Jesus: The Advocate

[bluebell]

Speaking of empathy (I know this is a tangent to the OP, sorry), I guess there are three other types.

Compassionate empathy: Compassionate empathy includes having cognitive empathy—being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes—although it is a bit more detached than emotional empathy. It often contributes to prosocial behaviors, such as volunteering to help a charitable organization.

Affective empathy: This type of empathy involves having the ability to understand and share in another person's emotions without being emotionally stimulated yourself.

Somatic empathy: This type involves having a physical reaction in response to what someone else is experiencing.8 For example, if someone feels embarrassed, you may also blush or have an uneasy stomach.

I can't watch shows where something embarrassing happens (whether they are scripted shows or reality shows) because the secondhand embarrassment is just too much for me, but I don't think I've ever had a physical reaction in response to what someone else was feeling other than that.  I can't really picture what that would look like though.

[let’s roll]

What are the principal reasons/purposes for Jesus’ advocacy before the Father on our behalf?

Advocacy is often the term used to describe what lawyers to in an attempt to persuade a judge.  Is Jesus’ advocacy trying to persuade the Father as part of the process of our judgment?  My experience has been that many believe so.  But what persuasion is required?  Because God and Christ are omniscient, is there any reason to believe they are not both equally aware of who we are, what we have done, and the state of our heart?  Because they are one and both love us perfectly, is there any reason to believe that there is a difference of opinion about us, our potential, our judgment?

My belief is that Jesus will advocate for us before the Father not to change the Father’s mind about us, but to change our minds about ourselves.  We will see, hear and feel first-hand the depth of the Savior’s love for us, His confidence in us, and His desire to have us join Him in His work.  What could be more motivating and empowering than to witness such advocacy?  

Folks nowadays sometimes look to a “life coach” to counsel, guide, and motivate them through life’s challenges.  If you’re looking for a title for Jesus’ role as advocate perhaps “eternity coach” will do.
 

 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Speaking of empathy (I know this is a tangent to the OP, sorry), I guess there are three other types.

Compassionate empathy: Compassionate empathy includes having cognitive empathy—being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes—although it is a bit more detached than emotional empathy. It often contributes to prosocial behaviors, such as volunteering to help a charitable organization.

Affective empathy: This type of empathy involves having the ability to understand and share in another person's emotions without being emotionally stimulated yourself.

Somatic empathy: This type involves having a physical reaction in response to what someone else is experiencing.8 For example, if someone feels embarrassed, you may also blush or have an uneasy stomach.

I can't watch shows where something embarrassing happens (whether they are scripted shows or reality shows) because the secondhand embarrassment is just too much for me, but I don't think I've ever had a physical reaction in response to what someone else was feeling other than that.  I can't really picture what that would look like though.

I get it for embarrassment and anxiety.  Emotions I find difficult to control in myself.

[manol]

53 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

 Because God and Christ are omniscient, is there any reason to believe they are not both equally aware of who we are, what we have done, and the state of our heart?  Because they are one and both love us perfectly, is there any reason to believe that there is a difference of opinion about us, our potential, our judgment?

My belief is that Jesus will advocate for us before the Father not to change the Father’s mind about us, but to change our minds about ourselves.  (emphasis manol's)

Excellent insight, thanks!

Imo we have the calling and the privilege of forgiving everyone (D&C 64:10).  I don't think we can enter into a Celestial state while we are withholding forgiveness from anyone.  And I think that even includes ourselves.   

[telnetd]

On 10/17/2025 at 4:13 PM, The Nehor said:

That is a little off. They didn’t just refuse to take up arms in their nation’s defense. They took up arms in rebellion against their nation. After they were defeated they were given the choice to fight for their nation or be executed.

The kingmen were supported by those of high birth (51:8). They don't take up
arms in rebellion even as the Lamanites come to fight the Nephites.

"And it came to pass that when the men who were called king-men had heard that 
the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their 
hearts; and they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief 
judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to 
defend their country".

Moroni then sends his army to fight the kingmen.

"And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those 
king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the 
earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty".

