Question for Catholic posters

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, I have no idea if the angel stuck around.

The bitter cup did not end in Gethsemane. I have seen nothing in scripture or from the apostles to suggest that his taking upon him the pains of the sins and sorrows of humanity was finished before he left Gethsemane.

You are correct. After his suffering in Gethsemane, Christ clearly testified he had not yet drank the bitter cup of the wrath of God to its dregs -- he knew there was much atoning suffering yet to come. At the time of his arrest by the temple guards, which obviously occurred after his suffering in Gethsemane, we read of the following significant incident.

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, SHALL I NOT DRINK OF IT? (John 18)

I'm convinced that one day the mistaken idea that the atonement took place in the garden of Gethsemanie only will be regarded as a heresy. Even now, one rarely hears a general authority speak of the atonement of Christ without the suffering on the cross being given equal weight to the suffering in the garden.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

15 hours ago, longview said:

No.  Jesus took on Himself the "Bitter Cup" in the Garden of Gethsemane.  He dreaded it and prayed to the Father asking if there was some way He could avoid it.  But it was necessary.  He took on Himself all the sins, all the sufferings, all the ravages, all the injustices endured by all the people from time of Adam & Eve to the end of the Millennium.  It was a crushing horrific process.  No human could endure it.  Only a God could do it.  Gethsemane in Hebrew means Garden of the Olive Press.

That agony in the Garden was many times (maybe infinitely) greater than all the other agonies Jesus suffered in the following events (arrest, trial, beatings, forced march to Golgotha and hanging on the cross).  It was necessary for that angel to come and strengthen Him.  See:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/12/the-olive-press?lang=eng

You are mistaken. 

James E. Talmage (Quorum of the Twelve)

At the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon, a loud voice, surpassing the most anguished cry of physical suffering issued from the central cross, rending the dreadful darkness. It was the voice of the Christ: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" What mind of man can fathom the significance of that awful cry? It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death. (Jesus the Christ, pp.660-661)

Bruce R. McConkie (Quorum of the Twelve)

Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem's walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities.

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

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

And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred. ("The Purifying Power of Gethsemane," Ensign, May 1985, p. 10)

[Bobbieaware]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The cross is a bad word sometimes. I wish the church wouldn't be afraid of it. But the way my mom put it, if Jesus was killed by a gun would we wear a gun or put up a gun on the wall? Which I think is a lame excuse for not using it, bless her heart though she was going by protocol.

I think the church distanced itself from the cross because it coincided with the Catholic church, that's my opinion of course. I don't know why that is. But I remember telling someone in my ward that I would like to wear the cross and she was shocked and attributed it to the devil. It was so strange, the disconnect with the cross. When in actuality it's a very integral symbol for Jesus' sacrifice.

Hopefully the church will eventually bring it back. Also, the answer comes back that the church likes to concentrate on the living Christ, His resurrection. But this doesn't hold water enough for me, this explanation.

There is no need for the Church to "bring back" the significance of the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion because the highest ordinances of the gospel are already totally awash in and dependent upon crucifixion imagery. There is no Christian Church that places more symbolic importance and salvative power on the imagery of the crucifixion of Christ than do the Latter-Day Saints. How this most plainly obvious and undeniable fact is missed by so many members of the LDS Church is absolutely beyond my capacity to understand! Perhaps this strange phenomenon of multitudes being seemingly blind to a blatantly obvious truth is in partial fulfillment of Christ's warning when he said that some will see and yet not see, and others will hear but not hear. Would it be incorrect or unkind to say it appears you are one of those who have seen but not seen and heard but not heard? 

Once one's eyes have been opened to the obvious truths of which I speak, it becomes clear that the reason why we are counseled not to wear crosses isn't because the symbols of Christ's crucifixion aren't important to the Latter-Day Saints, it's because the symbols of Christ's crucifixion are too sacred to openly display. And just because most don't "get it" doesn't invalidate the truth of which I speak.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[boblloyd91]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

There is no need for the Church to "bring back" the significance of the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion because the highest ordinances of the gospel are already totally awash in and dependent upon crucifixion imagery. There is no Christian Church that places more symbolic importance and salvative power on the imagery of the crucifixion of Christ than do the Latter-Day Saints. How this most plainly obvious and undeniable fact is missed by so many members of the LDS Church is absolutely beyond my capacity to understand! Perhaps this strange phenomenon of multitudes being seemingly blind to a blatantly obvious truth is in partial fulfillment of Christ's warning when he said that some will see and yet not see, and others will hear but not hear. Would it be incorrect or unkind to say it appears you are one of those who have seen but not seen and heard but not heard? 

