiritual burden of our sins at Gethsemane, and the physical burden at the cross? If so, imho, there is a false dichotamy. Gethsemane was Jesus final preparation for the Passion. It was also his final plea for another way. The preparation proved successful when He said, "Nevertheless, thy will be done."

Granted, had he not said that, the Atonement would not have taken place. So, Gethsemane was crucial. However, the weight of the Atonement seems to be born spiritually, mentally, and physically, at Golgotha.

Checkerboy might be right that we are getting passionate about the details of the Atonement, rather than the ultimate meaning of it. At the same time, we seemed to have touched on something deeper than the location where the Atonement was initiated.

[rusure]

Let me see if I understand this--and I'll restate in oversimplistic terms. It is the understanding of most LDS that Jesus took on the spiritual burden of our sins at Gethsemane, and the physical burden at the cross?

I haven't said that. I don't believe you can separate physical suffering caused by spiritual suffering. Spiritual suffering causes physical suffering, as well, and Christ suffered *all* of that for us in the garden. He felt all of our sins and afflictions. How could one think that there was no burden taken by the Savior for us physically at that time? That couldn't begin to make sense.

[Canuck Mormon]

I'm with Checker on this. It doesn't matter where it happened, all that matters is that it did happen. My Granddad (who I never met) used to tell my mother that he would convert if she could tell him which way the pearly gates opened. It doesn't matter which way they open as long as they open.

Both sides make excellant points, but let's not get into name calling, OK?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm with Checker on this. It doesn't matter where it happened, all that matters is that it did happen. My Granddad (who I never met) used to tell my mother that he would convert if she could tell him which way the pearly gates opened. It doesn't matter which way they open as long as they open.

Both sides make excellant points, but let's not get into name calling, OK?

My sense is that we're touching on important truths. There was a bit of tension several posts back, but that seems to have been put aside. My desire to understand here outweighs my fear of potential contention. So,

let me simply post a direct question:

What is the significance of the LDS focus on Gethsemane? I've grown up knowing that this is the place where the disciples slept instead of praying, and it is where Jesus prayed for release, but accepted his destiny. I've also read that Jesus' sweating blood was a natural physical response to tremendous stress, and not necessarily a miracle of any kind.

My sense is that LDS see more than that in the Garden, and believe that Protestants and Catholics have missed something important. Thus, we have the discussion over whether Jesus initiated the atonement here, or merely prepared for it.

My question: What am I missing? Canuck suggests nothing--that this is a debate akin to which way gates open or shut. Checkerboy and rusure seem to believe there is something more signficant--as does Crimson. I'm just not getting what the siginficance is of whether Jesus prepared for or initiated or even obtained the atonement at Gethsemane.

[rusure]

prisonchaplain, you can work your question in reverse -- What do I (prisonchaplain) understand about the atonement, Christ's sacrifice for me, how the Savior knows me personally, what sin does to me individually, etc. with regard to what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? If you have answers to these questions, then therein lies why it's important to understand what happened there and the role that it played in the overall plan of salvation (of which the atonement and repentance is a key part).

[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.

is that contentious?

You both could have handled it better.

I admit that that was wrong. I could have restrained myself better.

I hope CK you will forgive me for that brief loss of judgement on my part.

[peanutgallery]

<div class='quotemain'>

...had he ONLY been crucified and had not suffered in Gethsamane, he would not have completed that which was needed to pay the price for our sins and stand as our mediator.

I hear this alot. Would you mind sharing the scriptures which have led you to believe this? When I say scriptures, I mean from the LDS standard works.

Both the Garden and the cross had to happen (the cross to make the sacrifice complete so what happened in the Garden wasn't for naught).

Again, would you please share the scriptures which teach this doctrine? I've searched the scriptures thoroughly, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a scripture teach what you assert above.

p.s. It seems most of you are ignoring the core of my recent posts: The LDS prophets and apostles themselves have stated that the standard works are the measuring stick against which we hold every teaching, to see if it is in line with the revealed and canonized word of God. Pres. Lee taught that if any teaching contradicts the standard works, then that teaching is merely someone's opinion and not a truth revealed by God. So again, let's set aside all the nice Ensign articles and commentary on the scriptures, and let's look at the scriptures themselves.

