I have struggled to understand the Savior's sacrifice. I view it now as a PROCESS and not one event or another. The opening act of the atoning process started in Gethsemane and then CONTINUED in the long night that followed where He went like a lamb to the slaughter as he faced the interrogation and abuse of the Jews. He answered them nothing. The culminating act of the process was the cross on Golgotha. It was essential that He give up His life and to yield up mortality voluntarily as a willing sacrifice for us. I am inclined to think that there were different parts of the suffering that He had to go through to make the sacrifice utterly complete. However, whatever He had suffered up to the cross would have meant nothing unless He completed the process fully and finally. We are gratedul for the cross and all that it represents. BTW, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I am grateful for the cross and also Gethsemane. I am also grateful for the Empty Tomb.
Thank you, Fred! I appreciate your input here, especially emphasizing the cross as the “culminating act” of atonement.
I’m reminded here of the four things Christ said the Son of Man (Luke 9:22) must do to accomplish our salvation: 1) suffer many things and, 2) be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and, 3) be killed, and 4) on the third day be raised. All are necessary; all were accomplished!
I have seen some from Gen Z in the church also wearing crosses. It's an interesting piece of church culture and not doctrine and seems to stem from wanting to distinguish ourselves from catholicism or other christian groups as well as emphasize the living Christ. This article gives a nice overview and points out that some early LDS members wore crosses: https://www.ldsliving.com/what-church-leaders-and-church-history-teach-about-wearing-and-displaying-the-cross/s/10418. It was more a mid-20th century development to avoid cross imagery.
I also read the great apostasy chapter from your book. I like how you get to the crux of the issue, which, from what I read, sounds like protestants believe in an apostasy, but not an absolute one. Whereas LDS members would argue that there was a complete apostasy.
Part of the evidence used to support a partial apostasy is Matthew 16:18. However, LDS members would argue that eventually Christ will prevail over all evil and subdue everything under his feet so despite an apostasy, the end result is a victory. D&C 21:6 and D&C 17:8 both use the same language for Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey respectively. However, Joseph Smith ended up being martyred for his beliefs. In this respect it could mean that God will accomplish his purposes through you. Another explanation could also be that since Peter was given the sealing power, that death will not prevail.
Additionally, would be curious to hear your thoughts on Amos 8:11-12. The LDS church interprets that as the Great Apostasy and the absence of continued revelation.
Andreas, thanks again for the time and care you put into these responses.... I really do appreciate it.
If I recall correctly, John presented something simliar at a presentation I attend a couple of years back. His historical framing is genuinely helpful. I’ve actually heard the concern you mentioned from both directions. Some LDS avoid the cross because they want to highlight the living Christ, and plenty of evangelicals I know avoid the crucifix for the same reason. As one asked me (tongue-in-cheek), “Catholics know he got off the cross, right?” I think the impulse there is the same. No one's rejecting Christ’s suffering, but many want the public symbol to emphasize resurrection rather than death.
And thanks for reading that apostasy chapter. You’re exactly right about the distinction. Protestants have always affirmed a real decline, distortion, and even corruption (sometimes very severe) but never a total failure of the church’s identity or authority. Even the Restorationist impulses in Joseph Smith's day (including Alexander Campbell) still assumed continuity. Joseph’s move was a clear step beyond that, i.e., not renewal of what persisted, but re-creation of what had been lost. My own reading of Matthew 16:18 puts the responsibility for the church’s endurane squarely on Christ’s promise, not the church’s performance. And, you've caused me to ask: Does this have more to do with theological instincts? In other words, since LDS thought leans heavily into agency and pre-mortal commitments, while classical Christianity leans heavily into divine preservation, is that dynamic at play?
On Amos 8:11–12, I'd jump to its context for interpretation. Amos is warning Israel that their unfaithfulness is about to bring judgment on them, i.e., their hearing the word, but that's going to stop because God is withdrawing his prophetic voice as part of that judgment. It’s not a prophcy of a worldwide, post-apostolic silence (to me, at least) because the very next chapters discuss (Israel’s eventual restoration). It assumes God’s voice will return, and He did--Jesus. So, even if someone wanted to apply the text typologically, I still don't think it maps onto a centuries-long absence of divine revelation across the whole Christian world. I think it's a localized judgment, not a prediction of a universal ecclesiastical collapse, if that makes sense.