Only then do the kingmen fight Moroni's army, but in self-defense.

"And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did 
pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their 
weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled 
to the earth".

4000 kingmen were killed and the others yielded to Moroni to preserve their lives.

The kingmen and their supporters who were not killed became prisoners and were
then forced to fight for their freedom (51:21).
 

[JVW]

On 10/17/2025 at 12:56 PM, bluebell said:

First, it's interesting to me that you equated empathy with emotion.  Not that it's wrong, but interesting because it's not where my mind goes when it thinks of empathy.  I think of it as the ability to understand another person, because of your own personal experiences in similar circumstances.  Emotion is there (because you can't have a human in the equation without emotions being involved), but not as the primary aspect.  Not sure how to describe it so now I'm going to go and google it to see if I can figure out where I'm coming from.

In general I've viewed sympathy as "feeling bad for someone" and empathy as "feeling bad with someone".

On 10/17/2025 at 12:56 PM, bluebell said:

There are primarily two different types of empathy.  Emotional empathy and cognitive empathy.

Anyway, I would imagine that Christ has both kinds of empathy...

I think both types of empathy have value. Knowing how someone is feeling can help a person know how best to respond to them. Like when I get in a debate with someone over a sensitive topic, understanding the point at which they are feeling angry will inform my response to deescalate the conversation. Understanding why someone believes the way they do and seeing it as valid I think is a kind of antidote to the poison of viewing another with any sort of negative feeling attached.

When thinking about how to obtain these kinds of empathy a few things are coming to mind:

- If I've been through what another has been through, then I'll understand them better. My best example of this from my life is that since I always felt like an outcast growing up I naturally am inclined to reach out to, and befriend, people who present themselves as outcasts, and I have a sort of 6th sense to that energy regardless of how one presents.

- Perhaps "steel man" an argument or "devil's advocate" are methods to help increase cognitive empathy? I'm not sure how to intentionally increase my ability to experience cognitive empathy, but I think that critical thinking may be a necessary element.

- Propaganda certainly has an effect of changing how empathetic people feel. Pardon the extreme example but it's the first one that comes to mind. Rebranding pedophiles not as evil, soulless people but instead helpless victims who can't help how they feel or act and rebranding them as Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) will have a subtle effect, over time, of leading people to be more empathetic to pedophiles and less condemning - for better or for worse.

On 10/17/2025 at 12:56 PM, bluebell said:

I'm really enjoying the discussion though!

Me too, thanks for participating.

On 10/17/2025 at 3:19 PM, CV75 said:

I think it is a synthesis of many attributes of Christ and one of the hallmarks of a disciple of Christ growing in grace. For example, can it be said that Christ "can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if He don't personally agree with all of his choices ..."? I think not.

There are so many factors at play in our lives that we have zero control over. You believe and act the way you do based in large part around where you were born, who your parents are, who your peers were, how you were treated by others growing up, etc. A very simple example of this is when and how a child gets exposed to pornography. Very few, if any, children actively seek out pornography, yet every child has seen it. It's not their fault, and for some kids it has little to no negative impact, and for others it ruins their life. More examples: A person born with parents who run a Communist state will be naturally predisposed to see the world differently than if that same person was born to a parent out in a rural Chilean community. That will fundamentally change the entire lens of existence for that person, and it's not their fault or their choice. If Fidel Castro, being raised in a wealthy family and influenced in certain ways, decides to start a revolution and takes power during it, there is a high chance that many of his choices are entirely valid due to the context of his life. I can't judge what a valid decision is based on my outside perspective, but I don't doubt that if Fidel was born into poverty he wouldn't have had the impact on world history that he did.

I would argue that the vast majority of context in a person's life is out of that person's control, and God is very deliberate about what weakness He gives His children. What families He places them into. What trials He allows them to experience. And, knowing all of this context, I think there are so many choices and decisions we make that are probably absolutely stupid and wrong, but because of who we are at the time that we make them they go in the "weakness" bucket (which is responded to with mercy) instead of in the "sin" bucket (which is responded to with justice).

