Pyreaux

I see no particular reason why you should agree with it without being LDS. Is the incomplete JST supposed to be a literal restoration of ancient parchment? Or are we looking at a prophetic midrash, an expanded commentary on the verses intended to teach a specific theological truth? Midrash isn’t necessarily concerned with what actually happened in a historical vacuum, it is concerned with what does this text mean for us today? Midrash often fills in the narrative gaps, resolves contradictions, and brings moral clarity to the text. Large portions of the Bible are actually inspired rewrites of earlier materials. The most famous example is the author of Chronicles took the earlier books of the Kings and "rewrote" them. It removes many of the embarrassing parts of King David’s life, adding a focus on the Temple and the Covenant. Many scholars believe the Book of Job is a midrashic expansion of an older, shorter story. The complex dialogue between Job and his friends were likely added later to explore the problem of evil and suffering. Matthew and Luke appear to rewrite Mark as their primary source and expanding on Mark's shorter narrative to include Birth Narratives and such. Matthew specifically rewrites a "midrashic" Gospel to prove to Jews that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. The New Testament writers frequently cited oral Midrashic traditions as if they were established facts. Jude contains perhaps the most striking example of Midrash portrayed as valid: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation..." (Jude 1:9) This event is completely absent from the Hebrew Bible. Joseph Smith may have been "adjusting" the text to highlight a different set of priorities than traditionally attributed to them, as it was traditionally thought that Jesus is terrified and cowering and thus proves he is 100% human. While the JST portrays Jesus as a steady, resolute, and all-knowing figure. He isn't the one wondering if he is the Messiah; the disciples are. If Joseph Smith's intent was to provide a commentary, he seems to be saying Jesus wasn't shocked, scared, or bewildered; he was suffering a calculated, intense, and literal payment for sin. I guess you may not be a Baptist. Many Evangelicals prefer other terms, like "anguish" or "dread" rather than fear. D&C 19 shifts from psychological dread, or fear of what's coming, to physical/spiritual agony, the actual process of the Atonement. Jesus describes Gethsemane in D&C 19, caused him to "tremble because of pain" and "bleed at every pore." To "Suffer even as I" described in D&C 19 is what awaits anyone who does not repent. The Atonement is "infinite," meaning it covers all people in all states of existence, provided they accept it. If they don't, they must suffer even as He did.

and filed an extension, it was granted, and just made their deadline yesterday.

Correct. Laura Gaddy filed their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari but the Court has not issued an order granting cert (choosing to hear it). Now that the petition is filed, the Church has about 30 days to file a Brief in Opposition, explaining why the Supreme Court should ignore the case. This is however hot news to Ex-Mormons and the Mormon Stories Podcast, if the Ex-Mormons want to throw their money away (again?) just to start a conversation about this, I'm game.