Once one's eyes have been opened to the obvious truths of which I speak, it becomes clear that the reason why we are counseled not to wear crosses isn't because the symbols of Christ's crucifixion aren't important to the Latter-Day Saints, it's because the symbols of Christ's crucifixion are too sacred to openly display. And just because most don't "get it" doesn't invalidate the truth of which I speak.

I'm picking up what you're putting down and I never thought of the temple that way. One of the reasons I put this topic up is because along with seeing other viewpoints, I've become more and more skeptical over the years of certain LDS making the cross seem irrelevant to the atonement and focusing exclusively on the garden. 

[BlueDreams]

20 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The cross is a bad word sometimes. I wish the church wouldn't be afraid of it. But the way my mom put it, if Jesus was killed by a gun would we wear a gun or put up a gun on the wall? Which I think is a lame excuse for not using it, bless her heart though she was going by protocol.

I think the church distanced itself from the cross because it coincided with the Catholic church, that's my opinion of course. I don't know why that is. But I remember telling someone in my ward that I would like to wear the cross and she was shocked and attributed it to the devil. It was so strange, the disconnect with the cross. When in actuality it's a very integral symbol for Jesus' sacrifice.

Hopefully the church will eventually bring it back. Also, the answer comes back that the church likes to concentrate on the living Christ, His resurrection. But this doesn't hold water enough for me, this explanation.

 For what it's worth, my grandmother is catholic and as a gift for my birthday, sent me Earring and a cross necklace encrusted in diamonds. Both are very beautiful. I wore the cross necklace to church a couple weeks ago and no one batted an eye. My mom probably would. (Though I wore it to my bros Graduation and she said nothing). But she's uber culturally Mormon... she's the sort who really argued with me about herbal tea and still won't drink it herself. That wasn't the first time that I've had a decorative cross. I also had one from a convert in my mission with a woman in front of it holding a book (if I remember correctly). It hung on my wall I think during most the mish. I think our hesitancy is more cultural than anything else. I'm ok with it not being a prominent symbol. It's not our thang. And we've likewise built cultural reasons for such. But overall the cross is just a symbol to me. It has as much or little significance as we put on it. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

 

P.s. I do feel the cultural hesitancy at times. But I recognize the difference between a cultural hesitation v a spiritual one. This one is entirely cultural 

[BlueDreams]

17 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

I'm picking up what you're putting down and I never thought of the temple that way. One of the reasons I put this topic up is because along with seeing other viewpoints, I've become more and more skeptical over the years of certain LDS making the cross seem irrelevant to the atonement and focusing exclusively on the garden. 

That surprises me a little. It's one of the few things that I feel they make pretty blatant in the temple to explain the symbolic referencing (without going into detail). 

TBH, a few people's posts here have been surprising to me, such as insisting most the atonement or the "greatest" part happened in gethsemane. I've never heard anything to that regard ever, and view things like Elder holland's GC talk a few years back contradicting this notion. As well as the scriptures for that matter. I don't get how anyone could arrange to make the cross and his death irrelevant. 

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited August 6, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

I'm picking up what you're putting down and I never thought of the temple that way. One of the reasons I put this topic up is because along with seeing other viewpoints, I've become more and more skeptical over the years of certain LDS making the cross seem irrelevant to the atonement and focusing exclusively on the garden. 

The truth of the matter is that the symbolism pertaining to Christ's crucifixion is more critically important to the salvation of the Latter-Day Saints than to the people of any other religion. It's clear that one of the main reasons why this plainly obvious truth is missed by so many members of the LDS Church is because we are strongly cautioned to never discuss the higher ordinances of the Restored Gospel but to ponder such sacred things quietly in our hearts. For this reason many fail see the proverbial forest for the trees -- in this case the pervasive symbology of Christ's crucifixion as manifested in the higher ordinances of the gospel. . 

Edited August 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, longview said:

Are you saying that angel was with Jesus the whole time He was suffering the effects of the "Bitter Cup" ?  I could agree with that.  I also believe Jesus continued to carry the effects all the way to the cross.

How does Hinckley's statement differ from my description of what occurred in Gethsemane?