Someone, anyone, please share with me the scriptures that teach that Gethsemane was where Christ atoned for our sins. We've already acknowledged that many of you interpret D&C 19 and Mosiah 3:7 to support the "atonement in Gethsemane" view. But are there more than just two scriptures that teach this fundamental doctrine upon which our entire religion and salvation is based?

We have been told that church magazines such as the Ensign are scripture as well and contain the truth, not opinion.

So you have read the Bible and BofM and have made determinations about the atonement based on your interpretation. What makes you think your interpretation is correct and many prophets of God are wrong? My Baptist friend can show me scripture that she says proves the Trinity. That's her interpretation. I know it's incorrect, but it's what she sees. So what makes you the master of all things scripture? What if the Bof M was written by prophets using only their opinions? If you don't believe what modern day prophets teach, why would you believe the ancient ones? If you don't believe the prophet is a true prophet then the whole church has to be false because why would we have someone who wasn't called of God leading us if we are the true church?

[prisonchaplain]

prisonchaplain, you can work your question in reverse -- What do I (prisonchaplain) understand about the atonement, Christ's sacrifice for me, how the Savior knows me personally, what sin does to me individually, etc. with regard to what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? If you have answers to these questions, then therein lies why it's important to understand what happened there and the role that it played in the overall plan of salvation (of which the atonement and repentance is a key part).

I'm not seeing any confusion about the atonement and repentance in this string. As far as I can tell, the center of the discussion is Gethsemane vs. Golgotha. Somehow there is a signficance to Gethsamene (or perhaps some of what most Catholics and Protestants assign to Golgotha is seen as happening at the Garden, instead?). I'm still trying to get at WHAT the different views are, and what the signficance is. As far as I can tell, we are discussing whether the atonement:

1. was prepared for at the Garden

2. was initiated in the Garden

3. or, was actually accomplished in the Garden.

[Canuck Mormon]

<div class='quotemain'>

prisonchaplain, you can work your question in reverse -- What do I (prisonchaplain) understand about the atonement, Christ's sacrifice for me, how the Savior knows me personally, what sin does to me individually, etc. with regard to what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? If you have answers to these questions, then therein lies why it's important to understand what happened there and the role that it played in the overall plan of salvation (of which the atonement and repentance is a key part).

I'm not seeing any confusion about the atonement and repentance in this string. As far as I can tell, the center of the discussion is Gethsemane vs. Golgotha. Somehow there is a signficance to Gethsamene (or perhaps some of what most Catholics and Protestants assign to Golgotha is seen as happening at the Garden, instead?). I'm still trying to get at WHAT the different views are, and what the signficance is. As far as I can tell, we are discussing whether the atonement:

1. was prepared for at the Garden

2. was initiated in the Garden

3. or, was actually accomplished in the Garden.

I believe that it was not #3, but quite possibly #1. He was preparing for it, and maybe it started there, but it was completed, or finished, on the cross. We won't actually know until we meet Him in person and ask.

Just my 2 cents.

[rusure]

<div class='quotemain'>

prisonchaplain, you can work your question in reverse -- What do I (prisonchaplain) understand about the atonement, Christ's sacrifice for me, how the Savior knows me personally, what sin does to me individually, etc. with regard to what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? If you have answers to these questions, then therein lies why it's important to understand what happened there and the role that it played in the overall plan of salvation (of which the atonement and repentance is a key part).

I'm not seeing any confusion about the atonement and repentance in this string. As far as I can tell, the center of the discussion is Gethsemane vs. Golgotha. Somehow there is a signficance to Gethsamene (or perhaps some of what most Catholics and Protestants assign to Golgotha is seen as happening at the Garden, instead?). I'm still trying to get at WHAT the different views are, and what the signficance is. As far as I can tell, we are discussing whether the atonement:

1. was prepared for at the Garden

2. was initiated in the Garden

3. or, was actually accomplished in the Garden.

I disagree that there isn't confusion. I would say the majority of Christianity outside the LDS Church doesn't have any idea what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane and I can say personally as a former Catholic that there simply wasn't teachings about what happened in the garden and the cross was all that was focused on when it comes to the atonement. Just the ending.

