Jesus Christ was "crushed" for our sins in Gethsemane.

[telnetd]

On 3/14/2026 at 12:22 PM, Pyreaux said:

Mark 14:36–38. The JST adds specific verbs and internal motivations that aren't in the Greek manuscripts we have. "And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping...", becomes "And he cometh and findeth them asleep, and they said unto him..." they aren't just caught sleeping, they have an excuse. Jesus says, "the spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak" becomes the Disciples say, "The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak." "...and they began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain in their hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah."

Complaining in one's heart against a leader is called disloyalty.

What if the JST account is wrong?

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

What if the JST account is wrong?

In what way? Historical or linguistic or theological? There would be a difference. If it was never in the Greek manuscripts, does this fit the nature of revelation? A Midrash isn't meant to replace history, it’s meant to reveal a truth hidden in the text. What if the JST's account of the disciples "complaining" helps a modern reader understand the dangers of apostasy or the loneliness of Christ's sacrifice? Then a proponent would argue it is "true" in its mission, even if it isn't in any ancient manuscript.

The "Correctness" of the JST, or apocalyptic or Wisdom literature or Parables is judged by the doctrines it produces not the literalness of the dialogue or details written. If we don't have any idea what the original words spoken in the Garden were, and if the Greek Gospels were written anonymously decades later by people who weren't there, how do we know the Biblical account isn't the one that is 'wrong'? An incomplete spiritual record requires a living Prophet to fill in the gaps through the same Spirit that inspired the original writers. It's best to find out if Joseph Smith is a Prophet first, then his revelations are correct one way or another. 

Unless it's entirely wrong. Joseph Smith himself never published it. He was constantly revising it. Maybe that's God's way of saying we were never really meant to have it.

Edited March 15 by Pyreaux

[telnetd]

On 3/15/2026 at 2:54 PM, Pyreaux said:

In what way? Historical or linguistic or theological? There would be a difference. If it was never in the Greek manuscripts, does this fit the nature of revelation? A Midrash isn't meant to replace history, it’s meant to reveal a truth hidden in the text. What if the JST's account of the disciples "complaining" helps a modern reader understand the dangers of apostasy or the loneliness of Christ's sacrifice? Then a proponent would argue it is "true" in its mission, even if it isn't in any ancient manuscript.

The "Correctness" of the JST, or apocalyptic or Wisdom literature or Parables is judged by the doctrines it produces not the literalness of the dialogue or details written. If we don't have any idea what the original words spoken in the Garden were, and if the Greek Gospels were written anonymously decades later by people who weren't there, how do we know the Biblical account isn't the one that is 'wrong'? An incomplete spiritual record requires a living Prophet to fill in the gaps through the same Spirit that inspired the original writers. It's best to find out if Joseph Smith is a Prophet first, then his revelations are correct one way or another. 

Unless it's entirely wrong. Joseph Smith himself never published it. He was constantly revising it. Maybe that's God's way of saying we were never really meant to have it.

I think he even wrote himself into a Genesis portion.

[Pyreaux]

10 hours ago, telnetd said:

I think he even wrote himself into a Genesis portion.

The Seer named Joseph narrative was in the Book of Mormon first, a "choice seer" named Joseph, whose father would also be named Joseph (2 Nephi 3; JST Genesis 50). 

Messiah ben Joseph (Yosef) provides a massive historical weight to this. An anciently known prophecy, found specifically in the Talmud, Midrash, the Book of Zohar, of an anciently known figure from the tribe of Ephraim who prepares the way, gathers Israel, and often is killed in battle in the process before the final victory to come of the Messiah ben David. If Joseph Smith were just "writing himself in," he picked a remarkably specific and ancient Jewish archetype, a descendant of Joseph of Egypt, one that he likely had zero access to know about in the rural 1830s.

A tradition that scholars like Margaret Barker suggest dates back to the First Temple period, long before the Talmud was compiled. Dead Sea Scroll fragments like 4Q372 and 4Q175 to show the roots of this tradition. These scrolls describe a "suffering Joseph figure" and a "Prophet like Moses" who would appear in the last days.

"That Prophet" mentioned in John 1:21 priests asked John the Baptist if he is one of three prophesied figures, Elijah, the Christ, or "that prophet?", scholars like David Mitchell have argued that this represents the Messiah ben Joseph tradition.

It could have been in Genesis or other texts before the Deuteronomic scribes removed it, like how the Masoretic Jews removed the "Messiah" from Isaiah 52:14, and the Deuteronomic scribes wrote-ins Cyrus the Great into Isaiah 150 years before he was born in Isaiah 44:28 because these scribes thought in their time that this Messianic prophecy was fulfilled by Cyrus, though it wasn't.