On 10/17/2025 at 3:19 PM, CV75 said:

While an Advocate in our behalf by buying us time and opportunity to repent and access His grace by virtue of His atonement (mercy), Christ is also an Officer of His Father's court (justice). We are neither. We cannot atone for the sins of another like Christ did, so we cannot be advocates and officers as He is. But we can be meek and lowly in heart, which Christ certainly is, and which leads to innumerable other godly attributes or graces. This is what I would call the attribute enabling you to treat your cousin as you described.

I believe that all of life is designed to aid us in being ever more humble and that humility will ultimately lead one to Christ and His mercy. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly you are saying that humility is the name for the Christlike attribute I'm looking for? Are you also suggesting that Christ's advocacy is currently happening because we all deserve death immediately but we aren't dead because Christ is advocating so well for us and trying to help us return to Him?

On 10/17/2025 at 6:39 PM, The Nehor said:

Sounds accurate. When you put yourselves in someone else’s shoes and can only imagine nefarious motives for their decisions it is not likely to help with empathy. Putting yourself in another’s shoes is not as valuable as actually listening to what they have to say as to why they are doing what they are doing. If the reasons they give are trite or superficial or a fabrication then you can feel pity for them but it is unlikely to build any kind of respect. On the other hand if you learn about their experience and allow it to work with you a bit and maybe overwrite some preconceptions you might get somewhere.

I think this may be why I immediately associated empathy with feelings. Because, regardless of how I think, the way I communicate is colored by the way that I feel. I personally believe that the result of forgiving someone is a change in how I feel about that someone. I can be cautious, wary, and defensive of an abuser while simultaneously feeling about them the same way I feel when I think about a family member. At the same time I can be open and vulnerable with someone while feeling about them the same way I do when I think about the most harmful and abusive person in my life. But I don't think I can be empathetic towards someone I hate or assign "nefarious motives" to.

[JVW]

On 10/17/2025 at 8:04 PM, let’s roll said:

My belief is that Jesus will advocate for us before the Father not to change the Father’s mind about us, but to change our minds about ourselves.  We will see, hear and feel first-hand the depth of the Savior’s love for us, His confidence in us, and His desire to have us join Him in His work.  What could be more motivating and empowering than to witness such advocacy?  

I think you are presenting an interesting idea. I agree with the depth of Christ's love for us, but I don't necessarily view God as being confident in us and I don't believe His confidence in us is necessary. He can be confident in Christ and in Himself (as to me, God has done way more with way less, so why does He need to have confidence in me?), and we need to be as well, but even on my worst days I probably view myself as a better person that I actually am in God's eyes. Because I'm not good compared to God, nobody is (see Mark 10:18). I think His love in light of how awful and depraved I am compared to Him is what really works miracles. Because His love is completely unmerited, unjustified, and unwarranted.

On 10/17/2025 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

I get it for embarrassment and anxiety.  Emotions I find difficult to control in myself.

I get it for stress. I can't watch and enjoy a show like Downton Abbey because the tension and stress is so high and it just freaks me out I can't handle it.

On 10/17/2025 at 10:37 PM, manol said:

Excellent insight, thanks!

Imo we have the calling and the privilege of forgiving everyone (D&C 64:10).  I don't think we can enter into a Celestial state while we are withholding forgiveness from anyone.  And I think that even includes ourselves.   

I was really struck by these verses in Enos a couple of days ago and my mind has latched onto them as an irritant working on forming a pearl.

Quote

Enos 1:5 And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed.

Enos 1:6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away.

God forgave Enos, but Enos had to do something after receiving forgiveness. He had to believe God.

I have told people on many occasions that I've never felt healed, forgiven, redeemed, etc. Now I am wondering if I have experienced the miracles of Christ but I wasn't a person capable of receiving them at the time. If God clearly told me today, "JVW, your sins are forgiven." would I believe Him? Would I accept it? Do I actually believe that God will not lie? Do I actually have the faith in Jesus to be made whole? Because after Enos knew that God could not lie he then says:

Quote

Enos 1:7 And I said: Lord, how is it done?

Enos 1:8 And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, ... wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole.

