Latter-day Saints overlooking some of the importance of the cross

[Nofear]

This BYU professor makes some pretty decent points that we LDS are potentially missing something when we emphasize Gethsemane and the Resurrection and discuss the Crucifixion less. Of particular import, the scriptures don't do this---emphasize the Crucifixion less than Gethsemane. Quite the opposite. I think this video could have been distilled a bit, but I think it successfully, not change but, reorients/rearranges some of my doctrinal thinking.
 

 

Edited April 11 by Nofear

[teddyaware]

50 minutes ago, Nofear said:

This BYU professor makes some pretty decent points that we LDS are potentially missing something when we emphasize Gethsemane and the Resurrection and discuss the Crucifixion less. Of particular import, the scriptures don't do this---emphasize the Crucifixion less than Gethsemane. Quite the opposite. I think this video could have been distilled a bit, but I think it successfully, not change but, reorients/rearranges some of my doctrinal thinking.
 

 

All one has to do is look to the ordinances of the temple to realize the utter absurdity of the claim that the religion of the Latter-Day Saints places only lesser salvific importance on the crucifixion of Christ when compared to his sufferings in Gethsemane. It becomes perfectly clear that without a central focus on the crucifixion of Christ there is no entry into the celestial kingdom and no eternal marriages and families.

[The Nehor]

Embracing crosses? What’s next? Councils that write creeds?

We cannot embrace the cross. Our choice not to use it as a symbol of our faith dates back to the beginning of time, the 1950s. I mean, before that they used the cross quite a bit but we lived in ignorance before the light of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie quasi-officially canonized not using it. What’s next? Playing cards not being a sign that the user is a gross sinner?

Edited April 11 by The Nehor

[Rain]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

All one has to do is look to the ordinances of the temple to realize the utter absurdity of the claim that the religion of the Latter-Day Saints places only lesser salvific importance on the crucifixion of Christ when compared to his sufferings in Gethsemane. It becomes perfectly clear that without a central focus on the crucifixion of Christ there is no entry into the celestial kingdom and no eternal marriages and families.

All one has to do is look at conference talks and manuals to see that Latter-day Saints "emphasize Gethsemane and the Resurrection and discuss the Crucifixion less" as Nofear said despite what is in the temple. I even went to my bishop and my stake president who held some kind of leadeship position in the Church Educational System to ask about the atonement and the crucifixtion and my SP turned to someone else in CES to help me get my answers.  So you might find it absurd that some think the church places lesser importance on the cross, but given my experience I would guess that CES would not, at least until a few years ago.

Edited April 12 by Rain

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

All one has to do is look at conference talks and manuals to see that Latter-day Saints "emphasize Gethsemane and the Resurrection and discuss the Crucifixion less" as Nofear said despite what is in the temple. I even went to my bishop and my stake president who held some kind of leadeship position in the Church Educational System to ask about the atonement and the crucifixtion and my SP turned to someone else in CES to help me get my answers.  So you might find it absurd that some think the church places lesser importance on the cross, but given my experience I would guess that CES would not, at least until a few years ago.

Yeah, it depends where you look though. The curriculum at least used to have a big emphasis on Gethsemane.

The data from church leadership is more mixed. I have this bookmarked from a few years back when I was looking into Gethsemane versus Calvary references in scripture and General Conference talks.

https://rsc.byu.edu/how-what-you-worship/joseph-smith-gethsemane-crucifixion-jesus-christ

I think the emphasis on Gethsemane comes primarily from D&C 19 with the “suffer even as I” bit that is coupled with bleeding from every pore. Talmage pioneered some of this. There is little to suggest Joseph Smith taught it.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/11/2025 at 2:27 PM, Nofear said:

..........................
 

 

You will notice a couple of major problems already with this YouTube video.  It doesn't even attempt to convey the truth:  Jesus, like all such victims, was crucified nude (evangelicals like to speak of the "shame of the cross").  Also, he had spikes through his wrists.  The art here fails on both counts. Latter-day Saints might at least be expected to understand these realities -- one of which is dealt with in the temple.

