Christianity says that we will not be resurrected until a certain time in the future. That time has not come yet. We don't know when it will come. It may not come for a long, long time.

Somebody who died in 1518 has already been waiting 500 years for the Resurrection.

What do people do when they are waiting for the Resurrection?

Do they hang around doing nothing, not being able to experience any bodily pleasures?

Is it possible for them to find fulfillment while they are waiting? Can they experience pleasure without a body? Do they have a daily routine? Do they live in a special world set up for disembodied spirits that is very similar to our earthly world?

If these spirits find the same kind of fulfillment and pleasures that they had with bodies, why do they need to be resurrected?

Does time speed up for these spirits so they don't have to wait that long? When the Resurrection finally happens, does it seem like it happens next week? Or is time the same for them as it is for us? If time does not speed up for them, they are in a very unpleasant situation (if they cannot find fulfillment or pleasures), since they have to wait virtually forever.

Perhaps spirits lose consciousness after death, and they don't regain consciousness until the Resurrection. This would eliminate the boredom of waiting. If this is true, however, it means that much of what we have been taught about the nature of disembodied spirits is untrue. It also means that in a sense people really are "dead", without any feelings or thoughts at all, after they die. They are "dead" virtually forever. Is being dead virtually forever much different from being dead forever?

They spend their time at the North Pole making toys.

doesn't really have any answers to any of those questions.

Over the years, after listening to conference talks, reading church publications and so on, the implication has fairly consistently been that the spirit world is a great place. Spirits move about, interact with each other, do meet-and-greet work when relatives and friends die, teach and learn. A lot like this life, but free of disease, fear, pain and strife.

So...you ask: "What is the point of having a physical body?"

Boinking.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wanted an eternity of boinking and couldn't imagine it happening without a physical body (actually, physical BODIES, to be more precise. They couldn't imagine not boinking physical bodies.)

Other than that, the whole "we needed to get a physical body" thing doesn't make sense.

Think about the Holy Ghost. Supposedly disembodied throughout his whole existence so far, but still managed to get the number 3 spot in the all-powerful, all-knowing triumvirate that rules the entire universe. Not bad for a guy who has no body. In fact, some claim that out of the three "omnis" the omnipresent thing would not even be possible without the Holy Ghost.

At the end of the day, after all is said and done and the fat lady has sung the bottom line, it all boils down to this: Joseph Smith and his buddies and disciples did a crap job of putting together a belief system. None of it holds together or makes sense if you think about it much. Any religion that tell you that you need to learn some handshakes in order to get into heaven is a nutjob religion.

"Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wanted an eternity of boinking and couldn't imagine it happening without a physical body"

But supposedly our spirit bodies have the same equipment as our physical bodies. The Proc Fam sez that gender is eternal and we were all male or female in the pre-ex.

So why can't a spirit wingwang go into a spirit hoo-ha?

They hadn't "fleshed out" the details, so to speak. The ProcFam came much later to address a different set of concerns that caused many sleepless nights for the modern grand pooh-bahs of Mormonism.

In Joe and Briggy's day, they were still trying out new angles to sell their new religion--and the promise of eternally youthful and perfectly boinkable and boink-ready bodies was an angle that seemed to work quite well for them for a while, so it stuck as part of the foundational package of doctrine in the LSD Church.

The later "prophets" have been doing nothing but tweaking, shaving, pruning and fudging the foundational package of doctrine for the past 100 years or so. The ProcFam was just a footnote type thing. They didn't clarify if the whole spirit body, as to the mechanical movements and utility of things, could fully accomplish the same things as the physical bodies, leaving open the possibility that the spirit bodies' naughty bits are not functional, but rather serve as representational placeholders (kind of like a "batteries sold separately" disclaimer) indicating what can be had by obedient spirits who eventually qualify for upgrades to perfected physical bodies.

They would have you believe that gay marriage will cause an asteroid to obliterate SLC. That would be bad for property values. Mormon logic.

Zombies

Always heard the dead would be called from the grave on Resurrection Morning. Lids flying off caskets everywhere.

