The Mormon Jesus

[Lemuel]

I know Gazelam won’t answer my question because he never does.

That has been my experience as well, which is why I don’t generally bother with reading his posts anymore.

So what do they say about the cross and what leads up to it? What about the Resurrection?

The cross is symbolic. Just as Jesus was lifted up (by the cross) to be judged of man, after death, man will be lifted up (by the resurrection) to be judged of Christ. The cross was necessary as a part of the death and subsequent resurrection.

Pentecost?

The Pentecost was just a day of celebration that Mormons really don’t talk much about. I can’t think of it ever being discussed in a sacrament meeting talk or Sunday School lesson, but I may have slept through that part. I admit to knowing little about it, myself.

Any of what happened after?

Not sure what you’re asking here. Most of the New Testament and much of the Mormon scriptures deal with what happened after. But if you want some interesting reading, read the Book of Mormon, Third Nephi. It deals with what happened shortly after Jesus’ resurrection during his visit to the American continent.

 

[Horton]

Just nonsense. It’s as if they have this need to completely change salvation history.

Any of what happened after?

What I mean here was the spreading of the word, the building of the Church, the going out to teach the nations. So I’m guessing they don’t believe in the Ascension either if they believe Jesus went to America.

 

[Lemuel]

Haha! I’ll answer that later!

 

[Lemuel]

Mormons pretty much follow the timeline in the New Testament regarding Christ’s death, resurrection, his ministry among his apostles and the people as described in Acts, etc. They also teach of the Ascension as described in the NT. It’s after that where it gets a little confusing. Mormon scholars don’t agree on when Christ visited the American continent, but it would have been after the Ascension, possibly closer to a year after his crucifixion. But he did say “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” They believe that the people in America were at least part of whom he was referring to as his other sheep.

He also built up his Church in America, calling twelve “disciples” and giving them the power to baptize. But Joseph Smith said that they were actually apostles, just like the apostles of the NT. They also held the higher priesthood and had all the keys of that authority.

Three of Jesus’ disciples were given power over death, just like John the Beloved in the NT. They were to tarry upon the earth until the Second Coming when their bodies would be changed from mortality to immortality in the twinkling of an eye. So, according to Mormon theology, at least four apostles having all the authority of the higher priesthood, have tarried on the earth for many centuries. The priesthood was never taken from the earth and there was no need for a restoration.

It’s one of those tangled webs that I’ve only began to scratch the surface on.

 

[Horton]

It’s one of those tangled webs that I’ve only began to scratch the surface on.

Tangled it is!

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Hm, I guess St. Paul should’ve wrote in Galatians 2:20, “I have been sweating blood with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me in the Garden of Gethsemane.” I guess he was mistaken, I mean, he only ever mentioned the importance of the cross and not Gethsemane. Poor Paul.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Don’t you think if a city like Zarahemla existed there wouldn’t be a need for apologists defending its supposed existence? Yet here we have Jerusalem, mentioned in the Bible, still standing today, obviously existing and having existed and literally no one denies this. Last week a seal dated to the 7th century B.C. was found bearing the name of Nathan-Melek from 2 Kings 23:11 in Jerusalem. How come we haven’t found a seal bearing the name of the supposed King Benjamin yet? Don’t you think if a city like Zarahemla existed there would be undeniable archeological evidence for it, and a consensus among all archaeologists and historians concerning its existence. Yet no serious academic accepts its existence. I’m not trying to be insulting, but how can anyone with any sense of intellectual capacity actually believe in the claims of the Book of Mormon?

 

[Lemuel]

There’s hardly a smidgeon of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Surely, the great battles that took place would yield some evidence? Bones, swords, shields, coins … anything? Yeah, and where is this great city of Zarahemla anyway?

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Why did you believe in it when you were a Mormon? Despite the lack of evidence for the BOM, and the abundance of evidence against the BOM, why did you still believe it? What was the motivating factor? What was the psychology? I’m actually very interested in this.