Indeed, on the west tower of the Salt Lake Temple, we find the image of Ursa Major and Polaris.  Anciently, Ursa Major was known as The Wagon, which together with Polaris represented the unwearying circumpolar stars of God in Isaiah 14:13 (= 2 Nephi 24:13), and they symbolized eternity in the Bible, as well as in Phoenicia and Egypt.

The Wagon was also known as the Seven Sages (who sit in the Heavenly Council with God, Isaiah 14:13), or as the seven threshing oxen (Septemtriones) which keep the millstone (plaga septentrionales) of the gods moving, with Kokob/ Kochab “Star” (beta Ursae Minoris) as the “millpeg” of the ever-turning and grinding mill of the gods.   So, while Jupiter is Zeus-pitar "God the Father," Saturn is Jesus, the Lord and Pivot of the Mill of the Gods, i.e., he is Polaris, and Polaris is none other than the “north nail” or “World Nail,” the central nail or peg of the turning mill of time and destiny, and the way into and out of the watery abyss (the Maelstrom whirlpool) of death and hell.  G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend, Hamlet’s Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time.  Gambit, 1969/ Boston: D. Godine, 1977.

[Nofear]

Thought a little bit more about it. I still agree that the Crucifixion is still an important aspect of it but I think the BYU professor overstates his case a little bit. He's certainly correct that the crucifixion is mentioned more but there isn't any particular reason that the sacrament has to represent the body and the blood on the cross. Christ most definitely suffered in both body and blood during Gethsemane.

Another reason that the Crucifixion gives me pause is it fails a potential what-if. What if, for example, the Jews really repented because of John's preaching and the were no longer the kind of people that would kill their Messiah. I tend to dislike plans that require the evil acts of others. I'm perfectly fine with plans that redeem and save us from our evil acts but are not contingent upon them.

Nevertheless, Christ's death is a part of the the great act that is the Atonement. The Atonement wasn't finished in Gethsemane. So, there is definitely value in not overlooking the Crucifixion. 
 

 
PS: I actually prefer the artistic discretion that covers Christ's loins even if it isn't 100% accurate. There is reference to LDS students preferring Gethsemane art over Crucifixion art 95:5 while for some protestants it was only 70:30. I suspect Roman Catholics would have any lower ratio. Still, the specific art had nothing to do with the discussion of the video or the argument that the professor was trying to make.

[3DOP]

On 4/11/2025 at 3:27 PM, Nofear said:

This BYU professor makes some pretty decent points that we LDS are potentially missing something when we emphasize Gethsemane and the Resurrection and discuss the Crucifixion less. Of particular import, the scriptures don't do this---emphasize the Crucifixion less than Gethsemane. Quite the opposite. I think this video could have been distilled a bit, but I think it successfully, not change but, reorients/rearranges some of my doctrinal thinking.
 

 

I love how so many LDS here, (I have been here since 2004), are willing to reevaluate things. With No Fear, I think (I am Catholic), if I understand No Fear, it would be inappropriate to have artistic presentations of our dear Lord...naked.But I doubt that the civil authorities of the time would spare the condemned that indignity. 

I think of Jesus' Mother. Stabat Mater, dolorosa. Standing, grieving, but not prostrate. Silent, sorrowful, tearful, but not despairingy wailing. Most manly. All of us who claim to follow Jesus have good reason to love His mother. Offering her Son..truly her Son. Truly back to His Father. However it was, however you picture it, God love you all for trying to understand it. May we meet on the right hand of God. Pray for 3DOP. A blessed Holy Week to my Catholic, and my non-Catholic brethren. May we be one, as the Son and the Father are. 

Thanks, Rory

 

[JAHS]

Because sin involves infractions of a spiritual nature, the suffering required to pay for our sins must also be of a spiritual nature in the way Christ endured in the Garden which caused Him to bleed at every pore; not a physical temporal suffering imposed by a few mortal men. How could a few hours physically suffering on a cross be sufficient to pay for all the sins made by all mankind? He was hung on a cross between two mortals, who were also being crucified for the temporal civil crimes they had committed. How could a similar punishment they received for their individual mortal crimes be enough suffering to pay for the sins of all mankind?
 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Because sin involves infractions of a spiritual nature, the suffering required to pay for our sins must also be of a spiritual nature in the way Christ endured in the Garden which caused Him to bleed at every pore; not a physical temporal suffering imposed by a few mortal men. How could a few hours physically suffering on a cross be sufficient to pay for all the sins made by all mankind? He was hung on a cross between two mortals, who were also being crucified for the temporal civil crimes they had committed. How could a similar punishment they received for their individual mortal crimes be enough suffering to pay for the sins of all mankind?
 