Edited March 18 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The Seer named Joseph narrative was in the Book of Mormon first, a "choice seer" named Joseph, whose father would also be named Joseph (2 Nephi 3; JST Genesis 50). 

Messiah ben Joseph (Yosef) provides a massive historical weight to this. An anciently known prophecy, found specifically in the Talmud, Midrash, the Book of Zohar, of an anciently known figure from the tribe of Ephraim who prepares the way, gathers Israel, and often is killed in battle in the process before the final victory to come of the Messiah ben David. If Joseph Smith were just "writing himself in," he picked a remarkably specific and ancient Jewish archetype, a descendant of Joseph of Egypt, one that he likely had zero access to know about in the rural 1830s.

A tradition that scholars like Margaret Barker suggest dates back to the First Temple period, long before the Talmud was compiled. Dead Sea Scroll fragments like 4Q372 and 4Q175 to show the roots of this tradition. These scrolls describe a "suffering Joseph figure" and a "Prophet like Moses" who would appear in the last days.

"That Prophet" mentioned in John 1:21 priests asked John the Baptist if he is one of three prophesied figures, Elijah, the Christ, or "that prophet?", scholars like David Mitchell have argued that this represents the Messiah ben Joseph tradition.

It could have been in Genesis or other texts before the Deuteronomic scribes removed it, like how the Masoretic Jews removed the "Messiah" from Isaiah 52:14, and the Deuteronomic scribes wrote-ins Cyrus the Great into Isaiah 150 years before he was born in Isaiah 44:28 because these scribes thought in their time that this Messianic prophecy was fulfilled by Cyrus, though it wasn't.

Messiah ben Joseph was one of four expected messianic figures. The problem with this take on it is Joseph Smith didn’t fulfill the prophesied role of Messiah ben Joseph. This messiah was supposed to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem which didn’t happen. He is supposed to wage war with the enemies of Israel and die in battle. Not a metaphorical spiritual battle. Die fighting in an actual battle in an actual war.

You also have the question of which Messiah ben Joseph was Joseph Smith supposed to be. The one in the Talmud? The one that is (sort of) in the Book of Zechariah? The one that is Metatron? The one from Luranic Kabbalah where Messiah ben Joseph was a shared soul that was once incarnated as Cain, the killer of Abel? The one that was destined to kill the anti-Messiah that would be born of a virgin and a devil?

What is the connection supposed to be? Joseph Smith doesn’t neatly fit into any of these versions. There seems to be an idea that these are all corruptions and they originally had a true prophecy which would have matched up but was corrupted but that is just pushing the prophecy back to something that was lost so there is no evidence for it at all. It is mythmaking.

Same way Jesus didn’t fulfill the role of Messiah ben David. Hence why Jesus had to return to finish his work. The other two Messiahs are Elijah and the Righteous Priest. Who is the Righteous Priest?

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Messiah ben Joseph was one of four expected messianic figures. The problem with this take on it is Joseph Smith didn’t fulfill the prophesied role of Messiah ben Joseph. This messiah was supposed to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem which didn’t happen. He is supposed to wage war with the enemies of Israel and die in battle. Not a metaphorical spiritual battle. Die fighting in an actual battle in an actual war.

You also have the question of which Messiah ben Joseph was Joseph Smith supposed to be. The one in the Talmud? The one that is (sort of) in the Book of Zechariah? The one that is Metatron? The one from Luranic Kabbalah where Messiah ben Joseph was a shared soul that was once incarnated as Cain, the killer of Abel? The one that was destined to kill the anti-Messiah that would be born of a virgin and a devil?

What is the connection supposed to be? Joseph Smith doesn’t neatly fit into any of these versions. There seems to be an idea that these are all corruptions and they originally had a true prophecy which would have matched up but was corrupted but that is just pushing the prophecy back to something that was lost so there is no evidence for it at all. It is mythmaking.

Same way Jesus didn’t fulfill the role of Messiah ben David. Hence why Jesus had to return to finish his work. The other two Messiahs are Elijah and the Righteous Priest. Who is the Righteous Priest?

Certainly, as Jesus didn't fit all late expectations of the Messiah ben David, I'm not saying Joseph Smith is a 1:1 fulfillment of the medieval Jewish iteration of the Messiah ben Joseph. Joseph Smith fits a "type" of those later traditions. Joseph didn't die in a literal battle or in the war of Gog and Magog, he was Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion and died a Martyr’s death that many might call a "battle" or rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, but he re-introduced the Temple to the modern world, midst a new Jerusalem of Zion. An ongoing work that is hoped to eventually reach old Jerusalem. The candidates for these prophecies may have multiple stages. Thus, Jesus will return later to be the expected King. 