Thinking about that though, I'd have to say those who hadn't been recently embalmed near the time of the Grand Resurrection would have a hard time even passing for Zombies.

And then they've got to wander around unrecognizable calling out for each other by their temple names. You yell out, "Barnabus where are you?" or "Hey Lucy," and ten thousand heads turn. Well those that have heads to turn anyway.

behindcurtain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christianity says that we will not be resurrected
> until a certain time in the future. That time has
> not come yet. We don't know when it will come.
> It may not come for a long, long time.

Many of the earliest Christians believed that the resurrection was going to happen in their lifetimes.

When I was a kid, i seem to remember the idea floating around at church that cremation was ill advised because it would not be helpful to the resurrection process. Dumb!
I know that all of you already know why that makes no sense so I won't go into it.
Doesn't seem to be a topic of discussion any more in church circles.

Heard the same as a kid. Don't get cremated because it complicates resurrection. Haha.

I was surprised when my TBM aunt was cremated a couple of years ago that no one thought anything of it. She was terrified though that her husband was going to greet her with a host of new wives though. Seriously.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was surprised when my TBM aunt was cremated a
> couple of years ago that no one thought anything
> of it.

If your Aunt was truly TBM she believed that Heavenly Father sent her to this earth to get a material body. Then for her to turn around and deliberately have that body destroyed by burning it up? What a slap in Heavenly Father's face!

I think she was more afraid of worms than she was of God.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think she was more afraid of worms than she was
> of God.

Apparently she wasn't afraid of fire.

haha. made me laugh

People really over think this idea of rising from the grave, cremation, etc.

Cement vaults and steel lined caskets are a recent money makers for the funeral homes.

Millions of people were just buried in the ground with maybe a cloth wrapping.

The body decomposes, adds nutrients to the soil, worms and grass grow, cows eat the grass, the cow becomes food for people.

The nutrients that were part of somebodies body is now part of someone else.

Now comes the last days, who puts the bodies back together and which part goes with who?

What really happens on the last days, who knows? I really don't worry about it, what'll happen will happen, if nothing happens, then that's what happens.

It doesn't work. That is a big problem. Jesus ought to come back and show us how to make it work.

It's all nonsense, but if we're in a place where everything is in spirit form, I don't think it will really matter...I mean, if we still have our thoughts and emotions, we can do without our bodies for a while. And we'll still look the same. People who claim to have near death experiences and go to "the other side," always recognize their loved ones, and ghosts seem to appear fully clothed. If indeed we will eventually be reunited with our bodies, I don't mind waiting, especially if time travel is possible and there's a way to have a look at dinosaurs and past civilizations. And I wouldn't mind haunting a few people on earth while I'm waiting for my body.

What I don't understand is why we would even need our physical bodies in the hereafter. Our bodies have evolved for survival on planet earth, and if heaven is not exactly the same as planet earth - with death and decay - the bodies we have now will be of no use. It seems that eating won't be necessary so we won't need a digestive system. What use will we have for teeth, kidney or liver? We won't be vulnerable to diseases so we won't need an immune system. If the atmosphere in heaven is not the same as on earth, we won't need the same respiratory system. It's all so silly.

heartbroken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
and ghosts seem to appear fully
> clothed.

See this article titled, "Why Do Ghosts Wear Clothes?"

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/why-do-ghosts-wear-clothes

Hmm.

So the topic is "long dead people, whose bodies decomposed long ago, supposedly being reformulated magically into new bodies and coming back to life," and the "problem" with that is what do they do while they're waiting?

Religion is so funny. :)

No modern religion views the resurrection as a case of the decomposed body "coming back to life."

Notwithstanding, it is well-established that the cells in the human body regenerate themselves and that the ultimate physical matter of the body (atoms) is never destroyed, decomposition notwithstanding. Thus, personal *bodily* identity is presumably a matter of the organization of primitive matter, which in principle can be described in terms of "information." As such, a bodily resurrection is not necessarily "magic" in principle, according to modern science. What is arguably "magical" about such a suggestion is the process that might be available to accomplish such a feat, particularly given the Second Law.

