Conference tecrus::mormonism

    
    
    Perhaps the answer to my next question is buried somewhere in previous
    notes that I haven't thoroughly read.  If so, I apologize for
    redundancy. 
    
    Here's my question:  Is there a quote in the New Testament
    in which Christ refers to visiting His followers in another land?
    Is this only in the King James version or is it common to most New
    Testaments?
    
    	--daniel
    
    

Re .0

Hi Daniel,

>    Perhaps the answer to my next question is buried somewhere in previous
>    notes that I haven't thoroughly read.  If so, I apologize for
>    redundancy. 
>    
>    Here's my question:  Is there a quote in the New Testament
>    in which Christ refers to visiting His followers in another land?
>    Is this only in the King James version or is it common to most New
>    Testaments?
    
In John 10:16 Jesus spoke of other sheep who would hear his voice and
be one fold.  We believe he was speaking of the Nephites in ancient
america.  Non-Mormons believe he was speaking of the Gentiles.

This has been discussed in notes 4.19, 10.8, and 10.12

Allen

    Re: Note 44.0 by ATLAST::MEDVID 
    
    Hi Daniel,
    
>   Here's my question:  Is there a quote in the New Testament
>   in which Christ refers to visiting His followers in another land?
>   Is this only in the King James version or is it common to most New
>   Testaments?

    Christ makes a reference to his "other sheep" in the following passage: 
    
         I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for
         the sheep. 
         
         I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of
         mine. 
         
         As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I
         lay down my life for the sheep. 
         
         And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also
         I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall
         be one fold, and one shepherd.  John 10:11,14-16 
         
    When Jesus visited the Nephites in ancient America, after his
    resurrection, He told them this: 
    
         Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who
         are a remnant of the house of Joseph. 
         
         And behold, this is the land of your inheritance; and the
         Father hath given it unto you. 
         
         And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that
         I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem. 
         
         Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that
         I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the
         house of Isreal, whom the Father hath led away out of the
         land. 
         
         This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto
         them: 
         
         That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also
         I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall
         be one fold, and one shepherd. 
         
         And now, because of stiff-neckedness and unbelief they
         understood not by word; therefore I was commanded to say no
         more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. 
         
         But, verily, I say unto you that the Father hath commanded
         me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among
         them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of
         their iniquity that they know not of you. 
         
         And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath
         the Father separated from them; and it is because of their
         iniquity that they know not of them. 
         
         And verily I say unto you that ye are they of whom I said:
         Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I
         must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
         one fold, and one shepherd. 
         
         And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the
         Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be
         converted through their preaching. 
         
         And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my
         voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should
         not at any time hear my voice - that I should not manifest
         myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. 
         
         But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye
         are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father
         hath given me.  3 Nephi 15:12-24 
         
    Witnessing of Christ,                
    Rich
    

    There are some unanswered questions, however, about Jesus's appearance
    to the Nephites.  I will address this in my report in Note 38.
    
    Leza
    

    I have always been interested in the forty days Christ spent after
    the resurrection.  There is little in the Bible of specifics, but
    it does mention that he stayed with the apostles for awhile.  Other
    than the account in the BOM, does anyone have any other information
    about what transpired?  Pointers to other references would also
    be valued?
                                                           
    Why do you suppose the Bible does not give more detail?
    

          "FOR BEHOLD, the LORD your Redeemer suffered death in the
          flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all
          men might repent and come unto him. And he hath risen again
          from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him, on
          conditions of repentance."              D&C 18:11-12
    
    
    At this time of year, let us etch in our hearts the memory of the
    suffering and sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Let
    us also share with one another our thoughts and reflections on the
    Atonement, and our love and appreciation for the Redeemer.
    
    
    /kevin
    

    I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me,                    
        Confused at the grace that so fully he proffers me;
            I tremble to know that for me he was crucified,
                That for me, a sinner, he suffered, he bled and died.
    
    Oh it is wonderful 
        that he should care for me,
            enough to die for me;
    Oh it is wonderful,
        wonderful to me.
    
    I marvel that he would descend from his throne divine
        To rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine;
            That he should extend his great love unto such as I,
                Sufficient to own, to redeem, and to justify.
    
    I think of his hands pierced and bleeding to pay the debt!
        Such mercy, such love, and devotion can I forget?
            No, no, I will praise and adore at the mercy seat,
                Until at the glorified throne I kneel at his feet.
    
    
    
                                  -  Charles H. Gabriel
                                      
                                     from the hymn "I Stand All Amazed"

    And let us also reflect on the reality of the resurrection! 
    