Gaddy v. Corporation of the President RICO Case reached a major milestone, February 28, 2026, with a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to take it up. A Deception Argument The core of the plaintiffs' argument is that the Church didn't just "teach religion"; they concealed physical evidence. They argue the Church taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using "Urim and Thummim" while hiding the "Seer Stone" (a rock in the hat) in a vault for 100 years. Yet there are primary sources available with those accounts, with other differing accounts that are overlapping and messy. The RICO angle is that by using the mail and internet (wire fraud) to spread these "false" historical narratives was done to collect their tithing, the plaintiffs claim the Church operates as a corrupt enterprise. It's dumb. As the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2025, courts cannot be Inquisitors. If a judge starts deciding which parts of a miracle are true and which are fraud, the First Amendment effectively dies. The law treats religion as subjective; you can't sue a church for the fraud over the First Vision, and you can't sue a psychic for a bad reading. The Tithing Fraud Theory The second half of the case is about City Creek Mall and Beneficial Life. The Plaintiffs say President Gordon B. Hinckley lied when he said "not one penny" of tithing went to the mall. In the related Huntsman case (January 2025), the 9th Circuit ruled that the Church didn't lie. They used earnings from invested tithing (interest), not the principal tithing. To a layperson, this may sound like a distinction without a difference, but in accounting, it’s a massive legal difference. The court found that because the Church had commercial earnings to cover the mall, no fraud occurred. To win a RICO or fraud case, you have to prove Proximate Cause, that the lie directly caused you to spend money you wouldn't have otherwise spent. The plaintiffs argue they paid tithing because they didn't know a "rock in the hat" account existed. Judges have struggled with many of these odd Ex-LDS claims. If you are a devout member for 40 years, did you really pay 10% of your income only because of the specific translation method? Or did you pay because you enjoyed the community, and believed in the faith and the overall theology? The plaintiffs claim existential crisis, depression, and financial loss. But they've received 40 years of free religious services, weddings, funerals, community in exchange, making it impossible to calculate "damages". The case is now at the Supreme Court’s doorstep. Attorney Kay Burningham is asking SCOTUS to decide if "empirically verifiable historical facts" (like the existence of a seer stone) can be separated from "religious belief." If they allow this case to move forward, every religion in America (Scientology, Catholicism, Islam) could be sued by former members for "historical inaccuracies" in their promotional materials. The term "Urim and Thummim" was a catch-all phrase Initially, Urim and Thummim was what Joseph referred to the "Interpreters" found with the plates. Under the influence of associates like W.W. Phelps, the term "Urim and Thummim" was adopted to describe any physical instrument used in revelation. So, to many early members, a seer stone was an Urim and Thummim. When Joseph or Oliver or the later Church says "Urim and Thummim," they could have been referring to the brown stone, or the white stone. The "Hybrid" Translation Model Most historians (Don Bradley and increasingly the Church itself) now point to a timeline where both were used, which complicates the idea of a "lie". Witnesses like Emma Smith and Martin Harris suggest the "Interpreters" were used primarily for the first 116 pages. After the 116 pages were lost, many accounts or David Whitmer and Emma Smith state that the Interpreters were taken back by the angel and that Joseph finished the rest of the translation using his brown seer stone. Other accounts say there was breastplate at one early point, and others say at another later point there was no stone or hat. This is where the RICO case falls apart on merit. If you put the witnesses in a room, they don't all agree or align with a Seer Stone only theory. If the witnesses themselves (who were in the room) couldn't agree on which stone was used and when, it’s legally impossible to prove the Church "knew" one was a lie and the other was the truth. Because the translation is claimed to be a miracle, it falls under the "Religious Autonomy Doctrine." Courts cannot rule on how a miracle happened. If the Church says in its very scripture, the doctrine, nothing but "he translated by the power of God," they are protected; whether he used a hat or a rock or not is considered a matter of faith. The church taught what we knew based on the accounts we prioritized, like Oliver Cowdery. As more records like David Whitmer were studied, our understanding evolved. In a fraud case, evolving understanding is not the same as "intent to defraud." The RICO case assumes there’s a 'secret truth' the Church hid, but the historical record remains messy. Joseph Smith used multiple stones, called them by different names, and his scribes all remembered the process just a little differently, and all can be "true". https://becketfund.org/case/gaddy-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas have almost nothing in common besides the name. The Epistle of Barnabas was in roughly 70–132 AD. It was highly respected by the early Church (found in the Codex Sinaiticus). It is pro-Jesus as Divine. The Gospel of Barnabas dates to the 14th–16th century AD. It is Islamic in nature. But is the agony of Gethsemane a fear of suffering and death on a cross, or is the agony of Gethsemane itself a part of the suffering? Many of the other Christians were crucified too if not worse. Christ was speared in the side by one Roman soldier before they had time to break his legs. For this act the Roman soldier Longinus was declared a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church, as this was an act of mercy, preventing Christ from suffering even more. Isaiah depicts suffering no whip or cross can deliver. No Roman torture can make a man feel all sorrow, sicknesses and sin of all people, or transfer the guilt for abominations of his people on himself, or produce an agony so great that he bled from every pour.

