Guest Ian Hall

Resurrection of the body

Recommended Posts

Guest

Greetings

Do Mormons believe in a final judgement that occurs at the end of time?

Is this final judgement a particular or general judgement?

If Mormons believe in the final judgement at the end of time, that would make any sense given the doctrine of eternal progression and the eternity of the universe.

Given these, when does the bodily resurrection occur?  Does it occur soon after death?  If it does not occur soon after death, what condition should be met for the bodily resurrection occur?

Edited by Ian Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

Greetings

Do Mormons believe in a final judgement that occurs at the end of time?

Is this final judgement a particular or general judgement?

If Mormons believe in the final judgement at the end of time, that would make any sense given the doctrine of eternal progression and the eternity of the universe.

Given these, when does the bodily resurrection occur?  Does it occur soon after death?  If it does not occur soon after death, what condition should be met for the bodily resurrection occur?

The Resurrection can occur anytime after death; some wait longer than others. Not everyone is born or die at once, so not everyone is resurrected at once. Some were resurrected at Christ's resurrection.

We are judged at some point after the resurrection, when we stand before God. That judgement is final. At that point we enter into a kingdom of glory, or one of the many mansions of the Father. Upon resurrection, our bodies are quickened by a degree of glory, but after judgement we receive a "fulness" of that degree of glory.

I'm not sure what you mean by eternal progression, but inasmuch as our lives continue in immortality, we have a progression of experiences of a nature corresponding to the particular;ar fulness of glory we receive.

I've kept this very brief; the missionaries can show you the scriptures that support these concepts and explain them further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was looking for some answers to my questions from a Mormon rather than from a non-Mormon.  I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.  My question was directed towards Mormons and those who a knowledgeable of these and other doctrines. 

An explanation of eternal progression can be found here:  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression

I found the missionaries unhelpful and not knowledgeable in general, perhaps their young age and general immaturity contribute to this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.

You are wrong.  "Eternal Progression" is a phrase thrown about by different people with different meanings.  The first sentence of your link bears that out.

The thing is, we get a fair number of people coming here looking to either pick a fight with Mormons or convert them or polish their anti-Mormon debate skills, or some other unpleasant thing, and so without understanding where a poster is coming from, folks might be a little cautious in how much they say.  So perhaps share with us your intent and your background.

Just because it's BYU, doesn't mean it's doctrine, though there's only a little of that article you link to that I'm not sure I would agree with.

Personally, I believe what Elder Maxwell taught:

Quote

Unfortunately, the omniscience of God in the minds of some well-meaning Latter-day Saints has been qualified by the concept of "eternal progression." Some have wrongly assumed God's progress is related to His acquisition of additional knowledge. In fact, God's "eternal progression" (if one is nevertheless determined to apply these two words to God) is related to the successful execution, again and again, of His plan of salvation to redeem billions of His children throughout His many creations. President Brigham Young said there are "millions of earths" like this one. (JD 11:41.) Of this marvelous recurring and redemptive process that rolls forth on such a vast scale, God has said that "his course is one eternal round." (D&C 3:2.)

...

There is a vast difference, therefore, between an omniscient God and the false notion that God is on some sort of post-doctoral fellowship, still searching for additional key truths and vital data. Were the latter so, God might, at any moment, discover some new truth not previously known to Him that would restructure, diminish, or undercut certain truths previously known by Him. Prophecy would be mere prediction. Planning assumptions pertaining to our redemption would need to be revised. Fortunately for us, however, His plan of salvation is constantly underway-not constantly under revision.

This is also consistent with what is taught in Lectures on Faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

I was looking for some answers to my questions from a Mormon rather than from a non-Mormon.  I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.  My question was directed towards Mormons and those who a knowledgeable of these and other doctrines. 

An explanation of eternal progression can be found here:  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression

I found the missionaries unhelpful and not knowledgeable in general, perhaps their young age and general immaturity contribute to this. 