         ...Mary stood without at the sepulcher weeping: and as she
         wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher. 
         
         And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head,
         and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 
         
         And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith
         unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know
         not where they have laid him. 
         
         And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw
         Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 
         
         Jesus saith unto her. Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest
         thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him,
         Sir, if thou have borne him hence tell me where thou hast
         laid him, and I will take him away. 
         
         Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith
         unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 
         
         Jesus saith unto her. Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended
         to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I
         ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and
         your God. 
         
         John 20:11-17
         
    Witnessing of Christ's resurrection,
    Rich     
                  

    Through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, physical death was overcome.
    As a result, we will all one day be resurrected. For this, of course,
    I am grateful, and I look forward to that day.
    
    But in the meantime, the story of the Atonement and Resurrection
    causes me to look at my sins square in the face, because I realize
    that the price of those sins was paid by Jesus Christ. For me - a
    sinner - Jesus suffered and died. I realize how far from perfect
    I really am, and how great was the sacrifice of that one perfect
    life.
    
    Jesus arose from the dead. He lives still. Because of His resurrection,
    physical death is conquered.
    
    But just as important, the *spiritual* death that results from sin is
    conquered also. Because of the Atonement, I will be forgiven if I
    repent. If it were not for the Atonement, then no matter how repentant
    I was, I could not be forgiven. Then I could not be reconciled to
    the Father, and that would be spiritual death indeed.
    
    Normally, I can focus on my progression, on looking forward, and
    on building up. But at this time of year, I cannot avoid reflecting
    on the weight of sin, the importance of repentance, and the miracle
    of forgiveness.
    
    
    Love in Christ,
    /kevin

    I have made it somewhat of a small topic of study about Easter.
     I was watching the Plain Truth broadcast this Palm Sunday Morning
    in which the origins and pagan background to Easter was presented.
    
    According to this broadcast, Easter was not celebrated by the early
    Christians.  The Roman Emperor, Constantine, was the one who really
    finalized its celebrations.
    
    The word Easter comes from the Druid Goddess of the Moon (or Dawn)
    Oestre, and the rabbit was her symbol.
    
    Anybody know any more?  The thought of celebrating Christ's atonement
    with chocolate bunny upsets me.  In my home we have no Easter Bunny!
    

    RE: 106.4
    
      >Easter was not celebrated by the early Christians.  The Roman Emperor,
      >Constantine, was the one who really finalized its celebrations....The
      >thought of celebrating Christ's atonement with chocolate bunny upsets
      >me. 
                                 
    All that is true, just as there are similar circumstances around
    the designation of December 25th as Christmas: it didn't really
    happen on that day, but that is the 'culturally' correct time to
    celebrate the occasion, so that is when we do it.
    
    From latter-day revelation, we know that Christ was born on April 6th.
    Even so, Latter-day Saints celebrate Christmas along with most of the
    rest of the world on December 25th, because the exact day is not the
    important thing about the occasion (and - I suspect - because we
    are already different enough as it is from the rest of Christendom). 
    
    I don't know if we know the day/date of the Atonement/Resurrection
    with the same exactness, but surely the same principle applies. The
    date, and therefore the origin of the date, is irrelevant and
    immaterial compared to the hugely important nature of that which
    we celebrate on Easter.
    
    Does anyone have further info on this?
    
    /kevin
                                          

    Kevin,
    
    I haven't the info handy, but I do know that the Ensign last year
    had an article that went into some detail covering the dating of
    Christ's birth, crucifixion, and resurrection and their relationship
    the the dating of the return of Elijah at the time of the dedication
    of the Kirtland Temple. The article, to say the least is fascinating,
    and anybody that is interested in this topic should read it. 
    I think it was in the April '87 issue. 
    
    Regards,
    Kevin St Thomas 
   

    Kevin,
    
    When I was first converted, I was taught that Christ's birth, 
    crucifixion, resuurection, the coming of Elijah, the dedication
    of the Kirtland Temple and the day this LDS Church was restored
    to this earth by Joseph Smith are ALL on April 6th.  I believe
    the article that is in the Ensign refers to this same date.
    
    It was exciting meeting you at the Nashua Stake Center on Easter
    Sunday, and Bro. Allen Leigh too.  I love meeting those brothers
    and sisters I correspond with and participate in this notes conference.
    
    Love in Christ,
    Penny 

    re .26 (BSS::RONEY)
    
    	Re Jesus' post-resurrection appearance in Luke 24:
    
>	Here is the fact that we have spirits that look like ourselves;
>	else why would the disciples be afraid in the first place?
    
