Was the Lord Fertile?

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Could he have been injured and then healed according to your doctrine?  (Curiosity, not criticism)

Hey cal, He could have been injured and not healed. If he lost a finger in an accident, like all humans, it would not naturally grow back. Like all humans, God could perform a miracle of healing on Him. But His being like us would ordinarily exclude that kind of healing. If Jesus was physically incapable of losing a finger permanently, He would not have been "perfectly human".

[manol]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

While a good point, I see the same thing as applying to his experience being able to relate to women. If he wasn’t experiencing hormonal changes, etc, physical weakness in strength to relation to men (knowledge of being able to be physically dominated by the majority of half of the human species), being physically vulnerable during pregnancy, etc…all those things unique to females even if not experienced by all females, does this mean he didn’t suffer in a meaningful way for half of the human species? 

Since the inability to be a male and experience many things that a female experiences in such a intrusive way that it affects general social roles is a fact, then he didn’t suffer ‘femaleness’ in the way females do…but since we (speaking for those who do) believe he did in some relevant and significant fashion, we assume that it was managed somehow.

As I'm sure you're aware, the Book of Mormon apparently agrees with you that "it was managed somehow":

"And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

"And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities." (Alma 7:11-12, emphasis manol's)

Ime Mormonism isn't as comfortable conceding that something is a "mystery" as Catholicism is, but imo exactly how this was (is?) managed just might qualify. 

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Could he have been injured and then healed according to your doctrine?  (Curiosity, not criticism)

I think there is Catholic lore to the 5 larger beads of the Rosary or the points on the Endless Knot are for the 5 wounds of Christ, one version; the scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails, the spear, and the secret wound which some say is his circumcision. An injury not made whole. Hence it puts a hole in the Bloodless Theory thread that claimed Jesus was invulnerable until after Gethsemane.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, manol said:

As I'm sure you're aware, the Book of Mormon apparently agrees with you that "it was managed somehow":

"And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

"And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities." (Alma 7:11-12, emphasis manol's)

Ime Mormonism isn't as comfortable conceding that something is a "mystery" as Catholicism is, but imo exactly how this was (is?) managed just might qualify. 

But manol...in this case, no one, including Jesus, has suffered every single way of affliction that anyone has ever suffered. Surely, the intention of that Scripture is to say that Jesus was subject to potentially experience every kind of affliction that is common to both sexes?

In Genesis, it is revealed that pain child bearing is unique to mothers. If a man suffered all the pains of child birth or even some of the discomforts mothers experience in nursing. It would be most unnatural. 

There are many ways to die. But Jesus didn't experience all of them. It seems more reasonable to hold that the Scripture you cite was saying that greatest and most universal of human afflictions, death, was certainly shared by our Lord.

He surely experienced lesser afflictions of the body. Was the author of the passage you cited saying that Jesus necessarily had the mumps, a kidney stone, and multiple sclerosis? No way. Had he lived longer He would have experienced some, not all, of the ordinary age related health problems associated with our advancing date with mortality. 

Being non LDS, I would never suggest that the passage you cited was false because there was one or more kinds of suffering that the Lord Jesus didn't experience. He had suffering in his mind, body, and spirit. If I were LDS I would understand that those are some of the "kinds" of affliction that Christ endured as one who was fully human. There are a few kinds of affliction, and many specific ways of suffering that fall into different kinds, or categories if you will. I would suggest that is a more fit interpretation of "all kinds of affliction". He suffered all the kinds, but not all the ways of suffering.

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2025 by 3DOP

[longview]

22 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I would suggest that is a more fit interpretation of "all kinds of affliction". He suffered all the kinds, but not all the ways of suffering.

Jesus was put through terrible humiliation and agony and torture in the courts of the Sanhedrin and Herod's and Pilate's. He had to carry His cross which eventually dislocated His shoulders. His sufferings on the cross was extreme and prolonged.

