This verse is a PROBLEM for the Mormon view of atonement

Was it in the Garden of Gethsemane? Or on the cross? Christians and Mormons have long disagreed about the nature of the atonement and where it took place. Christians don't see the garden as being a part of the formal atonement, whereas for Latter-day Saints—it's far more significant!

I've heard different Mormons tell me different things about the role of the Garden in the atonement. Some have said it was almost completely accomplished at Gethsemane, and was only completed at the cross, while others have said it was mostly at the cross—but it began in the Garden.

In either case – this verse from 1 Peter 2 really poses a problem for the LDS understanding of atonement. Peter states that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled at the cross—Isaiah 53 being the text that prophesies that the Messiah would bear our griefs and sorrows and iniquities.

If all of these things were accomplished on the cross (as Peter says), then Christ's suffering in the Garden wasn't the chief cornerstone of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus.

If you have further questions, check out our other videos on the atonement:

---
#Christian #Mormon #Apologetics #lds #ldschurch #comeuntochrist #christianity #jesus #jesuschrist #theology #utah #mormonism #christianyoutuber

[GLM]

I think this 1 Peter 2 text really helps explain why we think Christ's death on the cross was the definitive atoning event—especially given that Isaiah 53 specifically says "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows..." For 1 Peter to cite that section in Isaiah 53 and say it was fulfilled on the cross makes this a STRONG verse for Mormons to consider.

[BNichols]

To emphasize that the atonement happened on the cross does nothing to take away from the agony that Christ suffered in the garden. We can celebrate both and still maintain what the Bible clearly teaches: Our sins were borne on the cross, Christ took our punishment on the cross, the atonement happened on the cross.

[mattbrumm]

This is great stuff. I’m currently speaking with 2 young men right now that are on their Mormon mission and these videos have helped tremendously on showing them the true word of God.

[Marisa-yfvc]

Yup! Talked to a coworker about this! She said the atonement took place in the garden but couldn't tell me why.

(Side note -- Thanks for linking all the other videos too!)

[rev.stephena.cakouros]

Wonderful exposition Sir, thank you.

From the early Church you have the same doctrine--The Letter to Diognetus circa 110.

“He himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own son a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for the mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness. By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and the ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

[MrDaveKC]

I found it interesting when I first understood the LDS position that the atonement was at the Garden. This discussion is very good in showing that scripture doesn't teach that concept, but that it was at the cross.

[danreich]

Good luck with your effort, but the vast majority of Mormons are too in love with the idea of eternal progression and becoming Gods to ever consider seriously examining the doctrine and truth claims of their church. Those that leave really do leave because they were offended.

[rev.stephena.cakouros]

“He himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own son a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for the mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness. By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and the ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” [Epistle to Diognetus 1X, circa 120 AD

[are-jaypeterson]

You are right. It is both. Isaiah 53 clearly shows that it is both. As a matter of fact it includes the mocking and the whipping and the crown of thorns. He was crushed for us in gethsemane and pierced for us and died for us on the cross

[aprilpark]

He bore our sins on the tree, but as Isaiah says, he was crushed for our sins. Speaking of him going into the garden of gethsemane and symbolically being crushed like an olive where he bled from every pore, and as Isaiah said he was crushed for our transgressions.

[bradhudson]

2 Yea, concerning that which was to come, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the redemption of the people, which was to be brought to pass through the power, and sufferings, and death of Christ, and his resurrection and ascension into heaven.
Mosiah 18:2 The Book of Mormon

[thuggie]

From looking at LDS resources, they clearly say they atoment happened on the cross

[nancynelson]

In order to disprove or show the difference between Christians and mormons, shouldn't you show also where mormons believe different? You only pointed out one side???

[coreynasfell]

(1) "Mormons and Christians" = Dividing camps = discrediting LDS theology = immediate loss of credibility.
"Christians" as recorded in the Book of Mormon
Alma 48:10 And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the **cause of Christians.**
Alma 46:13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a **band of Christians** remain to possess the land--
Alma 46:15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, **or Christians as they were called, ** because of their belief in Christ who should come.
Alma 46:16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the **cause of the Christians, ** and the freedom of the land might be favored.
Alma 48:10 And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the **cause of Christians.**

(2) "He was crushed" = This is not in the KJV. But even still, it points to the "olive press"

(3) From David Morton's Amazon book review on "Rethinking the Atonement"

In Leviticus, where were the animal sacrifices slaughtered?

Quick. Don’t think too hard about it.


If you said it was slaughtered on the altar, you would be wrong.

And so begins the rabbit hole of David Moffitt’s fantastic series of essays on the atonement.

The core of his argument is this: Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension, and intersession constitute a sacrificial process reminiscent of the Levitical sacrificial system. Hebrews, therefore, is not a polemic against the Jewish practices, nor is it a priestly metaphor for life change, but rather an exposition of Jesus’ role as the perfected and eternal high priest, who is literally, currently, atoning for our sin by his presentation of himself before the Father in the heavenly holy of holies. The modern, traditional conflation of slaughter, sacrifice, and atonement, therefore offers little more than a very two dimensional view of Christ’s work, effectively disconnecting Christianity from its Jewish roots, and a correction is needed.

The story goes like this: Levitical sacrifices followed a process whereby an animal was slaughtered in the courtyard or at the entrance to the tabernacle, and the flesh and blood of the animal are brought into one of the altars to be presented before God, and often burned as an offering to God for atonement or for fellowship. In a similar manner, Jesus offers his body on earth (not at the altar), and then, following resurrection, ascends physically to the heavens, thus bringing with him the flesh and blood necessary to present before God, and he is also able to present it as the high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Thus, Jesus is simultaneously the sacrifice and the high priest.

