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

[InCognitus]

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.

Nor does the Old Testament specifically mention Jesus by name, but it still talks about him.

Likewise with the Book of Mormon and what happened 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." (Mosiah 3:7)

It is his "blood" that atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:11, 15-18, 4:2, Moroni 10:33).

8 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Bible's emphasis is on the 
cross instead.

The Bible's emphasis is not on the cross "instead", but it refers to the cross in addition to his atoning blood (see below).

8 hours ago, telnetd said:

"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).

This verse, of course, doesn't mention a "cross", but it is in reference to the Old Testament law regarding how to handle a man that has committed a sin worthy of death:

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:  His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 21:22–23)

The death of Jesus on the "tree" symbolized him taking upon himself our sins and fulfilling the law on our behalf.

8 hours ago, telnetd said:

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.

His death on the cross was the final step in Jesus fulfilling the work of the atonement, so of course the cross is important.  Jesus died for our sins.

But the shedding of his blood is equally important.  Even in your reference to Hebrews 9:26-28, the context of that chapter emphasizes the shedding of blood and the sprinkling of the blood:

"16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.  17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.  18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,   20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.   21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.  23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:  25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;  26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:16-26)

So when was the blood of Jesus shed for us?  The events I came up with start in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44) and then again when Jesus was flogged (Matthew 27:26, Isaiah 53:5), then the crown of thorns being placed upon his head (Matthew 27:29), and then when he was nailed to the cross.  And finally, when they pierced his side to make sure he was dead (John 19:33-35).  So the shedding of his blood for our sins started in Gethsemane and was finished on the cross.  The cross is the final event.

At the Passover meal when Jesus instituted the sacrament, he taught us:  "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28).  And the New Testament refers to the importance of the shedding of his blood probably as often as it references the cross (i.e. Romans 3:25, Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:25-27, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:13, Colossians 1:14, Colossians 1:20, all of Hebrews chapter 9, Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:12, 20, 1 Peter 1:2, 19-20, 1 John 1:7, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:14, and Revelation 12:11).

So yes, we should emphasize the cross as the final event, but let us not forget the blood he shed for our sins.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Nor does the Old Testament specifically mention Jesus by name, but it still talks about him.

Likewise with the Book of Mormon and what happened 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." (Mosiah 3:7)

It is his "blood" that atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:11, 15-18, 4:2, Moroni 10:33).

The Bible's emphasis is not on the cross "instead", but it refers to the cross in addition to his atoning blood (see below).

This verse, of course, doesn't mention a "cross", but it is in reference to the Old Testament law regarding how to handle a man that has committed a sin worthy of death:

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:  His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 21:22–23)

The death of Jesus on the "tree" symbolized him taking upon himself our sins and fulfilling the law on our behalf.

His death on the cross was the final step in Jesus fulfilling the work of the atonement, so of course the cross is important.  Jesus died for our sins.

But the shedding of his blood is equally important.  Even in your reference to Hebrews 9:26-28, the context of that chapter emphasizes the shedding of blood and the sprinkling of the blood:

"16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.  17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.  18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,   20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.   21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.  23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:  25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;  26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:16-26)

So when was the blood of Jesus shed for us?  The events I came up with start in Gethsemane (Luke 22:44) and then again when Jesus was flogged (Matthew 27:26, Isaiah 53:5), then the crown of thorns being placed upon his head (Matthew 27:29), and then when he was nailed to the cross.  And finally, when they pierced his side to make sure he was dead (John 19:33-35).  So the shedding of his blood for our sins started in Gethsemane and was finished on the cross.  The cross is the final event.

At the Passover meal when Jesus instituted the sacrament, he taught us:  "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28).  And the New Testament refers to the importance of the shedding of his blood probably as often as it references the cross (i.e. Romans 3:25, Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:25-27, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:13, Colossians 1:14, Colossians 1:20, all of Hebrews chapter 9, Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:12, 20, 1 Peter 1:2, 19-20, 1 John 1:7, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:14, and Revelation 12:11).

So yes, we should emphasize the cross as the final event, but let us not forget the blood he shed for our sins.

