Re The Atonement

[_Dezire2BWise]

Sorry about that, let's try this again.


I tried to shave down my notes, but this is the best I could do. Please know that intention is to not incite arguments, but to stimulate friendly discussion, whether or not we all agree.

As I stated in earlier posts, the LDS missionaries that came to home and used the Bible to tell me that Jesus atoned for our sins in Gethsemane. They pointed to the "cup" and "great drops of blood" while He prayed. The point I wanted to make is whether or not one believes the Bible is true, but that the Mormon teaching that came down to them on this is just way off base. Their use of the Bible was just window-dressing.

God’s Plan of Salvation did not begin with the New Testament. Scripture records God’s Plan of Salvation centuries before the ceremonial rituals of the Levitical system under the Law.

I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets. (Hos 12:10)

The elements of the Gospel are first presented in Genesis, the book if beginnings where God demonstrates the heart of His Plan long before He instituted the Law. In Genesis chapter three, Adam and Eve’s attempt to cover their sin in order to even appear in His presence was not sufficient. Adam was defiled so could not present himself nor could he intercede for Eve. God Himself provided from a slain animal. Prior to this they attempted to “cover their nakedness” with fig leaves. Scripture explains Adam’s true motives behind this course of action. These verses describe the sin nature we all inherited.

If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom… (Job 31:33)

The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, [I] try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer 17:9-10)

The word “covenant” is an agreement. However, in the biblical context it is derived from the Hebrew root, “barah” which means “to cut”. A covenant can be unilateral (one party), or bi-lateral (two party). A covenant could be dissolved upon death of a party to the covenant or by failure to keep the covenant by the either party. The customary ratification process of a solemn covenant required each party to pass through arranged pieces a cut up sacrifice/victim. In Gen 15, God alone passed through the sacrifice which made it a unilateral covenant. The slain animals obviously indicate that the phrase “the shedding of blood” did not mean a non-lethal blood-letting. This is one reason why the Bible does not support Mormon teaching on the atonement. The Biblical context of a blood covenant simply means killing the sacrifice to make good on a promise. The book of Hebrews explains the mechanics of Christ’s work in terms of the Levitical offerings.

[It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Heb 9:23-25)

As Genesis 15 -17 outlines God’s unilateral Promise to an individual, Abraham, whose name means “father of nations”. First, God’s promise to the nations through Abraham would be accomplished by God alone. Jesus was sinless and therefore fit to be our Savior; the disciples were not In the following scriptures, Jesus predicts persecution and death for his disciples because of his name, but not that they would be offered for anybody’s sins. This proves that references to the cup as He prayed in the garden did not indicate that he was just about to take the burden of the world at that moment in the garden.

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matt 20:22-23)

The time came to make the atonement after Gethsemane.

[_Dezire2BWise]

Addenndum to my last:

Although this was the Passover, Jesus’ actions curiously paralleled the High Priest’s preparations on the Levitical Day of Atonement. Jesus, in the role of High Priest offers prayers of consecration in John 17. He then crosses the Kidron to Gethsemane with His disciples and continues to pray through the night. He likewise wanted the disciples to do this all-nighter with him.(Matt 26:40 Luke 22:24) Jesus came out three times and found them asleep. There are other instances when Jesus drew away to pray alone when He didn't invite them. This time, He wanted them to keep a prayer vigil with him. Details of the preparations of various Jewish feasts is a matter of history

“The evening meal of the high-priest before the great day was to be scanty. All night long he was to be hearing and expounding the Holy Scriptures, or otherwise kept employed, so that he might not fall asleep (for special Levitical reasons).” -- The Temple; Chapter 16, Alfred Edelscheim

[_harmony]

As I stated in earlier posts, the LDS missionaries that came to home and used the Bible to tell me that Jesus atoned for our sins in Gethsemane. They pointed to the "cup" and "great drops of blood" while He prayed. The point I wanted to make is whether or not one believes the Bible is true, but that the Mormon teaching that came down to them on this is just way off base. Their use of the Bible was just window-dressing.

#1) the missionaries are not capable of arguing this point, nor should they be. They gave you the standard short answer as they understood it. If you don't accept it, they'll just move on. They don't have time to sit around debating the fine points of doctrine. They're out in the mission field to teach those who want to hear. Obviously, that's not you. Fine. If you want more than that, ask Dr Peterson or another of the apologists here. Gaz might be most helpful too. Coggins probably knows too, but his delivery is quite harsh, so be prepared. On further thought, I'd suggest asking Gaz. Or maybe Jason.