D&C 19:18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

3 Ne 11:11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

The Bible only records that an angel was with him. Unfortunately not how long. Yours is a speculation beyond the statement presented.

[thesometimesaint]

It is doubtful Catholicism was more of an influence on the LDS idea's of the Cross than Protestantism. Catholic's use the occupied Cross, Protestants use the empty Cross, and LDS use no Cross at all.

Edited August 6, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The truth of the matter is that the symbolism pertaining to Christ's crucifixion is more critically important to the salvation of the Latter-Day Saints than to the people of any other religion.

This is intriguing. I'm guessing from other posters' responses that you are talking about the temple ceremonies. It's too bad that you can't discuss it because I would love to see how the cross and crucifixion are in the ceremonies, since they don't show up in LDS sunday services.

Mass is completely centered on the crucifixion. Christ is sacrificed again on the altar every time a priest says Mass, offering His infinite sacrifice to us. The full title of the ritual is "the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass." Since Mass is said daily by priests all over the world, this means that at any given time during the day and night somewhere in the world Christ's sacrifice is occurring. It shows its timelessness and infiniteness.

Here's the catechism version explanation:

Quote

360. Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross? 

The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ. 

(a) Christ, though invisible, is the principal minister, offering Himself in the Mass. The priest is the visible and secondary minister, offering Christ in the Mass. 

(b) The most important part of the Mass is the Consecration. In the Consecration bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ who then is really present on the altar. Through the priest He offers Himself to God in commemoration of His death on the cross. 

(c) The other most important parts of the Mass are the Offertory and the Communion. In the Offertory the priest offers to God the bread and wine that will be changed into the body and blood of Christ. In the Communion the priest and the people receive the body and blood of Our Lord under the appearances of bread and wine.

...

362. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass?

The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed His blood and was physically slain, while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfied for us, while in the Mass He applies to us the merits and satisfaction of His death on the cross.

(a) On the cross Christ was offered in a bloody manner; in the Mass He is offered in an unbloody manner. On the cross Christ alone offered Himself directly; in the Mass He offers Himself through the priest, who is the secondary but true minister, dependent upon Christ.

(b) On the cross Christ suffered and died; in the Mass He can no longer suffer or die. On the cross He paid the price of our redemption; in the Mass He applies to us the merits of His Sacrifice on the cross.

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Storm Rider]

On 8/5/2017 at 10:24 AM, MiserereNobis said:

The suffering in the garden is often known as the Agony. It is not technically part of the Atonement -- that was the Crucifixion -- but it is part of His sufferings surrounding the Crucifixion. I, too, have noticed the LDS focus on Gethsemane. I think we have talked about it before on this board. As I remember, Mormons believe that the Atonement happened in Gethsemane and not on the Cross. Is this correct?

......

Hello MiserereNobis, always enjoy your comments, thoughts, and questions.  Though I only skimmed a few responses I thought I would chime in with my thoughts.  The Atonement - the paying of the price for our sins - ended on the cross.  Some of the responses were much broader in definition of Atonement, but I am trying to focus on the strict definition of the term off the top of my head.

LDS do tend to believe that the Atonement began - the beginning of the price being paid for our sins - in the Garden.  It is not surprising that the 1st Sorrowful Mystery also begins in the Garden and there is commonality here between our belief systems.  I think it often sounds like we put a focus on the Garden, Christ bleeding from every pore and his final acceptance to pay the ultimate price for all of our sins - but it should not be interpreted as an aversion to his crucifixion or a lack of understanding of the same.   

Edited August 6, 2017 by Storm Rider

[boblloyd91]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

That surprises me a little. It's one of the few things that I feel they make pretty blatant in the temple to explain the symbolic referencing (without going into detail). 

TBH, a few people's posts here have been surprising to me, such as insisting most the atonement or the "greatest" part happened in gethsemane. I've never heard anything to that regard ever, and view things like Elder holland's GC talk a few years back contradicting this notion. As well as the scriptures for that matter. I don't get how anyone could arrange to make the cross and his death irrelevant. 

 

With luv, 

BD

I'm pretty dense sometimes!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing. I'm guessing from other posters' responses that you are talking about the temple ceremonies.

Yep and it is also tied up in the notion of being a "savior on Mt. Zion" in which we become proxies for aiding in the salvation of others, just as Christ took upon himself our sins, and was a "proxy" for us, we can become in a small tiny way a proxy for those who have gone before.

