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

[longview]

25 minutes ago, Chum said:

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.

It did not recur but remained continuous from the Garden to Golgotha. Jesus partook of the "Bitter Cup" in the Garden which crushed every fiber and organs of His Body. He bled actual blood because the small capillaries ruptured and leaked through the pores. He suffered horrible mental anguish from all people that lived after the Fall to the end of the Millennium (including all the agonies and accidents not necessarily related to sin). His spirit body and mind was also crushed. The angel of the Lord did come to minister to Jesus and strengthen Him (and possibly to do some repair work but not to remove the "crushing weight").

Jesus staggered under that weight during His arrest, the proceedings of various courts and trials, the floggings, carrying the heavy beam, and being nailed to the cross.

I have seen some verses in the OT where an animal in ritual sacrifice has its head drenched from a cup. The cup symbolically containing the sins of the people. Then the priest lays his hand on the head and says a prayer before slaying the animal. Interesting sidenote: when people are called, the priesthood leader lays his hands to ordain or to set apart. This imagery is a symbolic sacrifice. The Law of Consecration.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

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

It gets a little more complicated than twice. That would be if they had used "reoccur".  All 3 used "recur".  

Quote

Reoccur and recur are verbs that share a common root word. While they are very close in meaning, they are not the same. Something that is recurring happens over and over again, possibly at regular intervals. In contrast, something that is reoccurring is simply happening again but not always repeatedly. from Grammarly

Quote

Reoccurring is typically used to simply mean that something is happening again. It doesn’t specifically indicate how many times something happens or if it happens regularly. It commonly implies that something is happening for a second time.

For example:

• In order to prevent flooding from reoccurring, they repaired and reinforced the dam.
• It was a reoccurring scenario—one we had hoped to avoid.

On the other hand, recurring is typically used to mean that something happens regularly, that it has happened multiple times in the past, or that it is expected to happen repeatedly in the future.

For example:

• I have a recurring dream in which I’m late to class and can’t find the room.
• My back pain has been recurring for years since my injury.

from dictionary.com

1 hour ago, Chum said:

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.

 

Edited April 21, 2025 by Rain

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

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 didn't really address the bolded part of your comment above.  I have considered the same thing, but the problem is the same if he was dripping great drops of sweat or dripping great drops of blood: someone would have definitely noticed.  But the gospels don't give us all the details (unfortunately).  

Matthew and Mark portrays Jesus praying in Gethsemane and going back to his disciples three different times and finding them asleep (Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42), and when Jesus went back to the disciples the third time he tells them "Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (Matthew 26:45, Mark 14:41).  But Luke only mentions Jesus returning one time (Luke 22:39-46), and when he returns to them he tells them to "rise and pray", and immediately the multitude comes with Judas to betray him (Luke 22:46-47).

And the gospel of John barely mentions Gethsemane as an aside between the intercessory prayer of John 17 and him being betrayed by Judas in John 18:  

 "1 When Jesus had spoken these words [the words in the intercessory prayer of John 17], he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.  2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.  4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?" (John 18:1-4).

A LOT of details are left out of all four of these accounts and there are enough gaps in the timeline for Jesus to either change his clothing or for someone to have said something about his clothing which was not mentioned in the text. 

[JAHS]

11 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.  

 

Besides what else has been said about it being actual blood, in Mosiah 3 King Benjamin said (perhaps someone already mentioned this?):

7 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.

[MustardSeed]

This is ChatGPT- not that it’s accurate, but a common point of view ime- I don’t like it, and I hope it’s changing- 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) generally avoids using the cross as a symbol because they focus more on the living Christ rather than His death. Leaders have historically taught that their emphasis is on Christ’s resurrection and ongoing role, rather than on His crucifixion.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I didn't really address the bolded part of your comment above.  I have considered the same thing, but the problem is the same if he was dripping great drops of sweat or dripping great drops of blood: someone would have definitely noticed.

Sweat dries while blood stains. Being soaked in sweat was also much more common in the ancient world and is less likely to have been commented on.

Edited to add: On the other hand if it were blood this whole sequence occurs at night and modern people often forget how dark the night was compared to today. Torchlight does not reveal as much as you might think. Also contrary to many movie and media portrayals the ancients did not all go around dressed in white, brown, and beige clothing. They loved their colorful clothing so Jesus might have been wearing darker clothing where blood would not be as apparent….especially in the dark.

I personally suspect the passage meant to describe sweat and not blood but who knows for sure?

Edited April 21, 2025 by The Nehor

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Besides what else has been said about it being actual blood, in Mosiah 3 King Benjamin said (perhaps someone already mentioned this?):

7 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.

One could just as easily turn telnetd’s idea on its head and ask the following reasonable question: if the Lord was merely sweating out clear human perspiration while he was suffering in Gethsemane, why in the world would the writer mightily confuse things by introducing the baffling, inexplicable idea that somehow perspiring clear sweat can somehow be likened unto the bleeding out of thick red blood? Telnet’s explanation makes zero logical sense. What does make sense is to come to the conclusion that the writer was conveying the factual information that while the Lord was suffering in Gethsemane his dripping sweat was mingled with blood. And in light of the fact that the sweating of blood from the pores of the skin is a documented medical condition called Hematidrosis, this means there’s even more reason to believe that the Lord actually did sweat blood in Gethsemane while he was under tremendous physical, emotional and spiritual stress.

Edited April 21, 2025 by teddyaware

[Nofear]

11 hours ago, longview said:

It did not recur but remained continuous from the Garden to Golgotha.

In support, from Talmage's Jesus the Christ chapter 35: “The Savior’s suffering on the cross was but the culmination of the agony begun in Gethsemane. … The supreme sacrifice of the Son of God was given in providing the means of redemption from death and sin, and this sacrifice was wrought out through the intense suffering of body, mind, and spirit which reached its climax on the cross.”
 