    As I recall, the word translated as "spirit" carries multiple meanings,
    just as does the English word.  In this situation, the word was used to
    mean a visible non-corporeal manifestation (such as the one they
    thought they saw when Jesus walked to them across the water, cf. Mt
    14:26 & Mr 6:49) -- in other words, they thought they were seeing 'a
    ghost' or an apparition, which makes sense since Jesus appeared to them
    all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere.
    
    	I certainly believe its true that apparitions (that are seemingly
    materialized by demons) don't have flesh and blood; and Jesus was
    trying to dispel the idea that that's what they were seeing when saw
    him (and became afraid).  But, since the Bible says that Jesus was "put
    to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1Pet 3:18 RSV), he
    wasn't contradicting this thought that he was resurrected as a spirit
    being by saying that he was really only human (as flesh and blood). 
    His ability to eat with them and let them touch him in a human body
    simply demonstrated that he was real and alive, having been
    resurrected.  What he had done was materialize a temporary body, just
    as angels in times past were able to do.
    
>	Second we can see that Christ also says that spirits do not have a
>	body of flesh and bones.
    
    	To repeat the above point, angels, which the Bible also calls
    "spirits", though not existing in their natural form as beings of flesh
    and blood, are capable of materializing human bodies when authorized to
    do so.  The angels that Abraham entertained (Gen 18) were able to eat
    the butter, milk, and meat that Abraham had Sarah prepare for them and
    two of the same angels who visited Lot ate the unleavened bread that he
    baked for them (Gen 19:3 RSV).
    
>	                          These scriptures indicate to me that there
>	are spirit bodies and there are fleshly bodies.
    
    	The Bible DOES speak of "spirit bodies", but I don't see this
    passage as being one of them.  In 1Cor 15, Paul speaks of "spiritual
    bodies" -- in the context of the heavenly resurrection -- in answer to
    the question:
    
    		"How are the dead raised?  With what kind of
    		body do they come?" (1Cor 15:35 RSV)
    
    He then makes a distinction between "the physical body" and "the
    spiritual body", but he doesn't say that they coreside with one
    another:
    
    		"So it is with the resurrection of the dead.  
    		What is sown is perishable, what is raised is
    		imperishable. ... It is sown a physical body,
    		it is raised a spiritual body. ... It is not
    		the spiritual which is first but the physical,
    		and then the spiritual. ... For this perishable
    		nature must put on the imperishable, and this
    		mortal nature must put on immortality."
    		(1Cor 15:42,44,46,53)
    
    Verse 52 puts establishes the timing this change of state as happening
    during (or at) the "last trumpet".  Those who die faithful before the
    sounding of the "last trumpet" "sleep" (v. 51) until then.  As the
    passage plainly states, the order is "first physical" and "then the
    spiritual."  They do not exist at the same time.
    
>	                                                 When Christ's 
>	fleshly body lay in the tomb for three days, what happened to his 
>	spirit?  That is found in 1 Peter 3. ...
    
    	I believe the Mormon writings actually say that this is what
    happened (correct?  ... I have The Book of Mormon and D&C and PoGP at
    home, and came across a passage about this once), but the Bible itself
    doesn't say that the visit Jesus paid to the "spirits in prison"
    happened during the three days he was dead, does it?  At best, we can
    only conclude that it happened after Jesus was "made alive in the
    spirit" (RSV), which is the form in which he is now alive.
    
>	Here the spirits of the people killed by the flood in Noah's day
>	were kept in a prison of spirits.  Note that the flesh can be killed
>	but not the spirit.  
    
    	That's your assumption (and perhaps one made explicitly in Mormon
    writings), but again, the Bible doesn't actually identify who those
    spirits are.  I believe it's true that whereas the Bible DOES call
    angels "spirits" a few times, it never calls dead humans by that term.
    
    	Even if your belief is true that human souls are "body and spirit",
    the Bible proves that even this "spirit" can die, since Jesus said:
    
    		"...do not fearof those who kill the body 
    		but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him 
    		[God] who can destroy both soul and body in 
    		hell [lit. Gehenna]." (Matt 10:28 RSV)
    
    If the "soul", which is body and spirit, can be destroyed by God, then
    the spirit alone can obviously be destroyed (or killed).
    
>	                     Lastly, there is again in Luke 24 verse 46
>	where Christ told his disciples "Thus it is written, and thus it 
>	behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:".
>	Now what rose - his fleshly body - and what made it rise - his
>	spirit body.
    