I don't know that this has anything to do with the topic but it's been on my mind and you reminded me of it in your response so I'll just leave it here if only to get it "on paper".

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I believe that all of life is designed to aid us in being ever more humble and that humility will ultimately lead one to Christ and His mercy. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly you are saying that humility is the name for the Christlike attribute I'm looking for? Are you also suggesting that Christ's advocacy is currently happening because we all deserve death immediately but we aren't dead because Christ is advocating so well for us and trying to help us return to Him?

Now that it's been percolating for a couple of days, I would say "gentle" is the closest one-word description I can come up with for the Christlike attribute I offered in my first reply ("meek and lowly in heart"). Being gentle in a Christlike way toward those with sin, weakness and even mere differences entails intentional self-control and humility towards God, putting the needs of others and His timing and expectations first, while relying on His power to use whatever advantage we have to help them find a reason for faith and hope in something better for themselves and look to Christ. That said, I think charity is the fundamental attribute of all others, even an exalted body since He would not have that without charity first.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Rebranding pedophiles not as evil, soulless people but instead helpless victims who can't help how they feel or act and rebranding them as Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) will have a subtle effect, over time, of leading people to be more empathetic to pedophiles and less condemning - for better or for worse.

Depends on how it’s done.  Those who are attracted to minors but do not want to act on such attractions need to be less stressed to control their behaviour, to direct it into constructive avenues away from abuse.  Acceptance by others so they feel less isolated, less on their own can be very helpful.  Shaming for even thoughts that pop into their heads, but are controlled is also highly stressful and it would be better to limit the stigma to those who abuse minors….especially since iirc the majority of child molesters are opportunists, not pedophiles.  And that is where the focus should be imo (behaviour, don’t create the opportunities where possible, train people to recognize them and what making use of them looks like, etc).

In no way should there be acceptance of acting on such temptations imo.  I am no expert here, but assume even acting on those attractions in ‘safe’ ways (non minors who look or act like minors or AI generated) would tend to strengthen the attractions and in the end make them harder to control.

I just realized derail….sorry.  Will delete if you want.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

The word advocate is used five times in the New Testament. It is used both of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. From the contexts, it seems that Christ is described as the paraclete, or the called alongside someone in advocacy with the Father (as in the Final judgement - hence I believe in the wideness in God's mercy where Christ serves as advocate (perhaps judge is a poor appellation)). I have always been fascinated in that. 

The other contexts describe the Holy Spirit as our comforter. Called alongside us to comfort us when and as we need it - no eternal destiny involved. 

I am also interested (of course) in the OPs' statement -  "each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan." I am unaware of Evangelicals responding in judgment against the LDS in Michigan. I certainly don't know any who did. I am sure some Fundamentalists may have, but then they like to react with judgment against almost everyone who isn't them, including Evangelicals! You know Navidad is back when he starts getting back to his pet peeve - when folks, including my LDS friends, conflate Evangelicals and Fundamentalists! Ha! It is good to be back!

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Depends on how it’s done.  Those who are attracted to minors but do not want to act on such attractions need to be less stressed to control their behaviour, to direct it into constructive avenues away from abuse.  Acceptance by others so they feel less isolated, less on their own can be very helpful.  Shaming for even thoughts that pop into their heads, but are controlled is also highly stressful and it would be better to limit the stigma to those who abuse minors….especially since iirc the majority of child molesters are opportunists, not pedophiles.  And that is where the focus should be imo (behaviour, don’t create the opportunities where possible, train people to recognize them and what making use of them looks like, etc).

In no way should there be acceptance of acting on such temptations imo.  I am no expert here, but assume even acting on those attractions in ‘safe’ ways (non minors who look or act like minors or AI generated) would tend to strengthen the attractions and in the end make them harder to control.

I just realized derail….sorry.  Will delete if you want.

Lol. If people start focusing on child abuse for awhile then I'll take issue with this derail, but I enjoyed reading your post so don't worry about it for now.  