More notes The Two Goats If the Atonement of Jesus Christ has anything to do with the Atonement rites of the Day of Atonement, the original rite had at least two parts, represented by two goats. One goat makes an atonement with is blood, the second goat is cast out of the city, ideally lead by the hand of a foreigner, in hopes it will die, eaten by a lion, away from Jerusalem and not wonder back with their sins. Sometimes it would come back, and so the Jews later resolved to push it backwards off a cliff. “On Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) a goat was thrown off a high cliff in the desert, to atone for the sins of the Jews. A red ribbon was hung up in the Temple on that day. When the goat was thrown off the cliff, the ribbon turned white.” (B. Yoma 67a) This description links the Temple with the exile of the scapegoat. Viewing it as a kind of remote Temple offering as signified by the transformation of the ribbon from red to white. The First Century Christian document, the Epistle of Barnabas, is attributed to the Biblical Barnabas the Levite, one of the Seven Assistants to the Apostles, and Paul’s Missionary Companion (Acts 4:36; 13:2). It was lost and then rediscovered in 1859 in the Sinai Codex. Now whether or not it was written by the Biblical Barnabas or another Barnabas, it is definitely a document from the apostolic era, with valuable insight. Barnabas has many quotes from Old Testament era texts we don’t have. Concerning the treatment of the scapegoat, “Spit on it, all of you, thrust your goads into it, wreath its head with scarlet wool and lead it be driven into the desert,” “when they see him coming on the Day, they are going to be struck with terror at the manifest parallel between him and the goat,” “they shall see him on that Day, clad to the ankles in his red woolen robe and will say, ‘is this not he whom we once crucified and mocked and pierced and spat upon?” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). Now, Isaiah had a similar vision of the Lord, on the Day (of Vengeance), come in a red robe and when he asked the Lord why he is red, He replies his robes are bloodstained red from when he had troddened the winefat “alone, and of the people, there were none with me” (Isaiah 63:2). Jesus Christ in the Second Coming has a bloodstained red venture (Revelations 19:13). Isaiah’s quote seems to describe Christ had stained his robes while alone in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44). Christ was not alone at Golgotha (Luke 23:39). Christ did customarily wear his High Priest’s expensive, seamless and brilliantly white robe before he went to Gethsemane. Christ was not wearing his robe when he was crucified, the Roman Soldiers took it from him (John 19:23-24; Psalm 22:18). Barnabas makes a unique claim that is contrary to Leviticus, he says that the first goat, the sin offering goat, in the Day of Atonement ritual was originally eaten. The people ate the carcass, and the Priests ate the fat and bloody sacrificial portions, unwashed, in vinegar (sour wine). Barnabas quotes from an unknown quote from Jesus Christ who is quoting an unknown Book of the Prophets (an Old Testament scripture), “What does it say in the prophet? ‘Let all the priests but nobody else eat of its inward parts, unwashed and with vinegar.’ Why was this? Because, ‘When I am about to give my body for sins of this new people of mine, you will give me gall and vinegar to drink’” (Epistle of Barnabas 7). The New Testament authors were careful to note that Christ was given “vinegar to drink mingled with gall” (Matthew 27:34, 48; Psalm 69:23), though they don’t explain the significance of this. Leviticus, seems to contradict Barnabas’s quote, saying in the Atonement, the High Priest did remove the fat and enthralls, kidneys and liver, but claims they were burned on the alter with the priests while the carcass was burned with the people outside, and does not say it was eaten (Leviticus 4:8-10). If it was eaten unwashed, Leviticus also says the consumption of blood is forbidden (Leviticus 3:17), as Jews of the first century say in the Mishnah (m. Yoma 6:7). Though the Mishnah doesn’t represent the views of all First Century Jews, the also Mishnah mentions there were Jews they refer to as “Babylonians” (presumed to be a derogatory term for other Jews, perhaps the Alexandrian Jews), who performed the Jewish Day of Atonement rites and did eat the sin offering, and if it was the Sabbath, they ate it raw, because they couldn’t cook (m. Menahoth 11:7). What is interesting about this is, if Barnabas is correct, and the sin offering was eaten unwashed, raw, and in vinegar/sour wine, then there was definitely blood consumption/drinking in the Temple by priests on the Day of Atonement. What Barnabas is implying is that by having Christ drink vinegar with gall mingled in it on the cross, which some think it as cruel mockery, or another act of mercy (an attempt at pain reliever or for hastening death). There were some First Century Christians, like Barnabus that saw this event as being foreshadowed by the Day of Atonement ritual. It gives Christ’s Sacramental cup more context. As the Sacramental bread and wine is believed to be the foretold new Temple bread and libations reestablished (Malachi 1:7, 11) Christ insisted that the contents of his cup of fruit of the vine was his blood, even though Leviticus forbids blood drinking (Leviticus 3:17). Blood drinking while not Kosher, may have been Kosher for priests during Atonement Day practice. Just how other Temple practices and objects were forbidden outside the Temple, like using the formula for temple incense, or the temple anointing oil, or possessing a seven branched lamp stand in a private house was forbidden for general use, but not for the Temple. It's possible that Leviticus maybe, as some think, an edited late document. Or it's merely intended to be the rules of Israelites, but not royal Melchizedek priests, and later self-imposed by Jews. Some scholars think this version of the Atonement practice eating of the sacrificial goat's inward portions in wine is valid and would explain the origin of the Christian traditions to remove the inner portions of the sacramental loaf (the inward parts of the Body of Christ) and mingle it with the sacramental wine (the Blood of Christ) of the Eucharist (M. Barker, The Great High Priest, pg70). One might question the authenticity of Barnabas’s unbiblical sources, merely because it is an unbiblical source. Though one of Barnabas' unbiblical sources ended up being discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch. Barnabas quotes, “It will come to pass in this last days that the Lord will deliver up destruction, the sheep of the pasture, with their sheepfold and their watchtower [1 Enoch 89:56]” (Epistle of Barnabas 16). As a side note, the watch tower is the temple (Isaiah 5; Assumption of Moses 2:4; Shepherd of Hermas, Parables 3:2:4; 9:3:1; 9:7:1). The Book of Enoch is the most quoted book in the New Testament and has a lot to add to the meaning of Christ's Atonement. .... Proxies and Scapegoats There is no Biblical explanation of the theology behind the rituals of atonement. We do know under normal conditions, covenants made with blood oaths must mean the offended party must demand the blood of the oath breaker, the sinner. Fortunately for the many that have sinned against a merciful party, such as God, there arose a need to innovate a ritual system as the Atonement, so that just one person, the High Priest, could stand as proxy for the covenant people, the sinners, in the atonement ritual. The consequences of not atoning for sins when the Covenant broke meant that the earth went from created order to original chaos and the people suffered. A priest must atone with animal blood as the proxy for the sinners, or else the blood of the sinners themselves, human blood, was apparently accepted for the Covenant to be satisfied (Numbers 25:7-13). The priest hears the confessions of the people, he bears them as he takes the place of the people to offer up his own blood in their stead. Fortunately for the Priest, the ritual also accepted a goat as a proxy for the blood the priest is supposed to pay himself. This appears to be done by making a goat another proxy for himself, a priest, and then using its blood. We see details of an ordinance that seems to signify the transference of the priesthood from the Priest to the goat by the laying on of hands upon to the goat's head, and the goat is even given a priest's crown with the name of Lord upon it. The meaning behind such a crown is that the goat, like the Priest, is to stand as a proxy for the Lord God of Israel Himself when the goat atones for the sins of all the people of Israel with His own blood. Sounds like a type and shadow of the Christ. Again, blood was believed to be “life” of a creature (Leviticus 17:14), so this is an important distinction, a sin offering was not completed upon the death of the goat, but by a priest's offering of that goat's “blood” in a holy place (Leviticus 17:11). If a Priest had only sacrificed the goat and drained its blood, but then failed to deliver that blood to the temple, and by his hand sprinkle it there, nothing was achieved by the animal’s death. The smearing blood at the temple is what was important, or else the temple which represents the microcosm of all Creation, was not renewed and purified. Once the blood is sprinkled about the temple, and thus all Creation, it is then purified, and the High Priest absorbs and bears the sins of the people that has tainted all creation (Leviticus 10:17). Once the sins were all collected, he’d bore them and then confessed the sins of the people over the head of a second goat (as the previous one was dead), and thus he transfers the people's sin he absorbed on the head of that second goat, The goat referred to in King James English as the “scapegoat”. But the two goats were supposed to be identical (m. Yoma 6:1) that is supposedly because they were ritually the same goat. Two proxies for what was to be accomplished by one person who was to stand as a proxy for all. The scapegoat is lead from the Temple of Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, then on a marked path out of the city, preferably by the hands of a gentile (Leviticus 16:21; m. Yoma 6:8).