Finally, many prominent scientists postulate a multiverse where "decoherence" of the quantum wave function results in the "magical" proliferation of multiple universes, including multiple bodily selves existing in such universes. According to Nobel Laurette, Frank Wilczek:

"We are haunted by the awareness that infinitely many slightly variant copies of ourselves are living out their parallel lives and that every moment more duplicates spring into existence and take up our many alternative futures." (Quoted from Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds, pg. 169)

It seems to me that such statements and theories are getting very close to religion, including the idea of resurrection. At least with religion, there is only one additional copy of ourselves.

Hmm.

Science is so funny. :)

As far as I'm concerned, real science is rigorously based on highly rational empirical observations of cause-and-effect relationships and principles that can be repeatedly confirmed by experimentation and/or corroborated by accumulating observations and logically related phenomena over time, resulting in summations of the results that are highly effective in explaining, controlling and predicting cause-and-effect interactions and outcomes, without being substantially contradicted by observations of phenomenon that should conform, but do not conform, to previously accepted scientific conclusions. And when substantial contradictions do arise and persist, it's back to the drawing board to examine where the errors occurred in the reasoning that led to the previously accepted conclusions.

Popular media will give the "scientist" label to some expert based solely on the academic degrees held by that person and then introduce anything that person says as "a prominent scientist says," without any regard to whether the things that the "prominent scientist" is saying are actually based on the results of any kind of substantive and rigorously applied scientific process.

Much of what Michio Kaku pronounces is little more than sophisticated speculation that cannot be tested. It makes good material for science fiction, since the speculation in question also cannot be definitely ruled out by any testing. But it's not all that different from the age-old "you can't prove God exists" vs. "you can't prove God doesn't exist" debating points.

Science could just be a very successful religion. It has certainly raised the bar for whatever follows it. Something is certain to follow just from what science leaves on the table. Is mind a property of matter, or is matter a property of mind? PSI is taboo because it’s heresy. Nevermind the evidence. I get to see what scientists do with information they don’t like, in the face of overwhelming evidence. The priests of 500 years ago haven’t changed. They only wear different robes.

I can’t blame them. Material science has yielded so much that material worship was sure to follow. Thus the move to silence heretics, exposing it for the cult that it is.

"Science could just be a very successful religion. It has certainly raised the bar for whatever follows it. Something is certain to follow just from what science leaves on the table. Is mind a property of matter, or is matter a property of mind? PSI is taboo because it’s heresy. Nevermind the evidence. I get to see what scientists do with information they don’t like, in the face of overwhelming evidence. The priests of 500 years ago haven’t changed. They only wear different robes.

COMMENT: This is a little too strong for me, but the point is well taken.
____________________________________

I can’t blame them. Material science has yielded so much that material worship was sure to follow. Thus the move to silence heretics, exposing it for the cult that it is.

COMMENT: Well, "material worship" or better "scientific materialism" is the default position not only because it has brought success, it is the only position that offers knowledge that is at least in principle testable by the "scientific method." The scientific method, after all, *is* a materialist method! The problem is that even in the face of non-materialist evidence, science often dogmatically clings to the idea that everything must either be reducible to what is scientifically testable, or be fraudulent or an illusory. Thus, notwithstanding the evidence, paranormal phenomenon must be fraudulent or illusory simply because science cannot deal with such things within its materialist paradigm.

Non material propositions are not ignored solely for being non material. Rather that there are no known testing systems for the predictions and no falsifiability. Lacking falsifiability there's no point in its pursuit yet. It pretty much by definition can't be tested often because there is no idea what the constraints are that allow us to narrow down the specific action.

"Non material propositions are not ignored solely for being non material. Rather that there are no known testing systems for the predictions and no falsifiability."

COMMENT: Yes. I think this is what I said.
_______________________________________

"Lacking falsifiability there's no point in its pursuit yet. It pretty much by definition can't be tested often because there is no idea what the constraints are that allow us to narrow down the specific action."