BUT His greatest agonies was BEFORE all that. In a garden called Gethsemane (interpreted the Olive Press). Matt. 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. 3Nephi 11:11. And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. Doctrine&Covenants 19:18. 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—

Jesus not only carried the weight of all sins committed throughout all of human history but he took on Himself all the afflictions, sickness, ignorance, debilitation, sufferings of ALL mankind. This was a horribly crushing weight which NO ordinary human can endure. Only a GOD could make this kind of sacrifice. It was all encompassing from top to bottom and side to side. All that happened in the garden of Gethsemane. Alma 34:10. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Jesus was put through terrible humiliation and agony and torture in the courts of the Sanhedrin and Herod's and Pilate's. He had to carry His cross which eventually dislocated His shoulders. His sufferings on the cross was extreme and prolonged.

BUT His greatest agonies was BEFORE all that. In a garden called Gethsemane (interpreted the Olive Press). Matt. 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. 3Nephi 11:11. And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. Doctrine&Covenants 19:18. 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—

Jesus not only carried the weight of all sins committed throughout all of human history but he took on Himself all the afflictions, sickness, ignorance, debilitation, sufferings of ALL mankind. This was a horribly crushing weight which NO ordinary human can endure. Only a GOD could make this kind of sacrifice. It was all encompassing from top to bottom and side to side. All that happened in the garden of Gethsemane. Alma 34:10. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

 

The two great Latter-Day Saint biographers of the life of Christ, ApostlenJames E Talmage and Apostle Bruce R McConkie, both testify that when Christ was suffering for the sins of the world on the cross that his sufferings in Gethsemane recurred and were intensified, during the three hours of darkness, to the point that Jesus the Christ, the immortal Father of Heaven and Earth, was weakened physically and spiritually sufficiently to the point that was able to yield up the ghost and die. This means that while on the cross Christ not only suffered the horrific physical agonies attendant to crucifixion, and the terrible emotional agonies that were heaped on him by his tormenting enemies, but he simultaneously also suffered the unfathomable spiritual agonies of Gethsemane a second time! 

I believe one day it will be understood by all Latter-Day Saints that one of the greatest incorrect doctrines ever propagated by the restored church is that Christ’s sufferings in Gethsemane were far worse than the agonies he was called upon to endure while on the cross. It’s a shame because this well meant but erroneous teaching has caused an unnecessary doctrinal rift to exist between the Latter-Day Saints and their traditional Christian neighbors; an uncalled for doctrinal point of contention that’s embarrassing because non-LDS Christians can point to the many verses in the New Testament that make it quite clear that Christ’s atoning sacrifice took place primarily while he suffered on Calvary’s cross. I find it deeply frustrating because this overemphasis on Gethsemane enables our critics to be somewhat justified when they assert that the Latter-Day Saints are heretics who contradict the plain testimony of the Bible with regard to Christ’s atonement. I inwardly cringe each time I hear it. It would be much better if we could call the suffering of infinite and eternal spiritual alienation from God that Christ experienced in both Gethsemane and on Golgotha as “Gethsemanic” suffering,  

“Then the cross was raised that all might see and gape and curse and deride. This they did, with evil venom, for three hours from 9:00 a.m. to noon.

Then the heavens grew black. Darkness covered the land for the space of three hours, as it did among the Nephites. There was a mighty storm, as though the very God of Nature was in agony.

And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 p.m., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred.” (Bruce R McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith)

and…

“… in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death. (James E Talmage, Jesus the Christ)

Edited November 3, 2025 by teddyaware

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Could he have been injured and then healed according to your doctrine?  (Curiosity, not criticism)

 

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Yes. Perfectly human. With all the infirmities that afflict all humans.

I think that what the LDS view misses here is that we have given God an entire set of attributes involving his own physical body and so on - and when we think of Jesus as both God and man, we tend to extend those physical attributes on to Jesus. This creates confusion. For 3DOP, this confusion doesn't exist because they don't have to complicate the question. Jesus's physical existence is purely human (and this is a necessary condition of the atonement).