Good catch, if the JST disciples are the ones "sore amazed," then Jesus appears more stoic, which moves even farther away from what the Baptists hold to. The JST changes paint a picture of a more composed Jesus, by shifting the complaining and doubting to the disciples, it emphasizes that Jesus was the only one who truly understood the mission, while the disciples were faltering in their faith, falling asleep. For Joseph Smith, these revealed changes might have been "justified", particularly if we assume he's a prophet. Mark 14:33 doesn’t provide an explicit, labeled reason for Jesus' amazement. Like this idea that he was fearing death. Many martyrs went to their deaths singing hymns, like Polycarp and Peter. Was Jesus, the model of martyrs, "amazed" and "heavy" just because of a cross? If so, it would almost make him look less brave than his followers that were also crucified.

I don't disagree. What I disagree with is the agony of Gethsemane was somehow very specifically the definitive expression of a fear of the cross. They don't know that. They just see no other purpose for the account. If He were showing cowardice, it's a bit below the confidence of other sacrificed heroes, like Issac or Selia. Seila said "who is there who would be sad in death, seeing the people free?" (Ps-Philo 40:2; Josephus, Ant 5:7:10 [265]). "Do you not remember what happened in the days of our fathers when the fathers placed the son as a holocaust, and he did not refuse him but gladly gave consent to him, and the one being offered was ready and the one who was offering was rejoicing?" (Ps-Philo 40:2). "I am not sad because I am to die nor does it pain me to give back my soul. If I did not offer myself willingly... my death would not be acceptable" (Ps-Philo 40:3).

You'll find for many Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, Gethsemane is considered one of the primary "prooftexts" for the Hypostatic Union. This is the doctrine that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Baptist theology often emphasizes the Substitutionary Atonement, that Jesus stood in our place. For this to work legally and spiritually, he had to be truly human. Baptists argue that if Jesus didn't feel fear, his "courage" on the cross wouldn't be courage, it would just be divine inevitability. Charles Spurgeon, perhaps the most famous Baptist preacher in history, spoke extensively on this in his sermon "The Agony in Gethsemane." He argued that Gethsemane proves Christ’s humanity because He possessed a "rational soul" that naturally shrunk from pain and death. https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-agony-in-gethsemane/#flipbook