No, I haven’t read Callister’s Blueprint, but now I’m curious! Especially if it tracks with my own work. It's on the list. :)
Alright, Andreas, again... and truly... thanks again for the generous engagement.
Love being able to discuss this and hear your perspective. The next part is just an additional response, not wanting to be confrontational, but just provide an additional thought on your response. Feel free to respond or not, totally fine by me. Also happy to chat out of the comment section too haha.
I see your point on Amos, but it could be argued the context in Amos 8 is eschatological considering the next chapter using the same phraseology, "Behold, the days come..." and then makes a prophecy in verse 15 that "they shall no more be pulled up out of their land." Of course that didn't happen with the scattering of the Jews after the Roman siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the 2nd temple. It seems this has been fulfilled with the re-establishment of the state of Israel in the early 20th century.
It could also be argued this has dual fulfillment (think there's a technical term I forgot that captures this thought). Other examples of this would be Isaiah and Daniel's writings where meaning related to current events is also used as a veiled reference to future events as well (although the extent of this employed in LDS interpretations of the text is likely greater when compared to other Christians).
And of course, Amos 8:9 could be seen as a reference to the crucifixion (sun being darkened) and was fulfilled (see Luke 23:44-45).
So chronologically, verse 11 being after the crucifixion instead of a reference to apostasy post-Malachi til Jesus Christ came could make sense (or a reference to either Assyrian or Babylonian exiles for that matter).
Great article and I agree with your observations about the slow changes happening in our faith (member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) about the cross being more emphasized recently. I've noticed the same thing in recent General Conferences and non-Conference remarks by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
I've also noticed the increase in cross-related jewelry. On a personal level, I bought a t-shirt that features the cross in recent months. It's something that I would not have worn until recently -- and, in fact, avoided -- primarily driven by 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s General Conference talks that generally encouraged our worship of the *resurrected* Christ.
Also, just a thank you for helping me expand my theological vocabulary. I consider myself pretty well-versed in LDS doctrine, but I am not an academic and had to google a word or two. I appreciated the challenge to my knowledge base.
First, as an aside, your article was the second one that I found within a week that taught me that Luke 22:44 was likely an addition to the original manuscript from Luke. The other person who referenced this did so to point out that man's transmission of the Bible is not infallible... but that's a whole other topic, so I'll leave that alone for now.
You reference Doctrine and Covenants 19 and how it matches up somewhat with the current version of Luke 22:44, and I want to comment further on D&C 19.
In context, D&C 19 (vs. 16-19) reads:
"16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
"17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
"18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
"19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men."
Since Latter-day Saints accept this as a revelation, we read this as the fact that Christ Himself declares that He bled at every pore, which makes me think that whomever added Luke 22:44 was likely inspired by the Holy Spirit to make the addition.
For me that means that it also supersedes the works of men: James Talmage, Brigham Young, and others. The language, "would that I might not drink the bitter cup" seems to tie it to Christ's experience in Gethsemane primarily.
Historically, that's why I (and I assume others like me) have the Gethsemane-centric view of the Atonement.
However, reading D&C 19 now, I also notice that He doesn't specifically mention the garden or the cross, so it could easily be read as meaning His entire experience: from His sorrow at the Last Supper, to Gethsemane, to the Cross, to the moment that the Father withdrew His presence, and to Christ's final giving up His spirit.
So, thank you again for your article. It's opened my mind quite a bit.
Yes, it's definitely a debate--scholars I respect land in different places. The absence from Matthew and Mark, plus how smoothly v.43 flows directly into v.46 (prayer ends, then immediate action), is what tilts me toward later addition.
Anyway, your observation about D&C 19 not specifying a location is excellent. I'd intuited Gethsemane, but you're right, the text doesn't say that. v19 pushed me to Gethsemane still, but there's not an explicit connection.
This makes me wonder: how does this broader reading change the way you think about the atonement's timeline and "geography" in LDS thought?
