Will Christ return in your lifetime?

[AtlanticMike]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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. Fortunately I think the radical groups within mormonism are fairly small. But they definitely exist.

In years past I think I would've been what you would call a normal mormon prepper. I have sealed 1000s of #10 cans, at the cannery and at people's houses. Our stake has a electric canning machine you can borrow. Now, I've been opening cans to use for my chicken feed, the more bugs in the wheat the better 🤣, the chickens love it. Actually, a couple years ago I crushed a bunch of used empty #10 cans and took them to the recycling yard and made $12, yay for me! Didn't even pay for my gas there. Personally, I think there's a good chance in 20 to 30 years prepping will be a totally foriegn subject to the youth of the church. 

     Does Utah have alot of prepper groups, I dont think it's that big on the east coast. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

While you see taking stuff literally as harder and taking stuff metaphorically as easier, I see the need to take everything literally and the need to see it all as allegory and metaphor as often coming from the same place--the need for no ambiguity in religious belief.  This isn't true for everyone but I'd say it's true for a lot people who ascribe to one or the other.  And both seem equally "easy" to me.

Taking the BOM and Bible as metaphor or taking everything in them as literal seem like two sides to the same coin.  Each is as easy as the other because each provide an "all or nothing" option for scripture, which is the simplest way to deal with it.  

"It all happened" and "none of it happened" can both be very comfortable places to stand in, while "some of it's literal and some of it's metaphor and we have to rely on the Spirit and our relationship with God to know which is which, and sometimes we'll get it wrong or won't know right away, and will end up believing one is one thing when it's actually the other" can feel uncomfortable. 

Trying to live in a nuanced place where fantastical things can be literal and where they can also be symbolic, metaphor, or allegory, where we are dependent upon imperfect understanding and outside influences to tell the difference, takes a lot more time and energy and connection with God than holding to only one or the other.

The extremes--whether to one side or the other--are often the easiest options for people, whether it's politics, religion, or any other topic.  

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 can't make sense (like a 6000 year old earth/human history etc) A lot of things must be taken on faith, but not everything needs to be. Often times belief in the literal gets bogged down into such specifics (dinosaurs, fossils, age of the earth) that they really don't matter much. In fact those kinds of specifics only seem to matter when trying to force them into a literal belief that just can't work. The person is then forced to believe the unbelievable and justify it in creative ways so that they can hold to the belief. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

In years past I think I would've been what you would call a normal mormon prepper. I have sealed 1000s of #10 cans, at the cannery and at people's houses. Our stake has a electric canning machine you can borrow. Now, I've been opening cans to use for my chicken feed, the more bugs in the wheat the better 🤣, the chickens love it. Actually, a couple years ago I crushed a bunch of used empty #10 cans and took them to the recycling yard and made $12, yay for me! Didn't even pay for my gas there. Personally, I think there's a good chance in 20 to 30 years prepping will be a totally foriegn subject to the youth of the church. 

     Does Utah have alot of prepper groups, I dont think it's that big on the east coast. 

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.

 

[CA Steve]

35 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Personally, I think there's a good chance in 20 to 30 years prepping will be a totally foreign subject to the youth of the church. 

From the 1960's onward I can remember how my parents were very conscientious about maintaining a year's supply of food for our large family despite the economical and physical challenges of such an endeavor. Even after myself and all of my siblings were out on our own, my parents kept much of that supply on hand and let us know that we could always depend on it if such a need arose. They moved at least four times in the last four decades of their lives, literally moving tons of that supply coast to coast twice. Mom died a couple of years ago and my father passed away last year. My brothers and sisters got together to clear out their house soon after my dad's funeral and not one of us was interested in any of the food storage.

One of my chores as a child was "making milk" which consisted of mixing the powdered milk in our 50 gal. steel barrel  with water in a two gallon Tupperware container. I was raised on that horrible concoction. Ahhh good times.😝

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Remnants from other planets?  No I hadn't considered that before.  Makes more sense to me to believe those dinosaurs lived on this planet before it was created for Adam ands Eve and us as their children.

Quote

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.

Does anybody believe some old bones from people on some other planet were transported to this planet?  I don't think God would do that.  People who lived on some other planet would likely be resurrected on the same planet they died on, I would think. 

So I would say that IF our scientific method of carbon dating is accurate and IF some people lived on this planet about 300,000 years ago, then they must have been some very evil people not to have been resurrected about 2000 years ago. Otherwise they would have been resurrected along with the righteous who lived before our Savior lived and died here and was then resurrected.

Quote

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 believe to you proudly proclaim it in church or to non-member friends or co-workers?

