The Savior was perplexed?

[Art Vandelay]

I found this quote last night while studying. I find it comforting and dare I say perplexing.

"On some days we will have cause to remember the unkind treatment he received, the rejection he experienced, and the injustice—oh, the injustice—he endured. When we, too, then face some of that in life, we can remember that Christ was also troubled on every side, but not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed"

My assumption would be that since Christ had never felt any sin to feel the burden of all of it would obviously be an unknown, even a bewildering feeling. This was also the singular instance (that I'm aware of) where he was truly alone without the assistance of the Father. Perhaps I'm making too much of a single adjective, but I find the wording of this quote interesting nonetheless.

Which brings to mind another question, did the Savior possess or even need the Holy Ghost? He promised the comforter to others after he left. Yet we know the HG is a member of the Godhead and from eternity to eternity. His presence was witnessed at Christ's baptism. Was Christ's relationship as the earthly progeny of Heavenly Father so unique that his communications were always direct without the needed assistance of Holy Ghost?

[Indy Coug]

What's the source of the quote?

[Art Vandelay]

What's the source of the quote?

Jeffrey R. Holland General Conference October 1995 :“This Do in Remembrance of Me”

[Indy Coug]

Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?

...

[SeattleUte]

Jeffrey R. Holland General Conference October 1995 :“This Do in Remembrance of Me”

So can we agree that if an apostle said it that's the LDS official position?

[wuapinmon]

So can we agree that if an apostle said it that's the LDS official position?

No.

[Art Vandelay]

So can we agree that if an apostle said it that's the LDS official position?

You were one of the individuals I was hoping would respond and add some insight to the discussion. As the board contrarian and one of the resident intellects, there are many times I feel you could provide an interesting perspective or at least a different point of view, but you take the easy Mormon pot shot instead.

[creekster]

I found this quote last night while studying. I find it comforting and dare I say perplexing.

"On some days we will have cause to remember the unkind treatment he received, the rejection he experienced, and the injustice—oh, the injustice—he endured. When we, too, then face some of that in life, we can remember that Christ was also troubled on every side, but not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed"

My assumption would be that since Christ had never felt any sin to feel the burden of all of it would obviously be an unknown, even a bewildering feeling. This was also the singular instance (that I'm aware of) where he was truly alone without the assistance of the Father. Perhaps I'm making too much of a single adjective, but I find the wording of this quote interesting nonetheless.

Which brings to mind another question, did the Savior possess or even need the Holy Ghost? He promised the comforter to others after he left. Yet we know the HG is a member of the Godhead and from eternity to eternity. His presence was witnessed at Christ's baptism. Was Christ's relationship as the earthly progeny of Heavenly Father so unique that his communications were always direct without the needed assistance of Holy Ghost?

It suggests somethign short of omniscience.

[Art Vandelay]

It suggests somethign short of omniscience.

Was the mortal Christ omniscient? I had always assumed not http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/11-13,20#11

[SeattleUte]

You were one of the individuals I was hoping would respond and add some insight to the discussion. As the board contrarian and one of the resident intellects, there are many times I feel you could provide an interesting perspective or at least a different point of view, but you take the easy Mormon pot shot instead.

In my opinion, Jeff Holland is Mormonism's best orator. Christ's humanity and its attraction and importance to us as humans is a subject he has treated adroitly and poetically in various talks. This is actually a subject that has caused much consternation and confusion among Christians. Finally, the Christianity that emerged dominant in late antiquity decided it was essential to make Jehova and Christ the same personage, to maximize the attraction of a suffering God. Hence the Trinity. The Arian Christians, based on teachings of Presbyter Arias, held that the Father of the Old Testament and Christ were not same thing. They fell by the way side. The Trinity was actually sort of a compromise on this divisive issue. Still, how can God ever not be omnicient? How did he suspend, blot out for a time, all that he knew? How can His humanity, His suffering, His confusion or preplexion ever be as profound as that of a regular human subjected to the same earthly experiences? If he knew (as no human can really know) that this earthly state of suffering is ephemeral, and the kind of paradise that awaited his return, how could his suffering have been as profound absent such knowledge? It's mind boggling. One of those mysteries.

[Babs]

Was the mortal Christ omniscient? I had always assumed not http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/11-13,20#11

This has been one of the central debates from the earliest days of the church. The question is whether Christ was still fully God while incarnate, or whether he volitionally gave up his divine attributes (including omniscience) during his earthly ministry. You will find scholars on both sides of the argument.

[LA Ute]

Still, how can God ever not be omnicient?

I don't think it's such a mystery. He could certainly feel physical pain, and I doubt the Father did - or does. So the teaching that Christ, in Gethsemane, "began to be sore amazed [Greek: awestruck, astonished], and to be very heavy," is not too surprising. The whole point of the Atonement, after all, was for him to descend below all things, so as to be able to understand and succor us in our own suffering. He apparently wasn't in a position to do that, pre-Atonement, so I guess in a way he was not yet omniscient.

[wuapinmon]

I don't believe that God is omniscient. He risks.

[SeattleUte]

I don't think it's such a mystery. He could certainly feel physical pain, and I doubt the Father did - or does. So the teaching that Christ, in Gethsemane, "began to be sore amazed [Greek: awestruck, astonished], and to be very heavy," is not too surprising. The whole point of the Atonement, after all, was for him to descend below all things, so as to be able to understand and succor us in our own suffering. He apparently wasn't in a position to do that, pre-Atonement, so I guess in a way he was not yet omniscient.

This may be clear to you. It's not to me.

[Art Vandelay]

In my opinion, Jeff Holland is Mormonism's best orator. Christ's humanity and its attraction and importance to us as humans is a subject he has treated adroitly and poetically in various talks. This is actually a subject that has caused much consternation and confusion among Christians. Finally, the Christianity that emerged dominant in late antiquity decided it was essential to make Jehova and Christ the same personage, to maximize the attraction of a suffering God. Hence the Trinity. The Arian Christians, based on teachings of Presbyter Arias, held that the Father of the Old Testament and Christ were not same thing. They fell by the way side. The Trinity was actually sort of a compromise on this divisive issue. Still, how can God ever not be omnicient? How did he suspend, blot out for a time, all that he knew? How can His humanity, His suffering, His confusion or preplexion ever be as profound as that of a regular human subjected to the same earthly experiences? If he knew (as no human can really know) that this earthly state of suffering is ephemeral, and the kind of paradise that awaited his return, how could his suffering have been as profound absent such knowledge? It's mind boggling. One of those mysteries.

This has been one of the central debates from the earliest days of the church. The question is whether Christ was still fully God while incarnate, or whether he volitionally gave up his divine attributes (including omniscience) during his earthly ministry. You will find scholars on both sides of the argument.

I don't think it's such a mystery. He could certainly feel physical pain, and I doubt the Father did - or does. So the teaching that Christ, in Gethsemane, "began to be sore amazed [Greek: awestruck, astonished], and to be very heavy," is not too surprising. The whole point of the Atonement, after all, was for him to descend below all things, so as to be able to understand and succor us in our own suffering. He apparently wasn't in a position to do that, pre-Atonement, so I guess in a way he was not yet omniscient.

Comments and opinions like these are why I enjoy this forum so much.