 

[Lemuel]

Mormons tend to bury their heads in the sand. They tend to ignore anything that doesn’t come from the brethren. They are generally afraid of the truth. I was stuck in the cult. And it really is a cult. They trap you in. It’s very hard to leave. You don’t just leave a religion, you leave a life. It’s much easier to just go along in order to get along. I know a couple of bishops and a patriarch who know with all their hearts that it’s not true but they cannot tell their wives or children how they feel or what they know. It will destroy them.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

I’ve heard about cultural Mormons before i.e. Mormons who don’t really believe in the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but still participate in it for family and cultural reasons.

 

[Lemuel]

There are probably a lot more of them than anyone realizes.

 

[Lemuel]

I have several in my extended family who have confided in me but they can’t bring themselves to coming out.

 

[BenYosef]

Though as a Jew I have different views of Jesus of Nazareth than Christians in general, I do have a great love for Jesus and do recognize that the nominal view of Jesus is that as taught by the Catholic Church.

For instance, one of the most used books in my library is The Annotated Jewish New Testament which uses the NRSV version that carries an imprimatur.

Thus, as you can imagine, I find the Mormon version of the life of Jesus Christ quite at odds with what makes sense historically. For instance, while there may be reasons where Catholics and Jews are at different ends of the theological table regarding whether Jesus is the Messiah or not, the Mormon spin on things tosses the table and the place settings out.

We’re no longer talking about whether or not Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled this or that Scripture or Messianic hope in this or that exact way. The Mormons add things that are not part of the Sacred Tradition that make up the Messianic Hope that Christians and Jews hold dear in the first place.

To illustrate:

• Mormons have the Messiah going to America. Both Catholics and Jews know that the Messiah is to appear in the Promised Land, specifically in and around Jerusalem. Why? The Son of David rides triumphantly to receive kingship in Jerusalem, and there is no other way for the Messiah to become a “messiah” (a Hebrew word which means “one anointed to rule as King”). The issue had to be settled in the capital and before the Sanhedrin. The capital of rulership is not in America, neither was the Jewish supreme court located there. There is no prophecy that says that the Messiah has to appear before all the Jews, wherever they may be scattered, otherwise why stop at going to America? Why not also visit the Jews in Sepharad?
• Mormons teach that Elijah the Prophet appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on April 3, 1836, in their Mormon Kirtland Temple fulfilling Malachi 4.5-6. This temple is in Ohio, in the United States, presently on the eastern edge of the Cleveland metropolitan area. This is peculiar since Jesus states at Matthew 17.10-13 that John the Baptist fulfills the prophecy of the coming of Elijah recorded at Malachi 4.5-6. Even though Jews differ regarding this, the understanding is that Elijah does return to Israel (many state Mt. Carmel) and that the Messiah appears days after (usually three days after Elijah comes). John the Baptist at least preached publicly (not in secret before two witnesses only) in Israel (instead of in Ohio), and John’s preaching ran concurrently with the public ministry of Jesus’ own. An appearance in Cleveland nowhere near the Holy Land before two Gentiles without any messianic event following?

 

[BenYosef]

The Gospel of Jesus is a very plausible Jewish story, regardless of how Jews and Christians may feel about the conclusion. The Mormon version of Jesus is highly Gentile, unrecognizable to me. The stamp of Jewish authenticity can be seen and felt throughout the Catholic Church, read throughout the Gospels and the New Testament. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, reads like a Protestant-spun tale with little knowledge of Judaism behind the composition. The people living in America who are supposed to be Jews in the book talk about Christ but don’t observe Jewish feasts or follow the Law, whereas in the New Testament you have St. Peter keeping kosher (Acts 10.13-14; Galatians 2.12-14) and large portions of Christians observing the Mosaic Law even after Christ’s Ascension.–Acts 21.15-21.

The Mormon Jesus and Mormon Christianity are not recognizable to this Jew. With Catholics, however, I feel and sense a real, historical connection.

 

[gazelam]

So why the focus Gethsemane?

We believe it is in Gethsemane that Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world, and for the first time experienced the effects of sin, even though He himself was sinless. (Per the quotes provided earlier.)

We believe that all symbols point to Christ. Did you know in ancient Israel for 7 days before Yom Kippur (day of the Atonement) the High Priest spent seven days in the temple. According to Luke 21:37 the week before His crucifixion, Jesus in the evening “would leave and stay at the place called the Mount of Olives.” Gethsemane is within the Mount of Olives. Jesus spent the night at the spot where he would take upon Him the sins of the people, just as the High Priest symbolically did in the temple, and also spent the preceding evenings there.

