Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think there's the surface and a deeper idea behind it.

Today, in the cemetery you see many gravestones and crosses.  When a loved one dies we go to visit their grave at the cemetery.  Their gravestone marks where they lie.  We can remember them there. Normally they do not mark the way the individual died.

However, in general we do not wear the marks of how they were died or were killed.  If you had a relative that was killed by a 1969 black mustang running over them would you wear a copy of that mustang around your neck, post it on the wall, and put it everywhere to remind you of that black mustang?

What about if it was with a Remington .44 Revolver.  They were shot and killed.  Would you wear pictures and carvings of that revolver everywhere.  Would you put it up on your wall and say you remember them by posting pictures of that revolver?

Some see the cross in the same way.  The Cross was not how he completed the atonement, nor was it the purpose behind it.  It was the cause of his death which was an instrument along the way, but the atonement and his resurrection were composed of something far greater which we remember.  Instead of worshipping and wearing the instruments which were utilized to try to cause his death and to kill him we celebrate his name, his resurrection, and his triumph over sin and death.

We kind of miss the point, you say the cross was not how he completed the atonement. I disagree. His death completed the atonement.

 

Helaman 14:14-15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.

 

Lots of people died on crosses but only one was our redeemer and savior. To many the cross represents his last and ultimate sacrifice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't see anything wrong with crosses either.  My faith chooses to focus on the resurrection, rather than the atonement.  That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the atonement.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point I believe you are making, however, given that Christ's resurrection is part of His Atonement, I believe your choice of words to be technically inaccurate.  Might I suggest a rephrasing?

My faith chooses to focus on Christ's resurrection, rather than His death.  That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the symbol of the cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikbone said:

We are going to celebrate Passover this Thursday for the first time in our home.

We love holidays and remembering the God of Israel.

We will no doubt also hide search and eat candy eggs next Sunday.

I dont hide eggs either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, the Savior Himself declared while on the cross, “It is finished.”
 

To what was He referring? 
 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is also a culminating part of the atonement as is our individual repentance in our ongoing mortal existence. Our part in the atonement of Jesus Christ isn’t yet complete. 
 

Maybe we would all do better to stop wearing our own sins around our necks with a flaxen cord? (2 Nephi 26:22) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It would seem more appropriate than many other suggestions I've heard spread around the internet, and the timing and situation would be appropriate.  Celebrating the First Vision, the beginning of the Restoration, and the Gospel being on earth at it's bicentennial seems to be a good reason for it in and of itself. 

I wonder if in another 13 years we will be celebrating the 2000th anniversary of the atonement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Colirio said:

Indeed, the Savior Himself declared while on the cross, “It is finished.”
 

To what was He referring? 
 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is also a culminating part of the atonement as is our individual repentance in our ongoing mortal existence. Our part in the atonement of Jesus Christ isn’t yet complete. 
 

Maybe we would all do better to stop wearing our own sins around our necks with a flaxen cord? (2 Nephi 26:22) 

It seems logical that he was referring to his mortal ministry and work. There was and is still much work to do.

As for the atonement, we're not certain when that was finished. I believe the criss was nothing compared to what he suffered in the garden. I personally believe that the atonement was complete there, but we frequently hear that it was wrought in the garden and on the cross, but I don't thin the cross would have had any meaning if the garden suffering had failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Vort said:

14 years, perhaps?

As a matter of trivia, I know a certain father-in-law of mine who has studied interesting events that have occurred at regular intervals if counted from 1BC.  Long story short, he believes that the "real" birth year of the Savior is 1BC on our current calendar.  As I understood it, this is a common school of thought.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

a certain father-in-law of mine

:lol:

How is he doing, by the way?

Edited by SilentOne
original emoji looked angry to me upon posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

It seems logical that he was referring to his mortal ministry and work. There was and is still much work to do.

As for the atonement, we're not certain when that was finished. I believe the cross was nothing compared to what he suffered in the garden. I personally believe that the atonement was complete there, but we frequently hear that it was wrought in the garden and on the cross, but I don't thin the cross would have had any meaning if the garden suffering had failed.

James E. Talmage taught the following in the book Jesus The Christ:

"At the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon, a loud voice, surpassing the most anguished cry of physical suffering issued from the central cross, rending the dreadful darkness. It was the voice of the Christ: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" What mind of man can fathom the significance of that awful cry? It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death."  (Pages 660 to 661.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

As for the atonement, we're not certain when that was finished. I believe the criss was nothing compared to what he suffered in the garden. I personally believe that the atonement was complete there, but we frequently hear that it was wrought in the garden and on the cross, but I don't thin the cross would have had any meaning if the garden suffering had failed.

D&C 19:15-18  plainly explains that we do not understand the sufferings that Jesus Christ endured.

In Tad Callister's The Infinite Atonement he writes, 

I do not believe, however, that all such authors mean to imply that the Savior's suffering for sins was solely confined to the Garden.  Such scholars as Elder Talmage and Elder McConkie help us understand that there is no such sharp line of demarcation between the Garden and the cross.  Rather they suggest, the sufferings of Gethsemane continued to afflict the Savior on the cross.  "It seems," Elder Talmage opines, "that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure.  In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in the most terrible reality." p. 134-135

During Gethsemane the Father continued to strengthen the Lord.