[JVW]

56 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The word advocate is used five times in the New Testament. It is used both of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. From the contexts, it seems that Christ is described as the paraclete, or the called alongside someone in advocacy with the Father (as in the Final judgement - hence I believe in the wideness in God's mercy where Christ serves as advocate (perhaps judge is a poor appellation)). I have always been fascinated in that. 

The other contexts describe the Holy Spirit as our comforter. Called alongside us to comfort us when and as we need it - no eternal destiny involved. 

I am also interested (of course) in the OPs' statement -  "each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan." I am unaware of Evangelicals responding in judgment against the LDS in Michigan. I certainly don't know any who did. I am sure some Fundamentalists may have, but then they like to react with judgment against almost everyone who isn't them, including Evangelicals! You know Navidad is back when he starts getting back to his pet peeve - when folks, including my LDS friends, conflate Evangelicals and Fundamentalists! Ha! It is good to be back!

Crap, I'm the wrong guy to CFR about this. I don't have an X account and I blocked access via 3 internet filters on my home network. I did see a meme in a Ward Radio stream that basically said that a Christian nation cannot include Mormons. And I've heard a lot of chatter through the grapevine about Marc(k?) Driscoll.

In my personal experience I served in the DFW area in Texas and chatted with a lot of non-denominational, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. and everyone who didn't take personal time to read the Bible every day hated the missionaries. They were otherwise lovely people who, in many cases, had a much stronger sense of community than my church does. I currently have two close friends: one is a Pentecostal and the other is a non-denominational. They both think my church is a demonic cult and that I'm going to hell when I die for worshipping another Jesus, we have very candid conversations. 

All that being said, in my experience the Evangelical community absolutely does not like the "Mormon" community. I believe there is a Pew research study that backs this up too. Pastor Jeff of Hello Saints has even acknowledged as much while he actively tries to build bridges of tolerance and understanding between the two communities.

I thought Fundamentalists were like Amish and stuff, I'm pretty sure Fundamentalist groups don't have any issues with "Mormons". We may be getting our wires crossed here if you have different definitions of these two groups.

Edited October 20, 2025 by JVW

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, JVW said:

Crap, I'm the wrong guy to CFR about this. I don't have an X account and I blocked access via 3 internet filters on my home network. I did see a meme in a Ward Radio stream that basically said that a Christian nation cannot include Mormons. And I've heard a lot of chatter through the grapevine about Marc(k?) Driscoll.

In my personal experience I served in the DFW area in Texas and chatted with a lot of non-denominational, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. and everyone who didn't take personal time to read the Bible every day hated the missionaries. They were otherwise lovely people who, in many cases, had a much stronger sense of community than my church does. I currently have two close friends: one is a Pentecostal and the other is a non-denominational. They both think my church is a demonic cult and that I'm going to hell when I die for worshipping another Jesus, we have very candid conversations. 

All that being said, in my experience the Evangelical community absolutely does not like the "Mormon" community. I believe there is a Pew research study that backs this up too. Pastor Jeff of Hello Saints has even acknowledged as much while he actively tries to build bridges of tolerance and understanding between the two communities.

I thought Fundamentalists were like Amish and stuff, I'm pretty sure Fundamentalist groups don't have any issues with "Mormons". We may be getting our wires crossed here if you have different definitions of these two groups.

We have very different definitions of these two groups. Being Fundamentalist or Evangelical has nothing to do with church or denominational affiliation. Coming from a Mennonite background, I would suggest that Amish and Stuff (not sure about who Stuff is) are neither fundamentalist nor evangelical, the same way that Mormons and Mennonites and many Pentecostals are neither Catholic nor Protestant. By the way, I didn't CFR you. I don't like it when people do that on a discussion and dialogue forum. 

Fundamentalists were identified as such when groups of conservatives identified themselves as such because of their opposition to the social gospel movement of the turn of the twentieth century. Fundamentalism became codified as an identity in the early twentieth century. Perhaps Evangelist Dwight L. Moody was an example, except that he preached in the Mormon Tabernacle at least twice. Fundamentalists took a strong stand against "modernism" and aligning with "the world". Gradually as a movement (not a denomination), they became known for what they were against, not what they were for. They became isolationists and, to some degree, "onlyists." Their gospel was the only gospel and was codified, not in a creed but in five key beliefs. There are still many fundamentalists in the Christian community. My father was initially, in his ministry, a Fundamentalist pastor (he was Baptist and then Plymouth Brethren). 