For LDS theology, the better approach (which is largely being missed in this thread) is to understand that what Jesus brings with Him is potentially only that which He had in the pre-existence (which has nothing to do with his physical nature - His human nature). And while we sometimes (and I think at least one poster here has gone down this road) suggested that the Jesus must have been divine in His physical nature to suffer as He did, we also have to remember what Luke 22:43 tells us: "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." In that window of time when we were actively trying to create our own uniquely LDS systematic theology, we end up creating problems. To suggest that Jesus was able to undergo this suffering because He was uniquely God is in fact to undermine the nature of suffering in itself. It isn't because Jesus was God that the suffering matters, it is that Jesus was man.

Mosiah 15 does it's best to differentiate between the two natures of Jesus and to point to the fact that it is the fully human nature of Jesus that allows for intercession to be made. To a God, there is no real suffering, there is no real temptation. To say that Jesus suffers in the capacity of His divine nature is to say that he suffered a trivial thing. And Mosiah 15 presents a view of atonement which I suspect is not all that different from @3DOP's, as well as a view of the nature of Jesus that isn't too far off (Mosiah 15 is quite similar in a way to Chalcedon's Statement of Faith).

A final thought on the subject of this thread. There has always been (at least since the discovery of DNA) the idea that for Jesus to be God, to be the literal Son of God, that He must somehow be genetically half-divine - that His DNA was half-human, half-God (like perhaps the Greek demi-gods of myth). DNA is a mechanism of mortality. It causes aging and death. I don't see a reason to believe that God either has DNA or has a need for DNA - and that our DNA is somehow a flawed map of that DNA of God's. And yet there are those here who are so invested in this idea that they have argued that perhaps even ethnicity (identified as a collection of inherited genetic traits) was a characteristic of the pre-existence and that genetic variation in humanity was caused by God the Father having multiple celestial wives who had a range of genetic traits which caused such ethnic diversity. This is all nonsense in my opinion. But I think it helps point to the speculations that leads to these kinds of questions.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

But manol...in this case, no one, including Jesus, has suffered every single way of affliction that anyone has ever suffered. Surely, the intention of that Scripture is to say that Jesus was subject to potentially experience every kind of affliction that is common to both sexes?

In Genesis, it is revealed that pain child bearing is unique to mothers. If a man suffered all the pains of child birth or even some of the discomforts mothers experience in nursing. It would be most unnatural. 

There are many ways to die. But Jesus didn't experience all of them. It seems more reasonable to hold that the Scripture you cite was saying that greatest and most universal of human afflictions, death, was certainly shared by our Lord.

He surely experienced lesser afflictions of the body. Was the author of the passage you cited saying that Jesus necessarily had the mumps, a kidney stone, and multiple sclerosis? No way. Had he lived longer He would have experienced some, not all, of the ordinary age related health problems associated with our advancing date with mortality. 

Being non LDS, I would never suggest that the passage you cited was false because there was one or more kinds of suffering that the Lord Jesus didn't experience. He had suffering in his mind, body, and spirit. If I were LDS I would understand that those are some of the "kinds" of affliction that Christ endured as one who was fully human. There are a few kinds of affliction, and many specific ways of suffering that fall into different kinds, or categories if you will. I would suggest that is a more fit interpretation of "all kinds of affliction". He suffered all the kinds, but not all the ways of suffering.

 

 

 

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. 

[MustardSeed]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

So interesting.  I have always been aware that we focus on the garden as being the place of true suffering and atonementwhile everyone else focuses on cross, and I had always believed that this is why we don’t typically wear the cross or have the cross up in our church as others do.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

So interesting.  I have always been aware that we focus on the garden as being the place of true suffering and atonement while everyone else focuses on cross, and I had always believed that this is why we don’t typically wear the cross or have the cross up in our church as others do.

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”

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

So interesting.  I have always been aware that we focus on the garden as being the place of true suffering and atonementwhile everyone else focuses on cross, and I had always believed that this is why we don’t typically wear the cross or have the cross up in our church as others do.