For some reason that we do not understand, the Father had to withdraw his spirit and let Jehovah perform the final act of the Atonement without any support.

According to Matthew 27: 46-50, and John 19: 30 it was soon after the Father withdrew his spirit that our Savior perished.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every conference talk was beautiful. It was a different conference given the social distancing needs and Corona virus situation, but everything came off pretty well. The messages of conference were delivered to the members of the church like always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the last prayer was said, I reflected on what was actually different about this conference to the point that Pres. Nelson promised that it would be "unique" "memorable" "unforgettable".

It seemed very much like a standard general conference in most aspects.  So, why such a promise?

1) I wonder if some plans had to be trashed because of Corona.  Perhaps.  But even so, at the end of conference, Pres. Nelson was still declaring it to be unique, memorable, and unforgettable.  Perhaps, in his mind, specifically BECAUSE the original plans had to be scrapped, it turned out to be unoforgettable anyway.  I'm certainly not going to forget it.

2) Much like preparing a talk or lesson, the one preparing often gets more out of it than the ones receiving.  I wonder if the General Authorities who were preparing for a very special conference got a lot more out of it than we did. Not just because the standard preparer-gets-more-out-of-it idea, but that they really did prepare for a very special conference -- that got scrapped.

3) There were two youth speakers.  As an aside: I liked the girl's talk.  The boy's talk had a nice message, but I kept getting distracted by the verbiage, pace, and phrasing.  He was obviously awkward in speaking these words.  Either someone else wrote that talk, or he was REALLY trying to be impressive in using words beyond his normal vocabulary.

4) There seemed to be a tension in all the talks on Priesthood and Listening to the Spirit.  I had remarked that I felt a certain 'vibe".  Perhaps that specific notion was wrong (perhaps opposite the facts) but there was something about those topics that others here also remarked on. I certainly won't forget that "prodding" from the conference.  I'll be studying those talks and praying about them in the coming months.  There really is something there.

5) The Declaration of the Restoration.  I'm going to start a new thread about that.  No further comments on this thread.

6) The song at the end.  That certainly was unique, memorable, and unforgettable.

Did anyone else get impressions of what was so different about this conference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 8:25 PM, mikbone said:

For some reason that we do not understand, the Father had to withdraw his spirit and let Jehovah perform the final act of the Atonement without any support.

The Plan of Salvation requires the Savior have to go through DEATH (not just physical but also spiritual) to atone for the sins of mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

5) The Declaration of the Restoration.  I'm going to start a new thread about that.  No further comments on this thread.

This was IT for me.  Corona or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 5:02 PM, Carborendum said:

As a matter of trivia, I know a certain father-in-law of mine who has studied interesting events that have occurred at regular intervals if counted from 1BC.  Long story short, he believes that the "real" birth year of the Savior is 1BC on our current calendar.  As I understood it, this is a common school of thought.

Not that long ago, 6 BC to 1 BC used the be the common school of thought, with 1 BC often quoted, but more recent archeological records have placed Herod's death at 3-4 BC.  If this is true, Christ's birth would have to be before 3 BC.

Just in case you are interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It seemed very much like a standard general conference in most aspects.  So, why such a promise?

5) The Declaration of the Restoration.  I'm going to start a new thread about that.  No further comments on this thread.

Did anyone else get impressions of what was so different about this conference?

There as an official Proclamation and the Hosanna Shout which are rare items to begin with.  That in itself makes it FAR more historic and memorable (at least at this point unless those items become more common.  Historically, currently in light of how rare each of those are in context of how they occurred in conference it could be seen as a significant event in the Church's history).

Secondly, of course, adding to this (due to the current restrictions in the US and Utah due to the pandemic) were the small number of individuals in attendance live at the session and the expectation that most would be watching it in their homes this time around.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else view the criticism received -- once again by the natural man -- regarding this years general conference? Here are some of how Satan's stirs the hearts of the children of men:

Quote

 

“When Nelson announced that April conference would be special like never before, I expected an announcement of mass relief efforts. … But instead, conference consisted of a Joseph Smith commemoration, discussion of the end of times and an announcement of another church wide fast.”

A separate public commentator complained: “In a time of global pandemic ... our big revelation was a proclamation that our religion is the right one?”

And yet another wrote in the Salt Lake Tribune that, rather than witness the “Hosanna Shout” — a devotional ritual considered sacred to Latter-day Saints — he would have preferred to watch a detailed accounting of how the church planned to spend its “rainy day fund to help those who have lost or will lose their jobs during these very rainy times.”

 

As I shared previously, to some the sign of Christ's birth was just another star in the sky.

Why a new star and not another "moon"?

Why in a manger and not in the lavish room for a king, he was a king right?

Why did he only feed 5K and not the whole world with those fish and loaves of bread.

Why is the Church building nice temples when there are so many poor people.

