The cross or the garden.

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

First, there is historical research about the history of the use of the cross by LDS.  So, if your hypothesis is correct, there should be evidence that when LDS people stopped using the cross they also started to emphasize Gethsemane.

Second, "the symbology of the crucifixion of Christ is by far more important to the religion of the Latter-day Saints than it is to any other Christian religion," really? There's all kinds of points that could be brought to bear against this assertion: the centrality, foundational, and essential nature of the Cross in Christianity and the insufficiency, replacement, and non-essential nature of the Cross in Mormonism.  But I'll start with just your own justification and statements:

Your justification is that "the highest ordinances of the Gospel are tied most dramatically to the crucifixion of Christ".  I would like to get a clearer idea what you mean by this.  Because if you simply mean the Sacrament, then this is hardly "far more important" to Mormonism than Communion is to "any other Christian religion".  You go on saying," there could be no eternal families and exaltation without the applied symbolism of Christ's crucifixion found in those higher ordinances".  This seems to indicate that, when you speak of "higher ordinances", you are not speaking of Sacrament but of Temple Ordinances.  But, if that is the case, then you are claiming that the Cross is "far more important" in Mormonism because it is "tied most dramatically" and is essential to "higher ordinances" that few of the few LDS ever participate in.

Relatively few LDS ever go to the temple (other than as youth for proxy baptisms).  And when you say "so many members of the Church seem to miss this powerful point -- in spite of frequent temple visits" you are admitting that few of those who actually go to temple actually receive this understanding from their church teachers, leaders, and higher ordinances. So, how "far more important" could the Cross be to Mormonism than any other Christian religion, if your best evidence is some rituals that the majority of Mormons never participate in and that (apparently) the majority of Mormons who do participate in it never get the idea passed on to them by leaders or the ordinance?

First of all, most active adult members of the LDS Church DO attend to the temple; it's not "just the few of the few," as you inaccurately state. Less active members of the Church don't normally visit the temple, which is no fault but there own. And the less inactive members, by virtue of their own inactivity, tend to be less concerned about Gospel knowledge than do their more active counterparts.

Next, if any of the temple attendees miss the overwhelming significance and essential nature of the crucifixion drama n the higher ordinances of the Gospel, they have no-one to blame but themselves because these things couldn't possibly be any more open and obvious. I say this because it couldn't possibly be more plain that without the applied symbolism of Christ's suffering and sacrificial death on the cross, no Latter-day Saint could ever hope to be exalted in heaven, be married to his or her spouse eternally, have the children born to LDS parents on earth sealed to them eternally, and no hope of the continuation of family life in eternity. It's so obvious to me that the symbolism of Christ"s crucifixion is more important and essential to the religion of the Latter-day Saints than it is to any other religion, even if many members have not yet come to fully appreciate this fact. But the LDS Church is a very young religion, and I give it no more than another 25 years for all of these things to be more fully comprehended and deeply appreciated by the temple attendees. 

The leaders of the Church are already backing off of the "Gethsemane alone' misunderstanding, which is a cause of great satisfaction to me. Among the leaders of the Churvh it is now almost universally declared that Christ suffered for our sins both in Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. I'm so pleased to see the Church is now testifying to what is plainly taught in the LDS scriptures.

 1 Behold, thus saith the Lord, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, even he who was crucified for the sins of the world. (D&C 54)

Edited March 27, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[why me]

On 25.3.2016 at 1:24 PM, Bobbieaware said:

The author's assertion seems quite a stretch. In three of the four Bible verses where Christ commands his disciples to take up a cross and follow him, it's right after he informs them he is going to be crucified for the sins of the world. The essence of his commandment is that they too should be willing to lay down their lives for the Gospel's sake. His commandment seems to be not at all connected to one being willing to face crucifixion as a gesture of defiance against Roman authority. And in the fourth verse where Christ speaks of a disciple carrying a cross and following him, it's when he tells the rich young ruler what he must do in order to inherit eternal life. There is not even the slightest suggestion in any of the four accounts that picking up the cross has anything to do with rebellion against Rome, which is why Christ said his kingdom is not of this world. Seizing scripture verses out of context is not a good idea. Even so, I would be interested to know how the author arrives at his conclusions.

I think that when historians write about his life, they need to take into account the history at that time and the cultural implication for what christ is claimed to have said. I don't think that they consider the gospel writers very reliable and because of this, they tend to go through their writings by placing them inside history. For example, the cross had a particular meaning for the people under roman rule. If you challenge the empire and if you are involved in sedition, the person could expect a horrible death by crucifixion. Christ was no exception. Of course, for the gospel writers who were followers of jesus, they need to create a story that would convince people what he was more than just an agitator....he was actually the son of god. But for rome and the priestly class christ was just an agitator, agitating people to struggle for a different world than what existed: a more fair and equitable society.

The book was controversial and so, it would be good to read other biographies too. The book is called: Zealot by Reza Aslan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books/reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html?_r=0

 

Edited March 27, 2016 by why me

[Joshua Valentine]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

First of all, most active adult members of the LDS Church DO attend to the temple; it's not "just the few of the few," as you inaccurately state. Less active members of the Church don't normally visit the temple, which is no fault but there own. And the less inactive members, by virtue of their own inactivity, tend to be less concerned about Gospel knowledge than do their more active counterparts.

Next, if any of the temple attendees miss the overwhelming significance and essential nature of the crucifixion drama n the higher ordinances of the Gospel, they have no-one to blame but themselves because these things couldn't possibly be any more open and obvious. I say this because it couldn't possibly be more plain that without the applied symbolism of Christ's suffering and sacrificial death on the cross, no Latter-day Saint could ever hope to be exalted in heaven, be married to his or her spouse eternally, have the children born to LDS parents on earth sealed to them eternally, and no hope of the continuation of family life in eternity. It's so obvious to me that the symbolism of Christ"s crucifixion is more important and essential to the religion of the Latter-day Saints than it is to any other religion, even if many members have not yet come to fully appreciate this fact. But the LDS Church is a very young religion, and I give it no more than another 25 years for all of these things to be more fully comprehended and deeply appreciated by the temple attendees. 

