Resurrection Question

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And this is where you go off the rails. You have ZERO business telling someone they are "certainly not LDS any longer".

HappyJackWagon - by his every comment he demonstrates that he long ago left the church and enjoys attacking it at every opportunity.  I would be pretty stupid if I could not make that deduction from another's behavior.  Sometimes we bend so far over that is gets beyond silly in the exaggerated effort to be perceived as "open-minded", "tolerant" and every other buzz word of choice of the modern day.  We have lost being honest, frank, and forthright.  If you want to continue to drink that Kool-Aid then have at it; but as for me, I choose to look at things honestly.  You ought to try it some time.  It is amazing how refreshing it is to stand up straight and speak honestly with others.

poster removed

[Stargazer]

I'm convinced that resurrection does not necessarily involve the particular atoms of one's body being restored, nor the very bones laying in one's grave being necessarily used to reconstitute one's resurrected body.  I believe that resurrection is both literal and figurative. It is literal in that there will be a restoring of the physical form, in perfection, and the spirit being bonded to that form, never to be separated again. But figurative in that the form does not necessarily mean that any of the atoms formerly belonging to the body will be part of the new body.

Why do I believe this?  Simple biology for the most part.

The human body changes constantly over one's life. It starts upon conception, when there's only one cell, then two, then four, eight, sixteen, etc. There's the body at birth, growing to the toddler, then the tween, the teen and the young adult. Finally full adult, middle-aged, elder, and finally gone.  Many times what gets laid away in the grave is a shell compared to what existed just months previously.  And which of these forms is it going to be that the body takes up in the resurrection?  And over the lifetime of the individual, how many atoms that start out at birth last all the way to the grave?  I'd guess none at all, because the body is constantly renewing itself. Just take the bones alone. There is a constant breaking up and rebuilding going on. It's called remodeling and it goes on throughout one's life.  

As it has been mentioned by others here, it is highly likely that atoms from other persons, now deceased, have been at some point part of your body, and in the future other persons will be using atoms that were at some time a part of yours.  if you want all the atoms that ever were a part of your body at some time in your life, good luck, because you'll be arguing over possession of those atoms with many other persons, and indeed, many of the animals and plants that you consumed in your life, or which consumed you at some stage!  That is why I say it is both literal and figurative.  And if you did manage somehow to get ahold of every single atom that had once belonged to your body, you'd have to be gigantic in order to claim them all in your frame. Yep, the attack of the 50-foot man or woman!

I'm just trying to make it real to you.  You'll look like a perfected version of yourself. If you were born missing some body part, you can expect to have it in your resurrected frame, even though you never had it in life. Where would you get the atoms for the new member in that case, when no such body part existed for you in life?  That's right, imagining that you get those exact atoms is a fairy tale.  Just be content that what you get in the end will be perfect -- that should be good enough for you, don't you think?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Hmmm...I have never assumed a perfect immortal body would be unchanging, even if "no longer subject to death or disease".  For example, do we believe finger and toenails and hair won't grow, always the same identical hair style?  I think with perfect control over our bodies, we will be able to alter it within certain limitations.

https://www.lds.org/topics/resurrection?lang=eng

Do we actually teach "unchanging" or is that just a common assumption of what perfect means?

If our resurrected bodies at some point become glorified and perfected, that in itself implies that the body will undergo some change between the time it comes forth from the grave and the time we achieve exaltation. So from that it is not hard for me to extrapolate that one could be resurrected as an infant or a child and then go on to attain a full measure of adulthood and maturity as a resurrected being. 

[Darren10]

On 11/16/2017 at 12:57 PM, pogi said:

They were all wicked and did not take part in the first resurrection!

My real answer - it can’t be taken literally.  Our corporeal bodies are in a constant cycle of recycle.  I have shed 100% of every cell in my body multiple times over in my lifetime.  I have bodily remains all over the place, and if they all return to me in the resurrection, we will have a serious problem!  If a single hair of my head will literally not be lost, I will have the biggest birds nest afro anyone has ever seen!

Pogi the Brown.

[hope_for_things]

On 11/17/2017 at 6:17 PM, Storm Rider said:

Funny, you may have been raised LDS, but you are certainly not LDS any longer.  Are you saying that you do not belong to any other church now?  You seem to have the same style of attack/comments consistently.  Where does that come from and what is the purpose?

Yes, I’m Mormon, no I’m not a member of any other churches.  Don’t know why you’re asking these questions, why it’s relevant, or why you’re trying to make this personal (isn’t that against the message board rules anyway?)

Don’t know what you mean by my attack/comments.  Could you try and keep this as a substantive conversation about the topic please and be clear about what I said that you disagree with.  

[Storm Rider]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I’m Mormon, no I’m not a member of any other churches.  Don’t know why you’re asking these questions, why it’s relevant, or why you’re trying to make this personal (isn’t that against the message board rules anyway?)

Don’t know what you mean by my attack/comments.  Could you try and keep this as a substantive conversation about the topic please and be clear about what I said that you disagree with.  