Around the early 1940s, many Christians became discontented with the negativity of the Fundamentalist movement, and Christians like Billy Graham and others began to adopt the "Evangelical" name for a new movement. It sought to be more inclusive and to bring a positive focus on the gospel without "onlying" those who did not believe exactly like them. The Evangelical movement was codified in the very early fifties and attracted folks from many Christian communities. Billy Graham became the voice of the Evangelical movement, which grew rapidly as a movement, not a denomination or specific church. Many folks migrated from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism, as did my father. You will find both groups within most Christian denominations, so it does not help to try and align the two movements with denominations. There are Evangelical individuals, groups, colleges, mission movements, and churches that have adopted a more inclusive attitude. I am one of them. I was ordained Baptist and licensed Mennonite. That has nothing to do with my Evangelical alignment. In my Christian commitment I am first a Christian, second an Evangelical, and third, a Mennonite. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy and that LDS Christians are just that, the same as non-LDS Christians are Christians. That's enough for now. I don't want to derail the thread. If there were negative people about the Michigan situation, I would suggest they were those in the Fundamentalist Movement, like are most of those with signs around Temple Square. They are not Evangelicals. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are not two points on the same continuum. Thanks, Navidad.

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 10/16/2025 at 3:16 PM, JVW said:

Is what I'm talking about a Christlike attribute? What would you call it? How would you more succinctly define it? Is there any scriptural backing for this idea? Is it a bad thing? These are fresh thoughts so sorry for the text wall. Also, if I'm not really conveying my idea properly please let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase my thoughts better. I'm hoping that the discussion here will help me learn more about these ideas I've been having.

I've been thinking about your post for a few days.

Recently I have come upon what I think is a Christlike attribute of Consecrator For Gain.

It comes from 2 Ne 2:

Quote

 

1 And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my firstborn in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.

2 Nevertheless, Jacob, my firstborn in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.

 

Christ takes us from where we are and what we have experienced and consecrates it for our gain. So our afflictions, hardships, and pains he can turn into goodness in us, even when others caused them out of their sins.

And more importantly in my life, he can consecrate my self-afflictions (sins, mistakes, missed-opportunities, etc.) to my gain as well.

I think the way we manifest this attribute of Consecrator for Gain in our lives is we accept people where they are and try to help them come closer to God, regardless or through their life experiences.

Not sure if this is kind of what you are getting at or if it's even a Christlike attribute, but it's been impactful for me in my life to try to treat it as one.

[JVW]

On 10/26/2025 at 2:53 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

I've been thinking about your post for a few days.

Recently I have come upon what I think is a Christlike attribute of Consecrator For Gain.

It comes from 2 Ne 2:

Christ takes us from where we are and what we have experienced and consecrates it for our gain. So our afflictions, hardships, and pains he can turn into goodness in us, even when others caused them out of their sins.

And more importantly in my life, he can consecrate my self-afflictions (sins, mistakes, missed-opportunities, etc.) to my gain as well.

I think the way we manifest this attribute of Consecrator for Gain in our lives is we accept people where they are and try to help them come closer to God, regardless or through their life experiences.

Not sure if this is kind of what you are getting at or if it's even a Christlike attribute, but it's been impactful for me in my life to try to treat it as one.

I think this is a really beautiful thought, thanks for sharing. It'll definitely be something that I mentally "chew" on for the foreseeable future as I continue to try to understand who Jesus is and how I can be more like Him.

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 10/28/2025 at 9:08 AM, JVW said:

I think this is a really beautiful thought, thanks for sharing. It'll definitely be something that I mentally "chew" on for the foreseeable future as I continue to try to understand who Jesus is and how I can be more like Him.

It x-references nicely with 2 Ne 32:9 

Quote

But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.

 

This is the other most explicit reference to Christ's attribute of Consecrator For Gain.