The leaders of the Church are already backing off of the "Gethsemane alone' misunderstanding, which is a cause of great satisfaction to me. Among the leaders of the Churvh it is now almost universally declared that Christ suffered for our sins both in Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. I'm so pleased to see the Church is now testifying to what is plainly taught in the LDS scriptures.

 1 Behold, thus saith the Lord, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, even he who was crucified for the sins of the world. (D&C 54)

Bobbieaware,

Again, I appreciate your holistic position. But I still don't get your claim that it is "more important and essential" to Mormonism. All you've done is list the things that are made available in Mormonism by the Cross. First, by the very nature of emphasizing the equality of the Garden you deemphasize the prominence of the Cross. Other Christian religions do not have this problem - it's all about the Cross. This, by definition, makes the Cross more important.

Second, listing the LDS soteriological benefits of the Garden/Cross does not show the Cross more important since in all other Christian groups the Cross is the (only) means by which all the other Christian soteriological benefits are accessed as well.  How does Mormonism's reliance on the Cross for it's full heaven make the cross more important to it than the Cross's essentiality for all of heaven for other Christian groups? I cannot see how you can be making your argument based on this, unless you are somehow implying that Mormonism's heaven is better and more than Christianity's heaven and so the Cross gets you more in Mormonism and thus is more important. Surely your argument for the importance of the Cross in the two traditions is not determined by how good each tradition's heaven is?

But you've made this your only support for your claim twice now.  So here are a few issues with it:

1) Everyone's heaven is only made possible by the Cross. (so not more important, but equally important)

2) In the LDS religion, the Cross is not sufficient, the Garden was required, too. (so insofar as the Cross is insufficient it is less important in Mormonism)

3) Beyond the Garden and the Cross, in Mormonism, the Cross only gives you the opportunity to go to the temple and get those benefits you list. It does not give them upon acceptance and trust in it. In Christianity, the strong indication is that, while there are special blessings, those are not important for their very lack of description and emphasis by Jesus and in the whole of the Bible, and that every believer returns to an all-present, in-dwelling and, thus, intimate relationship with the Ultimate Truth, Beauty, Imagination and Power. In Mormonism, only the few of the few (if any) make it to all the benefits of the Celestial Kingdom by their necessary efforts and accomplishment, again deemphasizing the centrality and power of the Cross in Mormonism by the inclusion and necessity of not only the Garden but of individual obedience in a list of commands and ordinances.

4) I will try to stay away from comparing LDS heaven to Christian heaven, although that has already peaked its head in number 3 above. But the very nature, that is the limited nature, of the LDS godhood is limiting to the benefits of the LDS heaven. So, while I hope your argument does not come down to "our heaven is better than your heaven" (especially given how few, if any, LDS will be able to enjoy it) because that just seems silly, even if entertained, it does not seem to promise a good outcome.

And again:

The Bible does not give any indication of the LDS belief in the Garden, but by far supports the Cross.

And, the litany of required conditions and events to bring about a Bible that originally included the Garden but now does not is astounding and can't help but go from technical conspiracy to crazy conspiracy theory.

[Joshua Valentine]

On another note, I want to make it clear that the Garden is important to non-LDS Christians. It shows more of Jesus' humanity, his terrifying fear of the torture, but even more, the separation from the Father that he would experience on the Cross and make him cry out "Why have you forsaken me?" It shows his devotion to the Father in submitting to His will. It shows his fight to fight for us. And if you consider the implications of the Trinity doctrine on these events, it all becomes more awful in sorrow and anguish, and more awesome in beauty and love. It was the day that all of God died for us, the day that True Love died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opk-as2N1oU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG95dcV15LU

[thesometimesaint]

29 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

On another note, I want to make it clear that the Garden is important to non-LDS Christians. It shows more of Jesus' humanity, his terrifying fear of the torture, but even more, the separation from the Father that he would experience on the Cross and make him cry out "Why have you forsaken me?" It shows his devotion to the Father in submitting to His will. It shows his fight to fight for us. And if you consider the implications of the Trinity doctrine on these events, it all becomes more awful in sorrow and anguish, and more awesome in beauty and love. It was the day that all of God died for us, the day that True Love died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opk-as2N1oU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG95dcV15LU

There is a reason you should never tell people what they believe. You seldom get it right, and is patronizing.

[rodheadlee]

"1) Everyone's heaven is only made possible by the Cross." This is so much BS. The Cross did nothing of itself, Christ did it all. The cross was simply the manner of execution of the times.

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is a reason you should never tell people what they believe. You seldom get it right, and is patronizing.

First, what you quoted and what you commented can't possibly be connected, can they?

Second, I never told you what you believe. I simply did the only thing a person could do: speak on a subject from their perspective.

Third, as if your claim that I was telling anyone what they believe was not inappropriate and weak enough, you also give no specific incidence of not getting it right, let alone being patronizing.

Fourth, is this really a good contribution to the discussion, thesometimesaint? We haven't even been talking with each other here. This is how you start?

Lastly, in a similar vein to the first point, I wrote and you chose to quote my comments celebrating the Garden, which surely you can agree with in part (although, probably not necessarily the Trinity part), but not only do you respond with a poor generality , but even a "civil" insult in response to my praise of what Christ has done for us.

 

Edit (Addition): Also, thesometimesaint, I am curious.  I wonder if you are so concerned with people misrepresenting other's religions (as I believe this is what you are trying to say, not that I told you what you believe), perhaps you should have shown balance and consistency of concern for the audacity of someone not only to attempt to represent another's religion (which you appear to be against) but even go so far as to claim, as bobbieaware has, that something cherished by two groups is more important to one of those groups than it is to the other group.

 

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

"1) Everyone's heaven is only made possible by the Cross." This is so much BS. The Cross did nothing of itself, Christ did it all. The cross was simply the manner of execution of the times.