To answer your question, Christ sorrowed and suffered for our sins in the garden. That process was Christ atoning for the sins of mankind. The atonement had to be completed with his life being given, but the process in the garden was Christ atoning for our sins.

[AnthonyB]

The atonement of Christ is shown in glimspes throughout the OT, all the important details are shown in the various events and God ordained practices (Among the pre-shadowing are the following events...)

The sheeding of animals to clothe Adam and Eve.

The passover out of Egypt, especially the Lamb

The sacrificial requirements of the law.

Where do the LDS see the pre-shadowing of Gethsemane in the OT?

[rusure]

The atonement of Christ is shown in glimspes throughout the OT, all the important details are shown in the various events and God ordained practices (Among the pre-shadowing are the following events...)

The sheeding of animals to clothe Adam and Eve.

The passover out of Egypt, especially the Lamb

The sacrificial requirements of the law.

Where do the LDS see the pre-shadowing of Gethsemane in the OT?

I think you meant to say the blood sacrifice is shown in glimpses throughout the OT.

Are you saying that blood sacrifice was all that was needed to give us forgiveness for our sins?

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>The atonement of Christ is shown in glimspes throughout the OT, all the important details are shown in the various events and God ordained practices (Among the pre-shadowing are the following events...)

The sheeding of animals to clothe Adam and Eve.

The passover out of Egypt, especially the Lamb

The sacrificial requirements of the law.

Where do the LDS see the pre-shadowing of Gethsemane in the OT?

I think you meant to say the blood sacrifice is shown in glimpses throughout the OT.

Are you saying that blood sacrifice was all that was needed to give us forgiveness for our sins?

rusure,

No, the blood sacrifice of a perfect sinless man was required to atone for us. So many aspect of Jesus sacrifice are highlighted through the OT.

I am talking of the need for a perfect, spotless lamb.

The sheeding of the blood of the passover Lamb, so that evil would pass over us.

The sheeding of blood of a lamb to begin the trip out of Egypt to the promised land. The sheeding of the blood of Jesus the Lamb to begin our trip from captivity to sin to heaven.

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

[prisonchaplain]

To answer your question, Christ sorrowed and suffered for our sins in the garden. That process was Christ atoning for the sins of mankind. The atonement had to be completed with his life being given, but the process in the garden was Christ atoning for our sins.

I just reread the passage in Matthew 26. You are right. There is far less emphasis on the Garden in Protestant and in Catholic instruction. This Scripture tells us that Jesus was very sorrowful (one mention), and that he really did not want to go through what he was about to face (twice mentioned). That's it. So, where does the belief that the atonement was initiated/accomplished through Christ being sorrowful? Is this something found in Joseph Smith's revelations or later teachings?

[rusure]

No, the blood sacrifice of a perfect sinless man was required to atone for us.

The was his sacrifice, but that was not how he carried out the atonement for each sin and infirmity all mankind would suffer. Do you not believe Christ did that?

I just reread the passage in Matthew 26. You are right. There is far less emphasis on the Garden in Protestant and in Catholic instruction. This Scripture tells us that Jesus was very sorrowful (one mention), and that he really did not want to go through what he was about to face (twice mentioned). That's it. So, where does the belief that the atonement was initiated/accomplished through Christ being sorrowful? Is this something found in Joseph Smith's revelations or later teachings?

Well, I asked you one question and you answered another.

I asked what you were taught as a Protestant. I didn't ask you what the scriptures say. I already know what they say. I have the same ones.

So what were you taught about what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? What is your understanding of it?

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

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

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

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

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

Mosiah 3:7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

[prisonchaplain]

Well, I asked you one question and you answered another. I asked what you were taught as a Protestant. I didn't ask you what the scriptures say. I already know what they say. I have the same ones.

So what were you taught about what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane? What is your understanding of it?

I double checked the Scriptures because I kept thinking I had missed something. Ironically Mel Gibson's treatment of the Garden comes closer to LDS teaching than the teachings I received growing (Jesus smashing of the snake's head, drawing on the Father's promise to Adam and Eve).