From my study notes, many compiled from Margaret Barker: Traditionally Christians have interpreted Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song as the prophecy of Jesus Christ's suffering. Despite the uncanny parallels, scholarship has long held this to be a purely Christian innovation, because nowhere does Isaiah call his subject the anointed Messiah. However, only by the chance discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has this Christian interpretation finally been vindicated. The Dead Sea Scrolls contains a pre-Christian version of Isaiah, the Isaiah Scroll. In that scroll, the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:14) is just one Hebrew letter different than the Masoretic text. The Bible usually translates the word into English as “marred [H#4893]” or “disfigured” but with the extra letter added the word becomes “[masahti (H#4888) anointed]”. We know that because that is the meaning of that word when it is used in Numbers 18:8, so the Isaiah Suffering Servant was originally a Messiah. The Isaiah Scroll says "I have anointed him more than any man in his appearance and he shall sprinkle many nations” (1Q Isaiaha 52:14). The Targums indicate the subject was a Messiah in the previous verse, “My servant the Messiah shall prosper” (Targum, Isaiah 52:13). ..... The Isaiah Servant, the Messiah, will suffer, become exalted, and will also perform an Atonement rite, as he says the Messiah shall “sprinkle [rhantise (H#5137)] many nations” (Isaiah 52:15) the same verb for the Atoning blood (Leviticus 16:19). The next chapter says the Servant will have “carried [yazzah (H#5445)]” our grieves and sorrows and upon him “laid” the “iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). He was “oppressed”, just as Christ was arrested, but "opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7) just as Christ would not open his mouth to the High Priests or to Pilate (Mark 14:61; 15:3). The Servant shall be ‘taken from judgment… cut off from the land of the living, made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death” (Isaiah 53:8-9), just as Christ died amidst two criminals and was entombed in a rich man’s tomb (Luke 23:39, 50-53). The Servant was “wounded [hll (H#2490)]” (Isaiah 53:5), this word means to “‘pierce” (Isaiah 51:9), pierced for transgressions and the “chastisement [mwsr (H#4148)] for our peace” was upon him (Isaiah 53:5). Isaiah means the 'bonds (of the covenant) of peace', as it’s the same word in Ezekiel, “bonds of the covenant [msrt hbryt]” (Ezekiel 20:37; Jeremiah 2:20; Psalm 2:3). Which is also in parallel to the next verse, “with his stripes [hbrt (H#2250)] we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). This is the same word for “stripes” is in Exodus and there it meant to “join” or “unite” the curtains of the tabernacle, as “[hbr’]’s” primary meaning is to unite (Exodus 26:4). In Hebrew poetry, chiasmus, the literary style of the Bible, parallel chiasmus will put two different words with similar meanings together in a verse. Since the first part of the verse, one word means a type of bond, the other line also contains a word that also is a type of bond, though it also means a type of bruise caused by a bond, the results from wearing bonds. These “bonds” are references to the Everlasting Covenant. The Servant pours out his “soul [‘sm (H5315)] for a sin offering” (Isaiah 53:10), a “[sm’]” is something that redresses as “[m’l]”, which is a violation of the covenant. Christ, the Messiah is offering to repair the Covenant. ..... Didn’t Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Song describe the Messiah’s suffering as “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…” (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:17)? When exactly during the Crucifixion did Christ suffer “sorrows for sin” or “carry” the weight of our grief? During his Passion Christ expressed no complaint of his burdens, or express his pain, or utter any words of sorrow, He mostly kept his mouth shut (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:3). This is in contrast from when He was in Gethsemane, it was there He expresses how He was “sorrowful and very heavy” and “exceedingly sorrowful unto death”. Only there does the Bible say Christ was in “agony” (Luke 22:43-44). One could argue by these words about Jesus that Gethsemane might have been the scene of Christ’s greatest agony. We merely imagine that scourges and crucifixion must have hurt more than the act of simply praying in a garden, only He didn’t express His agony nor sweat blood during the crucifixion (Mark 14:61; 15:3). Unlike the prayers we've given, appears that for Christ, maintaining His effort to pray in Gethsemane became increasingly difficult, as he keeps asking for the cup’s removal, and an angel had to be sent to Him in order to strengthen Him to keep praying, and He was in such “agony” that “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground” (Luke 22:43-44). .... The final rite of the first portion of the Atonement in the temple was to purge the holy place, the artificial garden temple, representing all creation, with blood, on the that sacred ground (Leviticus 16:15). As he purifies the sanctuary, the High Priest took upon himself the sins of the people who confessed to him, he became the sin bearer, at least until he has the chance to transfer them on head of the second goat. During that time, the High Priest, is like Christ who is to have borne the sorrows and sicknesses of His people (Isaiah 5:4, 10; Matthew 8:17). Interesting to note here that excess sacrificial blood from sacrifices was sold to gardeners to use as fertilizer in their gardens (Mishnah, Yoma 5:6). .... The event at Gethsemane must be something important, for no other reason than that it is even mentioned in the Gospels at all. .... Denominations such as The Baptist Church figures that the scene of Gethsemane was about Christ expressing fear in anticipation of the pains of the cross. However, I think this is wrong, for Christ to be afraid to be persecuted and crucified is outside of the character He has ever displayed previously and shortly thereafter when it concerned the subject of suffering and death. To interpret this as fear of death would place Christ below the heroism of the Christian martyrs, like Paul, who anticipated harsh persecution and death, even crucifixion, for Christ’s sake with joy. The point of the scene is not a mere display of Christ’s humanity, weakness or fears of death. Instead of Christ being fearful of death on the cross, I would here interject it was the custom for High Priest who approached God (such as during the Temple's atonement ritual) to do so with “fear and trembling” (Genesis 9:2; Psalm 55:6; Judith 2:28; 4 Maccabees 4:10; 1 Enoch 13:3; Narsai, Homilies 17A). When the High Priest preformed an Atonement ritual, the proper thing to do was to approach the Holy of Holies with the purposeful attitude of fear and trembling, thus showing reverence and respect. In an Atonement, it was then that the Atoning High Priest would then open his mouth, praying in devotion until He knows his prayer has been accepted. The details about what the content of the Atonement Prayer is unknown, however what little we do know is the prayer was repeated three times as some kind of formula (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 8:15; 16:18; 17:18). It is with much interest that here, alone on a holy mountain, that Christ trembles and opens his mouth to pray, and does so three times as a formula, “O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: never the less not as I will, but as thou will.” (Matthew 26:39-44). If Christ was cowering over the suffering of the crucifixion, why did Christ not fear or tremble, cower or even open his mouth to respond during the Passion of Christ, but He was brave, calm and was lead as a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7; Mark 14:61; 15:31). .... Since the purpose of Atonement in the past wasn’t just about forgiving sins but to purify and cleanse the holy ground of the Temple (Leviticus 16:9). If Christ’s Atonement is a final Day of Atonement Ritual, a temple is the proper venue for a temple rite. The Temple of Herod in Jerusalem was under the control of the Sanhedrin. Christians as a new upstart sect in Judaism, claiming to possess an extinct priesthood, did not have the clout to have free reign of that temple. However, a Temple quintessentially is an artificially constructed mountain with an artificial golden tree grove at its summit. In the past, before the temple was built, the Patriarchs built up many other more literally mountainous and arboreal types of temples, utilizing the more natural and rural features of the areas rather than creating artificial ones. They built an alter and pitched a tabernacle tent on top of actual mountains with an actual grove of trees in their midst (Bethel – Genesis 28:19; 35:8, and Sinai – Exodus 15:7; 3:2, etc). The Garden of Eden was a holy grove of olive trees (Zechariah 4:3). During the day light hours, Christ utilized the Temple of Jerusalem and could be found teaching the masses outside the Temple, while during the night, Christ taught only to his disciples on a mountain called the “Mount of Olives” (Luke 21:37-38) as was his “wont” or custom (Luke 22:39). While on the Mount of Olive’s western slope was an ancient grove of olive trees, the “garden of Gethsemane [(G#1068) Oil Press]” (Matthew 26:36). The olives that grew there were pressed under gigantic stones to extract its oils. Poetic as it was here that Christ would say that He had felt a “heavy” weight upon him (Matthew 26:17) and “blood” would be extracted from him. This Mount was always a holy and distinguished mountain, it is where King David himself worshiped (2 Samuel 15:30, 32). When the Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground by Babylon, Ezekiel had a vision during the Babylonian captivity in which, “the glory of the Lord” vacated the Temple mount and came to rest of the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 11:22-23). In the future, the Messiah was prophesied to appear there to save his people, God will send the nations to Jerusalem, the Lord will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zacharias 14:3-5). After the Resurrection, this is this same mount that Christ ascended into a “cloud” and angels were frequently seen there (Acts 1:9-12; Luke 22:43). .... For the next 700 years, the Christians that lived there called the Mount of Olives, “the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple” which is to be built in the future. Thus, Emperor Constantine’s mother built a “sacred church and temple on the very summit”. On the Mountain of Olives was also a cave, “authentic history informs us that this very cave the savior imparted secret revelations to his disciples” (Philip Schaft, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Eusebias [1994], pg 531). The narrative tells us that the Garden of Gethsemane even had a Temple-like Tripartite division, three main areas, just like a temple has. On the Day of Atonement, the Israelites stood outside the building in the Temple Courtyard, Priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place, and the High Priest was to go into the Holy of Holies alone (Leviticus 16:17). At other rural Temple-like sites like Mount Sinai, Moses, who was a non-Aaronic priest (Psalm 99:1) was attempting to renew the original covenant (before Israel sinned) and blood atoned there (Exodus 24:8). For this they triple partitioned Mount Sinai as a Temple, the Israelites stayed at the Bottom of the Mount, Aaron and the Seventy were able to go Midway Up, and Moses as a High Priest had to go to the Top alone (Exodus 19:17). Similarly, in Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives, the Disciples gathered in a main area of the garden where Christ instructs them to stay there (Matthew 26:36), only taking the Triumvirate, the three Chief Apostles; Peter, James and John, as the Priests, with Him into an Interior area of the Garden, that is until He asks them to wait there (Matthew 26:37), while Christ “went a little further” to be alone into a third Innermost area (Matthew 26:39). Being alone in a Holy Mountain Grove, Christ was in a position to act as a High Priest in an atonement ritual for a new covenant with his own blood and it was mentioned that there Jesus did appear to bleed (Luke 22:44). While Christ also bled on Calvary’s Hill, He was not alone on Calvary’s Hill as a High Priests should be, there were two crucified with him (Matthew 29:38).