I don’t think @CV75 is unfamiliar with the concept of eternal progression; I think the confusion came from a seeming ambiguity in the terms being used. 

Mormons don’t usually use the phrase “end of time”. We understand that, when other Christians use that term, they usually are referrring to Christ’s second coming and the relegation of all humankind to their eternal state; and I think CV75 has tried to respond in kind.  But Mormons also perceive eternity as a state in which we are continually doing stuff; and it’s hard to conceptualize ongoing, sequential actions and cause-and-effect scenarios without the framework of “time”.  

To try to answer your OP in another way:  Mormons believe that after resurrection, Jesus Christ will administer to each and every person a unique and personalized judgment of that person’s own life, deeds, intents, and desires.  This judgment categorizes one into the realm of “celestial”, “terrestrial”, “telestial”, or “perdition”; each of which reflects a different broad trajectory (or “kingdom”, in LDS parlance) for the sort of existence that the individual might have in the eternities.  

BUT—before that judgment comes, one can also have a pretty decent idea of how that judgment is likely to come out; in at least two ways.  First, the Holy Spirit can serve as an “earnest” of good things to come (I think Paul teaches this in Romans, though I could be wrong and don’t have time to look up the cite).  One can therefore know by divine manifestation that one is on the right path to be worthy of the celestial kingdom.  And second, because bodies of resurrected celestial versus terrestrial versus telestial beings are apparently somehow different from each other (in “glory”, if nothing else), it seems likely that once one is resurrected they’ll have a pretty good idea of what “kingdom” they will be a part of even though the “final judgment” may not have happened quite yet.  

Mormonism doesn’t really suggest  that the bodily resurrection might be “soon” after death.  The righteous who lived before Christ, we believed, were resurrected when He was.  As for those who were not resurrected or lived after Him, we believe that at Christ's Second Coming (which begins the Millennium, Christ’s thousand-year reign on earth) the Celestial will be resurrected immediately and the Terrestrial at some point thereafter; with the Telestial being resurrected only at the end of the Millennium right before the earth is cleansed and purified for the final time.  

I suppose it’s hypothetically possible for individuals to be resurrected between now and the Second Coming (we do teach that the apostles Peter and James have been resurrected—we know this because Joseph Smith claimed he saw them and received a priesthood ordination quite literally under their hands—and Joseph Smith informally stated that the Book of Mormon prophet Moroni had been resurrected as well); but we don’t know what benchmarks exist for such a thing to occur.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

I was looking for some answers to my questions from a Mormon rather than from a non-Mormon.  I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.

When I served a mission, I spent time in Philadelphia, where a well-meaning evangelical minister told me that I was duped by the Mormon leaders, and that if I knew the horrible things that took place in the temple, I would quit the Church immediately. When I told him that I had been to the temple, he got flustered and insisted that I didn't go to the right part.

Ian, you appear to have some firm (and wrong) preconceptions about LDS doctrine. When you come here soliciting information but then immediately reject out of hand information that doesn't go along with your ideas, that's an almost sure sign that you are looking to confirm your biases instead of actually, you know, learn.

If you are sincere, please stick around and try to let go of your biases. Read carefully what people write. They may not always express themselves perfectly, and in fact may even sometimes be wrong about LDS doctrine -- but you will get a lot further by listening, reading, and believing what people tell you about LDS doctrine than you will be insisting that Mormons sand down their horns every night and bathe in the blood of their sacrificed firstborn daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

. . . Mormons sand down their horns every night and bathe in the blood of their sacrificed firstborn daughter.

The first rule of Sacrifice Club is:  you do not talk about Sacrifice Club.

Two goons with violin cases will be at your residence shortly . . . You might watch your back.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

I was looking for some answers to my questions from a Mormon rather than from a non-Mormon.  I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.  My question was directed towards Mormons and those who a knowledgeable of these and other doctrines. 

