mikbone

TK Smoothies

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Starwatcher said:

Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young.  In one of JFS's "Answers to Gospel Questions" chapters, which was used back in 1973 as the priesthood study manual, he indicated that immortal beings didn't have blood, but when the immortal Adam fell and became mortal, blood came into his veins for the first time.  I was on my mission in Germany at the time, and when this came up, it caused a recent convert 's eyes to bulge and jaw to drop.  It was the last we saw of him.  At least for a while.  It really thrrew him for a loop.

You haven't noticed that whenever Heavenly Father is spoken of, it is never as having a body of "flesh and blood" but one of "flesh and bone"?

And then we have this, from chapter 37 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, speaking of Christ:

The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (DBY, 374).

I Cor 15:50: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

I'm chalking it up on faulty reasoning, simple misunderstandings. 1st Corinthians 15:50 isn't meant to convey the physical properties of flesh or blood but rather the worldly nature's of the flesh and the blood spilt over those carnal sins. Thus, the "worldly" man full of sin cannot enter heaven.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm chalking it up on faulty reasoning, simple misunderstandings. 1st Corinthians 15:50 isn't meant to convey the physical properties of flesh or blood but rather the worldly nature's of the flesh and the blood spilt over those carnal sins. Thus, the "worldly" man full of sin cannot enter heaven.

 

So, two prophets of God, presumably better instructed than you, understand a verse from scripture differently from you, and so you characterize their understanding as a MISunderstanding?  Meaning that your understanding is superior to theirs, I suppose.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Starwatcher said:

So, two prophets of God, presumably better instructed than you, understand a verse from scripture differently from you, and so you characterize their understanding as a MISunderstanding?  Meaning that your understanding is superior to theirs, I suppose.  

 

 

It really boils down to simple logic. It's obvious that Christ's resurrected body is one of flesh and bone. So, obviously the 1st Corinthians verse isn't meant to convey that literal "flesh" won't be found on resurrected bodies but rather he is speaking of the worldly nature of the natural fallen man in his corruptible sins. The life of immortality is in Christ's flesh and blood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 9:19 PM, JohnsonJones said:

It is the same as demonstrating that children do not procreate.  In this, they are no men and women among them, rather they do (or should not be in their innocence) practicing.  This does NOT preclude them from being boys and girls.

In the Lower Kingdoms, the will still have those who are Men and Woman as this is eternal, but sex will be impossible, it will not exist.  There will be none in that degree, the power and ability to procreate will not be theirs.

In a nutshell, this is basically what Fielding Smith is stating.  He made this clear in other teachings and if you were familiar with what he wrote on this matter elsewhere, you would realize he is NOT stating that they cease to have the appearances of boys and girls, but that the functions of procreation that are held by Men and Woman and some identify as defining what a Man and a Woman are will cease to be and not be possessed by those in the Telestial or Terrestrial (or even in the lower two degrees of the Celestial).

This may be a little off topic, but I'm wondering how the above is consistent with Alma's description of the resurrection, as recorded in Alma 40: 23-24. 

23  The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
24  And now, my son, this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets—

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:23 - 24)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rob Osborn said:

It really boils down to simple logic. It's obvious that Christ's resurrected body is one of flesh and bone. So, obviously the 1st Corinthians verse isn't meant to convey that literal "flesh" won't be found on resurrected bodies but rather he is speaking of the worldly nature of the natural fallen man in his corruptible sins. The life of immortality is in Christ's flesh and blood. 

I do understand where you are coming from.  But I disagree with you.  As does Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith.  And so also does the Church, apparently, since the quote from BY does appear in correlated doctrinal teaching materials issued by the Church.  They could have disagreed with Pres. Young and omitted that bit in the manual where he is quoted as saying resurrected beings don't have blood.  They certainly have omitted any mention of Adam-God.

But in one sense, what does it matter?  Blood or no blood, it will be what it will be.  So perhaps disputing over it is a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This may be a little off topic, but I'm wondering how the above is consistent with Alma's description of the resurrection, as recorded in Alma 40: 23-24. 

23  The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
24  And now, my son, this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets—

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:23 - 24)

Must it be perfectly literal?  I have a full head of hair, even at age 67.  It's gone quite gray, but it's pretty much all there.  My 28-year old stepson has classic male pattern baldness.  It's perfectly natural for him to be this way.  What will he get in the resurrection?  Will there be balding resurrected beings?  Also, what about baby teeth?  Will they be restored?  Or the permanent teeth?  Do Downs-syndrome people get to keep their condition?  We get "restored", do we not?  If a Downs person is restored, surely they must therefore be resurrected Downs, right?  (I actually had someone I know claim that they did.  As if it were a good thing, since they are so sweet.)

I tend to think of the resurrection as a restoration to what we should and would have been, if things had been perfect.  So someone born blind or deaf won't be resurrected blind, and deaf just because he was that way from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Starwatcher said:

Must it be perfectly literal?  I have a full head of hair, even at age 67.  It's gone quite gray, but it's pretty much all there.  My 28-year old stepson has classic male pattern baldness.  It's perfectly natural for him to be this way.  What will he get in the resurrection?  Will there be balding resurrected beings?  Also, what about baby teeth?  Will they be restored?  Or the permanent teeth?  Do Downs-syndrome people get to keep their condition?  We get "restored", do we not?  If a Downs person is restored, surely they must therefore be resurrected Downs, right?  (I actually had someone I know claim that they did.  As if it were a good thing, since they are so sweet.)