COMMENT: O.K. But as I see it the problem is an equivocation between what is testable by science, and what might be evidence for some phenomena that may not be testable by science. It is one thing for science to be focused on the testable, but quite another for science to be rhetorically dismissive of evidence suggesting a reality that is not currently testable. Phenomena that is not within the parameters of science, is not per se fraudulent or illusory, including so-called paranormal phenomena or even "spiritual experiences."

In my own extensive reading of the popular scientific literature, the above distinction is most often lost. In fact, the whole idea in theoretical physics of "a theory of everything" epitomizes this bias because "everything" is not meant to encompasses phenomena, like consciousness, that is not remotely addressed by the scientific equations of such theories, but nonetheless most of us think is part of reality. As such, a "theory of everything" as applied to physics, even if found, will NOT be of everything--unless everything else is swept under the rug of materialism.

If you can't test it, it isn't evidence of anything in particular. To attach a full blown supernatural exlanatory is premature and sloppy. It could be any number of thing so why jump to that conclusion? It's the premature conclusion that science balks at because the conclusion is unsupported.

But your argument cuts both ways as well. Supernaturalists disregard any natural explanation proffered.

"If you can't test it, it isn't evidence of anything in particular."

COMMENT: O.K. But it may well be evidence of something (or some thing) that is not known or understood. As such, it is inappropriate to deny the phenomenon simply because what it is evidence for is unknown, or not understood.
____________________________________________

"To attach a full blown supernatural exlanatory is premature and sloppy. It could be any number of thing so why jump to that conclusion?"

COMMENT: I agree. "Jumping" to *any* conclusion (supernatural or otherwise) is "sloppy" or unwarranted. However, this does not exclude careful consideration as to what the phenomenon in question might suggest both on its face, or in accordance with any given theory.
____________________________________________

It's the premature conclusion that science balks at because the conclusion is unsupported.

COMMENT: It is more than that. Science does not just balk at "supernatural" conclusions--it is dismissive of *evidence* that is even remotely suggestive of such things. For example, there is abundant evidence suggesting that there is such a thing as mental causation; i.e. that there are physical effects in the brain related to mental effort. (Much of cognitive therapy is based upon this premise.) Notwithstanding, science leaves no room for such effects, insisting that physical phenomena are causally closed, and that therefore free *will* (a requirement of cognitive therapy) is an illusion.
___________________________________________

"But your argument cuts both ways as well. Supernaturalists disregard any natural explanation proffered."

COMMENT: I do not think this is true; particularly of those who are academically credentialed and who formally study parapsychology (in all its forms) in a University setting. My reading of the literature suggests, time and time again, that naturalistic explanations when applicable remain the default position for such researchers. They just are much more sensitive to situations were such natural explanations are clearly inadequate.

Mental causation is a philopsophic concept that attempts to explain intentionality. This isnt ample evidence in the scientific sense.

These are how things appear to our conscoiusness, but they are explainable without appeals to intentionality. Intentionality isn't clearly neccesary

Which is a challenge for experience of ourself and our free will. But as we've discussed before, we do not agree about free will or intentionality.

The evidence simply isn't present to determine which is right if either.

"Mental causation is a philopsophic concept that attempts to explain intentionality. This isnt ample evidence in the scientific sense."

COMMENT: By calling mental causation a "philosophical concept" I assume that is your way of denying it. In any event, ontologically, mental causation it is not just a concept made up as an attempt to explain intentionality: It is a real phenomenon that is quite obvious to anyone but a scientific materialist bent on denying it. What is required for "amble evidence" of mental causation? or for that matter consciousness itself? Somehow, my own experience is good enough for me.
_________________________________________

"These are how things appear to our conscoiusness, but they are explainable without appeals to intentionality. Intentionality isn't clearly necessary."

COMMENT: "Intentionality" (for other readers it is essentially a term of art for mental states that are about or directed to other objects, properties, ideas, concepts, etc.) cannot be explained without appealing to mental states and functions (i.e. something more than rote physical processes) Cognitive scientists and AI theorists have tried to do this for years, unsuccessfully. (See Jerry Foder, The Mind Does Work That Way.)
_____________________________________

"Which is a challenge for experience of ourself and our free will. But as we've discussed before, we do not agree about free will or intentionality."