What I was taught about the Garden, primarily, was that we should not weary in prayer, that Jesus prayed intensely, before facing his sacrifice, that he didn't want to go through with it, but nevertheless submitted to the Father's will.

But, do not think I was not taught that Jesus bore our sins, and atoned for all of them. We were taught that there is a point on the cross where those sins are put upon him, and the Father, because of the sin, turns away. This is when Jesus cries out in agony, asking why the Father forsook him.

I double-checked the Scripture and see the same teachings there. So, I'm wondering why the LDS teaching that the atonement is initiated, and perhaps even accomplished, at the Garden? Further, what is the significance of placing it there--why does it matter?

[CrimsonKairos]

Wow, I'm gone for one day and so much happens. Here we go.

I think that humans can probably more easily understand physical pain vs. spiritual pain and that's why humans tend to identify only with the physical suffering Christ endured (which was horrific that is true).

This cracks me up. I point out what the scriptures unanimously teach (the sacrifice for sin was on the cross), and I'm told I'm wrong based on what? Your opinion that humans understand physical suffering more than spiritual suffering? I see I'm wasting my time.

Christ took on the cumulative sins and afflictions of all mankind in the Garden.

Show me the scriptures that teach this. Please.

Unless you are asserting the prophet, current and past, are false prophets, then it is you that is not using the scriptures and who are denying the prophets' clear and specific teachings which as you are probably missing is what scriptures are.

You are setting up a false either/or scenario. You and others believe that if a prophet ever teaches a personal interpretation of scripture that turns out to be inaccurate, that they're suddenly "false" prophets without authority to preside?

I wasn't aware that the transmission and possession of priesthood keys depended on a test of knowledge or doctrinal mastery.

What are scriptures? Writings recorded by prophets?

What do the scriptures of this day look like? Conference talks also published in writing, Ensign articles, etc.

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

So the question isn't, "Are living prophets' teachings as valuable as the teaching of dead prophets?"

The question is, "Are the teachings of living prophets in agreement with the canonized scriptures of Christ's Church?"

You and others keep missing the point and muddying up the issue with tangents and sidesteps.

I know the reason why. You and others here cannot stomach the idea that any prophet or apostle could ever be wrong about anything, as if somehow their ordination and authority would evaporate if they were wrong.

So since many of you can't accept that a prophet can have their own opinions---even incorrect opinions---then it doesn't matter what scriptures I share because you won't even consider what the canon teaches.

I guess it's a good thing y'all didn't live when man first landed on the moon, because President Joseph Fielding Smith had previously taught that man would never reach the moon since it didn't have any bearing on man's salvation.

Did his incorrect opinion make him a false prophet? Geez, y'all sure subject the prophets to an exacting standard: perfection.

Gethsemane was Jesus final preparation for the Passion. It was also his final plea for another way.

Exactly. Precisely. Spot on. And how do I know this? Because the scriptures teach it clearly. I wish y'all would read the scriptures first and then ponder our apostles' commentary on it, instead of the reverse.

I hope CK you will forgive me for that brief loss of judgement on my part.

Done. I'm sorry too if I came across as rude. I'm just very passionate about accuracy in doctrine.

We have been told that church magazines such as the Ensign are scripture as well and contain the truth, not opinion.

What "we" haven't been told, though, is that a living prophet can contradict the doctrine of the scriptures and still be correct doctrinally. I'm simply amazed that so many of you refuse to allow the apostles the right to their own opinions. You honestly believe that every single word out of their mouths is infallible?

What if the BofM was written by prophets using only their opinions?

In places, it was. Check out Alma 40:20.

If you don't believe what modern day prophets teach, why would you believe the ancient ones?

I love how I suddenly don't believe what modern prophets teach. What I don't believe is that modern prophets are infallible. Therefore, I allow them the privilege of being wrong in their interpretations and opinions, just like I can be.

What I don't allow them or anyone, is the right to contradict our canon of revelations when it comes to doctrine.

If you don't believe the prophet is a true prophet then the whole church has to be false because why would we have someone who wasn't called of God leading us if we are the true church?