Such arguments were used by 1st-century Jews to reject Jesus. Early Jewish leaders may have suppressed the suffering Josephite Messiah tradition to distance themselves from either Samaritan, Kingdom of Ephriam, claims or early Christian "Suffering Servant" Messiah arguments. As the Masoretic texts alterations show motivation to obscure Messianic prooftexts.

The "Shared soul of Cain" or Metatron versions of Messiah ben Joseph are highly late-medieval Kabbalistic, but Joseph Smith matches the earliest layers found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which describe a Joseph figure involved in gathering the tribes. A "Forerunner" to the final victory. A "Second Joseph" narrative would naturally be colored by the hopes of the people, if they were under Roman or Islamic rule, they would militarize him. If they were mystics, they would Kabbalize him.

You're right that Joseph Smith isn't everything expected but the core roles of the Messiah ben Joseph, gathering the tribes, being a suffering forerunner, and opening the door for the Davidic King, are exactly what he claimed to do. 

In the vision of the "Four Craftsmen" from Zechariah as interpreted in the Talmud, Sukkah 52b, the Righteous Priest in Jewish tradition, specifically Rashi, is almost universally identified as Melchizedek himself.

The Dead Sea Scrolls like the Manual of Discipline 1QS explicitly state that the community should live by their strict rules until a specific time, "...until the coming of the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel."

This "Prophet" aligns with the Messiah ben Joseph.

Messiah of Aaron is the Priestly Messiah, a Melchizedek figure, Kohen Tzedek, Righteous Priest

Messiah of Israel is thought to be the Kingly Messiah, a Davidic/Jesus figure.

Though a Messiah of Aaron, John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias, a priest of the course of Abia and Elisabeth of the daughters of Aaron. He was, by birthright, the legitimate claimant to the Aaronic High Priesthood in a time when the Jerusalem temple leadership was seen as corrupt or illegitimate. Maybe the "Righteous Priest" is a title for someone of the "Sons of Zadok" the righteous priestly line, separate from the Hellenized establishment of Jerusalem.

Edited March 18 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Certainly, as Jesus didn't fit all late expectations of the Messiah ben David, I'm not saying Joseph Smith is a 1:1 fulfillment of the medieval Jewish iteration of the Messiah ben Joseph. Joseph Smith fits a "type" of those later traditions. Joseph didn't die in a literal battle or in the war of Gog and Magog, he was Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion and died a Martyr’s death that many might call a "battle" or rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, but he re-introduced the Temple to the modern world, midst a new Jerusalem of Zion. An ongoing work that is hoped to eventually reach old Jerusalem. The candidates for these prophecies may have multiple stages. Thus, Jesus will return later to be the expected King. 

This is how a lot of failed messiahs are rationalized. They are going to come back later and finish it.

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Such arguments were used by 1st-century Jews to reject Jesus. Early Jewish leaders may have suppressed the suffering Josephite Messiah tradition to distance themselves from either Samaritan, Kingdom of Ephriam, claims or early Christian "Suffering Servant" Messiah arguments. As the Masoretic texts alterations show motivation to obscure Messianic prooftexts.

There wasn’t much of an argument needed to reject Jesus as the messiah. There were expectations that the messiah was expected to accomplish in his lifetime. Jesus did not accomplish them. Therefore failed messiah. There was no tradition of the messiah dying and coming back to life and then millenia later to return and finish off the prophecies.

Those weren’t prooftexts. They were mostly verses that had no messianic implications that Christians decided had to mean Jesus. This is easy to do. Islam has its own version where bits of the Hebrew Bible foretell the coming of Mohammed.

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The "Shared soul of Cain" or Metatron versions of Messiah ben Joseph are highly late-medieval Kabbalistic, but Joseph Smith matches the earliest layers found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which describe a Joseph figure involved in gathering the tribes. A "Forerunner" to the final victory. A "Second Joseph" narrative would naturally be colored by the hopes of the people, if they were under Roman or Islamic rule, they would militarize him. If they were mystics, they would Kabbalize him.

No, Joseph Smith doesn’t match those either unless you take the expected accomplishments and generalize them to the point that the original authors wouldn’t recognize them.

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

You're right that Joseph Smith isn't everything expected but the core roles of the Messiah ben Joseph, gathering the tribes, being a suffering forerunner, and opening the door for the Davidic King, are exactly what he claimed to do. 

Those aren’t the core roles. The core roles were rebuilding the Jerusalem temple and wage a literal war to defend Israel and die during that war in battle. Literally the land of Israel, not a vague concept of Israel that the early LDS claimed. Not a spiritual war, a literal one.