LOL

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL

 

I thought the mods removed you from this thread?  

[mfbukowski]

On 11/18/2017 at 11:56 AM, bluebell said:

I meant fringe as in peripheral.  You hardly ever hear it taught.  I agree it's a very comforting doctrine that i'm inclined to believe is true but I don't have super strong feelings about.  I'm not sure how a resurrected body would grow and mature, since a resurrected body is supposed to be perfect and whole and unchanging.  In that way, it seems to conflict with other doctrine.

The notion of perfection meaning "complete" and therefore uchanging is a Neoplatonic pagan Greek idea

Were that true, God and Christ, who are pefect, could never progress.  I have no problem with the notion of a dynamic perfection where all ACTS are "perfect" with ongoing change.

I see God as perfect in his acts- he always does the "best thing" while making constant changes, and adding to his kingdoms.  To me a perfect body would grow and change perfectly without error or departure from its plan.

We must be in a constant state of becoming better in my view, and that includes God.  "Eternal Progression" just logically demands that.

[strappinglad]

Consider a dozen roses. At what point would they be counted as " complete" ? At what point would they be counted as " perfect " ?

Suppose there were only 11 of them . Suppose  a couple of them had one petal a little more wilted than the rest. Maybe there weren't the same number of thorns on each stem.

The Jews are awaiting a special red calf. We are told it must be without blemish. I heard some years back it was thought they had one but as it aged a couple of white hairs showed up. Hence, not quite good enough.

If that is the kind of judging we humans are to be faced with because of the commandment to be perfect , at least one kingdom will be sparsely populated.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought the mods removed you from this thread?  

From what I have seen, mods either post comments at the end of the thread at the time they take their action or post in the post that got reported.  SR may have posted the lol before a mod read the report and responded in the first post, so it looks like he wasn't removed from a thread but really was.  He likely had been banned sometime in the two hours between his last post and your post I quote (assuming you didn't see the "poster removed" prior to that time, if you did, likely a glitch).

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

From what I have seen, mods either post comments at the end of the thread at the time they take their action or post in the post that got reported. 

Or they remove the poster without comment and in the absence of any discernible reason for the action. And fail to respond to a private inquiry as to the reason.

I speak, of course, from very recent experience.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 12:49 PM, theplains said:

I can agree with other posters. The original body will be resurrected.  Jehovah's Witnesses loosely use the term resurrection
but they actually believe that a new physical body is created. The old dead body eventually ceases to exist. They should
eliminate their use of 'resurrection' and instead use 're-creation.'

Jim

Jim, thanks for your response. There definitely seems to be disagreement about this issue.

IF the original body is resurrected and IF all the righteous who lived before Christ were resurrected after Christ, how would you explain the physical remains of Pre-Christ people, especially innocent (righteous) children? Wouldn't we expect their graves be empty and therefore no long have any remains to be found?

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Jim, thanks for your response. There definitely seems to be disagreement about this issue.

IF the original body is resurrected and IF all the righteous who lived before Christ were resurrected after Christ, how would you explain the physical remains of Pre-Christ people, especially innocent (righteous) children? Wouldn't we expect their graves be empty and therefore no long have any remains to be found?

The scripture do not say, "all the righteous," they  say, "many saints." See Matthew 27:52, 2 Nephi 23:11 (Helaman 14;25).

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The scripture do not say, "all the righteous," they  say, "many saints." See Matthew 27:52, 2 Nephi 23:11 (Helaman 14;25).

OK. Any idea why some of the righteous would be resurrected but not all?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK. Any idea why some of the righteous would be resurrected but not all?

Assuming that by “righteous” you mean “saint” (I see a difference), the scriptures teach that many saints appeared unto many (not all) and ministered unto them. Matthew 27 mentions they went to the “holy city” (Jerusalem) to do this, which might be construed to be the temple.

Saint to me means both “holy… set apart… free from blemish” and “those who by baptism have entered into the Christian covenant” (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/saint?lang=eng). That could include those of prior dispensations to Christ’s. Many saints for example have not died, but are translated with the City of Enoch (Zion).

I think the same reasoning as to why many (some) and not all LDS are given certain callings applies to why many (some) and not all the saints were resurrected at the rising of Christ. It was for the purpose of ministering a certain witness or proclamation of the Lord’s victory over death to the living who were willing to receive it.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or they remove the poster without comment and in the absence of any discernible reason for the action. And fail to respond to a private inquiry as to the reason.

I speak, of course, from very recent experience.

 

Being threadbanned every so often is normal and is not a cause for concern or a full hearing before a tribunal to determine the justice of the ban. I recommend my response to being threadbanned: Have a good laugh and move on.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Being threadbanned every so often is normal and is not a cause for concern or a full hearing before a tribunal to determine the justice of the ban. I recommend my response to being threadbanned: Have a good laugh and move on.