I tend to think of the resurrection as a restoration to what we should and would have been, if things had been perfect.  So someone born blind or deaf won't be resurrected blind, and deaf just because he was that way from the beginning.

My post was in response to @JohnsonJones comment that for those in the Lower Kingdoms, sex and procreation would not be possible. While not taking a position on whether or not that may be true, in my post, I was querying how sex and procreation could not be possible in the Lower Kingdoms if we are all resurrected with fully functioning, fully restored bodies. 

As to your question about if there will be balding in the resurrection, I refer you back to the scripture I quoted, which says, in part, "yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost."
(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:23) And I'm inclined to think it will be permanent teeth rather than baby teeth because " all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame." I suspect that the small, weak, temporary, inferior nature of baby teeth, as compared with permanent teeth, means that babyteeth are not part of a proper and perfect frame. Likewise, a Downs person is restored but not to their Downs condition, but to a proper and perfect frame. 

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:23)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 12:44 PM, Rob Osborn said:

It really boils down to simple logic. It's obvious that Christ's resurrected body is one of flesh and bone. So, obviously the 1st Corinthians verse isn't meant to convey that literal "flesh" won't be found on resurrected bodies but rather he is speaking of the worldly nature of the natural fallen man in his corruptible sins. The life of immortality is in Christ's flesh and blood. 

You are partially correct--i.e. about the flesh.

However, the logic is simple. Blood makes death possible. Resurrected beings are eternal and cannot die. Ergo....

Think of it this way, if you can: Through the shedding of blood, death occurs.  Through the shedding (i.e. removal) of blood, eternal life is made possible. The sacramental emblem of the water ought to clue you in.

As for the sacramental bread,  it is in remembrance of the body of the Son, though the observant among us will note that there is no mention of shedding as there is with the blood (see HERE), and this is likely because ultimately Christ's body wasn't shed, but rather it was  reunited with the spirit in a glorified and resurrected. and eternal state

Brigham Young gets this. Joseph Fielding Smith gets it. Bruce R. McKonkie gets it.  Most of the comprehending members of the church get it. So, why don't you get it?

Could it have anything to do with a colossal ego of some random internet guy who  MISthinks he knows better than the Special Witnesses of the resurrected Christ?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You are partially correct--i.e. about the flesh.

However, the logic is simple. Blood makes death possible. Resurrected beings are eternal and cannot die. Ergo....

Think of it this way, if you can: Through the shedding of blood, death occurs.  Through the shedding (i.e. removal) of blood, eternal life is made possible. The sacramental emblem of the water ought to clue you in.

As for the sacramental bread,  it is in remembrance of the body of the Son, though the observant among us will note that there is no mention of shedding as there is with the blood (see HERE), and this is likely because ultimately Christ's body wasn't shed, but rather it was  reunited with the spirit in a glorified and resurrected. and eternal state

Brigham Young gets this. Joseph Fielding Smith gets it. Bruce R. McKonkie gets it.  Most of the comprehending members of the church get it. So, why don't you get it?

Could it have anything to do with a colossal ego of some random internet guy who  MISthinks he knows better than the Special Witnesses of the resurrected Christ?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know what? Discussions with you are fruitless. You are a condescending immature individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You know what? Discussions with you are fruitless. You are a condescending immature individual.

I think you lack the self awareness to see that many of us feel the same way about you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I don't speak down to others. I'm frankly sick of Wade's shenanigans.

Okay. 

@wenglund, you are nothing but a gentlemen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel to defend Rob -- at least a little bit. Considering how many mistakes that I think Joseph Fielding Smith made, I don't want to fault Rob for choosing to believe that Elder/President Smith made mistakes. I kind of see an irony -- since the things I think JFS got wrong (his young earth creationism) are things that Rob seems to think he got right. IMO, the hard part in this is not deciding if apostles and prophets can have made doctrinal mistakes. The hard part is deciding that they have made these kinds of doctrinal errors, but still retaining belief that they are prophets and apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I feel to defend Rob -- at least a little bit. Considering how many mistakes that I think Joseph Fielding Smith made, I don't want to fault Rob for choosing to believe that Elder/President Smith made mistakes. I kind of see an irony -- since the things I think JFS got wrong (his young earth creationism) are things that Rob seems to think he got right. IMO, the hard part in this is not deciding if apostles and prophets can have made doctrinal mistakes. The hard part is deciding that they have made these kinds of doctrinal errors, but still retaining belief that they are prophets and apostles.

Unfortunately, while the intent behind your defense of Rob may be magnanimous, it is also fallacious. The belief that a person is wrong on issues A and B, is not evidence that they are wrong on issues C and D. Logically, issues C and D must be judged on their own merits. After all, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, while Elder Smith MAY have gotten some things wrong, on an unrelated issue, says nothing logically about whether JFS and a multitude of other Special Witnesses of the resurrected Christ, if not also a plethora of informed members, got this and other related issues wrong, and whether Rob personally knows better than the authoritative and vast majority group about what is right or wrong on this matter. 