Olive oil is used ceremonially by Latter-day Saints, Catholics, and others for blessing the sick, and is the symbol of what Jesus endured in Gethsemane. Raw olives are an undesirable fruit, but under tremendous pressure the highly prized oil is produced. This symbolizes how the Christ’s extreme suffering for our sins in Gethsemane is a source of our healing, both spiritually and physically. Pope Benedict XVI understands the link between Gethsemane “the oil press” and olive oil.

Not to diminish Christ’s suffering in the garden, but the reality is his suffering only grew worse through the course of the night and next day.

On what is your belief based?

How anyone can ignore the cross of Jesus as the ultimate symbol of his sacrifice is something I just don’t understand.

Not sure who you’re referring to here. Latter-day Saints are commanded to take up their own cross, just as Christ took up His. See Matthew 10:38 & 3 Nephi 12:30, and this and this.

So again, why the focus on just Gethsemane?

You are misinformed if you believe that Latter-day Saints focus solely on Gethsemane. We believe that the Atonement would not have been completed without the crucifixion.

I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

Hm, I guess St. Paul should’ve wrote in Galatians 2:20, “I have been sweating blood with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me in the Garden of Gethsemane.” I guess he was mistaken, I mean, he only ever mentioned the importance of the cross and not Gethsemane. Poor Paul.

Well, here’s one CAFer who’s generally very opposed to Latter-day Saint beliefs, but thinks we did get something right about Christ’s suffering.

 

[BenYosef]

We believe that all symbols point to Christ. Did you know in ancient Israel for 7 days before Yom Kippur (day of the Atonement) the High Priest [spent seven days in the temple ]…Jesus spent the night at the spot where he would take upon Him the sins of the people, just as the High Priest symbolically did in the temple, and also spent the preceding evenings there.

Correction: the High Priest did not spend seven days in the Temple before Yom Kippur. The Talmud states that the tradition developed of securing the High Priest away into “the chamber of counselors,” an area in the building structure that was not part of the actual Temple itself.

Was the priest “symbolically” taking upon himself the sins of the people for those seven days? No, not at all.

The reason for setting the High Priest aside for seven days before Yom Kippur was to ensure that nothing would happen to him to keep him from becoming disqualified for service. For instance, what if his wife were to die and he was to come in contact with her body? The High Priest would be unclean and not be able to serve. To avoid this and other types of unclean situations for disqualifying the High Priest, this system was put in place.

However, the High Priest could not take the sins of the people upon himself for seven days. He could not apply his ceremonial cleanness in this way either since the state of being “unclean” that was being avoided was not the same as the sin that was being taken away at Yom Kippur. Liturgical or ceremonial uncleanness which prevented a High Priest from service is not the same as the sin which was dealt with by a blood sacrifice.

It should be noted that animal sacrifices required the death of the beast. The beast could not merely bleed. In order for human life to be spared, the life of the beast had to be given.

Again, though I am Jewish and do not subscribe to a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, I have to agree with the Catholic view that the Sacrifice of the Cross is the match of the Sacrifices offered at the Temple. If “the wages of sin is death,” then the price would have to be not blood but life. (Ro 6.23) Christ did not give his life in the Garden of Gethsemane, he merely bled. He gave his life at Calvary. It is the life given at the Sacrifice of the Cross that is the true good news of the Gospel of Christians.

 

[otjm]

For what its worth to anyone participating or watching this thread, I have a question.

Some years ago I cam across some information that there was a priest - possibly a sociologist or historian - who had done research around the time of Joseph Smith. My recollection was that there was a great deal of ferment well outside the mainline Protestant world at the time, and that there were several individuals besides Mr Smith who were going off on tangents to widely accepted Christian doctrine; and he set what Mr. Smith was ruminating about within the context of that ferment.

If anyone has come across his work, or knows his name, I would appreciate it; I don’'t want to derail or sidetrack the thread, so feel free to PM me.

 

[Horton]

Horton:

Not to diminish Christ’s suffering in the garden, but the reality is his suffering only grew worse through the course of the night and next day.

That would be the Bible.