I believe where we Latter-Day Saints go wrong in this controversy is that while it’s true we don’t regard the actual wooden cross that Christ was crucified upon to be the foremost symbol of his atoning sacrifice, we do in fact place supreme emphasis on the Savior’s actual crucified body as the most powerful and prominent reminder of his atonement. For example, while it’s true that crosses don’t adorn our temples, it also cannot be denied that the wounds of the crucified body of Christ play a most prominent salvative roll in the higher ordinances of the gospel. We may not focus on cross, the cruel instrument of the Lord’s tortuous death, but we do place great emphasis on Christ’s dead body and the lethal wounds that were incurred when he was nailed to the cross. The bottom line? This whole controversy is an unnecessary consequence of our own inexcusable ignorance, combined with the inability to talk openly about the higher ordinances of the gospel.

P.S. And let’s not make the spurious claim that we Latter-Day Saints only focus on the resurrected living Christ when during the sacrament of the Lord’s supper the bread that symbolizes the Lord’s body is ritually bruised, broken and torn for us in the likeness of his sacrificial death.

Edited April 19, 2025 by teddyaware

[Spammer]

delete

Edited April 19, 2025 by Spammer

[telnetd]

On 4/19/2025 at 1:21 AM, teddyaware said:

This whole controversy is an unnecessary consequence of our own inexcusable ignorance, combined with the inability to talk openly about the higher ordinances of the gospel.

What do you mean?

[telnetd]

On 4/18/2025 at 11:51 PM, InCognitus said:

So yes, we should emphasize the cross as the final event, but let us not forget the blood he shed for our sins.

Luke 22:44 says "And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became 
like great drops of blood falling down to the ground".

If he was bleeding, it would say his blood. Instead, it says his sweat became like 
blood.  

There is another event in the Bible where water appeared like blood and caused the 
enemy to think the Israelites had slain each other (2 Kings 3:22-23).

What is your thought about this particular church hymn:

Hymn #185: Reverently and Meekly Now
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/reverently-and-meekly-now?crumbs=hymns&lang=eng

1.
Rev’rently and meekly now,
Let thy head most humbly bow.
Think of me, thou ransomed one;
Think what I for thee have done.
With my blood that dripped like rain,
Sweat in agony of pain,
With my body on the tree
I have ransomed even thee.

Is he bleeding and sweating in the same place?

Edited April 20, 2025 by telnetd
added hymn referene

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Luke 22:44 says "And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became 
like great drops of blood falling down to the ground".

If he was bleeding, it would say his blood. Instead, it says his sweat became like 
blood.  

We've already discussed this.

He was bleeding and it does say blood, or else why would anyone describe sweat as being like blood unless it contained blood?  There's a known condition called Hematidrosis, which "is a condition in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to exude blood, occurring under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress."  Also, "Hematidrosis can look like blood, bloody sweat, or sweat with droplets of blood in it." 

Christians have recognized that Christ was bleeding in Gethsemane since the beginning.

Here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Matthew 26:38, and below that is his commentary on Luke 22:44.  

Quote

My soul is exceeding sorrowful, (or, is surrounded with exceeding sorrow), even unto death - This latter word explains the two former: My soul is so dissolved in sorrow, my spirit is filled with such agony and anguish, that, if speedy succor be not given to my body, death must be the speedy consequence.

Now, the grand expiatory sacrifice begins to be offered: in this garden Jesus enters fully into the sacerdotal office; and now, on the altar of his immaculate divinity, begins to offer his own body - his own life - a lamb without spot, for the sin of the world. St. Luke observes, Luke 22:43, Luke 22:44, that there appeared unto him an angel from heaven strengthening him; and that, being in an agony, his sweat was like great drops of blood falling to the ground. How exquisite must this anguish have been, when it forced the very blood through the coats of the veins, and enlarged the pores in such a preternatural manner as to cause them to empty it out in large successive drops! In my opinion, the principal part of the redemption price was paid in this unprecedented and indescribable agony.

Bloody sweats are mentioned by many authors; but none was ever such as this - where a person in perfect health, (having never had any predisposing sickness to induce a debility of the system), and in the full vigor of life, about thirty-three years of age, suddenly, through mental pressure, without any fear of death, sweat great drops of blood; and these continued, during his wrestling with God to fall to the ground.

To say that all this was occasioned by the fear he had of the ignominious death which he was about to die confutes itself - for this would not only rob him of his divinity, for which purpose it is brought, but it deprives him of all excellency, and even of manhood itself. The prospect of death could not cause him to suffer thus, when he knew that in less than three days he was to be restored to life, and be brought into an eternity of blessedness. His agony and distress can receive no consistent explication but on this ground - He Suffered, the Just for the Unjust, that he might Bring us to God. O glorious truth! O infinitely meritorious suffering! And O! above all, the eternal love, that caused him to undergo such sufferings for the sake of Sinners!

