bluebell

Ah, ok. I thought you meant 'that one' as in 'that's the evidence for the second agenda item'. But that didn't make sense to me since in the second agenda, God the Father and Adam are not the same person. Thanks for clarifying!

Isn't that a discourse where Brigham is teaching his Adam-God theory? Where Adam and God the Father are the same person?

I noticed for my grandpa (and more recently my father) that it was really really important for them to stay busy. To keep a schedule and have plans for the week on what you are going to do or what needs to be done for every "work" day of that week at least.

Thanks for explaining that. It's helpful.

What is the evidence in support of the second agenda item having happened?

I didn't think it was the councils that were the issue?

BREAKING: Elder Gérald Caussé, former Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been called to serve as the newest member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 📷: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints https://ksltv.com/?p=842190

Agreed

I think it's only the issue when people view sexuality as sinful in and of itself. Because then it becomes about Christ being born with a sinful aspect to His nature (which would be a dealbreaker for all Christians), rather than being born capable of committing sin. But if you don't view sexuality as a part of the fallen world, then you're right, it's not an issue.

I'm mostly just guessing here, but I think that some people who struggle with the idea of Christ having a sexual nature do so because of their views on sex. Those views being that asexual is always superior to sexual because all aspects of our sexual nature are a part of the fallen world. Even people who don't specifically believe such things can sometimes still struggle with any sexual aspect of mortality that isn't utilitarian sex for creation purposes. I think it's hard for some to accept that our sexual natures are not somehow sinful or fallen, and so it's hard for them to accept or confront a perfect Jesus that includes sexuality.

Over the last few years I've leaned toward Christ's mercy being an integral aspect of His justice (or the justice of God) because it doesn't seem like it could be just to create an earth and test fallen mortals on their ability to be like God in a fallen world--and have eternal consequences based on the outcome of that test--unless a Savior was also provided.

We can consider it I think. My pondering first leads me to ask, what would be the point of the payment exceeding the debt (so to speak)? I also never considered the idea that the Atonement was meant to appease the wrath of God the Father.

I found a reference from Elder Romney in his October 1953 GC talk, but I have no idea if it's the quote that Rain is talking about. "When Jesus was about to go through that terrible suffering incident to the atonement, he took his disciples with him to the Passover. As they sat in an upper chamber, Jesus broke bread and blessed it, and gave of it to his Apostles, telling them that this they should do often in remembrance of his body which was soon to be wounded on the cross for them, and for you and for me. Then he took wine, blessed it, and gave of it to them, telling them to do this often in remembrance of his blood which was to be spilled for them. Jesus then went into the Garden of Gethsemane. There he suffered most. He suffered greatly on the cross, of course, but other men had died by crucifixion; in fact, a man hung on either side of him as he died on the cross. But no man, nor set of men, nor all men put together, ever suffered what the Redeemer suffered in the Garden. He went there to pray and suffer. One of the New Testament writers says that it “ . .. was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” (Luke 22:44.)" Go here to read the talk in its entirety.

Yep, lots of different interpretations out there.

I don't think he's sharing his opinion as much as he's saying 'this is what I believe the evidence is showing". "It seems" is a good way for him to suggest an interpretation of scripture that makes sense but isn't a statement of fact. The evidence that Talmage is using for his interpretation is where Christ cries "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Talmage puts forth that it could not have been physical suffering only that created such anguish, because physical suffering alone would not have caused God the Father to withdraw from Christ. Talmage assumes that God withdrawing from Christ in that moment was another moment of Christ suffering the consequences of our sins, because there is no other reason for God the Father to have left Christ alone in those moments.

It’s been really interesting to learn more about the Catholic perspective, thanks for sharing it. The idea that Christ only felt suffering for things that He personally could have experienced is foreign to me, but an interesting concept.

You could indeed be the only one, because I don't think I've ever heard a leader teach that as the reason. But if you really are the only one out of all the prophets and apostles, that doesn't seem like something in favor of your realization being correct.

That is funny. I've always believed that we don't wear or adorn our buildings with crosses because the early saints often had puritanical roots (and from what I've read the puritans didn't like icons of any kind, especially any connected with Catholicism), and that we continued with that tradition because we focus on Christ's resurrection--that He is the living Christ--rather than focusing on His death on the Cross. I think I got that idea from Pres. Hinkley. I found a general conference talk from 1975 where he taught it, but I think I probably know about it because he taught it again in his TV interview that happened in 1998. He said in the conference talk "And so, because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of his death as the symbol of our faith." This is what it says under the Atonement on the church's website under gospel topics: Jesus’s atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. In Gethsemane He submitted to the will of the Father and began to take upon Himself the sins of all people. He has revealed some of what He experienced as He paid the price for our sins: “I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; “But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; “Which suffering 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 not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— “Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–19; see also Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7). The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified—“lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world”

Our theology is that Christ suffered all pains and infirmities in the garden and on the cross, as part of His Atonement. I had no idea that other Christians believed differently.

In my mind, without physical defects just means 'normal'. As in a normally healthy and developing human, like most how most babies are born. Still lots of room for infirmities in that though, as we've all experienced.

No, many gospel scholars openly teach that it is not the best translation theologically. Generally, the church uses it as it's 'official' version for the sake of standardization among church members, historical tradition because that's the bible version that most members used during the restoration, and because it's published with footnotes that include all the other scriptures. But members can use whatever version they would like.

People lining up to buy covenantal clothing doesn’t sound very weird though. It’s all in the perspective.

From my perspective, the biggest problem with Him having children is two-fold. First, I think it was Isaiah who taught He would have no children and second, if He did they would also inherit His divine DNA. I just don’t think that being physically partly divine is in the plan for any other of God’s children.

I assume He was fully mortal as well as fully God. I don't believe He had any children if He was married.