I think the old "void" planet along with the remains of everything that ever lived on it...what this planet was before our Lord used it to create the planet for Adam and Eve... was what our Lord used when he created this planet for Adam and Eve.  I can't tell you how many things lived on it before Adam and Eve or how long it hung around somewhere in the universe before our Lord used it for that creation, but I can tell you that whatever materials or bones were here before that creation doesn't conflict with anything God has told us about what was here before those 6 days of creation.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Ahab

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Remnants from other planets?  No I hadn't considered that before.  Makes more sense to me to believe those dinosaurs lived on this planet before it was created for Adam ands Eve and us as their children.

Does anybody believe some old bones from people on some other planet were transported to this planet?  I don't think God would do that.  People who lived on some other planet would likely be resurrected on the same planet they died on, I would think. 

So I would say that IF our scientific method of carbon dating is accurate and IF some people lived on this planet about 300,000 years ago, then they must have been some very evil people not to have been resurrected about 2000 years ago. Otherwise they would have been resurrected along with the righteous who lived before our Savior lived and died here and was then resurrected.

I think the old "void" planet along with the remains of everything that ever lived on it...what this planet was before our Lord used it to create the planet for Adam and Eve... was what our Lord used when he created this planet for Adam and Eve.  I can't tell you how many things lived on it before Adam and Eve or how long it hung around somewhere in the universe before our Lord used it for that creation, but I can tell you that whatever materials or bones were here before that creation doesn't conflict with anything God has told us about what was here before those 6 days of creation.

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?

Edited February 24, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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? 

That is my understanding, yes.  Not even a hair of our head will be lost when our body is restored to its perfected frame, and by that I suppose it is the hair follicle that is restored rather than the length of a hair.  And I suppose bones may be perfected by a change from calcium to something more solid that would never break, and maybe flesh is perfected to something less susceptible to damage.  But I'm pretty sure it will be our own flesh and bones that will be perfected rather than leaving all of that behind and getting a totally different body.

Quote

Also, are animals resurrected, or only humans?

I don't know.  Why are you asking me that question?  Ask God.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Ahab

[AtlanticMike]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Remnants from other planets?  No I hadn't considered that before.  Makes more sense to me to believe those dinosaurs lived on this planet before it was created for Adam ands Eve and us as their children.

Does anybody believe some old bones from people on some other planet were transported to this planet?  I don't think God would do that.  People who lived on some other planet would likely be resurrected on the same planet they died on, I would think. 

So I would say that IF our scientific method of carbon dating is accurate and IF some people lived on this planet about 300,000 years ago, then they must have been some very evil people not to have been resurrected about 2000 years ago. Otherwise they would have been resurrected along with the righteous who lived before our Savior lived and died here and was then resurrected.

I think the old "void" planet along with the remains of everything that ever lived on it...what this planet was before our Lord used it to create the planet for Adam and Eve... was what our Lord used when he created this planet for Adam and Eve.  I can't tell you how many things lived on it before Adam and Eve or how long it hung around somewhere in the universe before our Lord used it for that creation, but I can tell you that whatever materials or bones were here before that creation doesn't conflict with anything God has told us about what was here before those 6 days of creation.

You know what I've been thinking about the last couple weeks with all this talk about the Mars rover. Do religous views about life change if we find life elsewhere?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, AtlanticMike said:

You know what I've been thinking about the last couple weeks with all this talk about the Mars rover. Do religous views about life change if we find life elsewhere?

Mine won't.  I already know there is life on other planets.  Some people who don't know that may be surprised, though.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You know what I've been thinking about the last couple weeks with all this talk about the Mars rover. Do religous views about life change if we find life elsewhere?

Depending on the type of life and what type of culture/faith they have....there are some faiths that would dramatically change as I know of some who believe this is the only world with life on it that God created...at least meaningful life; others not much or at all.

Latter-day Saints believe life is elsewhere and I think most could be comfortable with nonhumanoid non sentient life forms just fine. Where it would become a paradigm changer imo is if there were no other life forms we could see as the same species or ‘family’ as we are, but perhaps by then we might have a much different view about what family and our eternal natures look like. What might be more difficult is if there was no sign/hint of the Gospel out there. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That is my understanding, yes.  Not even a hair of our head will be lost when our body is restored to its perfected frame, and by that I suppose it is the hair follicle that is restored rather than the length of a hair.  And I suppose bones may be perfected by a change from calcium to something more solid that would never break, and maybe flesh is perfected to something less susceptible to damage.  But I'm pretty sure it will be our own flesh and bones that will be perfected rather than leaving all of that behind and getting a totally different body.

I don't know.  Why are you asking me that question?  Ask God.

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 that reconstitutes a new Spock or the same old Spock with all the same atoms etc.

But this is the kind of question I was referring to earlier. Do we really have to parse it out based on a very literal belief in what resurrection is OR can we just agree that it doesn't matter and that in the next life I will exist however God chooses to reconstitute me? The literalness raises many questions that just don't matter whereas faith in the overarching principle of "living again" in the presence of God would be more essential in guiding my life.