An explanation of eternal progression can be found here:  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Progression

I found the missionaries unhelpful and not knowledgeable in general, perhaps their young age and general immaturity contribute to this. 

I do not believe the missionaries would not give you scriptural references for these concepts, young age and general maturity notwithstanding, if you ask them. I suggest you try again, and pray for their success in giving them to you. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are ...That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:27-31).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

@Vort  Can you point me to any thing that would give you the appearance that I have some firm (and wrong) preconceptions about LDS doctrine?  There is a Mormon sourced definition of the doctrine.  Explain to be how I got the impression that came here soliciting information but then immediately reject out of hand information that doesn't go along with your ideas?  What are you assuming my ideas to be?  I belong to several forums and this is the very first forum where from the very first question asked I am noticing a tendency to go on the defensive and question a poster's motives.  The very first time and three persons a questioning my motives.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Mormons sand down their horns every night and bathe in the blood of their sacrificed firstborn daughter.

:crackup: Is that what they're saying these days?  Sheesh, one silly incident involving a skunk on Halloween and suddenly the guests can't distinguish costumes and tomato juice from horns and blood.  ::SMH::

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

@Just_A_Guy  Thank you for your response.  But this adds more confusion. 

My background is philosophy with a focus on metaphysics and epistemology.

The reason I used the phrase end of time is because there is so much ambiguity and seemingly contradictory claims between what I read and the source material.  If matter is eternal there can be no end of time.  But then again Mormon sites indicate a second coming at the end of time.  In addition to this there is the principle of Eternal Progression in which persons continue in knowledge and potency into (post) eternity. 

When you say it is hypothetically possible, should I construe that this that this is not the normative process and the normative process occurs at the second coming?  What requirement does the second coming accomplish?

Edited by Ian Hall
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ian Hall said:

Do Mormons believe in a final judgement that occurs at the end of time?

Is this final judgement a particular or general judgement?

If Mormons believe in the final judgement at the end of time, that would make any sense given the doctrine of eternal progression and the eternity of the universe.

Given these, when does the bodily resurrection occur?  Does it occur soon after death?  If it does not occur soon after death, what condition should be met for the bodily resurrection occur?

Here's our basic doctrine on such things.  They probably won't speak to the level of granularity to which you'd prefer, but at least they might be able to lay some foundations about what we actually believe, and what we don't.

The Second Coming of Jesus Christ

The Millenium

The Final Judgment

Exhaltation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

@Vort  Can you point me to any thing that would give you the appearance that I have some firm (and wrong) preconceptions about LDS doctrine?...Explain to be how I got the impression that came here soliciting information but then immediately reject out of hand information that doesn't go along with your ideas?

Sure. There's this response you gave to CV75:

56 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

I was looking for some answers to my questions from a Mormon rather than from a non-Mormon.  I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.

I can only guess that you were referring to this:

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by eternal progression, but inasmuch as our lives continue in immortality, we have a progression of experiences of a nature corresponding to the particular;ar fulness of glory we receive.

But it seemed clear to me that what CV75 was saying was NOT, "I don't know what eternal progression means." Rather, I believe he was saying, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Your usage was as follows:

2 hours ago, Ian Hall said:

If Mormons believe in the final judgement at the end of time, that would make any sense given the doctrine of eternal progression and the eternity of the universe.

Assuming this was meant to be a question ("...would that make any sense...?") or a statement ("...that would not make any sense..."), it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of eternal life and eternal progression.

15 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

There is a Mormon sourced definition of the doctrine.

Indeed there is. There are many such sources, actually. You ought to read them.

17 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

What are you assuming my ideas to be?

I make no assumptions. When you lead out by saying that "final judgment" and "eternal progression" are somehow at odds with each other, that clearly betrays an obvious misunderstanding of the terms.

18 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

I belong to several forums and this is the very first forum where from the very first question asked I am noticing a tendency to go on the defensive and question a poster's motives.  The very first time and three persons a questioning my motives.