For many years, I’ve been utterly bewildered and perplexed by the fact that the vast majority of temple going members of the church will confidently make the claim that the church doesn’t place any emphasis on the symbolism of crucification of Christ because the most important phase of the atonement of Christ took place in Gethsemane. Meanwhile these same members appear to be inexplicably unaware of the undeniable fact that there’s no Christian religion on the face of the earth that places more symbolic importance and salvative efficacy on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than do the Latter-Saints!

How is it humanly possible that any temple going member of the church can miss the fact that there’s no reaching out to God in the true order of prayer, no passing through the veil into the glory of the celestial kingdom, no eternal sealings of husbands and wives and no children being born under the covenant without the graphically applied symbolism of the Savior’s crucifixion employed in the higher ordinances of the gospel?

How in the world can anyone be so blind? I comprehended all of this on the day I received my own personal endowment back in 1975! This phenomenon is a perfect example of the Lord’s warning when he testified there are many who see but do not see, and many who hear but don’t hear. I wonder if there’s anyone beside Yours Truly who’s come to the realization that the reason why the church doesn’t openly display crosses on the outside of our buildings because the symbolism of the Lord’s crucifixion is too sacred?

[Rain]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

So interesting.  I have always been aware that we focus on the garden as being the place of true suffering and atonementwhile everyone else focuses on cross, and I had always believed that this is why we don’t typically wear the cross or have the cross up in our church as others do.

Someone once asked me what the church thinks of "with his stripes we are healed" and that really got my mind going.  There is so much with it all to unpack with the things the church teaches and how.

Edited November 3, 2025 by Rain

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

For many years, I’ve been utterly bewildered and perplexed by the fact that the vast majority of temple going members of the church will confidently make the claim that the church doesn’t place any emphasis on the symbolism of crucification of Christ because the most important phase of the atonement of Christ took place in Gethsemane. Meanwhile these same members appear to be inexplicably unaware of the undeniable fact that there’s no Christian religion on the face of the earth that places more symbolic importance and salvative efficacy on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than do the Latter-Saints!

How is it humanly possible that any temple going member of the church can miss the fact that there’s no reaching out to God in the true order of prayer, no passing through the veil into the glory of the celestial kingdom, no eternal sealings of husbands and wives and no children being born under the covenant without the graphically applied symbolism of the Savior’s crucifixion employed in the higher ordinances of the gospel?

How in the world can anyone be so blind? I comprehended all of this on the day I received my own personal endowment back in 1975! This phenomenon is a perfect example of the Lord’s warning when he testified there are many who see but do not see, and many who hear but don’t hear. I wonder if there’s anyone beside Yours Truly who’s come to the realization that the reason why the church doesn’t openly display crosses on the outside of our buildings because the symbolism of the Lord’s crucifixion is too sacred?

I've been wondering if I have been reading you wrong. Real question: are you trying to make others feel stupid? The words you use sometimes feel like a bat over my head and I don't understand why you would say things this way if you knew how they were perceived.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

The reason why Mormonism dumps the cross (which comes to the forefront in 1915) is because of strong anti-Catholic sentiment in the leadership of the LDS Church. And while the idea of no celebrating the death of Jesus through the use of the cross is among the arguments that was fronted in 1915, it was only one of these arguments. Anti-catholic sentiment drove the continued taboo on crosses in LDS worship at least through the Presidency of David O. McKay. In the 1970s, much of the animosity towards Catholicism has disappeared. And with it, most of the arguments against the use of the cross. But because this one issue wasn't directly related to Catholicism, and since the LDS Church wasn't interested in lifting the taboo against crosses that had existed for a half-century, this idea became the central talking point for continuing the taboo. The resistance to the cross was not original to Mormonism - it comes through European Protestantism. In early America (as in parts of Europe) there was a distinct resistance to using the cross in religious settings. Mormonism drew from those traditions. And when many of the religious organizations relaxed their approach to the cross and started to incorporate them (and other elements formerly associated with Roman Catholicism), Mormonism did not.

For those interested in the history of the issue, I would recommend two books (and a third which only has a relatively small section on it).

First, Mike Reed's Banishing the Cross. This is a purely LDS take on the subject of the Mormon relationship with the cross as a symbol and its use.