I have sympathy with this primarily theological account of the Horticentric Atonement, but it comes with historical caveats for me. The Latter-day Saint Atonement as 'process' and driven by Christ as the exemplary model of 'free agency', in the broad sense of 'moral choice' I was taught it meant, are curious factors in the rise of the LDS view. Yet, I don't think these dynamics you note have the polemical and theological gravity to drive the development. More likely, the historical emergence of Horticentric Atonement was not primarily motivated by--or maybe didn't even preeminently consist of--a conscious, discursive extrapolation of theological principles in Latter-day Saint scripture or tradition. In fact, if 20th-century Latter-day Saints did take such a systematic approach, I believe we'd have a different phenomenon. Perhaps they would've arrived where they are now sooner.
As enticing as this might be to help build rapport among LDS and Christian interlocutors, theological developments, however valid, are not devoid of historic agendas and controversies. Historically speaking, this was likely a more recently established tradition composed to justify a fierce taboo against the image of the cross insofar as it signified--specifically--the Catholic Church. While principally a historical analysis, Jeremy Christiansen's DIALOGUE article, "The Garden Atonement and the Mormon Cross Taboo" (Volume 55, No. 4, Winter 2022), provides a compelling explanation, following the work of Michael Reed, for the emergence of this tradition.
This isn't to say that the recent advances toward a re-integrated view of Gethsemane, Calvary, and the iconography of the cross are not material improvements, or that the LDS theological dynamics present some genuine insight into the event that Nicene Christians can still appreciate. Rather, this cultural trend towards a more aesthetically Evangelical expression of Christian devotion comes after a turbulent reckoning with past prejudices against Catholic neighbors and friends. In fact, the embrace of the cross of Christ should be seen as a greater good in light of overcoming this.
Jared, thank you for these insights. I agree that trends in doctrinal development, re-orientation, etc commonly come about in response to something in history. The councils are probably the best example of this.
I have struggled to understand the Savior's sacrifice. I view it now as a PROCESS and not one event or another. The opening act of the atoning process started in Gethsemane and then CONTINUED in the long night that followed where He went like a lamb to the slaughter as he faced the interrogation and abuse of the Jews. He answered them nothing. The culminating act of the process was the cross on Golgotha. It was essential that He give up His life and to yield up mortality voluntarily as a willing sacrifice for us. I am inclined to think that there were different parts of the suffering that He had to go through to make the sacrifice utterly complete. However, whatever He had suffered up to the cross would have meant nothing unless He completed the process fully and finally. We are gratedul for the cross and all that it represents. BTW, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I am grateful for the cross and also Gethsemane. I am also grateful for the Empty Tomb.
Thank you, Fred! I appreciate your input here, especially emphasizing the cross as the “culminating act” of atonement.
I’m reminded here of the four things Christ said the Son of Man (Luke 9:22) must do to accomplish our salvation: 1) suffer many things and, 2) be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and, 3) be killed, and 4) on the third day be raised. All are necessary; all were accomplished!
I have seen some from Gen Z in the church also wearing crosses. It's an interesting piece of church culture and not doctrine and seems to stem from wanting to distinguish ourselves from catholicism or other christian groups as well as emphasize the living Christ. This article gives a nice overview and points out that some early LDS members wore crosses: https://www.ldsliving.com/what-church-leaders-and-church-history-teach-about-wearing-and-displaying-the-cross/s/10418. It was more a mid-20th century development to avoid cross imagery.
I also read the great apostasy chapter from your book. I like how you get to the crux of the issue, which, from what I read, sounds like protestants believe in an apostasy, but not an absolute one. Whereas LDS members would argue that there was a complete apostasy.
Part of the evidence used to support a partial apostasy is Matthew 16:18. However, LDS members would argue that eventually Christ will prevail over all evil and subdue everything under his feet so despite an apostasy, the end result is a victory. D&C 21:6 and D&C 17:8 both use the same language for Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey respectively. However, Joseph Smith ended up being martyred for his beliefs. In this respect it could mean that God will accomplish his purposes through you. Another explanation could also be that since Peter was given the sealing power, that death will not prevail.
Additionally, would be curious to hear your thoughts on Amos 8:11-12. The LDS church interprets that as the Great Apostasy and the absence of continued revelation.