 

RE: Animal resurrection. I'm just asking your opinion. I thought that was clear  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Not even a hair of our head will be lost when our body is restored to its perfected frame, and by that I suppose it is the hair follicle that is restored rather than the length of a hair....

I'm pretty sure it will be our own flesh and bones that will be perfected rather than leaving all of that behind.

So are we resurrected starting with the age we are when we die or when we are in our prime?  If in our prime, when our flesh and bones are restored, where does the replacement material come from?  If someone is cremated, is the ash collected to start the process, or all new elements?

And if one is obese at death...say 100 lbs of excess flesh, what happens to all the molecules and cells of those 100 lbs if we are to be fully restored?  And if we have lost all our teeth, is it our baby teeth that are restored or our adult teeth?

If we gain or lose molecules that went into the ground in order to perfect our bodies, why is there any need to include specific molecules anyway?  Why not just use whatever is available and rebuild completely with perfected elements?

Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There have been many threads over the years about various mormon prepper groups believing some dangerous stuff. Fortunately I think the radical groups within mormonism are fairly small. But they definitely exist.

Heck, there are lots of people with prepper attitudes that don't actually believe "dangerous stuff."

Some people who own firearms and have a year's supply of food are considered "radical" by some other people. It describes me, in fact. But am I radical? Don't answer that, but I think half the members of my old ward in Olympia, Washington were gun owners and had significant food storage.  Our elders quorum once had a "shoot out" at a local gravel pit, and there we were, about thirty men and women taking potshots with all kinds of firearms at diverse targets. In a very safe manner. The next day at church, the bishop (who had been there) talked jokingly about the "ward militia".  I had an old LDS acquaintance who was not at all "radical", who, nevertheless, besides owning firearms and had a year's supply, had also buried caches of food and supplies along possible exfiltration routes out of the Olympia, Washington area, just in case Mt. Rainier went ballistic and the roads out of the area were made impassible. He was not a radical person at all, just took  his role as provider and protector very seriously. He also knew that telling people about his exfiltration caches was a bad idea, so he only told a few people he trusted.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the resurrection is the reuniting of all the body's original elements, not a new creation from different elements, right?

I think a combination of the 2.  Our old stuff restored and then upgraded rather than not using our old stuff and just getting different new stuff instead. 

Take our Lord, for example.  It was his old body restored and then made better, rather than his old body left behind with a new body replacement.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure how the original body could be reconstituted from the same materials considering the reuse of those materials through time.

The reuse of the same materials would not rule out restoring those materials to their original frame.  

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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? 

Your body was created from very small parts of your parents which had never been used for that purpose before.  An egg from your Mom and some sperm from your Dad.  You are a reproduction of them, not some plants or some animals.

I think when we eat and then dispel what we don't use of what we eat it is like keeping a wood fire going while the wood and fireplace remain  separate, rather than what we eat becoming a part of us which would then make us, literally, what we ate. 

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm reminded of a Star Trek transportation conundrum. If Spock beams down (transports) to a planet is the Spock that reconstitutes a new Spock or the same old Spock with all the same atoms etc.

The same old Spock, supposedly, rather than a clone or duplicate of the original Spock which is then presumed to be dead.  

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But this is the kind of question I was referring to earlier. Do we really have to parse it out based on a very literal belief in what resurrection is OR can we just agree that it doesn't matter and that in the next life I will exist however God chooses to reconstitute me? The literalness raises many questions that just don't matter whereas faith in the overarching principle of "living again" in the presence of God would be more essential in guiding my life.

It matters to me because I want all of my old stuff back even if my old stuff is going to get upgraded by adding other elements to my old stuff.  And I don't want anyone to have a claim on my old stuff other than my own parents.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

RE: Animal resurrection. I'm just asking your opinion. I thought that was clear  

Interesting to think about, isn't it.  Dinosaurs reconstituted from the oil we burn in our cars and factories to make plastics and whatever else we use oil or their body parts for.

[Calm]

Can we take a little side trip to the topic?  We are taught that the resurrection of the just occurred at the time of Christ’s resurrection for those who died before he did and will occur at the time of the Second Coming for those who died afterwards?  Correct?  Or is it more the resurrection of the just is ongoing, given Peter and James at least died after Christ as well as Moroni and we teach they are resurrected, do we not?

If so, is Joseph Smith resurrected or not?  Because he could be a test case for whether or not the corpse is used as the starting point of the resurrected body since we know where his grave is.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It was his old body restored

That is an assumption...his old body could have been dissipated and his resurrected one was modeled with wounds for the purpose of witness to his identity and sacrifice.  Another question comes to mind, will his resurrected body always have the wounds?