Second, Ryan Smith's Gothic Arches, Latin Crosses: Anti-Catholicism and American Church Designs in the Nineteenth Century. This is useful because it deals specifically with the issue of architectural design and symbolism. It uses (and references) a number of sources which go into much greater detail over the clashes between Protestantism and Catholicism - which mirror some of the Mormon-Catholic experience.

Third, there is a chapter that deals with this subject in Gregory Prince's David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.

There is a lot of additional good material on this issue - but these three make a good starting point for the LDS perspective. To quote from Smith (p. 6):

Quote

In contrast, other European countries became much less hospitable to the older designs. Protestants in Scotland, the Netherlands, and areas of England looked to Switzerland, where influential theologians like John Calvin denied the propriety of Catholic symbolism in worship altogether. These reformers argued that erecting crosses, statues, and the like violated the second commandment prohibiting false idols.

Our discussions of the issue of the cross have lost most of their original context, but it is the historical context which explains why the view became so prevalent, why it has persisted, and also why the remnant of the explanation that we have seems to really miss the point.

Edited November 3, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I wonder if there’s anyone beside Yours Truly who’s come to the realization that the reason why the church doesn’t openly display crosses on the outside of our buildings because the symbolism of the Lord’s crucifixion is too sacred?

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.

[3DOP]

14 hours ago, longview said:

Jesus was put through terrible humiliation and agony and torture in the courts of the Sanhedrin and Herod's and Pilate's. He had to carry His cross which eventually dislocated His shoulders. His sufferings on the cross was extreme and prolonged.

BUT His greatest agonies was BEFORE all that. In a garden called Gethsemane (interpreted the Olive Press). Matt. 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. 3Nephi 11:11. And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. Doctrine&Covenants 19:18. 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—

Jesus not only carried the weight of all sins committed throughout all of human history but he took on Himself all the afflictions, sickness, ignorance, debilitation, sufferings of ALL mankind. This was a horribly crushing weight which NO ordinary human can endure. Only a GOD could make this kind of sacrifice. It was all encompassing from top to bottom and side to side. All that happened in the garden of Gethsemane. Alma 34:10. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

 

Hi longview.

We are getting a little bit away from the thread topic. But only a little. I am not trying to diminish the suffering Jesus endured on our behalf during His passion. Am I doing that when I say that Christ  might not have had a kidney stone, and certainly didn't experience childbirth as some of us have had to do? But we who identify with Jesus on the Cross, are invited to "take up our crosses, and follow Him." Our "crosses" may involve being ignored or mocked. It might be having kidney stones. It might be childbirth, or being cut off in traffic and missing our exit because of no fault of our own. None of us will be given a Cross we are unable to bear just as Jesus bore His. Will we yield to anger, pity, or hatred when our crosses appear? When we obediently accept with patience the sufferings that God allows us to experience, we are taking up our crosses and following our good Lord.  

Jesus exercised all of the virtue without any of the vices that can be prompted by human suffering. Jesus was committed as man to be humbly obedient to God. Jesus was committed as Son to be humbly obedient to His Father. As men and women having the same humanity as Jesus Christ we carry our Crosses in the same fashion, for the same reasons. Jesus is trying to make us have courage to perform heroic acts of self-sacrifice for the sake of the love of the Father, who gave us His only Son, and who accepts us as His children. It seems important that Jesus suffered for us not only to pay a debt, but to give us an example to follow, every day. No day is without such an opportunity to deny ourselves as He denied Himself supremely, in our own often small ways.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteousness." (Romans 5:19, my emphasis)  

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

Fair enough. In a mystical sense I would agree that Christ identified with all human suffering. But he did not experience all human suffering. I would draw that distinction. He never had to wait for hours trying to get through customs before missing a connecting flight at the airport. I rejoice that He is one of us. It makes me happy when I ponder it. (I regularly forget to ponder it.) I don't need for Him to have experienced sufferings that were not possible during the age in which He lived as a man. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I comprehended all of this on the day I received my own personal endowment back in 1975!