How easily the adversary is able to softly touch and sway the hearts of the children of men.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
Quote

“When Nelson announced that April conference would be special like never before, I expected an announcement of mass relief efforts. … But instead, conference consisted of a Joseph Smith commemoration, discussion of the end of times and an announcement of another church wide fast.”

A separate public commentator complained: “In a time of global pandemic ... our big revelation was a proclamation that our religion is the right one?”

And yet another wrote in the Salt Lake Tribune that, rather than witness the “Hosanna Shout” — a devotional ritual considered sacred to Latter-day Saints — he would have preferred to watch a detailed accounting of how the church planned to spend its “rainy day fund to help those who have lost or will lose their jobs during these very rainy times.”

 

Such people as quoted above are finger-pointing mockers, ark-steadiers at best and more likely actively seeking the destruction of the kingdom. Unless they repent, such people have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (obviously; they despise it) and will be left to themselves. Only a godless horror rag like the Trib would further such garbage.

When Lehi in vision saw the worldly multitudes mocking and making fun of those who approached the word of God, he and his family "heeded them not". When the mortal Christ was questioned by corrupt and evil hypocrites who pretended to represent God, he simply refused to respond to them. I rather suspect that our most appropriate response to the steaming, stinking pile of freshly pooped nonsense portrayed above is the same as that modeled by Lehi and the Savior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

Such people as quoted above are finger-pointing mockers, ark-steadiers at best and more likely actively seeking the destruction of the kingdom. Unless they repent, such people have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (obviously; they despise it) and will be left to themselves. Only a godless horror rag like the Trib would further such garbage.

When Lehi in vision saw the worldly multitudes mocking and making fun of those who approached the word of God, he and his family "heeded them not". When the mortal Christ was questioned by corrupt and evil hypocrites who pretended to represent God, he simply refused to respond to them. I rather suspect that our most appropriate response to the steaming, stinking pile of freshly pooped nonsense portrayed above is the same as that modeled by Lehi and the Savior.

True. The vision as provided by Nephi from his father I find to be very prophetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Did anyone else view the criticism received -- once again by the natural man -- regarding this years general conference? Here are some of how Satan's stirs the hearts of the children of men:

As I shared previously, to some the sign of Christ's birth was just another star in the sky.

Why a new star and not another "moon"?

Why in a manger and not in the lavish room for a king, he was a king right?

Why did he only feed 5K and not the whole world with those fish and loaves of bread.

Why is the Church building nice temples when there are so many poor people.

How easily the adversary is able to softly touch and sway the hearts of the children of men.

I haven't paid much heed to the criticisms of the conference this year thus far.  I would comment about the idea people pass about the church using it's 'rainy day' fund.  This is not focused on you but the criticism that you highlighted.

Most seem to confuse tithing with fast offerings and the reasons behind the two when they suggest things like this.  In addition, if the church spent the money to support itself at every whim that people like these who feel this way the church may soon find itself in the financial difficulties that it has found itself previously in the 20th century (close to bankruptcy, not being able to pay bills, etc).  If it spends that money now it may not have it later if a more serious event comes along that drains the church's resources.  If something financially dire comes that drains the church's resources and leaves the church unable to pay it's bills, that's a good way to damage the mission of the church severely. 

Many talk and say these things out of ignorance regarding the differences between fast offerings and tithing.  They may be influenced by others who are more malicious in their intent.  There are those who are malicious when they say these things and are trying to influence others as well as wanting to cause damage or destroy the church.  I do not feel these people are really concerned about the church's charity when they say things like this, but rather are wanting to damage the church's reputation in people's eyes and try to convince it's members to leave and non-members to not join or ignore the church.

If the church wishes to spend it's tithing funds or the saved up funds on charity purposes, that is the call of the General Authorities.  That money is supposed to be held for the support and aid of the church but they can spend it in any way which they feel the Lord directs them to.  Much like the High Priest and council of the Temple during the days of the Jews could direct resources in support of the Temple or the priests, the High Priest of our time (the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and President of the Church and the Twelve) can also do so.  If it is for charity, that is at their discretion, but the sacrifices of our time (tithing) for the issue of their support is still, much as some of the items of the Old Testament, still for their support and the churches.  They can, as per the Bible, utilize it as they feel the need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the Church does much good in the world it's main purpose is to build the kingdom of God. For the purpose of this discussion I would define that as helping develop Christ-like individuals of it's members. It is then the responsibility of it's members to go forth and love, care for, and serve their fellowmen. But too many try to delegate that responsibility back on to the Church when the power is within themselves to do much good. It is interesting to note that for all the evil that took place in Sodom and Gomorrah not taking care of their poor was specifically referenced as a reason for their destruction. God didn't hold wealthy Abraham responsible but the people of those cities. At the judgement bar I don't think blaming the Church is going to help our case much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, lonetree said:

I plan to watch a little of the Conference this weekend. The last time I viewed it Thomas Monson was President, and I shall miss his presence.

Each Pres definitely brings their own flavor to the calling to be sure. If you haven't listened to Pres Nelson speak since becoming prophet I highly recommend it. Your time won't be wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now