I'm going to be accused of contention here, but I'm just being honest. That has to be one of the worst over-simplifications of things that I have seen. It's as I thought: the undercurrent in this discussion is one of insecurity on many of your parts. You cannot see how God would allow any of his apostles or prophets to have opinions, let alone incorrect ones, about salvation, eternity, etc.

Let me share with you my beliefs about how all this harmonizes. I don't believe God would let a prophet lead the Church off the straight and narrow path to salvation. In other words, I believe that if a prophet ever taught something that would lead us to forfeit our salvation, God would remove that prophet.

So for example: People often say that Brigham Young taught that Adam was Heavenly Father, or some such thing. Even if he did, I don't care. Do you know why? Because Brigham Young never taught the Church that we had to pray to Adam, or we wouldn't be saved.

Another example: Bruce R. McConkie taught---prior to 1978---that no black would ever have the priesthood until all worthy white males had the opportunity to receive it. He turned out to be wrong, by the way. But the key is, he didn't tell the Church that we had be mean to blacks or we'd lose salvation.

So in our discussion, even if the prophets used to believe Gethsemane was where the atonement happened, but started realizing the scriptures didn't teach that and so they changed their minds, that doesn't affect your salvation or mine one whit. So why would God remove an apostle who is fitted to the work just because that man is exactly that: a man, fallible and imperfect like you and I?

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

...as a former Catholic that there simply wasn't teachings about what happened in the garden and the cross was all that was focused on when it comes to the atonement.

Hmmm, I wonder why. Oh yeah, because the scriptures nowhere teach that salvation was purchased in Gethsemane.

The atonement had to be completed with his life being given, but the process in the garden was Christ atoning for our sins.

False, false, false. Scripture references, please.

Where do the LDS see the pre-shadowing of Gethsemane in the OT?

Exactly!

I just reread the passage in Matthew 26. You are right. There is far less emphasis on the Garden in Protestant and in Catholic instruction.

PC, don't buy it. There are only two scriptures in the entire LDS canon outside of the Bible that mention Christ bleeding in Gethsemane. Two scriptures. Don't buy into this concept that the LDS scriptures are replete with the clear teaching that the atonement was made in Gethsemane and the cross was just the after-dinner mint or some such ridiculous thing. It's not true. And it's not in LDS scriptures.

So, where does the belief that the atonement was initiated/accomplished through Christ being sorrowful?

It's not in the scriptures, PC. It's a warm fuzzy that's been passed around like a sacrament tray on Sunday, and there is no scriptural basis for it. Only the commentary found in occasional Ensign articles or conference addresses.

I didn't ask you what the scriptures say. I already know what they say. I have the same ones.

Apparently not. I don't say that to be flippant or rude. I'm serious. You don't know what all the scriptures say about the atonement. You only know what Mosiah 3:7 and D&C 19 say...and how the apostles interpret those two scriptures. Never mind the more than dozen other scriptures that place the focus of the atonement solely on the cross.

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

Both physical and spiritual, according to D&C 88:15, which reads, "And the spirit and the body are the soul of man." Are you saying D&C 88:15 is false?

Mosiah 3:7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

The first part of that verse talks about how Jesus would suffer temptations and physical pain including hunger and thirst and fatigue to a degree that normal mortals couldn't handle without dying. All that's talking about is Jesus Christ's 40 day fast in the wilderness. It has all the elements King Benjamin describes, to the letter. Let's review, shall we?

"And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred." (Matt. 4:2)

Does going without food and water cause "pain of body, hunger, thirst and fatigue" (to quote King Benjamin). Yes, it does.

Would a normal mortal be able to survive forty days without food and water, or would such a fast "be unto death" (to quote King Benjamin).

Was Jesus tempted in the wilderness? Yes, three times, by Satan. See Matthew 4:3, 6, 9.

Yet you would think that the entire verse of Mosiah 3:7 is talking about Gethsemane when in fact the first half is referring to Christ's fast in the wilderness, and the second half is talking about his preparation in Gethsemane for his impending crucifixion. It was this preparation which included God and the Spirit withdrawing Their presence from Christ, prompting Jesus to beg for another way to be made available as his capillaries burst and blood pushed out through his pores.

[rusure]

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

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

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

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