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Ahab said:

think when we eat and then dispel what we don't use of what we eat it is like keeping a wood fire going while the wood and fireplace remain  separate, rather than what we eat becoming a part of us which would then make us, literally, what we ate. 

Huh?  The fireplace is not part of the fire and never is (one could even scoop up the burning wood with an appropriate shovel and move it elsewhere) unless something goes horribly wrong and it turns into a house fire while the food we eat, some of those molecules are used and stay in our cells, not just used in chemical reactions to release energy and get discarded.  As kids grow, molecules are added to bones, teeth, muscles, etc. to make more cells, molecules/cells don’t just inflate somehow like balloons to get bigger.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

matters to me because I want all of my old stuff back even if my old stuff is going to get upgraded by adding other elements to my old stuff

Do you save your lost teeth, cutoff hair, and fingernail clippings? (Sincere question)

Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What if it's all true?

If this planet were just a geological construction of pieces of various planets we would have all kinds of oddities that would drive people studying the planet insane. Why were these fossils in a biome that could never support them and by all indications never could have? What is with all of these geological formations that make no sense? Now, of course, God could have altered all the pieces to make it look like they all belonged together (or taken it apart and put it back together around another star with each piece in the exact same place) but then....why leave the fossils? Most of these theories require God to be incredibly precise about hiding what happened on one hand but "pants on head" stupid with the rest. Maybe it makes sense for some purpose we cannot understand but that leaves one to wonder why God doesn't claim credit. It is also not God's usual style of miracle to be so hamfisted.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you save your lost teeth, cutoff hair, and fingernail clippings?

The tooth fairy and I have an arrangement to get it back with the time comes.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can we take a little side trip to the topic?  We are taught that the resurrection of the just occurred at the time of Christ’s resurrection for those who died before he did and will occur at the time of the Second Coming for those who died afterwards?  Correct?  Or is it more the resurrection of the just is ongoing, given Peter and James at least died after Christ as well as Moroni and we teach they are resurrected, do we not?

If so, is Joseph Smith resurrected or not?  Because he could be a test case for whether or not the corpse is used as the starting point of the resurrected body since we know where his grave is.

I believe he's resurrected, although I have no real evidence behind that belief.

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Heck, there are lots of people with prepper attitudes that don't actually believe "dangerous stuff."

Some people who own firearms and have a year's supply of food are considered "radical" by some other people. It describes me, in fact. But am I radical? Don't answer that, but I think half the members of my old ward in Olympia, Washington were gun owners and had significant food storage.  Our elders quorum once had a "shoot out" at a local gravel pit, and there we were, about thirty men and women taking potshots with all kinds of firearms at diverse targets. In a very safe manner. The next day at church, the bishop (who had been there) talked jokingly about the "ward militia".  I had an old LDS acquaintance who was not at all "radical", who, nevertheless, besides owning firearms and had a year's supply, had also buried caches of food and supplies along possible exfiltration routes out of the Olympia, Washington area, just in case Mt. Rainier went ballistic and the roads out of the area were made impassible. He was not a radical person at all, just took  his role as provider and protector very seriously. He also knew that telling people about his exfiltration caches was a bad idea, so he only told a few people he trusted.

I guess "radical" is in the eye of the beholder  

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

So are we resurrected starting with the age we are when we die or when we are in our prime?

Starting from what we are when we die.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

 If in our prime, when our flesh and bones are restored, where does the replacement material come from?

No replacement material, in my perspective.  What we are when we die is restored when we are resurrected and then what we are or were when we died is "added upon" by being upgraded.  Like our carbon is upgraded to maybe tritanium, or something better.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

 If someone is cremated, is the ash collected to start the process, or all new elements?

The ash and whatever might have stuck to the furnace or flew away in the air is collected or brought together somehow, in my perspective.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if one is obese at death...say 100 lbs of excess flesh, what happens to all the molecules and cells of those 100 lbs if we are to be fully restored?

I think we get to keep all of that too, unless maybe we can get rid of it somehow like we can here.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

 And if we have lost all our teeth, is it our baby teeth that are restored or our adult teeth?

I think of my so-called permanent teeth as an upgrade to my baby teeth, but if I had died before I got them I think I might have been resurrected with baby teeth and then got the upgrades when I got older.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

If we gain or lose molecules that went into the ground in order to perfect our bodies, why is there any need to include specific molecules anyway?  Why not just use whatever is available and rebuild completely with perfected elements?

For me, the reason would be because I would want "myself" restored rather than just something that looks and acts like me or what I did when I acted.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you save your lost teeth, cutoff hair, and fingernail clippings? (Sincere question)

No, i have the upgraded versions of me, made from the same factory that made the old versions of me, which I call me.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe he's resurrected, although I have no real evidence behind that belief.

So if we were to open his grave, do you believe there would be his corpse there or not?