#2) If you expect more than window dressing about the Bible from the average Mormon, you've been sorely misled. The average Mormon probably knows the Book of Mormon pretty well. The Bible, as far as Mormons are concerned, is only appropriate when it's "translated correctly", which leaves a whole lotta window open for interpretation. If you want the official interpretation, go to LDS.org. We're told to read the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.

#3) You're getting nowhere until you undestand that Mormon ideas about authority are not the same as your idea about authority. And Mormon authority is the most important part of the Mormon church. So you might want to explore that one a whole lot more than you have.

[_Dezire2BWise]

I already know that Mormon ideas are not my ideas, DUH! Are you aware that thi is Earth and not Kolob? You're bound to kind a few of us here who don't don't always agree with you either. Not only that, but you've misunderstood that this site is not supposed to be solely a Mormon Club. Differing views are welcome. Check out this statement, especially the third paragraph, from the homepage of this chat/bulletin board/forum, whatever.

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.

Harmony, in light of what the statement says your problem is with the moderators, not me. Apparently, they think it's ok to hear and talk about different ideas.

I like this site because it encourages open but respectfully dialog. I'm not a Mormon, but I find it refreshing that this site is run by Mormons. My statements may or may not have posed some challenges, but I'm certainly not going to abuse hospitatility rules of this site.

Harmony, the operative word here is "Discussion". Grow up, will you. If you get an "ache-y break-y heart" because you don't agree with a posting, then maybe you're in the wrong place. I never demanded a response from you, I just asked a question, that you still haven't answered. Guess what? It's your perogative to not respond as well. To be honest, your first response was good but when you didn't like what you heard, you got whiney. Now, when you get off the pity pot, maybe we can talk some other time. The door is still open as far as I'm concerned, until then I'll be talking with the grown-ups. Ciao.

[_Dezire2BWise]

I already know that Mormon ideas are not my ideas, DUH! Are you aware that thi is Earth and not Kolob? You're bound to kind a few of us here who don't don't always agree with you either. Not only that, but you've misunderstood that this site is not supposed to be solely a Mormon Club. Differing views are welcome. Check out this statement, especially the third paragraph, from the homepage of this chat/bulletin board/forum, whatever.

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.

Harmony, in light of what the statement says your problem is with the moderators, not me. Apparently, they think it's ok to hear and talk about different ideas.

I like this site because it encourages open but respectfully dialog. I'm not a Mormon, but I find it refreshing that this site is run by Mormons. My statements may or may not have posed some challenges, but I'm certainly not going to abuse hospitatility rules of this site.

Harmony, the operative word here is "Discussion". Grow up, will you. If you get an "ache-y break-y heart" because you don't agree with a posting, then maybe you're in the wrong place. I never demanded a response from you, I just asked a question, that you still haven't answered. Guess what? It's your perogative to not respond as well. To be honest, your first response was good but when you didn't like what you heard, you got whiney. Now, when you get off the pity pot, maybe we can talk some other time. The door is still open as far as I'm concerned, until then I'll be talking with the grown-ups. Ciao.

[_sruggio]

Hello I am new to this discussion group.

My name is Stan. I converted to the LDS church at the age of 22. That will be 44 years ago this February. I have not read all of the posts at this point but I would like to respond to a few.

Unlike some of the members responding here I am very active in church.

(Dezire2Bwise)
“One word that my LDS guests repeated was “authority”. According to the Bible, the Jesus in the LDS version of Gethsemane is a Jesus who didn’t have the authority to save anybody.”

I have never read, or ever heard from any knowledgeable LDS member to say that “Jesus who didn’t have the authority to save anybody.” Quite the opposite. In my opinion, church members should know that Jesus Christ has held the “absolute Authority” to save both His followers and the sinners, from the beginning of our pre-mortal existence. For clarity, I mean from the time before the earth was created. He had that authority in the pre-existence, He had the Authority before He was born, He had the authority while he was with us in mortality, He has that authority now, and He will continue to hold that authority until He no longer needs it.

(Dezire2Bwise)
“Wow, that explains a lot. I always wondered why Mormons talked about the cross when they talk to people yet there are no crosses in their churches. So, are you implying that Mormons are really offended by the cross?”

Quite the opposite. I am posting the church president’s response to that exact question.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Symbol of Our Faith,” Ensign, Apr 2005, 2–6
Link

If you are really interested, please read his entire talk. Try not to find fault until you have completely read the talk.

(Dezire2Bwise)
“If there was no cross, there would be no atonement. The atonement had to happen by way of the cross or else the resurrection would be invalid. If there was no resurrection then we’re all wasting our time. Scripture places the cross at the heart of the Gospel.”

And,
(Dezire2Bwise)
”The time came to make the atonement after Gethsemane.”