And here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Luke 22:44:

Quote

Prayed more earnestly - With greater emphasis and earnestness than usual, with strong crying and tears, Heb 5:7; the reason given for which is, that he was in an agony. Kypke well observes, Vox αγωνια summum animi angorem et dolorem indicat; et idem est, quod αδημονειν, Mat 26:37; Mar 14:34. "The word αγωνια (agony) points out the utmost anguish and grief of soul, and is of the same import with αδημονειν in Matthew and Mark." See the note on Mat 26:37.

Drops of blood - See the note on Mat 26:38. Some have thought that the meaning of the words is, that the sweat was so profuse that every drop was as large as a drop of blood, not that the sweat was blood itself: but this does not appear likely. There have been cases in which persons in a debilitated state of body, or through horror of soul, have had their sweat tinged with blood. Dr. Mead from Galen observes, Contingere interdum, poros ex multo aut fervido spiritu adeo dilatari, ut etiam exeat sanguis per eos, fiatque sudor sanguineus. "Cases sometimes happen in which, through mental pressure, the pores may be so dilated that the blood may issue from them; so that there may be a bloody sweat." And Bishop Pearce gives an instance from Thuanus (De Thou) of an Italian gentleman being so distressed with the fear of death that his body was covered with a bloody sweat. But it is fully evident that the fear of death could have no place in the mind of our blessed Lord. He was in the bloom of life, in perfect health, and had never suffered any thing from disease of any kind; this sweat was most assuredly produced by a preternatural cause. 

And here's the Matthew Henry commentary on Luke 22:44, who wrote this earlier than Adam Clarke:  

"That, in this agony, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse, Gen. 3:19. And therefore, when Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous sweat, that in the sweat of his face we might eat bread, and that he might sanctify and sweeten all our trials to us. There is some dispute among the critics whether this sweat is only compared to drops of blood, being much thicker than drops of sweat commonly are, the pores of the body being more than ordinarily opened, or whether real blood out of the capillary veins mingled with it, so that it was in colour like blood, and might truly be called a bloody sweat; the matter is not great. Some reckon this one of the times when Christ shed his blood for us, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Every pore was as it were a bleeding wound, and his blood stained all his raiment. This showed the travail of his soul. He was now abroad in the open air, in a cool season, upon the cold ground, far in the night, which, one would think, had been enough to strike in a sweat; yet now he breaks out into a sweat, which bespeaks the extremity of the agony he was in."

Peter wrote to the "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"  (1 Peter 1:1–3)

So let's not forget the blood that Jesus the Christ shed for our sins.  And why try to diminish what scripture teaches on this point?  In Christ "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

Edited April 20, 2025 by InCognitus

[MustardSeed]

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

We've already discussed this.

He was bleeding and it does say blood, or else why would anyone describe sweat as being like blood unless it contained blood?  There's a known condition called Hematidrosis, which "is a condition in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to exude blood, occurring under conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress."  Also, "Hematidrosis can look like blood, bloody sweat, or sweat with droplets of blood in it." 

Christians have recognized that Christ was bleeding in Gethsemane since the beginning.

Here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Matthew 26:38, and below that is his commentary on Luke 22:44.  

And here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Luke 22:44:

And here's the Matthew Henry commentary on Luke 22:44, who wrote this earlier than Adam Clarke:  

"That, in this agony, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse, Gen. 3:19. And therefore, when Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous sweat, that in the sweat of his face we might eat bread, and that he might sanctify and sweeten all our trials to us. There is some dispute among the critics whether this sweat is only compared to drops of blood, being much thicker than drops of sweat commonly are, the pores of the body being more than ordinarily opened, or whether real blood out of the capillary veins mingled with it, so that it was in colour like blood, and might truly be called a bloody sweat; the matter is not great. Some reckon this one of the times when Christ shed his blood for us, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Every pore was as it were a bleeding wound, and his blood stained all his raiment. This showed the travail of his soul. He was now abroad in the open air, in a cool season, upon the cold ground, far in the night, which, one would think, had been enough to strike in a sweat; yet now he breaks out into a sweat, which bespeaks the extremity of the agony he was in."