First, rodheadlee has shown a couple of things incarnate: the LDS tendency to undermine the importance of "the Cross" in that he could have simply made his point about Christ being the important thing without belittling the Cross as "simply the manner of execution of the time" and the LDS tendency to not understand (or not want to understand) the meaning of "the Cross" to non-LDS Christians. Rodheadlee, think of it this way: this whole time we have been talking about "the Garden" and "the Cross"; I am sure if you look at statements made about the Garden, they too were not done by the place of the garden but by the person in it. Since this is so obviously so, I recommend you reconsider your motivations, roadheadlee.

Second, perhaps I am being too sensitive, but "BS"? Really, roadheadlee? Not only have we obviously been using "the Cross" and "the Garden" to efficiently refer to the actions and works of Christ (nullifying and kind of embarrassing your contribution here) but you think it right to use the term "BS" about something so important to people in the time of its commemoration?

And, just in case it helps: Recognizing that you may not have read anything else on this thread but my comment you are replying to, in which is the proof of the need to read the context of a thread before commenting, bobbieaware (who I was talking to), was speaking of how "the Cross" was far more important in Mormonism than in non-LDS Christian religions. But, if you did read his usage of it rodheadlee, why didn't you choose to quote him as well? Surely, "the Cross," according to your reasoning, didn't do anything for LDS temple ceremonies and CK blessings either? Again, considering your imbalanced and rude comment, I suggest you reconsider your motives here, and, even more, your state of mind and heart during this day of sacred celebration.

May the Christ, in the garden or on the cross, have sway over all of us, renewing our minds and hearts this Glorious Day.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Joshua Valentine

[thesometimesaint]

36 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

First, what you quoted and what you commented can't possibly be connected, can they?

Second, I never told you what you believe. I simply did the only thing a person could do: speak on a subject from their perspective.

Third, as if your claim that I was telling anyone what they believe was not inappropriate and weak enough, you also give no specific incidence of not getting it right, let alone being patronizing.

Fourth, is this really a good contribution to the discussion, thesometimesaint? We haven't even been talking with each other here. This is how you start?

Lastly, in a similar vein to the first point, I wrote and you chose to quote my comments celebrating the Garden, which surely you can agree with in part (although, probably not necessarily the Trinity part), but not only do you respond with a poor generality , but even a "civil" insult in response to my praise of what Christ has done for us.

First, rodheadlee has shown a couple of things incarnate: the LDS tendency to undermine the importance of "the Cross" in that he could have simply made his point about Christ being the important thing without belittling the Cross as "simply the manner of execution of the time" and the LDS tendency to not understand (or not want to understand) the meaning of "the Cross" to non-LDS Christians. Rodheadlee, think of it this way: this whole time we have been talking about "the Garden" and "the Cross"; I am sure if you look at statements made about the Garden, they too were not done by the place of the garden but by the person in it. Since this is so obviously so, I recommend you reconsider your motivations, roadheadlee.

Second, perhaps I am being too sensitive, but "BS"? Really, roadheadlee? Not only have we obviously been using "the Cross" and "the Garden" to efficiently refer to the actions and works of Christ (nullifying and kind of embarrassing your contribution here) but you think it right to use the term "BS" about something so important to people in the time of its commemoration?

And, just in case it helps: Recognizing that you may not have read anything else on this thread but my comment you are replying to, in which is the proof of the need to read the context of a thread before commenting, bobbieaware (who I was talking to), was speaking of how "the Cross" was far more important in Mormonism than in non-LDS Christian religions. But, if you did read his usage of it rodheadlee, why didn't you choose to quote him as well? Surely, "the Cross," according to your reasoning, didn't do anything for LDS temple ceremonies and CK blessings either? Again, considering your imbalanced and rude comment, I suggest you reconsider your motives here, and, even more, your state of mind and heart during this day of sacred celebration.

May the Christ, in the garden or on the cross, have sway over all of us, renewing our minds and hearts this Glorious Day.

You said we "de-emphasize the prominence of the Cross" in our beliefs. That is categorically false. We commemorate it every Sunday in our Sacrament Meetings. We teach about it in every Sunday School class, and make Holy Covenants with God invoking the imagery in our Temples.

I have no problem disagreeing with anyone. Yes you did tell us what we believe. "First, by the very nature of emphasizing the equality of the Garden you deemphasize the prominence of the Cross. Other Christian religions do not have this problem - it's all about the Cross. This, by definition, makes the Cross more important".

We believe in the Godhead, not the Trinity which is nowhere in the Bible.

We already told you about its place in our Temples. This is an open forum and anyone is entitled to respond to any comment on it they want.

I have no problem with what you said concerning your beliefs about what Christ did for us. I do resent you telling me that I don't.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

First, what you quoted and what you commented can't possibly be connected, can they?

Second, I never told you what you believe. I simply did the only thing a person could do: speak on a subject from their perspective.

Third, as if your claim that I was telling anyone what they believe was not inappropriate and weak enough, you also give no specific incidence of not getting it right, let alone being patronizing.

Fourth, is this really a good contribution to the discussion, thesometimesaint? We haven't even been talking with each other here. This is how you start?

Lastly, in a similar vein to the first point, I wrote and you chose to quote my comments celebrating the Garden, which surely you can agree with in part (although, probably not necessarily the Trinity part), but not only do you respond with a poor generality , but even a "civil" insult in response to my praise of what Christ has done for us.

 

Edit (Addition): Also, thesometimesaint, I am curious.  I wonder if you are so concerned with people misrepresenting other's religions (as I believe this is what you are trying to say, not that I told you what you believe), perhaps you should have shown balance and consistency of concern for the audacity of someone not only to attempt to represent another's religion (which you appear to be against) but even go so far as to claim, as bobbieaware has, that something cherished by two groups is more important to one of those groups than it is to the other group.

 

First, rodheadlee has shown a couple of things incarnate: the LDS tendency to undermine the importance of "the Cross" in that he could have simply made his point about Christ being the important thing without belittling the Cross as "simply the manner of execution of the time" and the LDS tendency to not understand (or not want to understand) the meaning of "the Cross" to non-LDS Christians. Rodheadlee, think of it this way: this whole time we have been talking about "the Garden" and "the Cross"; I am sure if you look at statements made about the Garden, they too were not done by the place of the garden but by the person in it. Since this is so obviously so, I recommend you reconsider your motivations, roadheadlee.