The symbolism involved is extremely powerful. Symbolically we represent Christ within ourselves and show our desire to become like him.  As Christ is the Priest who offers mass with the physical priest being a kind of stand in, in a sense we become like the Catholic priest who represents Christ while in no way being Christ himself.

This article kind of touches on it, but one must amplify what is said since the article itself is only a symbol of a symbol.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-41?lang=eng

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing. I'm guessing from other posters' responses that you are talking about the temple ceremonies. It's too bad that you can't discuss it because I would love to see how the cross and crucifixion are in the ceremonies, since they don't show up in LDS sunday services.

Mass is completely centered on the crucifixion. Christ is sacrificed again on the altar every time a priest says Mass, offering His infinite sacrifice to us. The full title of the ritual is "the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass." Since Mass is said daily by priests all over the world, this means that at any given time during the day and night somewhere in the world Christ's sacrifice is occurring. It shows its timelessness and infiniteness.

Here's the catechism version explanation:

 

I wouldn't say the sacrament is completely devoid of the crucifixion as the basic symbols of the blood and flesh is there as well. It's just not as overt as you mentioned for catholic mass. 

As for the cross specifically in the temple ceremony...that is not literally there. But the symbolic actions and rites rely heavily on symbols from Christ's crucifixion. This is most overt at one of the most sacred part/rites in the endowment ceremony. It symbolically ties giving our whole selves to God and subsequently receiving into our bodies the ultimate sacrifice of our savior for us. This gives us the privilege to partake  in the rites for eternal life and enter into the Lord's rest/peace. In essence, His death and suffering become penacle to our eternal life and peace Reading your description of mass, there are definitely some overlapping principles to what you mentioned to our temple rites. As MFB mentioned.

 

with luv,

BD 

Edited August 6, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 For what it's worth, my grandmother is catholic and as a gift for my birthday, sent me Earring and a cross necklace encrusted in diamonds. Both are very beautiful. I wore the cross necklace to church a couple weeks ago and no one batted an eye. My mom probably would. (Though I wore it to my bros Graduation and she said nothing). But she's uber culturally Mormon... she's the sort who really argued with me about herbal tea and still won't drink it herself. That wasn't the first time that I've had a decorative cross. I also had one from a convert in my mission with a woman in front of it holding a book (if I remember correctly). It hung on my wall I think during most the mish. I think our hesitancy is more cultural than anything else. I'm ok with it not being a prominent symbol. It's not our thang. And we've likewise built cultural reasons for such. But overall the cross is just a symbol to me. It has as much or little significance as we put on it. 

With luv, 

BD 

P.s. I do feel the cultural hesitancy at times. But I recognize the difference between a cultural hesitation v a spiritual one. This one is entirely cultural 

I think Utah culture makes some, mostly ourselves, think that some local cultural mores are church wide when they are not.  An example, my sister-in-law has a wonderful collection of crosses on her living room wall.  They come from all over the world, but with an emphasis on Mexican crosses and crucifixes.  We don't have a cross or a crucifix in our home, but I have looked for one several times and have yet to find one that "fits" me yet.  

I would also acknowledge that I may be an on the fringe - me and our extended families - regarding this topic. However, I have found so very few really unique things about us; we are just typical humans and I suspect there are many more like us than are different from us. 

[Calm]

I have a cross on my bedroom wall, favorite picture for years...though perhaps others might look at it and not realize it is a cross, thinking it is only a sword instead.

[Rain]

On 8/6/2017 at 6:32 AM, boblloyd91 said:

I'm picking up what you're putting down and I never thought of the temple that way. One of the reasons I put this topic up is because along with seeing other viewpoints, I've become more and more skeptical over the years of certain LDS making the cross seem irrelevant to the atonement and focusing exclusively on the garden. 

 

On 8/6/2017 at 6:49 AM, BlueDreams said:

That surprises me a little. It's one of the few things that I feel they make pretty blatant in the temple to explain the symbolic referencing (without going into detail). 

TBH, a few people's posts here have been surprising to me, such as insisting most the atonement or the "greatest" part happened in gethsemane. I've never heard anything to that regard ever, and view things like Elder holland's GC talk a few years back contradicting this notion. As well as the scriptures for that matter. I don't get how anyone could arrange to make the cross and his death irrelevant. 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

20 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I'm pretty dense sometimes!

You are not dense. It has just been taught better in recent years so it makes sense why BD has never heard of it. 