Thus, the ascension is as, if not more important, than the death of Jesus on the cross, as it is Christ’s intercessory work in heaven that atones for sin.

(4) D&C 45:3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him— 4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified; 5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

[MrCODYWW]

We do not believe that Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice happened in the garden. We believe it was a series of events which included both suffering in the garden and on the cross. “What then is the Atonement of Jesus Christ? In one sense, it is a series of divine events that commenced in the Garden of Gethsemane, continued on the cross, and culminated with the Savior’s Resurrection from the tomb. It was motivated by an incomprehensible love for each of us. It required a being who was sinless; who had infinite power over the elements—even death; who possessed a boundless capacity to suffer the consequences of all our sins and ailments; and who, in fact, descended beneath it all.1 This was the mission of Jesus Christ—this was His Atonement.”
-Tad R Callister


At the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon, a loud voice, surpassing the most anguished cry of physical suffering issued from the central cross, rending the dreadful darkness. It was the voice of the Christ: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” What mind of man can fathom the significance of that awful cry? It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death. The cry from the cross, though heard by all who were near, was understood by few. The first exclamation, Eloi, meaning My God, was misunderstood as a call for Elias.
The period of faintness, the conception of utter forsakenness soon passed, and the natural cravings of the body reasserted themselves. The maddening thirst, which constituted one of the worst of the crucifixion agonies, wrung from the Savior’s lips His one recorded utterance expressive of physical suffering. “I thirst” He said. One of those who stood by, whether Roman or Jew, disciple or skeptic, we are not told, hastily saturated a sponge with vinegar, a vessel of which was at hand, and having fastened the sponge to the end of a reed, or stalk of hyssop, pressed it to the Lord’s fevered lips. Some others would have prevented this one act of human response, for they said: “Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.” John affirms that Christ uttered the exclamation, “I thirst, ” only when He knew “that all things were now accomplished”; and the apostle saw in the incident a fulfilment of prophecy.
Fully realizing that He was no longer forsaken, but that His atoning sacrifice had been accepted by the Father, and that His mission in the flesh had been carried to glorious consummation, He exclaimed in a loud voice of holy triumph: “It is finished.” In reverence, resignation, and relief, He addressed the Father saying: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” He bowed His head, and voluntarily gave up His life.
Jesus the Christ was dead. His life had not been taken from Him except as He had willed to permit. Sweet and welcome as would have been the relief of death in any of the earlier stages of His suffering from Gethsemane to the cross, He lived until all things were accomplished as had been appointed. In the latter days the voice of the Lord Jesus has been heard affirming the actuality of His suffering and death, and the eternal purpose thereby accomplished. Hear and heed His words: “For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him.”
-Jesus The Christ, Gospel Library of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

[mcable]

Hey GLM, as many others have pointed out, the cross has always been a part of the atonement. I find your exegesis weak, in no way does peter exclude the garden sufferings as part of the atonement.

Here's a verse from the BOM to support the idea that the cross has been a part of the atonement for mormons since the beggining.

1st Nephi 11:33 "And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world."

[AdamEyers]

Another “Christian” who has to deny that the atonement began in gethsemane and finished on the cross to just saying it happened on the cross. Why? Because he is more concerned with being anti Mormon than he is in advocating biblical truth.

[TrevorMiller]

I appreciate your efforts to share God’s love, but I would ask you to engage with the Book of Mormon genuinely. Read it to see why we, followers of Jesus Christ, see Him in every page of that book.

But don’t leave it at that, engage with the text prayerfully and ask Him what He thinks of the book.

You can waste away your life creating false arguments about our church (we believe Christ accomplished His Atonement on the Cross—the garden was a step in that process). Or you can take what truth you have and rejoice that God has more to offer.

We believe in all truth wherever it may be found. We, unlike many today, seek to build up rather than tear down. I invite you to do the same

[Robert-rwlm]

We literally believe that the enitire event was needed. From Gethsemane to the Cross. You only fighting a strawman brother

[jeffwilson]

The Bible teaches one God, one Christ, and one gospel. But Christianity teaches tens of thousands, one set for each different denomination. So Christianity stands against its own Bible. How then can Christianity claim validation or origin in that to which it is averse?

Each denomination claims representation in God, but no two of the tens of thousands of denominations are exactly alike in their interpretations of God, Christ, and gospel. The God of Christianity then is babel, an angel of light, made righteous by its claim to be Christian. Not that they aren't well meaning, but people can say anything. And of course the devil is a liar. So if I say that I am your King, does that make it so?

I don't condemn Christianity. It condemns itself. I merely point it out. Christianity is a troupe of actors, all vying for the part. There are men who think they are women, and women who think they are men. But is it true, or is the truth that they are simply lost? How is Christianity any different? Who wields the stamp of approval that a thing is of God or not.

Does the desire to be saved and a follower of Christ make one a saved follower of Christ by comporting oneself to scripture? Jesus said that there is no eternal life in the scriptures. Even the scriptures that speak of him or reflect his own words, are no more than scriptures, words on paper. God does not live in the Bible. He lives in heaven. And the Bible is not God. It is a testimony of him by those who knew him thousands of years ago.

Even today we banty the Bible about like heathens with a plundered sacred relic from long ago. And it is lamentable. Still God abides the matter from his hidden throne. All we, go about under his all knowing eye, our sins scarlet. His patience and judgment are boundless. Traditional Christianity is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel of mans attempt to counterfeit the truth, so as to circumvent it and sneak into heaven.