Someone is certainly defensive...

On the contrary, I welcomed you here and invited you to stay, if you're sincere. If you are not sincere, then I suppose you're right -- I don't want you here. Your ultra-defensive response, clear prejudices, and lack of willingness to acknowledge them (or worse, lack of ability even to see them) all suggest that you're a troll. We're actually trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you are an honest questioner rather than an agenda-driven troll, please accept our efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

My background is philosophy with a focus on metaphysics and epistemology...If matter is eternal there can be no end of time.

What kind of philosophy study did you do? The eternal nature of matter does not mean or even imply that there can be no end of time. That's a total non sequitur, as I believe any serious freshman-level student of philosophy would immediately perceive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eternal progression and the resurrection are not the same thing and really not related.  Resurrection is a step in a process, but it isn't repeated eternally as an individual.  The notion that we will be born, die, be resurrected, and then repeat the process is incorrect.  There is only one birth, death, and resurrection for each of us.   Every person born mortally will eventually receive an immortal body, that will exist eternally.  Progression does not come from improving that state of being.  But if you read 1 Corinthians 15, you can get a glimmer of how Paul described the resurrection.

Edited by bytebear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

@Just_A_Guy 

[1] Thank you for your response.  But this adds more confusion. 

My background is philosophy with a focus on metaphysics and epistemology.

The reason I used the phrase end of time is because there is so much ambiguity and seemingly contradictory claims between what I read and the source material.  If matter is eternal there can be no end of time.  But then again Mormon sites indicate a second coming at the end of time.  In addition to this there is the principle of Eternal Progression in which persons continue in knowledge and potency into (post) eternity. 

[2] When you say it is hypothetically possible, should I construe that this that this is not the normative process and the normative process occurs at the second coming?  What requirement does the second coming accomplish?

1. Your confusion is fair.  I only know enough philosophy to know that I quickly get out of my depth. ;)  Mormon teaching is not really based in classical philosophy or theology; it has been developed for laymen, by laymen (acting, as we believe, under divine guidance).  So we aren't always as careful with our terminology as we ought to be; and in our zeal to build common ground with outsiders we sometimes incorporate their vocabulary without fully picking apart the linguistic/philosophical implications of the terms we are adopting and co-opting.  “End of time” (as opposed to “end times”) might be an example of that; though I reiterate, it’s not a phrase one sees relatively often in LDS parlance.  

I’m told that when properly interpreted, using the right terminology, Mormonism’s philosophical underpinnings are quite profound; but I’ve never really dug into it—I don’t follow my religion because of how it jives with academic standards of philosophy. You might want to Google Blake Ostler (a Mormon trained in philosophy, who has written quite a bit), Bruce Charlton (a self-described “dry [i.e. unbaptized] Mormon” who seems to have a philosophical mind) and Terryl Givens (an LDS English professor who has written extensively about Mormon theological development and whose books “Wrestling the Angel” and “Parley Pratt:  Apostle Paul of Mormonism” do engage somewhat with classical philosophy).  

To the extent that I feel comfortable gingerly wading into philosophical waters at all, I would simply affirm that Mormonism does not believe matter ends; and for any rhetoric we may slip into about “end of time” (or Joseph Smth’s talk of “one eternal now”), we really don’t have a concept of existence without linear time.  I think that in our heart of hearts, most of us Mormons perceive life in heaven as pretty much like a continuing, but perfected, version of the lives we currently live.  I think we instinctively anticipate the passage of “time” in heaven; we just don’t think we’ll really care because we believe we’ll be secure in the knowledge that there will always be more time.  

