quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Do Christians expect that we too will receive and retain a glorified body after the resurrection?
Generally, yes. But there is little consensus about what that means. What we would recognize as a human body? Maybe? A body that we would recognize as ours? Maybe? Something we can't even imagine till we enter eternal life? I think that's the most probable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is the body Christ appeared with to all those various people (And let them touch) after having left the tomb is a resurrected body, but it's not necessarily that permanent shape?
Like when Christ appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus he may or may not have appeared as a human shape?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
If you look at the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:
quote: And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
It's still mostly humanoid there. But in Ezekiel chapter 1 (the enormous wheel in the middle of the wheel in the sky, covered in four faces and thousands of eyes, with flame shooting out of it), makes him out to be some sort of Eldrich abomination. I would say that to assume either author is describing what Jesus actually looks like is a mistake, because it would probably be a mistake to say that his heavenly body can adequately be described using our senses or brains.
Again, I want to drive home the point that these are things that are not very well defined or agreed upon by most Christians, and aren't talked about much. They just don't have the same meaning or importance to us as they do to Mormons. I don't think you're going to find an adequate answer to your questions, because for a lot of them there isn't really an answer.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind that other Christians think the answers are less defined than Mormonism. I'm asking these questions so as to gauge how orthodox Christians see them. If the answers is, "Our senses are inadequate to suss that out." well that's fine.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asking questions is fine. So is doing research. But what you will find is that the answers to specifics of Jesus's body post-Resurrection and post-Ascension are going to be as varied and vague as "what happens after we die". No one really knows. If you research and find people who are sure of the specifics, I would be inclined to take whatever they say with a load of salt.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I feel like, "We don't know" is fine particularly in the context of myself where I thought some pretty complex ideas (pre-existence) were generally accepted. So knowing there's even strong disagreement on resurrection for example is still helpful.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well not on Jesus's resurrection itself or on the resurrection of the body (our bodies) in general. I mean, we definitely believe in those things as a rule. It is just the specifics* that are vague.
*What did/does Jesus's glorified body look like? What will our bodies be like?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anytime between conception and birth, I suppose. Whether one's soul comes from one's parents (traducianism) or is created by God in the moment is not determined. The Roman Catholic Church generally goes with the latter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know so much about its relevance to the nature of God, existence, or the soul, but bots like the above are surely proof of the Devil of Hell.
Or perhaps not. After all, if the bot hadn't dredged up this conversation from 2-3 years prior, I never would have stumbled across it, and never would have read it either. That was a remarkably beautiful conversation and I think it ended in a good place.
For the record, kmbboots, Dogbreath, PSI Teleport, and others--JanitorBlade's experiences, explanations, assumptions, narratives, and reactions are not unique to his experience with the Church, as presented and examined here. I've been a member of the Church all my life and the assumptions that fed into this conversation--including details about evangelical hostility, the place of the Church in a global context, the nature of deity, the frustrations with creeds, and so on--are not just his interpretations of things. They are institutionalized. They are the cultural narrative of the Church.
Really, trying to talk some members of the Church out of this narrative and into a more open or accepting place is usually as difficult as this conversation shows. According to the historical narrative of the Church, we are hated by most other Christians. We are (presumably) not considered Christian by most, and this is one of the Church membership's major grievances. There is a large victim narrative that is core to much of the Church's development and growth, though I think a lot of its contemporary prevalence is the fault of members, not the fault of the institution. The Church has, in recent years, done a lot more interfaith outreach than in decades past. But the cultural narrative that we are social outcasts still holds strong.
For many with a Utah heritage, that narrative is a part of the legacy of the first generation. Kirtland, Missouri, Nauvoo--we ran two thousand miles across the country just to find a place to settle unhindered. We were forced to give up polygamy by an encroaching United States. We are inundated by a godless and secular culture that eats away at our membership. And so on.
It's not necessarily framed in those exact terms, but that is often the takeaway.
It is hard to view the faith outside of these narratives. It is certainly possible, but hard. A lot of the core membership reinforces them by default. Anecdotal experience from the mission is difficult to work past. (I served in Pennsylvania, where I encountered a lot of evangelical hatred for the Church.) Sunday School discussions often frame us against 'the world,' which really just means everyone who is not us. I agree with that to some extent--we are not the world. We are a 'peculiar people.' It's part of our identity as members of the Church. We certainly can be strange at times and we don't quite realize how deeply removed we are from other religions or religious heritages.
Anyway. I don't have a lot more to add. I'm glad to see that the conversation resolved for the most part. (I realize that I'm speaking a couple years after the fact.) I am not by any means attempting to speak for all members, or even for JanitorBlade here. But his assumptions and narratives have been my assumptions and narratives in the past. Breaking free of those cultural blinders took a long time, and required deliberate effort. I would guess that many members deal with the same things.
Just so you know.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