In a different quote he uses the word reoccur, but I don't think he meant it as a repitition but that it continued after a "pause”.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

One could just as easily turn telnetd’s idea on its head and ask the following reasonable question: if the Lord was merely sweating out clear human perspiration while he was suffering in Gethsemane, why in the world would the writer mightily confuse things by introducing the baffling, inexplicable idea that somehow perspiring clear sweat can somehow be likened unto the bleeding out of thick red blood? Telnet’s explanation makes zero logical sense. What does make sense is to come to the conclusion that the writer was conveying the factual information that while the Lord was suffering in Gethsemane his dripping sweat was mingled with blood. And in light of the fact that the sweating of blood from the pores of the skin is a documented medical condition called Hematidrosis, this means there’s even more reason to believe that the Lord actually did sweat blood in Gethsemane while he was under tremendous physical, emotional and spiritual stress.

This is precisely the point.  

[teddyaware]

56 minutes ago, Nofear said:

In support, from Talmage's Jesus the Christ chapter 35: “The Savior’s suffering on the cross was but the culmination of the agony begun in Gethsemane. … The supreme sacrifice of the Son of God was given in providing the means of redemption from death and sin, and this sacrifice was wrought out through the intense suffering of body, mind, and spirit which reached its climax on the cross.”
 

In a different quote he uses the word reoccur, but I don't think he meant it as a repitition but that it continued after a "pause”.

If Talmage and McConkie are indeed correct that Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane did indeed reoccur while he was nailed to the cross, and if this reoccurring Gethsemanic suffering was at least of equal intensity to what he experienced in the garden, it becomes clear that the reason why his sufferings on the cross must have been of even greater intensity would be due to the fact that he was simultaneously being subjected to a most severe form of deadly torture while his demonic enemies mercilessly mocked and taunted him.

Over the years, I’ve wondered if Christ’s obedient willingness to suffer in Gethsemane was primarily designed to removed the curse of the fall that came about due to the disobedience of our first parents in the garden of Eden, and if his sufferings on the cross were experienced to atone for the sins of mankind that have been committed in the lone and dreary world after the expulsion of our first parents from the garden. If so, this would explain why Christ wore a crown of thorns during his crucifixion, and why his flesh was pierced by man made “thorns” to affix his body to a splintering wooden cross.

Edited April 21, 2025 by teddyaware

[Chum]

Codex Sinaiticus may or may not contain the earliest known writing of Luke 22:44.  It is translated thusly:

Quote

43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly. And his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.
45 And he arose from prayer, came to the disciples, and found them sleeping because of grief,

From this, I take sweat flowing like blood.

[The Nehor]

On 4/21/2025 at 12:23 AM, teddyaware said:

One could just as easily turn telnetd’s idea on its head and ask the following reasonable question: if the Lord was merely sweating out clear human perspiration while he was suffering in Gethsemane, why in the world would the writer mightily confuse things by introducing the baffling, inexplicable idea that somehow perspiring clear sweat can somehow be likened unto the bleeding out of thick red blood? Telnet’s explanation makes zero logical sense. What does make sense is to come to the conclusion that the writer was conveying the factual information that while the Lord was suffering in Gethsemane his dripping sweat was mingled with blood. And in light of the fact that the sweating of blood from the pores of the skin is a documented medical condition called Hematidrosis, this means there’s even more reason to believe that the Lord actually did sweat blood in Gethsemane while he was under tremendous physical, emotional and spiritual stress.

One could also ask why if this was so important it only made it into one gospel.

Also no one witnessed this to describe it first hand and record it so it would have had to be related by Jesus telling someone or a vision. Or it was supposition or a later embellishment. The apostles were sleeping. Who saw this?

[JVW]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

One could also ask why if this was so important it only made it into one gospel.

Also no one witnessed this to describe it first hand and record it so it would have had to be related by Jesus telling someone or a vision. Or it was supposition or a later embellishment. The apostles were sleeping. Who saw this?

I have that same question about Acts 1:3 "To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." You mean to tell me that we could have had 40 days worth more of parables, teachings, gospel stuff and instead the author just skips it all and says "yeah, Jesus taught us for over a month and what he said is none of your business."

In regards to the Garden and to the forty days I currently just rationalize it as a sacred experience so details were left out or not reported on entirely due to the sacred nature of it. Maybe the account of the Garden was given by Christ to the Apostles during His forty day visit? I personally believe that the angel sent to strengthen Him was the Mother.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I have that same question about Acts 1:3 "To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." You mean to tell me that we could have had 40 days worth more of parables, teachings, gospel stuff and instead the author just skips it all and says "yeah, Jesus taught us for over a month and what he said is none of your business."

In regards to the Garden and to the forty days I currently just rationalize it as a sacred experience so details were left out or not reported on entirely due to the sacred nature of it. Maybe the account of the Garden was given by Christ to the Apostles during His forty day visit? I personally believe that the angel sent to strengthen Him was the Mother.

There was a whole genre in the early Church where people showed up teaching the ‘secret wisdom’ taught during the 40 days.

[JVW]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There was a whole genre in the early Church where people showed up teaching the ‘secret wisdom’ taught during the 40 days.

Oh fun, do you have any resources I could look at to learn their alleged secrets? I wonder why those traditions died out. It'd be super fun if Evangelicals could mix in some of that with their current fiery sermons.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, JVW said:

Oh fun, do you have any resources I could look at to learn their alleged secrets? I wonder why those traditions died out. It'd be super fun if Evangelicals could mix in some of that with their current fiery sermons.

It is mostly in gnostic books.