Have you ever questioned or modified your insight since then?  Curious about your thought process here.

There are things I sense strongly as accurate so I don’t feel a need to explore or question them (until I run into new info which sometimes happens but not always), though these are personal things rather than global concepts.  

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

For many years, I’ve been utterly bewildered and perplexed by the fact that the vast majority of temple going members of the church will confidently make the claim that the church doesn’t place any emphasis on the symbolism of crucification of Christ because the most important phase of the atonement of Christ took place in Gethsemane. Meanwhile these same members appear to be inexplicably unaware of the undeniable fact that there’s no Christian religion on the face of the earth that places more symbolic importance and salvative efficacy on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than do the Latter-Saints!

How is it humanly possible that any temple going member of the church can miss the fact that there’s no reaching out to God in the true order of prayer, no passing through the veil into the glory of the celestial kingdom, no eternal sealings of husbands and wives and no children being born under the covenant without the graphically applied symbolism of the Savior’s crucifixion employed in the higher ordinances of the gospel?

How in the world can anyone be so blind? I comprehended all of this on the day I received my own personal endowment back in 1975! This phenomenon is a perfect example of the Lord’s warning when he testified there are many who see but do not see, and many who hear but don’t hear. I wonder if there’s anyone beside Yours Truly who’s come to the realization that the reason why the church doesn’t openly display crosses on the outside of our buildings because the symbolism of the Lord’s crucifixion is too sacred?

Do you mean to come off as hurtful? 

Edited November 3, 2025 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

  

Edited November 3, 2025 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

For many years, I’ve been utterly bewildered and perplexed by the fact that the vast majority of temple going members of the church will confidently make the claim that the church doesn’t place any emphasis on the symbolism of crucification of Christ because the most important phase of the atonement of Christ took place in Gethsemane. Meanwhile these same members appear to be inexplicably unaware of the undeniable fact that there’s no Christian religion on the face of the earth that places more symbolic importance and salvative efficacy on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than do the Latter-Saints!

It is because the apostles and prophets actively discouraged the use of the cross as a symbol. Hope this helps alleviate your bewilderment and perplexion.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

How in the world can anyone be so blind? I comprehended all of this on the day I received my own personal endowment back in 1975! This phenomenon is a perfect example of the Lord’s warning when he testified there are many who see but do not see, and many who hear but don’t hear. I wonder if there’s anyone beside Yours Truly who’s come to the realization that the reason why the church doesn’t openly display crosses on the outside of our buildings because the symbolism of the Lord’s crucifixion is too sacred?

On behalf of all the fools that don’t measure up to your supreme level of divine wisdom we apologize for burdening you with our existence. Please forgive us all-knowing senpai!

Also we used the cross until the 1910s and stopped because of plain old iconoclasm and anti-Catholic prejudice in which the Church just aped Protestant denominations.

So this plainly obvious truth that only the divine quasi-messiah (you) figured out in 1975 was something the leaders of the Church took over a century to figure out. So either you are wrong or the church has gone into apostasy and only you, the divine messenger, can fix this. How can you waste your time on a small message board when you have this kind of a divine calling. GO FORTH!

GO FORTH FOR THE GOOD OF THE WORLD!!!!!!

Edited November 3, 2025 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Fair enough. In a mystical sense I would agree that Christ identified with all human suffering. But he did not experience all human suffering. I would draw that distinction. He never had to wait for hours trying to get through customs before missing a connecting flight at the airport. I rejoice that He is one of us. It makes me happy when I ponder it. (I regularly forget to ponder it.) I don't need for Him to have experienced sufferings that were not possible during the age in which He lived as a man. 

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.  

[longview]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

“… in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death. (James E Talmage, Jesus the Christ)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. However I was unable to find the words infinite and recurred in the online copy of Jesus the Christ (which is provided by Oak Norton's ScriptureNotes web app). Could you please supply the chapter and page for the above statement? Thanks (I also have the hardcopy of the book).