[telnetd]

On 3/17/2026 at 5:28 PM, Pyreaux said:

A tradition that scholars like Margaret Barker suggest dates back to the First Temple period, long before the Talmud was compiled. Dead Sea Scroll fragments like 4Q372 and 4Q175 to show the roots of this tradition. These scrolls describe a "suffering Joseph figure" and a "Prophet like Moses" who would appear in the last days.

Maybe one of them being of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3.

[Pyreaux]

On 3/18/2026 at 3:59 AM, The Nehor said:

This is how a lot of failed messiahs are rationalized. They are going to come back later and finish it.

There wasn’t much of an argument needed to reject Jesus as the messiah. There were expectations that the messiah was expected to accomplish in his lifetime. Jesus did not accomplish them. Therefore failed messiah. There was no tradition of the messiah dying and coming back to life and then millenia later to return and finish off the prophecies.

Those weren’t prooftexts. They were mostly verses that had no messianic implications that Christians decided had to mean Jesus. This is easy to do. Islam has its own version where bits of the Hebrew Bible foretell the coming of Mohammed.

No, Joseph Smith doesn’t match those either unless you take the expected accomplishments and generalize them to the point that the original authors wouldn’t recognize them.

Those aren’t the core roles. The core roles were rebuilding the Jerusalem temple and wage a literal war to defend Israel and die during that war in battle. Literally the land of Israel, not a vague concept of Israel that the early LDS claimed. Not a spiritual war, a literal one.

Who is dictating the core, the medieval mystics? The oldest "Joseph" figure wasn't a warrior or a giant killer. When we strip away the medieval additions, the DSS iterations of The Apocryphon of Joseph, the core details are the "Joseph" figure is a victim of intense persecution. He is described as being "abandoned into the hands of strangers" and into the hands of the "heathen." He is surrounded by enemies, "fools" and those who "mock" him. He cries out for vindication against those who have usurped his place. The conflict in the oldest accounts isn't a war with a border, but over sacred space. The Joseph figure laments that "fools" and "strangers" have defiled Zion and the Temple.

"The fools have built for themselves a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy; they have spoken words of rebellion against the tent of Zion. They have spoken against the Temple of the LORD, and they have done according to all their desire..." And it’s about apostasy, loss of the true priesthood, being usurped by those who claim it but have no right to it. There is no literal war, he's not yet the medieval Jewish King Authur.

He represents the "Northern Tribes", Ephraim and Manasseh, who are currently "lost" or scattered. His mission is to pray for the time when "all the tribes" will be gathered back to the true worship of God.

After that is the Talmudic snapshot in Sukkah 52a, the idea of his death is solidified, but it is still remarkably sparse on details. The text simply says he is killed and that there is a "great mourning." It's assumed he dies in a conflict, but the Talmud doesn't say things like name who kills him or where it happens. It is a theological necessity that he dies so that Messiah ben David can arrive.

It's the Medieval Apocalypses (visionary and symbolic) where your "literal" details actually come from. In the 7th–10th centuries. Smith’s Joseph prophecy in Genesis 50 feels much more like the oldest layer. A Joseph, son of Joseph, a choice Seer who gathers and brings light, not so much the medieval layer who kills the anti-Christ.

Who other than a would-be prophet gets to say how the past prophecy is actually fulfilled? When lamenting how many times a false prophet tries to claim how a past prophecy gets fulfilled, it's an inescapable notion for a believer in prophecy, that a prophet gets to say how the past prophecy is actually fulfilled. If Isaiah said "a young woman shall conceive," and he was talking about his own son in 700 BC, then a prophet coming along 700 years later and says "Actually, it’s a virgin birth recently in Bethlehem" is either re-conning history or... a prophet. The only difference between "mythmaking" and "prophecy" is whether you believe the guy who did the re-reading had the authority to do it.

It's not easy. Unlike when Bar Kokhba, the 2nd-century Messiah candidate, died in battle against Rome, his followers didn't say, "well, maybe one day he'll be back." They said, "We were wrong," and he became known as Bar Koziba "Son of a Lie". Whereas the entire LDS project has always depended on the idea that God defines "Ephriam", "Israel", "Zion" and "The Temple" broader than the Bible authors did in several instances. Just as the Christians did with the ideas of "Exalt", "Save", and "Liberate". I think John says Jesus was exalted (lifted up)... On the cross... Hmmm, well, that is one way to put it.

On 3/19/2026 at 1:27 PM, telnetd said:

Maybe one of them being of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3.