Second, perhaps I am being too sensitive, but "BS"? Really, roadheadlee? Not only have we obviously been using "the Cross" and "the Garden" to efficiently refer to the actions and works of Christ (nullifying and kind of embarrassing your contribution here) but you think it right to use the term "BS" about something so important to people in the time of its commemoration?

And, just in case it helps: Recognizing that you may not have read anything else on this thread but my comment you are replying to, in which is the proof of the need to read the context of a thread before commenting, bobbieaware (who I was talking to), was speaking of how "the Cross" was far more important in Mormonism than in non-LDS Christian religions. But, if you did read his usage of it rodheadlee, why didn't you choose to quote him as well? Surely, "the Cross," according to your reasoning, didn't do anything for LDS temple ceremonies and CK blessings either? Again, considering your imbalanced and rude comment, I suggest you reconsider your motives here, and, even more, your state of mind and heart during this day of sacred celebration.

May the Christ, in the garden or on the cross, have sway over all of us, renewing our minds and hearts this Glorious Day.

Because it's Easter, I'll be brief in my response.

If you want to learn about what goes on in our temples (so that you'll be able to verify I speak the truth when I say the symbolism pertaining to Christ's crucifixion is more important to the salvation of the Latter-day Saints than it is for those of any other religion), become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and attend one of our temples.

There is only one instance in the extra-biblical LDS canon of scripture where Christ himself draws any attention at all to his suffering and the shedding of his atoning blood in Gethsemane. In every other instance in the LDS canon, Christ points to the cross on Calvary as being the place where he atoned for the sins of the world. The following is just one among very many LDS scriptural references where Christ himself, speaking in the first person, points to the centrality of the crucifixion in LDS soteriology.

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and AFTER that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— (3 Nephi 27)

So in his definition of the Gospel, Christ mentions nothing about Gethsemane but draws all attention to the centrality of the salvative work he did on the cross. And except for the one place I previously mentioned, he never points to anywhere else but the cross as the place where he wrought out the atonement. In this particular regard, the extra-Biblical LDS scriptures are in full harmony with the New Testament.

[Joshua Valentine]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Because it's Easter, I'll be brief in my response.

If you want to learn about what goes on in our temples (so that you'll be able to verify I speak the truth when I say the symbolism pertaining to Christ's crucifixion is more important to the salvation of the Latter-day Saints than it is for those of any other religion), become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and attend one of our temples.

There is only one instance in the extra-biblical LDS canon of scripture where Christ himself draws any attention at all to his suffering and the shedding of his atoning blood in Gethsemane. In every other instance in the LDS canon, Christ points to the cross on Calvary as being the place where he atoned for the sins of the world. The following is just one among very many LDS scriptural references where Christ himself, speaking in the first person, points to the centrality of the crucifixion in LDS soteriology.

Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and AFTER that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— (3 Nephi 27)

So in his definition of the Gospel, Christ mentions nothing about Gethsemane but draws all attention to the centrality of the salvative work he did on the cross. And except for the one place I previously mentioned, he never points to anywhere else but the cross as the place where he wrought out the atonement. In this particular regard, the extra-Biblical LDS scriptures are in full harmony with the New Testament.

So, again, you claim that the Cross is far more important to LDS than to Christians because of some rituals that, at best, approximately half of LDS ever experience, but far less of that half understand, and you can't even substantiate it unless I'm a member? If that is your position, then so be it. But unless you want to just be offensive without explanation because "you're not a temple recommend holding member of our church", then you might just want to keep it to yourself or yourselves; it doesn't play well in the market of ideas.

As for the LDS canon, your remarks just show that "the extra-Biblical LDS scriptures are in full harmony with the New Testament". That is good, and problematic for the state of the Cross versus the Garden in LDS teaching and member understanding. But it, at best, simply means the Cross is as important in LDS scripture as it is in Christian scripture.

Back tot the problem for a moment. If LDS "original" scripture does not support the current teachings and understanding among LDS leaders and members, what is the canonical status of these teachings? Where is the revelation that differentiates this Garden theology from mere teaching of men? 

 

[Joshua Valentine]

 

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You said we "de-emphasize the prominence of the Cross" in our beliefs. That is categorically false. We commemorate it every Sunday in our Sacrament Meetings. We teach about it in every Sunday School class, and make Holy Covenants with God invoking the imagery in our Temples.

I have no problem disagreeing with anyone. Yes you did tell us what we believe. "First, by the very nature of emphasizing the equality of the Garden you deemphasize the prominence of the Cross. Other Christian religions do not have this problem - it's all about the Cross. This, by definition, makes the Cross more important".

This is a mathematic description of the teachings of the LDS Church, not a description of the content of the beliefs. If you have two parts that make up the whole and split the reverence between them, then either one is less significant, less important, and receives less of the total reverence than if there was just one part.  Thus, insofar as one emphasizes two things instead of just one, then both are cheated out of total possible emphasis or de-emphasized. This is what I meant by de-emphasize. I did not say that LDS de-emphasize the Cross directly or on purpose. It's just a matter of the math. I take this as different than telling any particular person what they believe, and more a description of the possibilities of having more than one focus in any situation.

Quote

We believe in the Godhead, not the Trinity which is nowhere in the Bible.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this tidbit. I didn't say you believed in the Trinity. In fact, I indicated that bobbieaware believed "although, probably not necessarily the Trinity part". Please note two things: this indicated that I knew that LDS believe in the "Godhead" and that I respected the beliefs of an individual LDS person and didn't tell him what he believes by using the word "probably". If I were telling anyone what they believed I would just say he didn't believe it, not that he probably didn't. Perhaps reading my comments more carefully or less biased and antagonistically or more charitably would make our discussion more efficient, congenial, and fruitful.

Also, just fyi, you might be getting close to telling someone what they believe, as pretty much all Christians that believe in the Trinity doctrine believe it from the Bible. Or are you just making a claim about the contents of the Bible and not about others beliefs, similarly to how I made a statement about the mathematics of LDS teaching and not about others beliefs?