2.  That’s a good question, and one I haven’t really grappled with in that way before.  On cursory examination, I suppose I see at least two purposes.  First, I see the purpose of the Second Coming as being a major step in the requisite process to help individual humans finally throw off their mortal weaknesses as best they can and be reconciled to God as fully as their individual characters will allow.  (By analogy:  every class has a final exam, followed by the administration of a grade).  Second, I see the Second Coming as serving to begin the process of preparing the earth to become a holy place where the righteous can exist eternally in peace.

(Not quite sure whether that addresses your question or not, but maybe it’s a start?) 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

If matter is eternal there can be no end of time.

"Time" is not the same as existence, nor is it required for existence.  Time is an artificial construct use to measure sequence.  In scripture, I think it refers more to mortality than the clock on the wall.  Mortality will end and we will continue to exist in eternity.  I doubt we'll have clocks in eternity, but we and matter will continue to exist.  And I personally believe there will be sequence (as in, one event can occur before another, just not at 1:30pm).  But I could be wrong about things happening in sequence given that nothing particular has been revealed except the vague statement that there will be time no longer.

Quote

Alma 40:8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

When this world ends, and all are finally resurrected and assigned to a kingdom of glory (or perdition), we, like God, will not need time.

4 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

In addition to this there is the principle of Eternal Progression in which persons continue in knowledge and potency into (post) eternity. 

If you mean continue to learn more - see my quote from Elder Maxwell.  I've heard of some people who think God is still learning more information, but most of the people I know believe that God really is omniscient and "progresses" as described by Elder Maxwell.  But if you simply mean that people will retain their knowledge and power to act, then yes, we believe that.

21 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

My background is philosophy with a focus of metaphysics and epistemology.

FWIW, in my experience, the vast majority of members don't think, study, or talk about our faith from a philosophical / academic / apologetic perspective, but from the perspective of someone trying to figure out how to be a true disciple of Christ, and share their joy in that with others.  And this might explain different reactions in different forums - there are forums where philosophical / academic / apologetic types tend to congregate in mass, but this isn't one of them - though we have some who I'm sure qualify.  We're more the "how to be a true disciple of Christ" type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

@Just_A_Guy  Thank you for your response.  But this adds more confusion. 

My background is philosophy with a focus on metaphysics and epistemology.

The reason I used the phrase end of time is because there is so much ambiguity and seemingly contradictory claims between what I read and the source material.  If matter is eternal there can be no end of time.  But then again Mormon sites indicate a second coming at the end of time.  In addition to this there is the principle of Eternal Progression in which persons continue in knowledge and potency into (post) eternity. 

When you say it is hypothetically possible, should I construe that this that this is not the normative process and the normative process occurs at the second coming?  What requirement does the second coming accomplish?

CFR  for the phrase "end of time" in Mormon's writings, or anyone's, in the Book of Mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

:: Can you point me to any thing that would give you the appearance that I have some firm (and wrong) preconceptions about LDS doctrine?...Explain to be how I got the impression that came here soliciting information but then immediately reject out of hand information that doesn't go along with your ideas?
: Sure. There's this response you gave to CV75:
:: I was looking for some answers to my questions from a Mormon rather than from a non-Mormon.  I am guessing you are non-Mormon from your response or perhaps a new Mormon given that you are unaware of the doctrine of Eternal Progression.

So, if someone questions someone regarding eternal progression and already has provided a link to a source document which defines the term Eternal Progression that means the the person a firm and wrong preconception regarding the Doctrine of Eternal Progression?


: I can only guess that you were referring to this:
:: I'm not sure what you mean by eternal progression, but inasmuch as our lives continue in immortality, we have a progression of experiences of a nature corresponding to the particular;ar fulness of glory we receive.
: But it seemed clear to me that what CV75 was saying was NOT, "I don't know what eternal progression means." Rather, I believe he was saying, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Your usage was as follows:
:: If Mormons believe in the final judgement at the end of time, that would make any sense given the doctrine of eternal progression and the eternity of the universe.