It was deeply ingrained in me during my youth that the atonement happened in Gethsemene. I remember many lessons on it, but couldn't quote what was said.  I taught on my mission that it happened in Gethsemene, not on the cross so much. 

Then on a scrapbooking message board someone questioned me about that. She asked "then what does it mean that with his stripes we are healed?" That put me at a full stop in teaching it. 

I started looking everywhere to find somewhere where it said it also happened on the cross etc. I wasn't finding anything.  Either I was blind to it being there or I wasn't reading the specific passages.

I asked my bishop. He couldn't tell me where to find whether it was on the cross or not. I asked my stake president and he couldn't either, but he was in CES and said he would get back with me. 

I found a video with the testimony of the apostles. I think it was a President Hinckley that said that the resurrection was, I think, the "capstone" of the atonement. So the resurrection was part of the atonement at least.

My stake president got with me quite awhile later and gave me an email from someone else in CES. He somehow worded that this question was not common to him so I further think that more people had the impression that the atonement was just in the garden. 

The answers he gave were quotes by McConkie and Talmadge quoted above as well as one by Romney and a couple of scriptures.

Since then I have found it all over the place. It’s always been there. My best guess is that a conference talk shared how important it was in the garden and people mistakenly ran with it and interpreted that it was only in the garden.

There are STILL people that feel it was only in the garden -hard to reach everyone and then change minds, but I am hearing it much less.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Rain

[longview]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Catholic's use the occupied Cross, Protestants use the empty Cross, and LDS use no Cross at all.

Actually, the emphasis is on the Ascension, The Risen Christ, the empty tomb.  LDS ward houses have plain steeples pointing upward.

[longview]

17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

And truly he was, for while he was hanging on the cross for another three hours, from noon to 3:00 P.M., all the infinite agonies and merciless pains of Gethsemane recurred. ("The Purifying Power of Gethsemane," Ensign, May 1985, p. 10)

Interesting.  However, I do wonder about the wording in this statement and will continue to ponder.  I tried to find the button/tab to turn on footnoted references.  I would very much like to search the scriptures for further information.

[thesometimesaint]

31 minutes ago, longview said:

Actually, the emphasis is on the Ascension, The Risen Christ, the empty tomb.  LDS ward houses have plain steeples pointing upward.

Some do, some don't. I've been in Ward buildings that years later put on a belfry on their modern building. An unnecessary affectation if you ask me. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[longview]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

An unnecessary affectation if you ask me.

Not so.  I find it very helpful to scan around neighborhoods in unfamiliar towns for a church to attend.  The rising steeple is like a beacon to me.  I can see them from a few miles out.

ETA:  Also a signal to the lost sheep.

Edited August 7, 2017 by longview

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Not so.  I find it very helpful to scan around neighborhoods in unfamiliar towns for a church to attend.  The rising steeple is like a beacon to me.  I can see them from a few miles out.

ETA:  Also a signal to the lost sheep.

I think you do not live in Los Angeles.

[Darren10]

On 8/6/2017 at 8:49 AM, BlueDreams said:

That surprises me a little. It's one of the few things that I feel they make pretty blatant in the temple to explain the symbolic referencing (without going into detail). 

TBH, a few people's posts here have been surprising to me, such as insisting most the atonement or the "greatest" part happened in gethsemane. I've never heard anything to that regard ever, and view things like Elder holland's GC talk a few years back contradicting this notion. As well as the scriptures for that matter. I don't get how anyone could arrange to make the cross and his death irrelevant. 

 

With luv, 

BD

If the pains of Gethsemane returned to Jesus while on the cross then thay would make His crucifixion the most agonizing part of the Atonement, if it did not then Gethsemane would be. I believe thay the cross was the highest point of His suffering. 

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Not so.  I find it very helpful to scan around neighborhoods in unfamiliar towns for a church to attend.  The rising steeple is like a beacon to me.  I can see them from a few miles out.

ETA:  Also a signal to the lost sheep.

Steeples are a dime a dozen. If you are looking for a particular church a steeple won't help.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmyra_(village),_New_York#/media/File:Palmyra_four_churches.jpg

[Rain]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Interesting.  However, I do wonder about the wording in this statement and will continue to ponder.  I tried to find the button/tab to turn on footnoted references.  I would very much like to search the scriptures for further information.

The wording has been something I have thought about a lot. Why did he use "recurred" and which definition did he mean. Depending on how used it could mean that it happened again or it could mean that it continued to happen or something else entirely.