Well, it has only happened to me once before in about a decade-and-a-half of posting, and the reason for it wasn't clear to me then either. (Back then I hadn't realized that one could come onto the board as a guest and be able to read threads from which one had been banned). So while it may be a frequent (or "normal") occurrence for you, it's not for me.

And I never required "a full hearing before a tribunal," just a response to an honest, private inquiry. Or barring that, an indication on the thread itself of an offending post, if any. As kiwi pointed out on the thread after having scrutinized it to find a reason for my thread banning, there wasn't even the typical but cryptic "poster removed" anywhere to be found.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, it has only happened to me once before in about a decade-and-a-half of posting, and the reason for it wasn't clear to me then either. (Back then I hadn't realized that one could come onto the board as a guest and be able to read threads from which one had been banned). So while it may be a frequent (or "normal") occurrence for you, it's not for me.

And I never required "a full hearing before a tribunal," just a response to an honest, private inquiry. Or barring that, an indication on the thread itself of an offending post, if any. As kiwi pointed out on the thread after having scrutinized it to find a reason for my thread banning, there wasn't even the typical but cryptic "poster removed" anywhere to be found.

Well at least a mod did not hijack your title.....I got that for mouthing off.  

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or they remove the poster without comment and in the absence of any discernible reason for the action. And fail to respond to a private inquiry as to the reason.

I speak, of course, from very recent experience.

 

 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Being threadbanned every so often is normal and is not a cause for concern or a full hearing before a tribunal to determine the justice of the ban. I recommend my response to being threadbanned: Have a good laugh and move on.

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, it has only happened to me once before in about a decade-and-a-half of posting, and the reason for it wasn't clear to me then either. (Back then I hadn't realized that one could come onto the board as a guest and be able to read threads from which one had been banned). So while it may be a frequent (or "normal") occurrence for you, it's not for me.

And I never required "a full hearing before a tribunal," just a response to an honest, private inquiry. Or barring that, an indication on the thread itself of an offending post, if any. As kiwi pointed out on the thread after having scrutinized it to find a reason for my thread banning, there wasn't even the typical but cryptic "poster removed" anywhere to be found.

 

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well at least a mod did not hijack your title.....I got that for mouthing off.  

Not sure why this conversation is happening on this thread. But maybe we could kill this tangent.

Most of us have been thread banned at one time or another. And most of us have probably deserved it. The end  

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

 

 

Not sure why this conversation is happening on this thread. But maybe we could kill this tangent.

Most of us have been thread banned at one time or another. And most of us have probably deserved it. The end  

Yeah, well, I figure once branded a criminal, I may as well run with it.

Maybe I will take as my new screen handle Jean Valjean.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Being threadbanned every so often is normal and is not a cause for concern or a full hearing before a tribunal to determine the justice of the ban. I recommend my response to being threadbanned: Have a good laugh and move on.

It puts hair on your chest!

[Five Solas]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, it has only happened to me once before in about a decade-and-a-half of posting, and the reason for it wasn't clear to me then either. (Back then I hadn't realized that one could come onto the board as a guest and be able to read threads from which one had been banned). So while it may be a frequent (or "normal") occurrence for you, it's not for me.

And I never required "a full hearing before a tribunal," just a response to an honest, private inquiry. Or barring that, an indication on the thread itself of an offending post, if any. As kiwi pointed out on the thread after having scrutinized it to find a reason for my thread banning, there wasn't even the typical but cryptic "poster removed" anywhere to be found.

I'd offer to buy you a beer to help ease the pain, Scott - but I'm guessing you wouldn't drink it.

;0)

--Erik

_______________________________________________

I'm gonna keep drinkin'
Til I can't move a toe
And then maybe, my heart won't hurt me so
There's a tear in my beer...

--Hank Williams, 1951

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'd offer to buy you a beer to help ease the pain, Scott - but I'm guessing you wouldn't drink it.

;0)

--Erik

_______________________________________________

I'm gonna keep drinkin'
Til I can't move a toe
And then maybe, my heart won't hurt me so
There's a tear in my beer...

--Hank Williams, 1951

 

As a matter of covenant, I would not. 

[Five Solas]

On 11/16/2017 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

There's a bit of folklore about a Mormon farmer who observed a resurrection of a little girl.  Here's a link.  I can't vouch for it, but I don't dismiss it out-of-hand, either.  The story's depiction of the girl resurrecting as a girl rather than as a woman seems strange, but then the whole story is strange.

"As she raised, a beautiful robe came down over her left shoulder..."

Y'all know what this means.  Yep - her right shoulder, bare & exposed.  And y'all know (or at least y'all have reason to know & thereby stand without excuse) what the deities who govern Mormonism think of that.  Surely we needn't revisit this thread again.  Or this one.  Or this.  Or...

I suggest we all just agree farmer Johnson had been out in the sun too long.  Those Southern Utah summers get hot, hot, HOT!  Unless we want to suppose she was being raised to a "lesser kingdom."

;0)

--Erik

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Gray said:

It puts hair on your chest!