Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,504 Excellent


About HappyJackWagon

  • Rank
    BISHOP Jackwagon

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,367 profile views
  1. And the resurrection was nearly immediate. There was no going back to find ashes or bone fragments, let alone molecules that may have been reintroduced to the environment.
  2. It's a good question and I've heard very smart, faithful members teach both. Personally, I believe the first resurrection happened at Christ's resurrection. The 2nd will begin at the 2nd coming and will continue in stages and will therefore be an ongoing process. Hence the talk of "morn of the first resurrection" etc. I don't think there is any definitive statement about a resurrection ongoing since Christ's resurrection. I've always assumed that those who needed a physical body to perform a function who were not a part of the first resurrection, were translated to receive a perfected body.
  3. So the resurrection is the reuniting of all the body's original elements, not a new creation from different elements, right? I'm not sure how the original body could be reconstituted from the same materials considering the reuse of those materials through time. If I die, my body decomposes, feeds the plants, which are eaten by an animal which is then eaten by another human, when I'm reconstituted who gets those particular atomic particles? Me? The next guy? The previous lady? I'm reminded of a Star Trek transportation conundrum. If Spock beams down (transports) to a planet is the Spock t
  4. Your answer (in bold) surprised me a little. Are you suggesting that all existing human remains from pre-Jesus times are all from evil people because the resurrection will reunite all the bits of the person's original physical body back together in a perfected form? So, bones, flesh? Atoms? Also, are animals resurrected, or only humans?
  5. Yes, Utah has a lot of preppers, but so do other parts of the country. The midwest for sure and I'd assume elsewhere as well. It wasn't long ago we had a mormon prophetess urging people to prep and get ready for tent cities. I remember our ward prep specialist talking about the pricing of tents available etc in priesthood meetings.
  6. I think that's a fair assessment. In truth, viewing ALL things as either literal or metaphorical is overly simplistic. I doubt many people view everything in one of those 2 ways but lean heavily towards one or the other. But in my view, leaning towards the metaphorical is very useful because one doesn't get trapped attempting to justify or explain every single thing that doesn't make sense, while accepting it as literal anyway. Leaning into metaphor allows one to accept things as literal when that approach doesn't strain credibility, but also ignore the demands of the literal if it just c
  7. I agree that church leaders wouldn't ask for anything malicious. Thank goodness. But I do believe MANY members would do absolutely anything a leader asked them to do. How many times in my life have I heard something like "if the prophet tells me to pick up and walk to Missouri, I'll be on the road walking the next morning". Obviously there is historical precedent for church leaders asking members to faithfully pick up and travel with many losing their lives along the way. There have been many threads over the years about various mormon prepper groups believing some dangerous stuff. F
  8. Need I mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It hasn't been verified as untrue, so what if it is true? Or Scientology? Every religion must be taken on faith but there must be limits, otherwise faith in the presence of verifiable facts is merely blind faith, and not really religious at all. Adhering to the "WHAT IF" is truth is a good way to hedge ones bets but not much more. BTW- we all do that to some degree so there's nothing really wrong with it, as long as we know we're doing it.
  9. There are so many "faithful" theories floated to explain how some scriptures stories and timelines can be literal. I just can't understand the need some people feel to hold on to absolute literal claims by authors we really don't know. It's so much easier to take the bible (and BoM) as allegory/metaphor and hold on to the valuable life lessons we can learn from the literature instead of treating it like a text book of pure fact.
  10. Do you ascribe to the theory that dinosaurs never existed on the earth and that their fossils (and fossil fuels) are remnants from other planets and came to earth as materials used to create the earth? Do you ascribe to the theory that human remains older than 6000 years also arrived on earth in the same way as part of this creation/organization (and are therefore alien)? Just curious. IF you feel those theories explain why the earth and its fossils/geology appear to be older than 6000 years, why do you feel it is necessary to stick to the literal story timeline? IF that is what you
  11. No offense but it's these kinds of explanations that make it impossible for many people to take religion seriously. So you're saying that within 6 literal days all of the materials that form the earth came together with the fossils and even living life? If that's the case, the 6 day creation allegory of the creation of plant and animal life isn't true. So you either have to choose between the timeline, or the account that things plants and animals were actually "created". It would be so much better to say, "yeah, it doesn't looks like some of this is literal". The end.
  12. That's because some basic science obliterates those dates. Humans didn't start walking the earth 6000 years ago. That is pretty widely accepted, right? The age of the earth has already forced many within the Christian tradition (LDS included) largely abandon the literal 6 day for creation in favor of "creative periods" etc. which is much more reasonable and defensible. When certain, major claims are falsified it raises questions about the reliability of other claims as well. Seems pretty natural.
  13. The Bible's timeline (as in actual time) isn't exactly reliable
  14. I can see that "interpretation" could definitely play in for many, but I think there is definitely a cultural push towards literalism and an expectation gleefully shared by the individual as well as family members that they at least "think" it means they will still be living when Christ returns. And I think that is by design. It plays into one of my pet peeves in the church. The idea that people, whether parents, or spouse, or bishops, or Sunday School teachers, or apostles make promises to people in the name of God that X, Y, or Z will happen. I see the claim that "you will be living whe
  • Create New...