Certainly, and I pray I'll make it to 92. Thought I guess that may have slightly more to do with how good and willing my AI doctor will be at that time.

The rabbis of the Mishna and Talmudic periods (1st to 6th centuries) show evidence that plural marriage still occurred, although they placed severe restrictions on it. For instance, a man had to prove he could financially and emotionally support multiple wives. Josephus mentions that King Herod the Great had nine or ten wives, illustrating that first century polygamy existed among the Jewish elite (Hasmoneans and Herodians were actively practicing it), even if it was uncommon for the average Jew. "For it is of old among us an allowed custom to have several wives at once." (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17.1.2)

That seems to be a traditionally valid interpretation of the OT, "But when Sarai, at God's command, brought to [Abraham's] bed one of her handmaidens, a woman of Egyptian descent..." (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.10.4). Josephus interprets either Sarah's prompting or the legal customs of the time as a mandate from God. Justin Martyr defended the patriarchs against critics who accused them of immorality. He argued that their actions were not driven by lust but by dispensation (oikonomia). And suggests that these marriages were part of a "mystery" or a specific divine arrangement to fulfill the promise of a multi-national posterity. He argues that Abraham did nothing without the "counsel" or "will" of God. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 141) The Midrash's "Sarah as Prophetess" Tradition, she divinely "commands" Abraham. Jewish tradition and Rashi notes that when God told Abraham later to "hearken to her voice" (Gen 21:12), it confirms in their thinking that Sarah's previous directives regarding Hagar were inspired. Though this command was for Abraham to send Hagar away, not to take her. But the Jewish tradition often views Abraham’s initial taking of Hagar as also an act of "hearkening to the voice of his wife". Alternatively, it's subtextual, the "Law of the Concubine" in Nuzi Tablets and the Code of Hammurabi (Laws 144–146) provides the "legal command" of the era, that a barren wife was legally obligated to provide a handmaid to her husband to provide an heir.