COMMENT: Right, we don't agree. But what I have always said is where does denying freewill leave you as an autonomous human free agent? Where does that leave humans generally, besides as mere robots that happen to be conscious. If scientists or philosophers really want people to believe that, they had better prove it beyond invoking mere materialist assumptions!
_______________________________________

The evidence simply isn't present to determine which is right if either.

COMMENT: Well, O.K. but then shouldn't the default position be in favor of mental causation and freewill? If ever there was a place where humans should demand that science accept the burden of proof, it is here!

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science could just be a very successful religion.

For people who don't really understand what science is probably that is true. But science isn't particularly about truth. Perhaps only even indirectly about truth. Science is about generating models that make accurate verifiable predictions.

As our observations improve, this could be construed as iterating towards truth. But the method itself is not about absolute truth. I suspect there is no way to verify that there's nothing beyond any model because we don't know what observations we are not yet able to observe in totality.

"As far as I'm concerned, real science is rigorously based on highly rational empirical observations of cause-and-effect relationships and principles that can be repeatedly confirmed by experimentation and/or corroborated by accumulating observations and logically related phenomena over time, resulting in summations of the results that are highly effective in explaining, controlling and predicting cause-and-effect interactions and outcomes, without being substantially contradicted by observations of phenomenon that should conform, but do not conform, to previously accepted scientific conclusions. And when substantial contradictions do arise and persist, it's back to the drawing board to examine where the errors occurred in the reasoning that led to the previously accepted conclusions."

COMMENT: This grossly idealist and highly rhetorical view of science is at best extremely distorted and at worst just false. It is dogmatically held mostly by those who do not know how science actually works, and want to lean on science as a foundation for their favored metaphysical views.
_________________________________________

Popular media will give the "scientist" label to some expert based solely on the academic degrees held by that person and then introduce anything that person says as "a prominent scientist says," without any regard to whether the things that the "prominent scientist" is saying are actually based on the results of any kind of substantive and rigorously applied scientific process.

COMMENT: The "scientist" label *is* based upon academic degrees, as well as what a person does for a living. Moreover, most popular scientific writing (including Kaku) quotes scientists accurately on their actual *scientific* beliefs and conclusions; often based upon inferences and interpretations of scientific evidence, however speculative such interpretations might be. The quote I referenced above is precisely such an example.
___________________________________________

Much of what Michio Kaku pronounces is little more than sophisticated speculation that cannot be tested. It makes good material for science fiction, since the speculation in question also cannot be definitely ruled out by any testing. But it's not all that different from the age-old "you can't prove God exists" vs. "you can't prove God doesn't exist" debating points.

COMMENT: Well, I am not a fan of Kaku either, but don't overstate the point. It is false and unfair to suggest that his writing is just unbridled "science fiction." After all, he himself is a active and respected scientist in the scientific community. He is guilty of rhetorical hyperbole on occasion, to be sure, but not misrepresentation of the underlying science, or of the opinions of his fellow scientists.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Well, I am not a fan of Kaku either, but
> don't overstate the point. It is false and unfair
> to suggest that his writing is just unbridled
> "science fiction." After all, he himself is a
> active and respected scientist in the scientific
> community. He is guilty of rhetorical hyperbole on
> occasion, to be sure, but not misrepresentation of
> the underlying science, or of the opinions of his
> fellow scientists.

It's neither false nor unfair to point out that *some* of Kaku's writing *is* "unbridled science fiction." It's accurate.
It's also accurate that the opinions of scientists aren't science -- they're opinions, hypotheses, or speculation in many cases.
They're not science until/if verified using the scientific method. That was Wally's point, and it's accurate.

"It's neither false nor unfair to point out that *some* of Kaku's writing *is* "unbridled science fiction." It's accurate."

COMMENT: Examples please!
_______________________________________

"It's also accurate that the opinions of scientists aren't science -- they're opinions, hypotheses, or speculation in many cases."