    	You are reading a whole lot more into that scripture than the
    passage says is there, Charles.  The passage concludes by saying that
    Jesus was "carried up into heaven" (v.51), and we know from Paul's
    writings that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor
    15:50 RSV).  If Jesus REALLY rose in his fleshly body, he would not
    have been able to enter into heaven.
    
    	Another thing to consider is the passage in Hebrews that draws a
    parallel between the sacrificial procedures as required in the Mosaic
    Law and the sacrificial death of Jesus, and how his death and
    resurrection, and subsequent entrance into heaven corresponded to the
    activities of the high priest on the day of atonement, who sacrificed
    an animal and took its blood into the Most Holy.  In the last chapter,
    it says:
    
    		"For the bodies of those animals whose blood
    		is brought into the sanctuary  by the high
    		priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned up 
    		outside the camp.  So Jesus suffered outside 
    		the gate in order to sanctify the people through
    		his own blood." (Heb 13:11 RSV)
    
    The bodies were destroyed, being of no further use, whereas the blood
    was carried into the Most Holy to represent the lives of the Israelites
    who were being atoned for (since "the life of the flesh is in the
    blood" -- Lev 17:11 RSV).
    
    	Elsewhere in Hebrews, the details of the temple and the sacrificial
    rites are called "copies of the heavenly things" (9:23 RSV), and it's
    said of Jesus that:
    
    		"Christ entered ... into heaven itself, now to
    		appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
    		Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the
    		high priest enters the Holy Place with blood
    		not his own; for then he would have to suffer
    		repeatedly ... But as it is, he has appeared
    		once for all at the end of the age to put
    		away sin by the sacrifice of himself."  (9:24-26 RSV)
    
    Earlier in this same chapter it says:
    
    		"he [Jesus] entered once for all into the Holy
    		Place [i.e., heaven], taking not the blood of
    		goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing
    		eternal redemption."  (v12 RSV)
    
    Now if your belief is true that Jesus was resurrected with his flesh
    and blood, then the whole idea of his giving them up in sacrifice falls
    apart, since the Bible indicates that he gave these things up in order
    to redeem mankind.  It also violates the spirit of the parallel that
    the body of the sacrificial victim perishes forever outside the temple
    [which represents heaven and the presence of God], whereas the blood
    [which represents the lives of those being atoned for] is brought into
    the "Holy Place" to pay the atoning ransom price for those being
    eternally redeemed.
    
>	The resurrection of Christ is discussed very well by Paul in
>	1 Cor. 15:12-29.  In verses 42-58 Paul talks about the different
>	states of mankind and points out the spiritual and fleshly bodies.
>	There are so many more references in the Bible about our spirit
>	bodies.  Maybe Allen has already covered some of these and can point
>	you to the right places.
    
    	It's funny how we can both read the same passage but yet come away
    with two opposite impressions.  After reading the whole chapter, how
    can you still believe that fleshly bodies and spirit bodies can exist
    at the same time?  Doesn't this passage describe the change that takes
    place upon their resurrection?  If they always had a spirit body, they
    would have need of neither a resurrection nor a "change" of state,
    since they would never truly die (or cease to exist), and thus need a
    resurrection.
    
    								-mark.

	Mark,
		I guess perceptions and other things do enter into why a
	person can read scripture differently than others.  Unfortunately,
	I probably should sit down and think things out better than just
	trying to wing it.  So I will just say what I believe, and I will
	be using more than just the Bible.  The point I was trying to make 
	is that there are two distinctions in regards to bodies.
	
		We existed as pre-mortal spiritual intelligences.  It is this
	that makes us a particular person.  It makes our physical, mortal 
	bodies active.  There are then two "bodies" that make up our mortal 
	existence.  One being the driving spirit and the other being the 
	flesh of blood and bones, which is the physical body and it is 
	inherently sinful and carnal.  Both bodies have fallen from the
	presence of God, and there are two redemptions - one for each body.

		These redemptions come about through the resurrection and 
	atonement of Christ.  Just as we are baptized by water, for the 
	physical body, and by fire, for the spiritual body, there is also
	the double redemptions.  This allows the complete soul to take
	advantage of the redemptions available.  The resurrection of Christ 
	provides the means for the physical body to be redeemed, and the 
	atonement of Christ provides the means for the spiritual body to be 
	redeemed.  To most LDS, the former is salvation, and the latter is 
	exaltation.  The first is a free gift to man, the second is based 
	upon obedience to the principles of righteousness.  The first death 
	is that we are not in the presence of God in our physical bodies.  
	We are in that state now.  The second death is when we are not in 
	the presence of God in our spiritual bodies for all eternity.