Finally, reading this book right now from a general authority named Tad R. Callister called, "The Blueprint of Christ's Church". It essentially seems like the LDS version of what you are doing with your book: https://www.amazon.com/Blueprint-Christs-Church-Tad-Callister/dp/1629720216
Have you read it? The table of contents is ordered by question in the same way that yours is as well, which I thought was a cool coincidence.
As always, thanks for the thoughtful article and insights!
Andreas, thanks again for the time and care you put into these responses.... I really do appreciate it.
If I recall correctly, John presented something simliar at a presentation I attend a couple of years back. His historical framing is genuinely helpful. I’ve actually heard the concern you mentioned from both directions. Some LDS avoid the cross because they want to highlight the living Christ, and plenty of evangelicals I know avoid the crucifix for the same reason. As one asked me (tongue-in-cheek), “Catholics know he got off the cross, right?” I think the impulse there is the same. No one's rejecting Christ’s suffering, but many want the public symbol to emphasize resurrection rather than death.
And thanks for reading that apostasy chapter. You’re exactly right about the distinction. Protestants have always affirmed a real decline, distortion, and even corruption (sometimes very severe) but never a total failure of the church’s identity or authority. Even the Restorationist impulses in Joseph Smith's day (including Alexander Campbell) still assumed continuity. Joseph’s move was a clear step beyond that, i.e., not renewal of what persisted, but re-creation of what had been lost. My own reading of Matthew 16:18 puts the responsibility for the church’s endurane squarely on Christ’s promise, not the church’s performance. And, you've caused me to ask: Does this have more to do with theological instincts? In other words, since LDS thought leans heavily into agency and pre-mortal commitments, while classical Christianity leans heavily into divine preservation, is that dynamic at play?
On Amos 8:11–12, I'd jump to its context for interpretation. Amos is warning Israel that their unfaithfulness is about to bring judgment on them, i.e., their hearing the word, but that's going to stop because God is withdrawing his prophetic voice as part of that judgment. It’s not a prophcy of a worldwide, post-apostolic silence (to me, at least) because the very next chapters discuss (Israel’s eventual restoration). It assumes God’s voice will return, and He did--Jesus. So, even if someone wanted to apply the text typologically, I still don't think it maps onto a centuries-long absence of divine revelation across the whole Christian world. I think it's a localized judgment, not a prediction of a universal ecclesiastical collapse, if that makes sense.
No, I haven’t read Callister’s Blueprint, but now I’m curious! Especially if it tracks with my own work. It's on the list. :)
Alright, Andreas, again... and truly... thanks again for the generous engagement.
Love being able to discuss this and hear your perspective. The next part is just an additional response, not wanting to be confrontational, but just provide an additional thought on your response. Feel free to respond or not, totally fine by me. Also happy to chat out of the comment section too haha.
I see your point on Amos, but it could be argued the context in Amos 8 is eschatological considering the next chapter using the same phraseology, "Behold, the days come..." and then makes a prophecy in verse 15 that "they shall no more be pulled up out of their land." Of course that didn't happen with the scattering of the Jews after the Roman siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the 2nd temple. It seems this has been fulfilled with the re-establishment of the state of Israel in the early 20th century.
It could also be argued this has dual fulfillment (think there's a technical term I forgot that captures this thought). Other examples of this would be Isaiah and Daniel's writings where meaning related to current events is also used as a veiled reference to future events as well (although the extent of this employed in LDS interpretations of the text is likely greater when compared to other Christians).
And of course, Amos 8:9 could be seen as a reference to the crucifixion (sun being darkened) and was fulfilled (see Luke 23:44-45).
So chronologically, verse 11 being after the crucifixion instead of a reference to apostasy post-Malachi til Jesus Christ came could make sense (or a reference to either Assyrian or Babylonian exiles for that matter).
Great article and I agree with your observations about the slow changes happening in our faith (member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) about the cross being more emphasized recently. I've noticed the same thing in recent General Conferences and non-Conference remarks by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
I've also noticed the increase in cross-related jewelry. On a personal level, I bought a t-shirt that features the cross in recent months. It's something that I would not have worn until recently -- and, in fact, avoided -- primarily driven by 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s General Conference talks that generally encouraged our worship of the *resurrected* Christ.