Peter wrote to the "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"  (1 Peter 1:1–3)

So let's not forget the blood that Jesus the Christ shed for our sins.  And why try to diminish what scripture teaches on this point?  In Christ "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

For what it’s worth to anyone else- I don’t care much about the chemistry of what happened.  I trust he suffered. 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

What is your thought about this particular church hymn:

Hymn #185: Reverently and Meekly Now
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/reverently-and-meekly-now?crumbs=hymns&lang=eng

1.
Rev’rently and meekly now,
Let thy head most humbly bow.
Think of me, thou ransomed one;
Think what I for thee have done.
With my blood that dripped like rain,
Sweat in agony of pain,
With my body on the tree
I have ransomed even thee.

Is he bleeding and sweating in the same place?

You edited your post and added this, so I'll respond to it separately....

Yes.  He is bleeding and sweating, as the scripture says.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

For what it’s worth to anyone else- I don’t care much about the chemistry of what happened.  I trust he suffered. 

I agree, but some people don't seem to think that what the scripture says is even possible.

[bluebell]

Today's Easter service was not the best that I've been too for a few reasons.  But what was really shocking was that one of the speakers (an older lady in her 60s that has been in the church her whole life from the sound of it) said that while she understands why other Christians use the cross, it makes her uncomfortable because "the Atonement didn't happen on the cross, it happened in the Garden of Gethsemane" and she doesn't like to think about how He died.

My jaw hit the floor at the point, though I don't know if it bothered anyone else.  I cringed doubly because we had some non-member Christians in the audience.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

I agree, but some people don't seem to think that what the scripture says is even possible.

I'm sure it could be possible.  I've always wondered about the sweating blood from every pore part because He would have been completely covered, head to foot, in blood after something like that.  And yet no one reacts to that when the story moves on.

(I haven't read the entire thread so many this was also brought up by someone else)

[InCognitus]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Today's Easter service was not the best that I've been too for a few reasons.  But what was really shocking was that one of the speakers (an older lady in her 60s that has been in the church her whole life from the sound of it) said that while she understands why other Christians use the cross, it makes her uncomfortable because "the Atonement didn't happen on the cross, it happened in the Garden of Gethsemane" and she doesn't like to think about how He died.

My jaw hit the floor at the point, though I don't know if it bothered anyone else.  I cringed doubly because we had some non-member Christians in the audience.

That would definitely bother me.  In a similar fashion one could argue that it was accomplished after Gethsemane and before the cross:  "[W]hen he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified" (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1), and "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)

The truth is that it was a series of events that was "finished" on the cross:  "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost" (John 19:30).

ETA:  We had good talks and good music in our sacrament meeting today. 

Edited April 20, 2025 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure it could be possible.  I've always wondered about the sweating blood from every pore part because He would have been completely covered, head to foot, in blood after something like that.  And yet no one reacts to that when the story moves on.

(I haven't read the entire thread so many this was also brought up by someone else)

The Matthew Henry commentary I quoted earlier (on Luke 22:44) made a similar observation:  "Some reckon this one of the times when Christ shed his blood for us, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Every pore was as it were a bleeding wound, and his blood stained all his raiment."

But if it was sweat mixed with blood (as seems to be the case) then it would be diluted somewhat.

However, the blood stained raiment also fits the imagery of the second coming of Jesus:  "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (Revelation 19:13)

[MustardSeed]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Today's Easter service was not the best that I've been too for a few reasons.  But what was really shocking was that one of the speakers (an older lady in her 60s that has been in the church her whole life from the sound of it) said that while she understands why other Christians use the cross, it makes her uncomfortable because "the Atonement didn't happen on the cross, it happened in the Garden of Gethsemane" and she doesn't like to think about how He died.

My jaw hit the floor at the point, though I don't know if it bothered anyone else.  I cringed doubly because we had some non-member Christians in the audience.

Honestly I’ve been hearing that my whole life! 😑

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Today's Easter service was not the best that I've been too for a few reasons.  But what was really shocking was that one of the speakers (an older lady in her 60s that has been in the church her whole life from the sound of it) said that while she understands why other Christians use the cross, it makes her uncomfortable because "the Atonement didn't happen on the cross, it happened in the Garden of Gethsemane" and she doesn't like to think about how He died.

My jaw hit the floor at the point, though I don't know if it bothered anyone else.  I cringed doubly because we had some non-member Christians in the audience.