COMMENT: The opinions, hypotheses, and speculations of scientists that are based upon scientific principles, scientific evidence, scientific models, and scientific research, remains "science." Right or wrong, I know of no such speculations that are NOT scientifically based.
_______________________________________

"They're not science until/if verified using the scientific method. That was Wally's point, and it's accurate."

COMMENT: This is blatantly false! So, by your definition, Einstein's work on relativity, including his production of a full-blown, mathematical, theory, that had substantial explanatory value, did not become "science" until it was verified many years later? Nonsense!

Science encompasses a complex *methodology* (not just a *result*) that is not easily defined. Verification is merely the result of when an already existing scientific hypothesis or theory tentatively appears to be correct through replication or experiment.

Resurrection is the Hook of Mormonism.

they preach that ppl can't repent after death (Alma 34:34), so,

You Better Watch Out!

All those dead spirits / souls waiting for blessings of temple work, don't ya know?

Also, quite by coincidence, Mormons have to pay 10% to do it for their relatives (some get it done multiple times, but ChurchCo won't tell anyone)...

See how it all makes sense? Bald guys & cancer treatment ppl get hair (again), we're just not sure about what the optimum sizes & shapes are for those 'perfected' bodies... genitals & breasts included!

I'd like to know the 'perfected' eye color & a few more details!!

There was a time when I could have accepted the whole concept.Then a friend handed me a copy of Michael Tellinger's book The "Slave Species of God". From there I migrated to Sitchen's translation of the "Book of Enki" and the whole mountain came tumbling down.
Described in this translation is the genetic manulation and creation of homo sapien.As part of this sequence long life was given, reserection was genetically witheld.
The translation has ben challenged but I believe that, for the most part, it is accurate. However each of you must read for yourself and determine it's authenticity.
What I have stated above is gross simplification and each of you must study the book in order to logically reach your own conclusion.

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The translation has ben challenged...

Debunked, actually. Conclusively.

And calling it a "translation" is the same as calling what Smith wrote up as the "Book of Abraham" a "translation" of the papyrus found with the mummies...:)

But, hey, if it floats yer boat, enjoy.

Depends on whose theology you are wondering about.

Most mainstream Christians say that God is outside of time and space, so those who are dead corporeally are not experiencing "reality" the way we do, we who are still embodied.

Its posts like this that show why there are more Christians on this site then atheists. I think atheists need the support for a few months, the cognitive dissonance leaves, and they move on with their new better lives.

Those that convert, however, still struggle with a lot of the same dissonance that made Mormonism painful. SO people come here for help with that continuing dissonance.

My thought, Jesus sucks. The Bible is more obviously a fraud then the Book of Mormon. Actually, it was rejecting the Bible and the Biblical God that led me out of Mormonism in the first place. And if the Bible is a fraud, the Book of Mormon's copying and testomy in support of it makes it a fraud also.

Just give up on God and enjoy your mental freedom.

Guy3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its posts like this that show why there are more
> Christians on this site then atheists.

Interesting. I've seen posts that claim that this site is a hotbed of agnostics and atheists and that the Christians on the site are few and far between.

In mormondom I was taught that it's suppose to be similar to this life. Work would be more in the realm of "caretaking" (mowing grass, vacuuming, feeding animals), and less in the way of noisy factories and warehouses, which is what it is now. Slavery and sweatshops and shipping would be abolished.

Mormondom couldn't ransack rainforests anymore for rare woods for their temples.

Every man is suppose to "sit under his own fig tree and drink the waters of his own cistern." So everyone is a capitalist with his own livelihood, And folks aren't forced to live off jobs with corporations or big box stores, and they won't live off welfare either.

Read Isaiah, it's all there in detail.

I don't mean to be dismissive of something horrible. The reality is that mental health is easy to misunderstand and easier to dismiss. But in the spirit of ignoring my better judgement.


Eternity in any form to me is just asking for madness. How is someone supposed to maintain their sanity?

I don't even think about the Resurrection anymore. To me, it's just silly, superstitious, beliefs, and folklore. It's scientifically impossible for a decomposed plant, fish, or mammal, including humans to ever regain life again. I'll side with science any day before I believe superstitious myths.