I think the "how" is in that He is the Son of God in His own Creation and loving all He created; He only gave up His life when He was ready and on terms the Father gave Him to obey; He comprehended and appreciated the significance of life and all it has to offer in every aspect (more than any other person, even if they were crucified). In every mortal experience He ascended above and below all things, physically and spiritually. So I think it is a matter of His purpose and intent for, and what He made of, the act, and what it meant to Him personally, which is infinitely and eternally opposed to what any other mortal could make of it by going through the same motions. From Alma 34:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

 

Edited April 14 by CV75

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Because sin involves infractions of a spiritual nature, the suffering required to pay for our sins must also be of a spiritual nature in the way Christ endured in the Garden which caused Him to bleed at every pore; not a physical temporal suffering imposed by a few mortal men. How could a few hours physically suffering on a cross be sufficient to pay for all the sins made by all mankind? He was hung on a cross between two mortals, who were also being crucified for the temporal civil crimes they had committed. How could a similar punishment they received for their individual mortal crimes be enough suffering to pay for the sins of all mankind?

The answer is, of course dying on the cross alone would be insufficient. While the scriptures don't preclude supernatural pain in addition to the "regular" pain, we don't have any indication of that on the cross. There is apparently some really good symbolism on the timing of Christ's death though.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/spiritual-implications-of-the-timing-of-the-death-of-jesus-christ/

[telnetd]

On 4/14/2025 at 3:57 PM, JAHS said:

How could a similar punishment they received for their individual mortal crimes be enough suffering to pay for the sins of all mankind?

Because only Christ is the Lamb of God. He came to seek and to save the lost.

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

Because only Christ is the Lamb of God. He came to seek and to save the lost.

That's true but it doesn't really answer the question. Hundreds of people were being crucified. It was a common form of execution and it was mostly a physical kind of pain that was over in a few days.
Suffering for all sins and suffering the spiritual, physical, and emotional pains of all humanity for all time, had to be in a different form that affected not only the body but also His spirit, which Christ suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane that caused him to bleed at every pore. 

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, JAHS said:

That's true but it doesn't really answer the question. Hundreds of people were being crucified. It was a common form of execution and it was mostly a physical kind of pain that was over in a few days.
Suffering for all sins and suffering the spiritual, physical, and emotional pains of all humanity for all time, had to be in a different form that affected not only the body but also His spirit, which Christ suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane that caused him to bleed at every pore. 

If this is so critical and self-evident why is it left out of the New Testament which is actually about it?

[Nofear]

Some more information about the Cross. This is a protestant video but puts forth some a interesting exegesis of Gethsemane and the Crucifixion.

Some highlights I can remember:

• Gethsemane means olive press and so he argues that it wasn't a garden he was praying in but near a press (I don't feel particularly bound to believe this)
• "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"
  • he argues that this isn't a cry out that God had separated for a brief moment from him (as Talmage argues) but a scriptural reference, specifically Psalm 22:1 where Christ was pointing back to prophecy
  • Psalm 22:6 is interesting in that the worm is a particular work (probably) that is crushed for red dye (often used as the dye in high priest clothing) and carries some blood and sin symbolism
• I had heard the Jesus Barabas stuff before, it's reasonably standard commentary (though I'm not so sure he got his reference right)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXT1nywL134

 

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If this is so critical and self-evident why is it left out of the New Testament which is actually about it?

The Bible does not contain all the truths and doctrines that God wanted us to know. 
Jesus said this to His apostles, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)
He gives us these things line upon line as we are ready to comprehend them. So He gave us prophets to receive more revelation and understanding about the atonement.

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Nofear said:

Gethsemane means olive press and so he argues that it wasn't a garden he was praying in but near a press (I don't feel particularly bound to believe this)

Did they have public parks back then in Jerusalem?  Seems unlikely.  The wealthy and royalty had their large private gardens, but would something like that be accessible?  So what would have qualified as a “garden”?