It may be the case that Elder McKonkie was simply relying on Talmage's conjecture without having obtained his own revelation from God. I believe the scriptures do NOT support another "infinite" application of the bitter cup at the cross. This would most likely be based on Talmage's opinion. Many years ago, Mark E Petersen came to Denver (either 1981 or 1982) to preside over a stake conference. The stake president's wife picked him up at Stapleton airport and plied him with many questions about general authorities' statements. Elder Petersen would frequently reply: that is just their opinion.

The "infinity" in the Garden of Gethsemane implies a complete application of the bitter cup. I believe this ruptured or traumatized all the organs in Jesus' body. Blood bled copiously thru His pores. An angel did come and minister to Him to some extent so that He could be able to get up, walk with His disciples, and be confronted by the soldiers of the Sanhedrin. I believe Jesus did carry the weight of the aftereffects of the bitter cup throughout the severe trials.

Thus the greatest sufferings occurred in the garden.

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. However I was unable to find the words infinite and recurred in the online copy of Jesus the Christ (which is provided by Oak Norton's ScriptureNotes web app). Could you please supply the chapter and page for the above statement? Thanks (I also have the hardcopy of the book).

It may be the case that Elder McKonkie was simply relying on Talmage's conjecture without having obtained his own revelation from God. I believe the scriptures do NOT support another "infinite" application of the bitter cup at the cross. This would most likely be based on Talmage's opinion. Many years ago, Mark E Petersen came to Denver (either 1981 or 1982) to preside over a stake conference. The stake president's wife picked him up at Stapleton airport and plied him with many questions about general authorities' statements. Elder Petersen would frequently reply: that is just their opinion.

The "infinity" in the Garden of Gethsemane implies a complete application of the bitter cup. I believe this ruptured or traumatized all the organs in Jesus' body. Blood bled copiously thru His pores. An angel did come and minister to Him to some extent so that He could be able to get up, walk with His disciples, and be confronted by the soldiers of the Sanhedrin. I believe Jesus did carry the weight of the aftereffects of the bitter cup throughout the severe trials.

Thus the greatest sufferings occurred in the garden.

"Recurred" was one of the words from it that really had me with questions for decades.  Here is a link to the church quoting it along with the page number: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/04/from-the-garden-to-the-empty-tomb?lang=eng

I haven't tried looking anything up about "infinite".

Quote

“It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death. …

“The period of faintness, the conception of utter forsakenness soon passed, and the natural cravings of the body reasserted themselves. The maddening thirst, which constituted one of the worst of the crucifixion agonies, wrung from the Savior’s lips His one recorded utterance expressive of physical suffering. ‘I thirst’ [John 19:28], He said. One of those who stood by, whether Roman or Jew, disciple or skeptic, we are not told, hastily saturated a sponge with vinegar, a vessel of which was at hand, and having fastened the sponge to the end of a reed, or stalk of hyssop, pressed it to the Lord’s fevered lips. …

“Fully realizing that He was no longer forsaken, but that His atoning sacrifice had been accepted by the Father, and that His mission in the flesh had been carried to glorious consummation, He exclaimed in a loud voice of holy triumph: ‘It is finished’ [John 19:30]. In reverence, resignation, and relief, He addressed the Father saying: ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit’ [Luke 23:46]. He bowed His head, and voluntarily gave up His life.

“Jesus the Christ was dead. His life had not been taken from Him except as He had willed to permit. Sweet and welcome as would have been the relief of death in any of the earlier stages of His suffering from Gethsemane to the cross, He lived until all things were accomplished as had been appointed” (Jesus the Christ, 661–62).

 

[longview]

45 minutes ago, Rain said:

"Recurred" was one of the words from it that really had me with questions for decades.  Here is a link to the church quoting it along with the page number: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/04/from-the-garden-to-the-empty-tomb?lang=eng

I haven't tried looking anything up about "infinite".

This really helps! Thank you so much. @teddyaware used ellipses to hide this qualifier: "It seems, that" in front of the quoted paragraph. Thus Elder Talmage plainly indicated this was his OWN opinion!