Not only that, but this is beside the point that I was making about why, given not only the authoritative declarations and explanation as well as the strong reasoned evidence, Rob not only lacks the capacity to get a clue, but falsely assumes he is the one clued in. The explanation has nothing to do with JFS, and everything to do with Rob's intractable stiff neck  and prodigious pride--of which he is likewise without a clue, and invariably kicks against the pricks and ironically denigrates those calling him to repentance and reproving betimes, while laughably concluding that discussion are fruitless with a person who has been telling him that very thing  about him for some time now.

But, perhaps you can relate? ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wenglund said:

You are partially correct--i.e. about the flesh.

However, the logic is simple. Blood makes death possible. Resurrected beings are eternal and cannot die. Ergo....

Think of it this way, if you can: Through the shedding of blood, death occurs.  Through the shedding (i.e. removal) of blood, eternal life is made possible. The sacramental emblem of the water ought to clue you in.

As for the sacramental bread,  it is in remembrance of the body of the Son, though the observant among us will note that there is no mention of shedding as there is with the blood (see HERE), and this is likely because ultimately Christ's body wasn't shed, but rather it was  reunited with the spirit in a glorified and resurrected. and eternal state

Brigham Young gets this. Joseph Fielding Smith gets it. Bruce R. McKonkie gets it.  Most of the comprehending members of the church get it. So, why don't you get it?

Could it have anything to do with a colossal ego of some random internet guy who  MISthinks he knows better than the Special Witnesses of the resurrected Christ?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find it interesting that the old Bible dictionary entry on "fall of Adam and Eve" included the words "Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood...With the eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life".

In the new edition this part is ommitted and no mention of blood is made. Revisions to the Bible dictionary was to remove various opinions that may not be correct doctrine. Just saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also of note, the old Bible dictionary entry on "Resurrection" states in part-

"Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone.”

The new entry- 

“Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone.”

Again, why the omitted part about "without blood"?  Could it be it is merely opinion? Just saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I find it interesting that the old Bible dictionary entry on "fall of Adam and Eve" included the words "Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood...With the eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life".

In the new edition this part is ommitted and no mention of blood is made. Revisions to the Bible dictionary was to remove various opinions that may not be correct doctrine. Just saying...

That main reason that that (entire) section was changed was that the position that there was no death before the fall was modified.   If you are interested, FAIR has a good article on this:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

That could be a whole different topic though, so I'll just leave this post with the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scott said:

That main reason that that (entire) section was changed was that the position that there was no death before the fall was modified.   If you are interested, FAIR has a good article on this:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall

That could be a whole different topic though, so I'll just leave this post with the article.

Well, that theory is debatebale. Leaving out the part about blood in the "Resurrection" to me is kind of proof that the church is trying to get away from some of the theories of the past of which have no scriptural foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the thread and the direction it went, this is my view. 1st, let us avoid contention...we all know where that comes from. 2nd, scripture came from past prophets, so it only follows that what prophets say today is scripture as well. However, I also believe that the brethren can have their own feelings and opinions on matters...not everything they say should be taken as gospel doctrine. I agree with what you said about the past theories of church leaders - whether they were right or wrong, the church leaders want us to follow the current prophet, and to not focus on "vain mysteries" that are not pertinent to our salvation. Those who do will undoubtedly be left behind as the kingdom of God moves forward. As Elder Uchdorf said, "We should not sleep through the restoration...the restoration continues."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scottyg said:

After reading the thread and the direction it went, this is my view. 1st, let us avoid contention...we all know where that comes from. 2nd, scripture came from past prophets, so it only follows that what prophets say today is scripture as well. However, I also believe that the brethren can have their own feelings and opinions on matters...not everything they say should be taken as gospel doctrine. I agree with what you said about the past theories of church leaders - whether they were right or wrong, the church leaders want us to follow the current prophet, and to not focus on "vain mysteries" that are not pertinent to our salvation. Those who do will undoubtedly be left behind as the kingdom of God moves forward. As Elder Uchdorf said, "We should not sleep through the restoration...the restoration continues."

Correcting false or untrue doctrines is part of the restoration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 9:47 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Without bringing that  into the equation, all those Christ saves are cleansed and pure. Do you think Christ will save the unrighteous?

Absolutely he will save the unrighteous - the righteous do not need saving.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 12:09 AM, Rob Osborn said:

He was in error. The Proclamation makes it clear that gender is an essential characteristic of one's purpose and identity in eternity.

Gender may not be a person's sex.  Or completely defined by a person's sex.

 

The Traveler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Gender may not be a person's sex.  Or completely defined by a person's sex.

Could you explain what you mean?  You don't strike me as holding the same meaning as my apostate-buddy-who-married-a-transgender-woman-named-George holds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Absolutely he will save the unrighteous - the righteous do not need saving.

 

The Traveler

Let me rephrase- those who are saved, in the end, will all be righteous.

Edited by Rob Osborn

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