An olive grove that is cared for, cultivated that gets translated as a “garden” makes sense to me, especially if the place was at the foot of what was called the Mount of Olives, which apparently was covered with olive groves at one time.  And if it’s an olive grove, the possibility of a press nearby also seems reasonable.

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Did they have public parks back then in Jerusalem?  Seems unlikely.  The wealthy and royalty had their large private gardens, but would something like that be accessible?  So what would have qualified as a “garden”?

An olive grove that is cared for, cultivated that gets translated as a “garden” makes sense to me, especially if the place was at the foot of what was called the Mount of Olives, which apparently was covered with olive groves at one time.  And if it’s an olive grove, the possibility of a press nearby also seems reasonable.

Agree on all points. It was the least persuasive argument of the video. The connection with Psalm's worm, that was a bit more interesting.

[telnetd]

On 4/16/2025 at 6:52 PM, JAHS said:

That's true but it doesn't really answer the question. Hundreds of people were being crucified. It was a common form of execution and it was mostly a physical kind of pain that was over in a few days.
Suffering for all sins and suffering the spiritual, physical, and emotional pains of all humanity for all time, had to be in a different form that affected not only the body but also His spirit, which Christ suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane that caused him to bleed at every pore. 

The Book of Mormon does not specifically mention the Garden of Gethsemane in 
connection with Jesus taking upon himself our sins.  The Bible's emphasis is on the 
cross instead.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us 
an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found 
in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he 
threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own 
self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should 
live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Peter 2:21-24).

Other passages reflect this too: 1 Corinthians 15:3, Romans 5:8, 2 Corinthians 5:21
Hebrews 9:26-28, Galatians 3:13, Hebrews 10:12, Romans 4:25, and Titus 2:14.

[Vanguard]

On 4/14/2025 at 1:57 PM, JAHS said:

Because sin involves infractions of a spiritual nature, the suffering required to pay for our sins must also be of a spiritual nature in the way Christ endured in the Garden which caused Him to bleed at every pore; not a physical temporal suffering imposed by a few mortal men. How could a few hours physically suffering on a cross be sufficient to pay for all the sins made by all mankind? He was hung on a cross between two mortals, who were also being crucified for the temporal civil crimes they had committed. How could a similar punishment they received for their individual mortal crimes be enough suffering to pay for the sins of all mankind?
 

I am one of those who have focused primarily on the experience in Gethsemane as the pinnacle moment of Christ's sacrifice arguing that the experience in the garden was singularly only that which Christ could fulfill. There is no other example in mankind's history of such a sacrifice. Though I recognized the importance of what He sacrificed on the cross, that experience did not set him apart in the way the experience in the garden did. Now, I'm having to rethink all of this.

Questions - What about the death on the cross is the culmination of the atonement? How does it tie into Him 'taking on the sins of the world'?

[ZealouslyStriving]

50 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I am one of those who have focused primarily on the experience in Gethsemane as the pinnacle moment of Christ's sacrifice arguing that the experience in the garden was singularly only that which Christ could fulfill. There is no other example in mankind's history of such a sacrifice. Though I recognized the importance of what He sacrificed on the cross, that experience did not set him apart in the way the experience in the garden did. Now, I'm having to rethink all of this.

Questions - What about the death on the cross is the culmination of the atonement? How does it tie into Him 'taking on the sins of the world'?

"The wages of sin is death"- Romans 6:23

The cross is the death penalty in our behalf.

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"The wages of sin is death"- Romans 6:23

The cross is the death penalty in our behalf.

I thought 'the wages of sin' was spiritual death?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I thought 'the wages of sin' was spiritual death?

Remember the Jesus paid the price for ALL sins and you could be killed for a variety of sins under the Mosaic Law.

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Remember the Jesus paid the price for ALL sins and you could be killed for a variety of sins under the Mosaic Law.

I think you lose me here. Could you answer my two questions from my previous post and we'll go from there?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Book of Mormon does not specifically mention the Garden of Gethsemane in 
connection with Jesus taking upon himself our sins.  The Bible's emphasis is on the 
cross instead.

Mosiah 3:5-10

Edited Saturday at 03:32 AM by Bernard Gui