FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Semi-annual LDS Conference (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Semi-annual LDS Conference
stihl1
Member
Member # 1562

 - posted      Profile for stihl1   Email stihl1         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a very close friend who is mormon and we talk quite a bit about the similarities/differences in theology. Because I read the summaries here about the conference, he was really impressed I knew about the new apostle and the nicene creed discussion and the dude with parkinsons.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All of this talk about the resurrection makes me wonder exactly how much Christians understand their own theology. I mean, what dkw and sthl1 has said is basically what Mormons believe about the Resurrection. True, there is more to it than the more orthodox teachings. At the same time, Mormons still get harrased for these very things that seem to end up as agreements.

What an irony really. When anti-Mormon Christians seek to belittle Mormon beliefs by distorting them, they ultimately have to distort their own beliefs to do that. It is something I had not thought of before.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shawshank
Member
Member # 8453

 - posted      Profile for Shawshank   Email Shawshank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not Catholic. Nazarene tradition (slightly different than Methodism) and that's how we view it too.

It's held that God is immaterial, has a resurrected body, and lives within the universal church. All three- the whole trinitarian view of everything.

Because the point of the crucifixion would be quite pointless if in fact Christ did not conquer death. That's a actually a pretty basic part of the Apostle's creed is that Christ had a physical resurrection- if you actually study it anyways.

And I know that the idea that matter is evil and spirit is good is one of the famous heresies- I can't remember which one- so we'll just go with what you said.

Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stihl1
Member
Member # 1562

 - posted      Profile for stihl1   Email stihl1         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gnostics believed that the material world was evil and that the spiritual world was good. That our bodies were evil, etc.

I get the impressions from many christians that they believe we're all going to end up as spirits hanging out in heaven some day. I for one was incredibly suprised to learn of the resurrected body belief when I came back to the church and started learning things. I never realized that's what the belief of the 2nd coming was.

Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shawshank
Member
Member # 8453

 - posted      Profile for Shawshank   Email Shawshank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is the popular idea isn't it?

The idea of hanging out floating around in the clouds for eternity... Yawn. Heaven's going to be a like a bustling city- I don't think we'll be married or anything like that in heaven- but it's going to be one eternal party.

Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nathan2006
Member
Member # 9387

 - posted      Profile for Nathan2006   Email Nathan2006         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What exactly is the doctrinal significance of Jesus having a body (Or not having one?)
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shawshank:
It's held that God is immaterial, has a resurrected body . . .

This is what I don't understand. I take "immaterial" and "has a body" to be directly contradictory. Can someone explain this better?
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan2006:
What exactly is the doctrinal significance of Jesus having a body (Or not having one?)

Where do you want to start? On the one hand, it's not doctrinally significant, any more than the fact that the earth is round. The earth is either round or not. If it is round, should we not say it is round? By my read of the New Testament, Jesus was resurrected and therefore has a body.

(Let me just say I've never really gotten teased for saying Jesus has a body. I've gotten teased for saying God the Father has a body - which is definitely the barking up two trees scenario, since I'd invariably be arguing this with a trintarian/Christian.)

If there are significant doctrinal extrapolations, it consists of these:

Bodies are not of themselves evil, and the evil in us arises from our hobbled spirits as much as from our fallen bodies (I am already anticipating many good Mormons responding to this with "huh?").

Immortality and eternal life will involve our spirits being reunited with resurrected, or flawless, bodies. Immortality is a state of freedom from sickness and death. Eternal life is to know God and Jesus Christ.

There's probably other stuff, but I'll see if that's what you were looking for.

Posts: 11012 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nathan2006
Member
Member # 9387

 - posted      Profile for Nathan2006   Email Nathan2006         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just asked because doctrinal statements can seem unnecesary, but then I find out later that they have a meaning that can be drawn from them, and if the statement is changed, other statements (That I may see as more important) may change too. I thought perhaps that Jesus's having a human body was of major importance; that by saying he didn't have one, you would be messing around with a lot more doctrine that was built upon that belief.

And I thought maybe some Christians thought that Jesus's having a body was a heresey.

As far as I know, there was only one group of people that really believed that the body or 'flesh' was, in itself, evil, and those were the gnostics (I think)... It was a movement (I think). There were the gnostics, which thought you should punish your evil flesh, and some other group that pretty much thought that God may us flawed, and that there was no point in trying to be like Jesus since it was impossible.

That was a long time ago, I thought, but I'm probably wrong, seeing as pretty much all the details are fuzzy for me right now.

Thanks for answering my question. [Smile]

Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2