Yet most people in history lived and died without the Priesthood. That is not irreparable, "no blessing will be denied the faithful" in the eternal scope. If one believes God is in charge, the argument is that He allowed a flawed human policy to persist, knowing He could rectify the "missed" blessings. It’s the only way to reconcile God's involvement with a flawed, prejudiced leadership. A Prophet is a student much like we are, he's not omniscient; their important role is to hold the authority for when the revelation finally comes. In massive strategic blunder, a General still holds the legal authority to command until the Commander-in-Chief (God) replaces them or issues a new directive. In any disciplined organization, the ability to course-correct is actually a sign of health, not just failure. A believer might be inclined to see gaps as a "wilderness period" where God waits for the leadership or membership to be ready to receive correction.

Uh, that conflates "being wrong" with "losing the keys" or "jeopardizing salvation". The military analogy, that there is a distinction between an error and a war crime, actually helps clarify the Church's position. A General orders to take a hill that turns out to be strategically worthless, is a wrong order, but it is not a war crime. Those who refused to obey the lawful order are wrong. In an LDS context, the most solid example is the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada, or policies that are later retired. These don't jeopardize the "salvation" of the membership. Even Priesthood ban, the Church continued to provide the "Saving Ordinances" (Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Sacrament) to all members. The core mission of the Church remained intact. Church is not the military, but the psychology and emphasis on order is very similar. I recall Wilford Woodruff said the Lord would "remove" him before he could lead the Church astray, he was speaking specifically about the Manifesto ending Polygamy.

Many Bible authors seem to suggest they were temple priests prior to their calling, like Isaiah. Not saying that its typical for all prophets, maybe just ones with the priestly art to write books. A few had overlapping authority. Like Samuel was first in the line of the Great Prophets, last of the regal Major Judges, and a Levitical Priest.

Jacob just now heard the demographics of anti-LDS channels and how there are signs of struggling... Though he may have known it a while but between debates, only now had time to make a video.

Better late than never.

Many were called to the Royal Melchizedek Priesthood, like Prophets, while they were still Levitical temple priests. But the Melchizedek Priests ideally have lesser priesthood within them. Patriarchal Priesthood was prophet, priest and king before Moses split them up. Priesthood came through Shem to Abraham (1 Chronicles 1:24-27)

Most certainly.

Hugh Nibley highlights that the "Seed of Noah" represents a specific priesthood lineage that survives the world's wickedness. "The promise to Enoch is not merely that humans will exist, but that the righteous order (Zion) will have a remnant on earth. The 'Children of Noah' are those who are reclaimed from the world... They are the heirs of the priesthood who allow for the return of the City of Enoch." (Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, 45) The "Other Survivors" Theory is in a more literal reading of ancient texts like the Book of Giants (which Hugh Nibley famously compared to the Book of Moses), suggesting that some of these "mighty men" (gibborim) might have survived,, if not literally, in other ways, like the "Rephaim" may refer to a spiritual or political class rather than a separate biological race, and not 50-foot monsters. In this view, the fulfillment of the covenant in Moses 7:60 is about Christ returning to settle the score between the "Seed of Noah" (the covenant people) and the "Remnant of the Giants" (the systems of wickedness). That kind of reminds me of the Jewish serpent's seed narrative. Jesus' "sons of vipers" and "your father the devil".

Hmmm. A belief that God works through a specific, authorized order, even if the individuals in that order are imperfect. A common teaching of Dallin H. Oaks is that God will bless a member for their faithfulness to the principle of order, even if the specific direction given by a local leader is suboptimal. God values the humility and discipline more than correctness. My deep thoughts about Priesthood Ban are I wouldn't be the surprised God let it happen just to humble the Saints. Though in the military, you follow the orders first and complain later. In LDS doctrine, there is a concept of dual testimony. The leader receives the revelation for the group. The individual is expected to seek a confirming witness from the Holy Spirit that the leader's direction is correct. If a member feels the leader is "wrong," the cultural suggestion is often the member should check again or check at least their own humility rather than publicly correcting the leader. Like "insubordination" in the military.

In the administration of the church, they have the absolute right to make policies, if we value our membership, we must comply with even if they are wrong and we might disagree. I'm thinking of the priesthood ban, while wrong, those excommunicated for openly violating the policy were also wrong. The military "Lawful Order" doctrine, if a culture allows individuals to choose which orders to follow based on personal judgment, the chain of command dissolves. When they give an order, it happens. Order must be followed, even if it seems tactically "stupid" or "wrong", as long as it is legal.

You can edit the title. Must we fully agree with the 12 to fully sustain them? I don't suppose. They disagreed with each other. B.H. Roberts, John A. Winstoe and James Talmage disagreed with the Prophet Joseph Feilding Smith on evolution and successfully left the matter open, that is with the Prophet still disagreeing. But I'll be thinking about it for a while.