Maybe, I can't prophetically identify unidentified people. I've heard many theories based on the few clues that the Two Witnesses would be Elijah and Moses returned, I guess they are messiahs of sorts who do tend to return like on the Mount of Transfiguration (and Kirtland), but neither was a Josephite (Benjamin and Levi). The other theory is they are two latter-day prophets, and since I as biased, I'd say they are likely LDS prophets, one could be from Ephriam, I'm sure most have been made so in Patriarchal Blessings, but Joseph Smith still would likely be the foretold Josephite neo-Moses prophet, being influenced by the JST.

Edited March 21 by Pyreaux

[echelon]

On 2/28/2026 at 12:30 PM, teddyaware said:

For your consideration, a fly in the ointment…

 

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer EVEN AS I;

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—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. (Doctrine and Covenant 19)

Some more to consider:

Jesus’ suffering was an accumulation of 

• Paying the debt for sin (multiplied by an infinite number of people) AND
• Voluntarily taking on everyone’s infirmities (this was Christ’s choice, he didn’t have to do this)

For those who don’t repent need only to suffer for their own sins.

• Paying the debt for sin (x 1)

It would be unjust for the unrepentant to suffer to the same extent as Christ did when they are not responsible for other people's sins or asked Christ to take on their infirmities.
 

[echelon]

On 3/3/2026 at 6:10 PM, The Nehor said:

And the mechanism God uses to maintain that equilibrium is *checks notes* killing his children.

Mortal death is a meaningless concept to God.  With or without a body, we are always present before him.  So what does it matter to him to command or allow death.  Only mortals fear death and see it as a negative thing.

Christ's death has the same significance as his birth.  In one he acquired a body and in the other he loses it.  To God the Father, he was always present before him.

As for his death, Christ could have chosen any number of ways to leave this world. Why he chose the cross is a mystery to me.  It was not necessary for paying the debt for sin, so was the extra suffering to put on a demonstration for us to take lessons from or to help him with knowing "how to succor his people according to their infirmities"?

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, echelon said:

Mortal death is a meaningless concept to God.  With or without a body, we are always present before him.  So what does it matter to him to command or allow death.  Only mortals fear death and see it as a negative thing.

If it doesn’t matter to God whether people live or die why would he give commands not to murder except when God thought a bit of genocide would be cool and good? Saying God doesn’t care isn’t supported by the Bible in any way. God cares a lot and just wants control of it.

Also if mortals fearing death is some kind of bug that is also God’s fault since God put it there. Whoopsie.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it doesn’t matter to God whether people live or die why would he give commands not to murder except when God thought a bit of genocide would be cool and good? Saying God doesn’t care isn’t supported by the Bible in any way. God cares a lot and just wants control of it.

Also if mortals fearing death is some kind of bug that is also God’s fault since God put it there. Whoopsie.

I think you answered your question. God governs the end of mortal life (and the beginning of mortal life), probably because the misuse of either can bring about so much unnecessary suffering.  

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you answered your question. God governs the end of mortal life (and the beginning of mortal life), probably because the misuse of either can bring about so much unnecessary suffering.  

Yeah, but you can’t claim God is indifferent to death and yet wants it strictly regulated.

[echelon]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If it doesn’t matter to God whether people live or die why would he give commands not to murder except when God thought a bit of genocide would be cool and good? Saying God doesn’t care isn’t supported by the Bible in any way. God cares a lot and just wants control of it.

Death itself doesn't affect God the same as it does us because for Him there is no 'sense of loss' or fear of not living or seeing others again.  

As for the commandment not to murder, that's to ensure there is no contention among God's children so that they learn to play nice with each other.   

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but you can’t claim God is indifferent to death and yet wants it strictly regulated.

Agreed. Even if he was indifferent to it specifically, (something not supported by the evidence in my opinion), He would never be indifferent to its impact on His children. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, echelon said:

Death itself doesn't affect God the same as it does us because for Him there is no 'sense of loss' or fear of not living or seeing others again.  

I assume most commandments about death are in consideration of mortal feelings.  Possibly most commandments about anything.  I don’t think we would require so many layers of instruction if we were capable of seeing things in an eternal, godly sense.  It would be rather straightforward.  “Love one another as I have loved you.”  After all the “one” includes God. 
 

If we could see the consequences of our behaviour before we acted, we could see what the ultimate acts of love we could perform would be….and everything just falls in line.

Edited April 19 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 4/19/2026 at 4:07 PM, echelon said:

As for the commandment not to murder, that's to ensure there is no contention among God's children so that they learn to play nice with each other.   

I don’t think it ensured that but it might have been an attempt to tell people that it is wrong to kill people in your tribe or group.