I totally agree that if there were no atonement then we are wasting our time. But it is my opinion, that the cross was just the method of execution. The fixation of the early saints on the cross, I feel, was because it was a cruel way to die. But in reality, look at the number of people who died before Jesus and after Jesus on crosses. As you read history, and today’s newspapers, you can see that many people have died much more horrible deaths that what Jesus did.

For the LDS believers, we find further evidence of where the atonement took place in Gethsemane, from our prophet Joseph Smith.

D&C 19: 15-19. 15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I asmite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your bsufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered these things for all, that they might not bsuffer if they would crepent;
17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer even as I;
18 Which asuffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and afinished my preparations unto the children of men.

(Dezire2Bwise)
“LDS missionaries that came to (my) home and used the Bible to tell me that Jesus atoned for our sins in Gethsemane”

You must remember that these young men (missionaries) are almost straight out of high school. Some may have one semester or year of college. Therefore, your challenges on points of doctrine to them is quite unfair. I speak from a position of knowledge because my grandson, whom I raised, is leaving for his mission this month. He has a knowledge of the Gospel that is quite remarkable for a 19 year old. But I know that he would not have a reasonable answer for “crosses” or “what if Jesus did or didn’t do “this or that”". The purpose of their service, to serve Jesus Christ, it is to present the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who are searching for something better than what they currently have.

(Dezire2Bwise)
“The elements of the Gospel are first presented in Genesis,”

What you say is true. The LDS church teaches that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was designed in our pre-existence. We, as LDS, believe that Adam and all of the other prophets of God taught exactly the same Gospel to God’s children. I also believe that when Moses tried to bring the Gospel to the children of Israel that they rejected the Gospel as being too difficult. I believe that the ten commandments are a subset of the full Gospel and were given to the children of Israel as a starting point on how to live their lives.

(Dezire2Bwise)
“But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matt 20:22-23)”

Jesus’ answer to the disciples was absolutely true. He knew for a fact that they could not “drink of the cup” ie. withstand the pain that only Jesus Christ could bare. But remember that even Peter the chief apostle said, after this interchange of words, that he would die for Christ and then denied Him three times.


Ozemc
“It's almost as if the cross doesn't count.”

As posted above; For me, as an individual, the cross doesn’t count for much in my testimony of Jesus Christ. I would still believe in Him if He had been run over and killed by a wagon.

Ozemc
”As I said, this is just based on what I was told; I don't know about any "official" doctrine, or if there is one.”

You cannot get more of an “official church doctrine” then the message from President Hinckley. (posted link above)

Ozemc
“I do find it interesting that so much emphasis is placed on His suffering in the garden, because, the way I look at it, anytime after Gethsemane He could have chosen to NOT take the next step, therefore any suffering He did in the garden would have been moot at that point.”

I am sorry but, I totally disagree with your above statement. Jesus Christ knew of what was expected from Him from the beginning. While He was in mortality He knew exactly what He had to do. His mortal cries to His Father are a sign to me that even though He knew what was coming, that there was still the mortal part of His being that cried out for mercy.

After all remember in Matthew 4:1 THEN was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

I am not positive what Matthew meant by fasting. Isn’t it a known medical fact that a person cannot go for more that a week or two without water without dying. If Jesus was only fasting from food, I am not sure a mortal can fast that long without dying. My point here is that Jesus Christ was both mortal from Mary, and immortal from God, and that is why He could fast for forty days. Certainly with His heritage His ability to withstand pain goes way beyond my comprehension.

So when Jesus says the following;
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
And,
Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

To me these are aspects of his mortality.

Hope these comments help.

Stan

[_harmony]

I already know that Mormon ideas are not my ideas, DUH! Are you aware that thi is Earth and not Kolob? You're bound to kind a few of us here who don't don't always agree with you either. Not only that, but you've misunderstood that this site is not supposed to be solely a Mormon Club. Differing views are welcome. Check out this statement, especially the third paragraph, from the homepage of this chat/bulletin board/forum, whatever.

Mormon Discussions. . . Because we all want the truth.

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.

Harmony, in light of what the statement says your problem is with the moderators, not me. Apparently, they think it's ok to hear and talk about different ideas.

I like this site because it encourages open but respectfully dialog. I'm not a Mormon, but I find it refreshing that this site is run by Mormons. My statements may or may not have posed some challenges, but I'm certainly not going to abuse hospitatility rules of this site.

Harmony, the operative word here is "Discussion". Grow up, will you. If you get an "ache-y break-y heart" because you don't agree with a posting, then maybe you're in the wrong place. I never demanded a response from you, I just asked a question, that you still haven't answered. Guess what? It's your perogative to not respond as well. To be honest, your first response was good but when you didn't like what you heard, you got whiney. Now, when you get off the pity pot, maybe we can talk some other time. The door is still open as far as I'm concerned, until then I'll be talking with the grown-ups. Ciao.