It doesn't surprise me. It's why I went searching for understand decades ago.  I said something similar (that the Garden was for spiritual death and the cross for physical death) on a message board and someone replied "then why does the bible say with his stripes we are healed". So I went searching for if the suffering on the cross also covered spiritual death.  McConkie and Romney both said that what happened in Gethsemene recurred on the cross, but overall I really couldn't find much in general conference talks or lesson manuals that said anything. It was just pretty common wherever I went to church that people felt the spiritual part was just in Gethsemane. 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Today's Easter service was not the best that I've been too for a few reasons.  But what was really shocking was that one of the speakers (an older lady in her 60s that has been in the church her whole life from the sound of it) said that while she understands why other Christians use the cross, it makes her uncomfortable because "the Atonement didn't happen on the cross, it happened in the Garden of Gethsemane" and she doesn't like to think about how He died.

My jaw hit the floor at the point, though I don't know if it bothered anyone else.  I cringed doubly because we had some non-member Christians in the audience.

One of the primary reasons why non-LDS Christians feel confident when they assert that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren’t real Christians is due to the misguided ignorance of some of our members who insist that the atoning sacrifice of Christ was completed in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that his sufferings and death on the cross were a kind of postscript or afterthought to the “real” atoning sacrifice that took place in the garden. Meanwhile, the non-LDS Christians are armed with several New Testament scriptures that blow the “atonement completed mostly in Gethsemane” narrative right out of the water.

When I see this kind of woeful ignorance displayed over the most important and transcendent sacred event in history, I can’t help but wonder how many non-member Christian’s have been hardened in their contempt for and confident rejection of the restored gospel due to the propagation of this unjustified and unbiblical notion. Both James E Talmage and Bruce R McConkie (including several living apostles in recent General Conferences) teach that the unfathomable spiritual suffering Christ experienced in Gethsemane recurred while he was on the cross, thereby putting the lie to the false idea that the law of justice was fully satisfied in Gethsemane.

And I must say that I find it a bit ironic that the woman who spoke in your Easter Sacrament Meeting was far more turned off and revolted by the thought of Christ’s horrific sufferings and death on the cross than by what she believes are the far worse sufferings he endured in Gethsemane! (if Talmage and McConkie are correct, his sufferings on the cross had to be worse because in addition the recurrence of the feelings of most extreme spiritual and emotional abandonment that he experienced in Gethsemane, his body was simultaneously experiencing the most extreme physical torture) At any rate, here’s just one of several New Testament verses that embolden many non-LDS Christians to confidently declare that we Latter-Day Saints aren’t “real” Christians because of the denials of many of our members who fail to recognize that Christ’s sufferings on the cross were at very least equal to what he was called upon to suffer in Gethsemane.

 

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. (Colossians 1)

Edited April 20, 2025 by teddyaware

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

One of the primary reasons why non-LDS Christians feel confident when they assert that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren’t real Christians is due to the misguided ignorance of some of our members who insist that the atoning sacrifice of Christ was completed in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that his sufferings and death on the cross were a kind of postscript or afterthought to the “real” atoning sacrifice that took place in the garden.

Then the church should work harder to help people understand this.  Marion Romney also said the suffering recurred on the cross, but except for those 3 stating it recurred I haven't seen any speaker help people really understand that the suffering recurred on the cross.   

And while we are at it, it would be helpful to explain why it recurred. Why was it not enough in Gethsemene that it had to recur on the cross again?

13 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Meanwhile, the non-LDS Christians are armed with several New Testament scriptures that blow the “atonement completed mostly in Gethsemane” narrative right out of the water.

When I see this kind of woeful ignorance displayed over the most important and transcendent sacred event in history, I can’t help but wonder how many non-member Christian’s have been hardened in their contempt for and confident rejection of the restored gospel due to the propagation of this unjustified and unbiblical notion. Both James E Talmage and Bruce R McConkie (including several living apostles in recent General Conferences) teach that the unfathomable spiritual suffering Christ experienced in Gethsemane recurred while he was on the cross, thereby putting the lie to the false idea that the law of justice was fully satisfied in Gethsemane.