I know Andrew knows nothing about Mormonism, the last thing I heard him say was rudely dunking on a girl when he found out she was LDS, saying her prophet is in prison for heinous crimes (mistaking Warren Jeffs to be the LDS prophet). She couldn't correct him, partly because she may not know what he was referencing but, also, he was being very obnoxious. A critic who prides themselves on logic while committing the fundamental category errors, conflating the FLDS and the LDS Church. If Wilson is operating from a position of absolute logic, he’s vulnerable to the very standards he tries to set. Here are some of Andrew's arguments, why the reasoning is flawed, and what the LDS scholarly position is. Argument from Incredulity and the "Ninja Assassin" Wilson uses the "Ninja Assassin" analogy to mock the possibility for the Catalyst Theory or the Lost Scroll Theory. It's a Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). His logic is if you can just invent an unprovable, 'miraculous' theory to keep your faith alive, then I can invent an equally unprovable, 'fantastic' theory to tear it down (I can say a ninja went back in time to make a fool of Joseph Smith)." Stephen Smoot points out that the Missing Scroll theory isn't invented out of thin air to save face, it is based on contemporary eyewitness accounts from the 1840s, like those of Charlotte Haven and others, who described the length and appearance of the scrolls in ways that do not match the small fragments we have today. Joseph Smith’s "translation" was a revealed process. If Joseph was using the papyri as a catalyst for revelation (The Catalyst Theory), then the content of the ink becomes secondary to the inspiration received. Wilson's logic is a bit circular, "Joseph is a fraud because he didn't translate linguistically; I know he didn't translate linguistically because he's a fraud." The Missing Papyrus as a Cope Wilson calls the missing scroll theory a "cope." According to Smoot, this is simply the math. Eyewitness descriptions like those from Jerusha Walker Blanchard describe long, beautiful scrolls. The fragments recovered in 1967, the "Small Sensen" text, account for only a tiny fraction of the original purchase. Misuse of Burden of Proof. Andrew assumes LDS scholars must prove a specific reconstruction of the lost papyri. Historical reconstruction always involves probability, not certainty. When evidence is fragmentary, multiple viable models remain legitimate. Therefore, Andrew’s model is not falsifiable either, he simply prefers it. Either Joseph Smith Was Wrong, or Abraham Wrote the Book of the Dead Andrew repeatedly frames the issue as a forced binary. Either Joseph Smith falsely translated Egyptian funerary texts, or Abraham authored the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This framing excludes well-documented alternatives recognized in both LDS and non-LDS Egyptology. Stephen Smoot explicitly rejects this binary. The Book of Abraham is not required to be a direct, word-for-word translation of the extant papyri Joseph Smith’s use of "translation" reflects 19th-century prophetic language, not modern philological terminology. Ancient texts were often used as revelatory catalysts, not sources in the modern academic sense. Smoot notes that ancient Jewish and early Christian pseudepigrapha regularly attribute texts to ancient patriarchs without implying autograph authorship. Andrew’s dilemma assumes a modern documentary standard that neither Joseph Smith nor ancient religious communities operated under. Written by His Own Hand upon Papyrus Andrew insists the phrase “written by his own hand upon papyrus” must mean Abraham personally authored the physical papyrus Joseph Smith possessed. Its Anachronistic Literalism Andrew imposes modern legal-document expectations onto ancient and pre-modern religious language. Smoot points out that, "Written by his own hand" is a known ancient literary trope, not a forensic claim. Biblical texts use similar language without implying physical autograph manuscripts. Egyptian and Jewish scribal cultures routinely used ascribed authorship to convey authority and tradition. Example: The Book of Daniel claims first-person authorship, yet critical scholars agree it was compiled centuries later. Andrew selectively literalizes LDS scripture while granting flexibility to biblical texts, a double standard. We Have the Papyrus Joseph Smith Used Andrew asserts there is a "proven chain of custody" and claims the extant fragments must be what Joseph Smith translated. Smoot emphasizes eyewitness accounts consistently describe scrolls far longer than what survives today. The Chicago Fire in 1871 plausibly did destroyed a significant portion of the collection. The LDS Church’s 19th-century assumption about the fragments discovered are not binding doctrinally and were revised once Egyptology matured. No contemporaneous source explicitly states Joseph Smith translated only the surviving fragments. Andrew assumes completeness without evidence and dismisses contradictory eyewitness data. Egyptologists Have Falsified the Translation Andrew thinks because Egyptologists translate the fragments as funerary texts, Joseph Smith is falsified. Andrew assumes if a text does not linguistically equal the Book of Abraham, the revelation is false. Smoot clarifies Egyptology can only evaluate what the papyri say, not how Joseph Smith received revelation. LDS scholarship does not claim the English Book of Abraham is a direct academic translation of the extant fragments. The Bible quotes many passages that do not exist in their supposed source texts. Good Outcomes Don’t Make False Prophets True (Jim Jones Argument) Andrew compares Joseph Smith to cult leaders, arguing moral or theological value proves nothing. This is rhetorical, not analytical. Revelations must be evaluated on its own theological terms. The LDS Church Changed Its Story Andrew accuses the LDS Church of backpedaling once Egyptology developed, a Genetic Fallacy. He implies because understanding evolved, the claim must be false. All religious traditions refine interpretations as knowledge grows. Biblical scholarship has radically revised views on authorship, dating, and composition without invalidating faith. Development is not dishonesty. Overall Performance Unfortunately, Andrew won his little debate. He likes to control the narrative. He repeatedly forces his opponent to defend positions he lays out. He uses dismissive labeling as a rhetorical weapon. Reducing arguments to absurdity. Wilson demonstrated superior preparation for this, and so was able to catch his opponent off guard. While this wins points with his "ortho bro" audience, it can be seen as "punching down" when debating someone who is clearly not a trained apologist.