Quote

We already told you about its place in our Temples. This is an open forum and anyone is entitled to respond to any comment on it they want.

You lost me again here. Who is this "we" of which you speak? Am I so "other" to you that you automatically become "we" when you have had no part in this conversation? Do you co-op Bobbieaware's comments so easily? Claiming something's place in the Temples does not justify claiming its greater prominence over its place in another religion. Also, claiming its place is not the same as telling me "about" its place. Bobbieaware uses the sacred/secret card to avoid actually substantiating his claims; awfully weak for such an offensive statement.

 

Quote

I have no problem with what you said concerning your beliefs about what Christ did for us. I do resent you telling me that I don't.

You "don't" what? I think there was a auto-correct issue here.

 

In conclusion, thesometimesaint, I have, in fact, been to many Sacrament meetings, Gospel Principles classes, and even a couple of Gospel Doctrine classes. I have watched more than a few General Conference sessions and read many more GF talks, let alone the Book of Mormon, most of the Doctrine and Covenants, and a plethora of Ensign articles among many other things of the LDS church. Perhaps you should come to our discussions open to the possibility that I have some clue what I am talking about, even if you may disagree with its accuracy, instead of coming with insults and assumptions of ignorance and malice.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

This is a mathematic description of the teachings of the LDS Church, not a description of the content of the beliefs. If you have two parts that make up the whole and split the reverence between them, then either one is less significant, less important, and receives less of the total reverence than if there was just one part.  Thus, insofar as one emphasizes two things instead of just one, then both are cheated out of total possible emphasis or de-emphasized. This is what I meant by de-emphasize. I did not say that LDS de-emphasize the Cross directly or on purpose. It's just a matter of the math. I take this as different than telling any particular person what they believe, and more a description of the possibilities of having more than one focus in any situation.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this tidbit. I didn't say you believed in the Trinity. In fact, I indicated that bobbieaware believed "although, probably not necessarily the Trinity part". Please note two things: this indicated that I knew that LDS believe in the "Godhead" and that I respected the beliefs of an individual LDS person and didn't tell him what he believes by using the word "probably". If I were telling anyone what they believed I would just say he didn't believe it, not that he probably didn't. Perhaps reading my comments more carefully or less biased and antagonistically or more charitably would make our discussion more efficient, congenial, and fruitful.

Also, just fyi, you might be getting close to telling someone what they believe, as pretty much all Christians that believe in the Trinity doctrine believe it from the Bible. Or are you just making a claim about the contents of the Bible and not about others beliefs, similarly to how I made a statement about the mathematics of LDS teaching and not about others beliefs?

You lost me again here. Who is this "we" of which you speak? Am I so "other" to you that you automatically become "we" when you have had no part in this conversation? Do you co-op Bobbieaware's comments so easily? Claiming something's place in the Temples does not justify claiming its greater prominence over its place in another religion. Also, claiming its place is not the same as telling me "about" its place. Bobbieaware uses the sacred/secret card to avoid actually substantiating his claims; awfully weak for such an offensive statement

In conclusion, thesometimesaint, I have, in fact, been to many Sacrament meetings, Gospel Principles classes, and even a couple of Gospel Doctrine classes. I have watched more than a few General Conference sessions and read many more GF talks, let alone the Book of Mormon, most of the Doctrine and Covenants, and a plethora of Ensign articles among many other things of the LDS church. Perhaps you should come to our discussions open to the possibility that I have some clue what I am talking about, even if you may disagree with its accuracy, instead of coming with insults and assumptions of ignorance and malice.

Your "mathematical" description is wrong. There is one way to get the number 4(2+2) where neither integer is more important. In LDS belief Gethsemane is just as important as Calvary.  

You didn't mention the Godhead. Caliming that the Trinity is a superior belief from the Bible. The Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

I have no way of confirming what you have read, or listened to.

All I have is what you write. I do have deep reservations as to your understanding what you read and heard.

I have no personal antagonism towards you, or your beliefs. Believe whatever you want. But please ask me what I believe before making such statements about it.

[Bobbieaware]

17 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

So, again, you claim that the Cross is far more important to LDS than to Christians because of some rituals that, at best, approximately half of LDS ever experience, but far less of that half understand, and you can't even substantiate it unless I'm a member? If that is your position, then so be it. But unless you want to just be offensive without explanation because "you're not a temple recommend holding member of our church", then you might just want to keep it to yourself or yourselves; it doesn't play well in the market of ideas.

As for the LDS canon, your remarks just show that "the extra-Biblical LDS scriptures are in full harmony with the New Testament". That is good, and problematic for the state of the Cross versus the Garden in LDS teaching and member understanding. But it, at best, simply means the Cross is as important in LDS scripture as it is in Christian scripture.

Back tot the problem for a moment. If LDS "original" scripture does not support the current teachings and understanding among LDS leaders and members, what is the canonical status of these teachings? Where is the revelation that differentiates this Garden theology from mere teaching of men? 

 

The Latter-day Saints believe the great gouts of holy blood shed in Gethsemanie, when Christ waded through intense spiritual suffering nigh unto death, was atoning blood; and we also believe that the holy blood drawn and spattered by the scourger's cruel whip was atoning blood (by his stripes we are healed); that the holy blood drawn when abuse was heaped on the Lord by the Roman soldiers was atoning blood; that the holy blood that dripped to the ground as he carried his cross on the Via Dolorasa, toward Golgotha, was atoning blood; that the holy blood shed when he was nailed to the cross and when the spear pierced his side was atoning blood.

But if you choose to believe in a theology that insists only the blood shed on the cross had atoning power, that is your right and privilege and I will respect you for it. But I hope you will extend to the Latter-day Saints the same sincere respect if we choose to believe ALL the holy blood shed on the fearful journey, that began in Gethsemane and ended on Calvary's hill, was ALL atoning blood. 

And with the above, I have little left to say. For you acknowledge, however grudgingly, that the Latter-day Saimts believe they cannot be exalted in heaven unless they ritually share in the Lord's sacrifice on the cross. And you also acknowledge the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price all agree with the Bible that Christ died and atoned for the sins of the world on the cross.

