hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/17/90)
In article <Sep.13.02.25.54.1990.23896@athos.rutgers.edu> emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu writes: > Just out of curiosity: Does a "glorified body" mean that the Father >does not need to eat or perform other necessary bodily functions such >as breathing, expelling waste, scratching if he itches, etc. Not to >sound crude, just curious. The same question could be asked about >Jesus Christ, I suppose. Assuming that "decay" is a reference to >aging, and the view (as I understand it) is that the Father grew from >a child to an adult, at what point did the aging process stop? Well, the short answer is "we don't know." I would guess that He has the ability to eat whether it is necessary or not since Jesus ate after his resurrection (Luke 24:42-43). Jesus also implies he will partake of the sacrament of the Lord's supper in the Kingdom of God (Luke 22:16) and that the apostles will eat in his kingdom (Luke 22:30). Of course ability to do something does not necessarily imply a need to do it. > Also, if the Father has a perfected body, from what kind of body was >it perfected? This seems to imply that at one time the Father had a >body which was not perfected. Could this be a reference to the period >in time in which the Father was still growing, i.e., before the Father >had ceased aging? Or was the Father's body always perfected? Obviously if Jesus is in the express image of the Father and does nothing but what he sees the Father do then it is reasonable to expect the Father's body to be like that of Jesus after his resurrection. As to how old he would look, age is an earthly factor and I doubt we would recognize him as any particular age. > Since Adam, after his death and "resurrection" became the Archangel >Michael, does this mean that Michael had a physical body, a glorified >resurrected body? This seems incorrect since Jesus is the first >fruits of the resurrection from the dead. Perhaps Michael had only a >spiritual body until the resurrection of Christ at which point he >received a glorified resurrected body? Also, why the name change? >Why did Adam become Michael? Scriptures generally clearly indicate >name-changes and why. Is Eve Gabriel? (Assuming sex has no >relevance in heaven, since we are all one in Christ Jesus.) One might >logically infer from this line that Cain and evil persons become evil >angels, servants of Satan and his minion. Perhaps Abel is Uriel and >Seth is Raphael. One might suggest that the Nine Choirs of Angels in >some way represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel, but we're missing >three. Tobit would surely have been surprised to discover his guide >was one of his ancient ancestors. Well, the D&C identifies Gabriel with Noah but beyond that we don't know much about which angel took which human name. To clarify things a bit, angels can be either spirits or resurrected beings. Spirits could be either those who have not been born yet (as Michael when the earth was being formed) or those who have died. With this view there is no problem with Michael not having a physical body until after the resurrection of Jesus. Tobit (if we accept that book) may even have had one of his future descendents as his guide. As for becomming angels to Satan, we believe that happens only with the "sons of perdition" who commit the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. As far as name changes go, it seems natural for a spirit in a new environment to be named by parents who do not what name was used before. In fact some people (eg. American Indians I believe) used to give new names to children when they reached a new stage of their lives. Certainly comming to earth is a new stage in our eternal lives. > When I get to heaven, I suspect I'll be relegated to a class outside >the Nine Choirs of Angels since I can't sing in bucket. Perhaps God >will take pity on me and let me strum the guitar :-). Well, if you are *really* bad you might have to spend eternity listening to *me* sing! Repent now! :-) > One of my first postings on this group involved the question as to >whether souls of intelligent beings on other worlds are saved by Jesus >Christ. If they exist, and I think they do, my response is that they >are saved by virtue of their baptism by desire (I'm sure Protestants Well, LDS doctrine implies that at least on some other worlds people are saved the same way they are here. "For we saw [Jesus] ...[and] heard the voive bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father - That by him and through him and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (D&C 76:23-24)