And I must say that I find it a bit ironic that the woman who spoke in your Easter Sacrament Meeting was far more turned off and revolted by the thought of Christ’s horrific sufferings and death on the cross than by what she believes are the far worse sufferings he endured in Gethsemane! (if Talmage and McConkie are correct, his sufferings on the cross had to be worse because in addition to the feelings of most extreme spiritual and emotional abandonment that he experienced in Gethsemane his body was simultaneously experiencing the most extreme physical torture. At any rate, here’s just one of several New Testament verses that embolden many non-LDS Christians to confidently declare that we Latter-Day Saints aren’t “real” Christians because of the denials of many of our members who fail to recognize that Christ’s sufferings on the cross were at very least equal to what he was called upon to suffer in Gethsemane.

 

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. (Colossians 1)

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Honestly I’ve been hearing that my whole life! 😑

I’ve never heard it before and I think that’s why it shocked me so much

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

One of the primary reasons why non-LDS Christians feel confident when they assert that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren’t real Christians is due to the misguided ignorance of some of our members who insist that the atoning sacrifice of Christ was completed in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that his sufferings and death on the cross were a kind of postscript or afterthought to the “real” atoning sacrifice that took place in the garden. Meanwhile, the non-LDS Christians are armed with several New Testament scriptures that blow the “atonement completed mostly in Gethsemane” narrative right out of the water.

When I see this kind of woeful ignorance displayed over the most important and transcendent sacred event in history, I can’t help but wonder how many non-member Christian’s have been hardened in their contempt for and confident rejection of the restored gospel due to the propagation of this unjustified and unbiblical notion. Both James E Talmage and Bruce R McConkie (including several living apostles in recent General Conferences) teach that the unfathomable spiritual suffering Christ experienced in Gethsemane recurred while he was on the cross, thereby putting the lie to the false idea that the law of justice was fully satisfied in Gethsemane.

And I must say that I find it a bit ironic that the woman who spoke in your Easter Sacrament Meeting was far more turned off and revolted by the thought of Christ’s horrific sufferings and death on the cross than by what she believes are the far worse sufferings he endured in Gethsemane!

This is why she probably felt that way:

Gordon B Hinckley:

“I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

33 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

(if Talmage and McConkie are correct, his sufferings on the cross had to be worse because in addition the recurrence of the feelings of most extreme spiritual and emotional abandonment that he experienced in Gethsemane, his body was simultaneously experiencing the most extreme physical torture) At any rate, here’s just one of several New Testament verses that embolden many non-LDS Christians to confidently declare that we Latter-Day Saints aren’t “real” Christians because of the denials of many of our members who fail to recognize that Christ’s sufferings on the cross were at very least equal to what he was called upon to suffer in Gethsemane.

 

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. (Colossians 1)

 

[Rain]

Gospel Principles used to be a place where it was not clearly stated. It was changed from years ago. I just remembered checking in the book when it first came out and was pleasantly surprised.

"The Savior atoned for our sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross."

Edited April 20, 2025 by Rain

[Chum]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

  I've always wondered about the sweating blood from every pore part because He would have been completely covered, head to foot, in blood after something like that.  And yet no one reacts to that when the story moves on.

This is really insightful.

[Chum]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

But what was really shocking was that one of the speakers...

Something in the air. My father in law had a similar report from his ward today. A brother disrespectfully interrupted an EQ pres, who was giving his move-away talk/testimony. It was a bro I served with in YM a lifteime ago, a very strong personality. I will blindly guess that pressure is affecting his judgment.

[teddyaware]

11 minutes ago, Chum said:

This is really insightful.

Don’t forget we’re talking about the Son of God who was miraculously able turn water into wine, miraculously multiply five loaves of bread and two fishes into enough loaves and fishes to feed and sate a hungry multitude, and able raise the bodies of the dead back to life. Therefore I wouldn’t find it at all surprising if “the cleansing of the atoning blood” is one day listed among one of the Lord’s many miracles. But of course the explanation could also be as simple as the fact that the famous Brook of Kidron was in the located in the immediate vicinity.

[Chum]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

And while we are at it, it would be helpful to explain why it recurred. Why was it not enough in Gethsemene that it had to recur on the cross again?

Yeah. The wording that the atonement happened at Gethsemene and at Golgotha suggests happening twice.

Perhaps the more intuitive phrasing - that the atonement spanned from Gethsemane to Golgotha - might be misconstrued to include the events in between.

Still, McConkie could have added a couple of sentences to clarity it.  Maybe he just didn't spot the potential for confusion before he gave the talk.

[Chum]

20 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Don’t forget we’re talking about the Son of God who was miraculously

My view is His miracles tended to be deployed where a miracle was needed to fulfill a necessity. He could have toweled off in Gethsemane.