 35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138)

So there's not much left for me to say, except to make it clear that in the LDS Church the imbalanced "Gethsemane only" misunderstanding is fast fading from view. And that's all it was -- a misunderstanding.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Punctuation

[Bobbieaware]

Duplicate post.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Guest]

On March 24, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Tacenda said:

Near the end of His earthly ministry, the Savior went with His disciples to the Mount of Olives, to the Garden of Gethsemane…. It was there that the Savior paid the price for all the sorrows, sins, and transgressions of every human being who ever lived or ever will live. There He drank the bitter cup and suffered so that all who repent may not suffer” (Wolfgang H. Paul, “Gratitude for the Atonement,”Ensign, June 2007, 15).

 

 

As sweet as this you tube is, it lacks the cross.  

I listed to Bruce R McConkie's final address again yesterday when he made it clear the atonement began in That Garden and ended in the Garden Tomb with his rising from the dead. Our Church manels teach the same. Our sacrament prayers are all all about him having given his body and blood in the Garden and on the Cross. 

[Joshua Valentine]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Your "mathematical" description is wrong. There is one way to get the number 4(2+2) where neither integer is more important. In LDS belief Gethsemane is just as important as Calvary.  

No, you have proven my point. But let me clarify, perhaps. I am not saying that the Cross is NOT equally cherished and referenced by the LDS. (Although, that could be argued; in fact, its the point of the whole issue of LDS and crosses and the garden, etc.) I am willing to accept to accept that LDS equally hold the Cross and the Garden, as you say as 2 and 2. But, using your integers, the total possible is 4, and you can either have that split up by two things and have it as 2+2 or as 1+3. Either way the Cross could be by itself and be 4, but in LDS it has to share with Gethsemane, which leads the Cross to being at best 3, and as your analogy had it, just 2. Obviously this is a simplification because, as Bobbieaware put it all of Christ's blood is precious and all of the Holy week is Holy, but it makes the point of total possible importance and reverence and whether something takes all of that or less of it. Put in another way, Christians for centuries had it as the Cross taking the whole 4. Come someone, Joseph or another, and suddenly the Cross had to give up some of its 4 to the Garden.

Quote

You didn't mention the Godhead. Caliming that the Trinity is a superior belief from the Bible. The Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

Huh? When was I supposed to mention the LDS concept of the Godhead? I only mentioned the Trinity because at that time I was celebrating Holy week from my perspective, and, again, acknowledged that Bobbieaware might not appreciate it in that respect (alluding a different conception of God, aka LDS Godhead). I feel like you are showing all kinds of irrationality, bias, and malice here, thesometimesaint. Please elucidate how it is that I was reasonably supposed to bring up the LDS Godhead.

And, again, can you not name any LDS terms that are nowhere mentioned in the Bible? Btw, you completely ignored my criticism of your unprovoked attack on a belief of hundreds of millions of Christians. What is you countenance, thesometimesaint?

Quote

I have no way of confirming what you have read, or listened to.

All I have is what you write. I do have deep reservations as to your understanding what you read and heard.

That is right. You have no way to confirm what I have or HAVE NOT read or listened to. So why, as you have hear so blatantly done, assumed I have not?

All you have is what I write, which you COULD respond to with civil humility and the benefit of a doubt, perhaps even ask probing questions, and be ready to simply disagree with me rather than attack me as ignorant and foolish. So, really, while I give you only what I right, you have taken it with your freely chosen negativity. I did not give you the contrariness, unfairness, and hostility with my writing, you brought that to this discussion yourself, from your very first comment.

Quote

I have no personal antagonism towards you, or your beliefs. Believe whatever you want. But please ask me what I believe before making such statements about it.

Here you go again! Thesometimesaint, I never told YOU what YOU believe. I described what I saw as an inevitability of LDS teaching, that I saw substantiated by some LDS. You seem ready to see that the Trinity is "nowhere in the Bible" but can't seem to see that I have nowhere told you what thesometimesaint's personal beliefs are.

Or do you think all LDS believe the same beliefs? Do you really think that the LDS people are a propositional monolith? Surely, you do not, given your experiences on this board?

Tell me something, and please reply to this or I will definitely have tomake it a thread topic. Do you believe that any outsider can make any statement about LDS teachings, and even particular beliefs of no particular LDS member, without telling LDS (or, more directly, you) what they (you) believe?

[Joshua Valentine]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The Latter-day Saints believe the great gouts of holy blood shed in Gethsemanie, when Christ waded through intense spiritual suffering nigh unto death, was atoning blood; and we also believe that the holy blood drawn and spattered by the scourger's cruel whip was atoning blood (by his stripes we are healed); that the holy blood drawn when abuse was heaped on the Lord by the Roman soldiers was atoning blood; that the holy blood that dripped to the ground as he carried his cross on the Via Dolorasa, toward Golgotha, was atoning blood; that the holy blood shed when he was nailed to the cross and when the spear pierced his side was atoning blood.

But if you choose to believe in a theology that insists only the blood shed on the cross had atoning power, that is your right and privilege and I will respect you for it. But I hope you will extend to the Latter-day Saints the same sincere respect if we choose to believe ALL the holy blood shed on the fearful journey, that began in Gethsemane and ended on Calvary's hill, was ALL atoning blood. 

And with the above, I have little left to say. For you acknowledge, however grudgingly, that the Latter-day Saimts believe they cannot be exalted in heaven unless they ritually share in the Lord's sacrifice on the cross. And you also acknowledge the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price all agree with the Bible that Christ died and atoned for the sins of the world on the cross.

 35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138)

So there's not much left for me to say, except to make it clear that in the LDS Church the imbalanced "Gethsemane only" misunderstanding is fast fading from view. And that's all it was -- a misunderstanding.

Of course, I can respect that as their belief. But that doesn't mean I think it is true, or that it is supported by the evidence, which is what we are discussing here, the evidence and reasoning.