And prior to your comment I had already provided a link to the definition I was using which was EOM published by BYU

:Assuming this was meant to be a question ("...would that make any sense...?") or a statement ("...that would not make any sense..."), it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of eternal life and eternal progression.
:: There is a Mormon sourced definition of the doctrine.
:Indeed there is. There are many such sources, actually. You ought to read them.


So how many different definitions are there.  Is the term so ambiguous that it does not have a veritable meaning?

::What are you assuming my ideas to be?
:I make no assumptions. When you lead out by saying that "final judgment" and "eternal progression" are somehow at odds with each other, that clearly betrays an obvious misunderstanding of the terms.
As you seemed to indicate earlier the term Eternal progression is ambiguous.  An ambiguity which is from different sources.  You cannot blame someone for misunderstanding a concept that you yourself admit that there are many different sources for a definition.

 

Sorry I am trying to fix the formatting

Edited by Ian Hall
formatting issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

CFR  for the phrase "end of time" in Mormon's writings, or anyone's, in the Book of Mormon.

The closest I could find was in Revelation "there should time no longer" (at the start of the millennium) and a repeat of that in the D&C.

Edited by zil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ian Hall said:

@Vort  Can you point me to any thing that would give you the appearance that I have some firm (and wrong) preconceptions about LDS doctrine?  There is a Mormon sourced definition of the doctrine.  Explain to be how I got the impression that came here soliciting information but then immediately reject out of hand information that doesn't go along with your ideas?  What are you assuming my ideas to be?  I belong to several forums and this is the very first forum where from the very first question asked I am noticing a tendency to go on the defensive and question a poster's motives.  The very first time and three persons a questioning my motives.

I do not question your motives, just your preparation for this discussion. For example, the authors of the Bible and Book of Mormon, having a Hebrew (or at least oriental) orientation, construe time as circular or cyclical, not a linear progression. Time is where things happen, not when; as much a place as an event. If you don't understand the background and paradigm, you don't understand much else to be able to ask informed questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zil said:

The closest I could find was in Revelation "there should time no longer" (at the start of the millennium) and a repeat of that in the D&C.

Yes, but @Ian Hall specifically mentioned Mormon, so I don't think he's done his homework, and it's only the second week of school! :)

"Time is no longer" in the Bible means the end of the cycle or era (or dispensation), interpreted as the series of seals prior to the seventh, which is the Millennium, the link which establishes creation's entrance into God's "eternal round."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1. Your confusion is fair.  I only know enough philosophy to know that I quickly get out of my depth. ;)  Mormon teaching is not really based in classical philosophy or theology; it has been developed for laymen, by laymen (acting, as we believe, under divine guidance).  So we aren't always as careful with our terminology as we ought to be; and in our zeal to build common ground with outsiders we sometimes incorporate their vocabulary without fully picking apart the linguistic/philosophical implications of the terms we are adopting and co-opting.  “End of time” (as opposed to “end times”) might be an example of that; though I reiterate, it’s not a phrase one sees relatively often in LDS parlance.  

I’m told that when properly interpreted, using the right terminology, Mormonism’s.... 😮

Boom. Boom. Shake the room... say WHAT?

[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] philosophical underpinnings....

Now, please continue

:bananarockon:

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I do not question your motives, just your preparation for this discussion. For example, the authors of the Bible and Book of Mormon, having a Hebrew (or at least oriental) orientation, construe time as circular or cyclical, not a linear progression. Time is where things happen, not when; as much a place as an event. If you don't understand the background and paradigm, you don't understand much else to be able to ask informed questions.

Oh, I just learned that one Australian aboriginal culture instead of saying "Hello" asks "Which way are you going?" and the answer is always a compass direction - and they just know these, even children - they don't use (have?) words for "right" and "left" - they use direction, so your "right leg" might be your "south southwest leg" (depending on your position at the time).  It was quite fascinating.  Understanding how a culture thinks and speaks really is crucial to understanding them.  Searching... Here it is, TED talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now