Where did you get the idea that this site is run by Mormons? ROTFL. I'm sure Shades would find that amusing. This site is the Anti-Christ of anti-Mormon sites. As I said in the PM: find out who is who, before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Your discussion goes nowhere until you understand how LDS thought on authority relates to your thoughts about Christ's authority. And I don't see what difference it makes where the Atonement took place. Or why you think it should matter to Mormons. Because if LDS leaders say the Atonement took place in the Garden, then the Atonement took place in the Garden, and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

[_Dezire2BWise]

Inconcievable-

Thanks for the information on Mormon doctrine. This gives me a place to start so I can read about what Mormons believe.

In return, here's a thumbnail sketch of Christian doctrine. You may have heard all this before.

In the beginning everything was “good”. We were intended to be in fellowship with God but Adam disobeyed. The part of him that was in fellowship with God the spirit died instantly. God is spirit and can only be worshiped in spirit and in truth. We can only have fellowship with God through a regenerated spirit from Christ. This is called salvation. A Christian believes that their place in heaven is secure. Since Christ was the only one able to save us, He is the only one that can keep the believer saved. When a dead spirit is regenerated, we say that person is "born again". Furthermore He said He would keep us.

The second after salvation begins the process of sanctification. This is phase is also called the Christian walk and believers progress at different rates. What I’ve explained so far is criticized as “easy believe-ism.” Some people think you have to work to get saved and stay saved. Not true. How easy is it, for example, for an someone who was abused by a parent to forgive the abuser? We are commanded to forgive however heinous an offense against us because Christ took the penalty we deserved for our heinois offense(s) toward God. So, whatever work we do for Him as believers, it is because we are saved. Not only that, but as the Christian walk deepens the relationship with Him becomes sweeter and more precious. We do works just because we love Him. It’s not just about heavy theological terms, it’s all about love. Even when a believer stumbles, the Bible tells us to confess our sin, (repent) and move on in the strength of the Lord until we have victory over the area of weakness. For us, everything we do is measured by a desire to please him. He desires an obedient heart rather than a legalistic, works-oriented relationship.

Obviously, Adam lived out his natural life, but his fellowship with God was broken. Even though a believer's spirit is regenerated, the body is not regenerated until later. Those who are saved will one day be “glorified”. That means spirit and body will be united. Until then for believers “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. "


In Christian doctrine there are no degrees/levels of salvation. A person is either saved or not saved.

Below is a summary of what all Christians believe regardless of denomination:

We believe the Bible is God's infallable Word. God is Triune; three distinct co-equal Persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit
We believe in the Virgin birth.
We believe in the Resurrection of the Dead; believers to eternal life in heaven, unbelievers to the Second Death in the Lake of Fire (This is the outer darkness)

[_Dezire2BWise]

Harmony

Ok, I'm a fool.

If you're so unmoved by this subject why do you keep sending messages and continuing to talk about what you don't want to talk about? As I said in my last, you can choose to not respond. I'm sorry you're such an unhappy person. I will delete what you send from this point on. bye.

[_Inconceivable]

[quote="Dezire2BWise"]Inconcievable-

Thanks for the information on Mormon doctrine. This gives me a place to start so I can read about what Mormons believe.

In return, here's a thumbnail sketch of Christian doctrine. You may have heard all this before...

quote]
Thankyou, as a matter of fact I can even recite most of it backwards. I may disagree with a few points but it would be of little worth in doing so.

I should mention to you DTBW just in passing that I'm in my 40's. Many of my close friends were not Mormon. Went through Mormon seminary in high school, institute classes in college/university, full time mission, have taught the Mormon gospel doctrine off/on for most of this time including new testament several years ago. Friends outside of the Mormon faith include born again pastors, highly religeous jews etc. We talk about the things important to us - including all aspects of the Gospel - the Good News. There is little room for argument because our focus (and friendship) is charity based.

Once again, I am a dis-affected Mormon that is just shy of writing my resignation. I believe very little of the doctrine anymore. I am sorting out the garbage and this site has been helpful to me. I live in a city where their is a high concentration of Mormons, my children only mostly have Mormon friends etc. I'd prefer not to make a violent break for the sake of embarrassment for my family. I am not quite sure what I believe in at this juncture but perhaps I have been helpful at explaining a few things Mormon to you.

So far as words from the Bible that do not directly encourage me to emulate Jesus peaceable walk, I currently place little value upon them. I would prefer that my acedemic has less emphasis as my spiritual journey now.