First, we are not told, at least in the Bible, that Jesus actually sweated blood, only that it was "as it were blood", much different than "sweated blood": "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

Second, Christ's death and atonement only make sense within the context of Israelite temple sacrifice, which included the shedding of blood, not the incidental perspiration of blood. Even if Jesus did sweat blood, it does not have to be atoning blood in order to be significant; again, it has significance for his humanity and his trial and thus what he went through for us in order to atone.

Third, Israelite temple sacrifice was not accomplished by some blood being exited from the animal, but the bleeding of the animal and its death. Otherwise they could have bled the animal only a little, cared for it, and kept the benefits of its continued life.

Fourth, the LDS view of Jesus being tormented by the actual nearing of all sin seems problematic. Did he get a break from carrying it all through the time of being arrested, interrogated, judged, etc., until he got on the cross where it returned to him? I believe, even this Sunday, I heard at Sacrament that very verbiage, that he bore the weight of sin "once again" on the cross. I hope I am missing somethignhere, because, otherwise, it just sounds like some kind of atonement compatibilism or syncretism.

Is it more likely that all the anguish in the garden was his human anguish of anticipating the scourging, the cross, the first ever and infinite separation from the Father (which, again, is more clearly horrific and astounding given Trinity theology than LDS Godhood theology (although it is still there in LDS theology) or that he started drinking the cup, while praying for it to pass from him (even though "pass" seems to indicate he has not drunk from it yet) then got a break, spoke to Peter as if he had not already started drinking the cup and only got it back to drink on the cross? That is with cup metaphor. If we think of it more literally as the sins of all upon him, are we to believe that all sin was placed on him, but then taken off, so he could do everything else before getting placed on him again, since he had to have it one him when he died? Or did he just get it put on him during the actual dying/sacrifice process of the cross?

 

I am not against synthesis of these two locations and this strange two-step bearing of sins, if there is good reason to have to make such extra steps of belief, but, again, where is the revelation from which this Garden theology was officially and authoritatively delivered from God? And, even if it were authoritatively revealed, how does such a clear revelation lead to such a central and significant "misunderstanding", Bobbieaware? Surely there would have to be particular evidence to its true revelation in order to justify being called a "misunderstanding" instead of "a teaching of men". 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Of course, I can respect that as their belief. But that doesn't mean I think it is true, or that it is supported by the evidence, which is what we are discussing here, the evidence and reasoning.

First, we are not told, at least in the Bible, that Jesus actually sweated blood, only that it was "as it were blood", much different than "sweated blood": "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

Second, Christ's death and atonement only make sense within the context of Israelite temple sacrifice, which included the shedding of blood, not the incidental perspiration of blood. Even if Jesus did sweat blood, it does not have to be atoning blood in order to be significant; again, it has significance for his humanity and his trial and thus what he went through for us in order to atone.

Third, Israelite temple sacrifice was not accomplished by some blood being exited from the animal, but the bleeding of the animal and its death. Otherwise they could have bled the animal only a little, cared for it, and kept the benefits of its continued life.

Fourth, the LDS view of Jesus being tormented by the actual nearing of all sin seems problematic. Did he get a break from carrying it all through the time of being arrested, interrogated, judged, etc., until he got on the cross where it returned to him? I believe, even this Sunday, I heard at Sacrament that very verbiage, that he bore the weight of sin "once again" on the cross. I hope I am missing somethignhere, because, otherwise, it just sounds like some kind of atonement compatibilism or syncretism.

Is it more likely that all the anguish in the garden was his human anguish of anticipating the scourging, the cross, the first ever and infinite separation from the Father (which, again, is more clearly horrific and astounding given Trinity theology than LDS Godhood theology (although it is still there in LDS theology) or that he started drinking the cup, while praying for it to pass from him (even though "pass" seems to indicate he has not drunk from it yet) then got a break, spoke to Peter as if he had not already started drinking the cup and only got it back to drink on the cross? That is with cup metaphor. If we think of it more literally as the sins of all upon him, are we to believe that all sin was placed on him, but then taken off, so he could do everything else before getting placed on him again, since he had to have it one him when he died? Or did he just get it put on him during the actual dying/sacrifice process of the cross?

 

I am not against synthesis of these two locations and this strange two-step bearing of sins, if there is good reason to have to make such extra steps of belief, but, again, where is the revelation from which this Garden theology was officially and authoritatively delivered from God? And, even if it were authoritatively rebealed, how does such a clear revelation lead to such a central and significant "misunderstanding", Bobbieaware? Surely there would have to be particular evidence to its true revelation in order to justify being called a "misunderstanding" instead of "a teaching of men". 

 

The revelations that inform the Latter-day Saints on the subject of Christ's atoning suffering in Gethsemane are the two portions of LDS scripture I mentioned in a previous post. The first is the testimony of an angel spoken to the prophet King Benjamin, and in that testimony the angel makes it clear the Lord sweat blood from every pore (an affliction known medically as hematidrosis, when sweat mingles with blood) during the exquisite agony that brought Christ nigh unto death during his suffering in Gethsemane.

And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah3)

The second witness we have are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who graphically testifies to the nature of his atoning suffering which the Father called upon him to endure in Gethsemane.

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— (D&C 19)

As you likely know, we Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon -- and the other latter-day scriptures revealed thus far -- came forward by the will of God to clear up the ambiguities (and perceived ambiguities) found in the BIble that have been the cause of the many doctrinal controversies that have swirled around amongst the varying Christian sects for nearly two millennia. But thanks to the two above witnesses, one found in the Book of Mormon and the other in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Latter-day Saints know the extreme suffering of the Lord, that brought him nigh unto death while he suffered in the garden, caused him to sweat atoning blood, mingled with sweat, from every pore. If you don't believe what the Latter-day Saints believe in this regard, that's fine. But don't expect me to not believe  in the Restored Gospel just because you seem to be a "Bible alone" Christian.  And since I perceive it's likely you are a Bible alone Christian (correct me if I'm wrong), and I most certainly am not, why argue when we can't even agree on the source materials that inform each of our faiths?

By the way, what do you think it was about the Lord sweating that caused Luke to liken the liquid which issued forth from Christ's pores to be likened unto blood? 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Jim Stiles]

Quote

It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.