Also, just a thank you for helping me expand my theological vocabulary. I consider myself pretty well-versed in LDS doctrine, but I am not an academic and had to google a word or two. I appreciated the challenge to my knowledge base.
Two other thoughts I had:
First, as an aside, your article was the second one that I found within a week that taught me that Luke 22:44 was likely an addition to the original manuscript from Luke. The other person who referenced this did so to point out that man's transmission of the Bible is not infallible... but that's a whole other topic, so I'll leave that alone for now.
You reference Doctrine and Covenants 19 and how it matches up somewhat with the current version of Luke 22:44, and I want to comment further on D&C 19.
In context, D&C 19 (vs. 16-19) reads:
"16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
"17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
"18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
"19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men."
Since Latter-day Saints accept this as a revelation, we read this as the fact that Christ Himself declares that He bled at every pore, which makes me think that whomever added Luke 22:44 was likely inspired by the Holy Spirit to make the addition.
For me that means that it also supersedes the works of men: James Talmage, Brigham Young, and others. The language, "would that I might not drink the bitter cup" seems to tie it to Christ's experience in Gethsemane primarily.
Historically, that's why I (and I assume others like me) have the Gethsemane-centric view of the Atonement.
However, reading D&C 19 now, I also notice that He doesn't specifically mention the garden or the cross, so it could easily be read as meaning His entire experience: from His sorrow at the Last Supper, to Gethsemane, to the Cross, to the moment that the Father withdrew His presence, and to Christ's final giving up His spirit.
So, thank you again for your article. It's opened my mind quite a bit.
Yes, it's definitely a debate--scholars I respect land in different places. The absence from Matthew and Mark, plus how smoothly v.43 flows directly into v.46 (prayer ends, then immediate action), is what tilts me toward later addition.
Anyway, your observation about D&C 19 not specifying a location is excellent. I'd intuited Gethsemane, but you're right, the text doesn't say that. v19 pushed me to Gethsemane still, but there's not an explicit connection.
This makes me wonder: how does this broader reading change the way you think about the atonement's timeline and "geography" in LDS thought?
Really grateful for your willingness to engage.
Thank you, Brian!
I have sympathy with this primarily theological account of the Horticentric Atonement, but it comes with historical caveats for me. The Latter-day Saint Atonement as 'process' and driven by Christ as the exemplary model of 'free agency', in the broad sense of 'moral choice' I was taught it meant, are curious factors in the rise of the LDS view. Yet, I don't think these dynamics you note have the polemical and theological gravity to drive the development. More likely, the historical emergence of Horticentric Atonement was not primarily motivated by--or maybe didn't even preeminently consist of--a conscious, discursive extrapolation of theological principles in Latter-day Saint scripture or tradition. In fact, if 20th-century Latter-day Saints did take such a systematic approach, I believe we'd have a different phenomenon. Perhaps they would've arrived where they are now sooner.
As enticing as this might be to help build rapport among LDS and Christian interlocutors, theological developments, however valid, are not devoid of historic agendas and controversies. Historically speaking, this was likely a more recently established tradition composed to justify a fierce taboo against the image of the cross insofar as it signified--specifically--the Catholic Church. While principally a historical analysis, Jeremy Christiansen's DIALOGUE article, "The Garden Atonement and the Mormon Cross Taboo" (Volume 55, No. 4, Winter 2022), provides a compelling explanation, following the work of Michael Reed, for the emergence of this tradition.
This isn't to say that the recent advances toward a re-integrated view of Gethsemane, Calvary, and the iconography of the cross are not material improvements, or that the LDS theological dynamics present some genuine insight into the event that Nicene Christians can still appreciate. Rather, this cultural trend towards a more aesthetically Evangelical expression of Christian devotion comes after a turbulent reckoning with past prejudices against Catholic neighbors and friends. In fact, the embrace of the cross of Christ should be seen as a greater good in light of overcoming this.
Jared, thank you for these insights. I agree that trends in doctrinal development, re-orientation, etc commonly come about in response to something in history. The councils are probably the best example of this.