A person who does not despair of his own ability to live a perfect life will not trust in Him who lived a perfect life and received the full measure of God's wrath in his place.

[Bobbieaware]

48 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

A person who does not despair of his own ability to live a perfect life will not trust in Him who lived a perfect life and received the full measure of God's wrath in his place.

This is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

 23 And Christ truly said unto our fathers: If ye have faith ye can do all things which are expedient unto me.

 24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

 25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God. (Moroni 10)

and...

 22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

 23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.

 24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni7) 

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Tacenda]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-adam-smith/do-mormons-celebrate-easter_b_9543110.html

Thought some of you might like this.

[Jim Stiles]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

 23 And Christ truly said unto our fathers: If ye have faith ye can do all things which are expedient unto me.

 24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

 25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God. (Moroni 10)

and...

 22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

 23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.

 24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni7) 

 

Quote

2 Nephi 23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

This "after all we can do" is not found in the Bible.  Besides, who does all that he or she can do.  It is because we do not and can not do all we can do that we need a perfect sacrifice for our sin.  It is the theologian of glory who says that we must do our part before God does the rest.  The theologian of the cross knows that we cannot do our part, which is why we need the cross.

 

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

This "after all we can do" is not found in the Bible.  Besides, who does all that he or she can do.  It is because we do not and can not do all we can do that we need a perfect sacrifice for our sin.  It is the theologian of glory who says that we must do our part before God does the rest.  The theologian of the cross knows that we cannot do our part, which is why we need the cross.

 

 

You misunderstand what "after all we can do" means. Just before making that statement in 2 Nephi 25, Nephi points his people to the example of the children of Israel when they were bitten by deadly poisonous serpents during the time of their sojourn in the wilderness. In his mercy, God set up a divine plan of action whereby those who were mortally wounded by the serpents could be healed by the power of God, and all God wanted those so stricken to do was to merely exercise faith enough to turn the gaze for a moment and look up at the bronze image of a destroyed sepent that was being held high aloft above Israel's camp. You see, he didn't just heal them. Those who had the minimal amount of faith needed to make the effort to look at the image of the slain serpent were healed. But remarkably, there were those among the ranks of Israel who didn't even have the faith to look at the brazen serpent for just a moment, and they died.

Nephi's lesson here is that we all need God's saving and empowering grace every moment of of lives if we are ever to have a real hope of of growing dynamically in the grace and knowledge of God. Nephi wasn't saying that as fallen and spiritually estranged mortals we must do all we can do in our own human strength for our entire lives, and then at the end of that arduous process he will finally give us his saving grace. Such an idea is as ridiculous as it is false.

But what Nephi is actually teaching is that as followers of Christ we need ever increasing outpourings of God's grace, but before God will impart those merciful infusions of saving grace he expects us to do our minimal part by exercising faith in him and obeying the simple things he asks us to do. For example, the Lord says before we can RECEIVE grace from him we must ASK him for that grace, and before he will OPEN the door of heaven to pour out his blessings upon us we must first KNOCK on the Lord's door. And in 2 Nephi 25 Nephi, speaking specifically of obtaining salvation, Nephi teaches his people that if they want to be saved they must first do two things. 1) have faith in Christ and then 2) be reconciled to God by sincerely repenting of their sins. That's what they had to do. Not a lot to ask considering the reward for that faith and repentance is a remission of sins and continual outpourings of the Holy Ghost to empower the soul to be able to overcome the world.

Nephi is teaching us that just as the children of Israel needed to just look at the image of the brazen sepent in order to be healed from their deadly snake bites, so too we to must do those simple and basic things he asks of us so that we will receive his grace. But only after we have knocked on the door and earnestly petitioned the Lord for his blessings. He's not usually disposed to knock and ask for us.

We are not robots. In every instance of our lives there's something simple we can do that will cause God to be more likely to open the door of heaven and pour out upon us the blessings of his grace. Those simple things that WE CAN DO include humble prayer, scripture study, joining regularly with the saints in worship, gratefully partaking of the emblems of the Lord's flesh and blood, being in the kinds of places and mingling with the kinds of people where the Spirit of the Lord can be unrestrained, doing simple acts of mercy and kindness so that God's love will flow naturally. The bottom line is that in every situation there is something WE CAN DO to magnify the blessings and influence of the Lord in our lives. And if we do those things which he has asked of us in faith, it's much more likely that we will continually grow in the grace and the knowledge of God.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Bernard Gui]

On March 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Yirgacheffe said:

And how do you know whether or not the person in front of you who has on a cross has not taken up the cross?  This seem rather flippant, as though your "go to" attitude is that they simply wear a cross for show.

Not at all. It is not flippant at all... anyone can go to a store, buy a piece of jewelry in the shape of a cross, and put it on for whatever reason.

A disciple of Christ takes up the cross, which means he takes upon himself the name of Christ, remembers Christ always, and keeps his commandments. His discipleship is demonstrated by what he does, not what he wears, the fruit he bears in his life and the way he serves his brothers and sisters, not the adornment of his person. This is not to disparage any disciple who chooses to wear the cross, but simply to say wearing the outward sign of a symbol of His death is not how Jesus asked us to follow Him. His words are unmistakable. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven....If you love me, keep my commandments... Inasmuch as you do it unto the least of these my brethren, you do it to me."

 

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Yirgacheffe]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not at all. It is not flippant at all... anyone can go to a store, buy a piece of jewelry in the shape of a cross, and put it on for whatever reason.

A disciple of Christ takes up the cross, which means he takes upon himself the name of Christ, remembers Christ always, and keeps his commandments. His discipleship is demonstrated by what he does, not what he wears, the fruit he bears in his life and the way he serves his brothers and sisters, not the adornment of his person. This is not to disparage any disciple who chooses to wear the cross, but simply to say wearing the outward sign of a symbol of His death is not how Jesus asked us to follow Him. His words are unmistakable. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven....If you love me, keep my commandments... Inasmuch as you do it unto the least of these my brethren, you do it to me."

 

 

And still it seems your go to attitude is "more than likely just for show until they have proved themselves above all reproach".