		But these are redeemed bodies when we start talking about 
	eternity.  The spiritual body as described by Paul in 1 Cor. 15
	is not the same as the spirit which drives our physical bodies.  He
	is talking about a resurrected body that is not of flesh and blood.
	Jesus does not have a body of flesh and blood.  We could say that our
	mortal bodies are "blood" bodies, while resurrected bodies are not.
	How the angels in the Bible did what they did is beyond my knowledge
	right now.  But Christ in a resurrected body is not.  He is the first
	fruits of the resurrection, and a person does not just lay down their
	resurrected body.  No matter what kind it is, they have it for all
	eternity.  The spiritual essence that we had before the foundation of
	the world goes through a mortal existence to gain a physical body, and
	is then resurrected with a glorious, physical body for all eternity.
	That is the spiritual body in which the pre-mortal spirit resides.

		When that spiritual body is not in the presence of God, this 
	is the second death that one has to be worried about.  Not hell.  Hell	
	is just a place of temporary abode.  At the final judgment, it will 
	give up its dead, and it and death will be cast out into outer 
	darkness.  The whole purpose of our existence is to be obedient to 
	the word of God, and then through the grace of God we will be 
	welcomed back into His presence from whence we came.

	Charles

    Just to add a bit more to what Charles said, Latter-day Saints believe
    that resurrected persons have a tangible body of flesh and bone, but
    that a resurrected body does not have blood. Thus it is correct to say
    that a resurrected body is flesh and *bone* but incorrect to say that
    it is flesh and *blood*. 
    
    We believe the Jesus retains his resurrected body yet, as do all of
    those who came forth from the grave at the same time. Indeed, we also
    believe that God the Father also has a glorified body of flesh and
    *bone*, but the Holy Ghost does not, he being only a personage of
    spirit.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

Re .30 Charles
       
>       The resurrection of Christ 
>	provides the means for the physical body to be redeemed, and the 
>	atonement of Christ provides the means for the spiritual body to be 
>	redeemed.  To most LDS, the former is salvation, and the latter is 
>	exaltation.

It is true that many LDS use the term 'salvation' to refer to the resurrection,
but in doing so they are in error.  I think that if we study the context of
'salvation' in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, we will that see that
in general it is referring to being with God in Heaven, i.e. exaltation.  Of
course, there are also scriptures that talk about the resurrection.

Allen

    re .30 (BSS::RONEY)
    
    Charles,
    
    	Thanks for the summary of your beliefs.  (I think there's little,
    if any, supporting evidence for them in the Bible itself, but I'm not
    going to argue about them with you.  That's not why I decided to post a
    reply to this topic in the first place.)
    
    								-mark.

    re .31 (RIPPLE::KOTTERRI)
    
>    Just to add a bit more to what Charles said, Latter-day Saints believe
>    that resurrected persons have a tangible body of flesh and bone, but
>    that a resurrected body does not have blood. Thus it is correct to say
>    that a resurrected body is flesh and *bone* but incorrect to say that
>    it is flesh and *blood*.
    
    	I think some "born again Christians" believe that too (that Jesus
    has a body of flesh and bone, but no blood).  Although I suppose one
    can argue that 'with God, all things are possible', I don't see this
    idea as being Biblical in the slightest, since (as I quoted before) the
    Bible says "the life [lit. soul] of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev
    17:11 RSV).  'Fleshly' life, and human life in particular, doesn't
    exist when there is no blood in the flesh.
    
    	Also (to repeat another point), the Bible says that "flesh and
    blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor 15:50 RSV).  Asserting
    that Jesus exists as "flesh and bone" (without blood) because of what
    he said at Luke 24:39 is still out of harmony with Paul's words.  Flesh
    is flesh, with or without blood (and with or without bone, for that
    matter).  If Jesus remained in a fleshly state, he could not have
    "inherited the kingdom of God," even if he didn't have blood in his
    body.  The same applies to 'regular' humans, too.
    
    	Besides all this, aren't you stretching the point of Jesus words
    just a bit?  I mean, yes it's true that Jesus said:
    
    		"See my hands and my feet, that it is
    		I myself; handle me, and see; for a
    		spirit has not flesh and bones as you
    		see that I have" (RSV);
    
    but you might just as well conclude that Jesus, though having a body of
    "flesh and bone", not only doesn't have blood, but also doesn't have
    a heart, or a liver, or kidneys, or lungs, or any other bodily organ
    that processes blood or uses blood to function (which rules out just
    about everything that is in a "body" of flesh).
    
>    We believe the Jesus retains his resurrected body yet, as do all of
>    those who came forth from the grave at the same time. Indeed, we also
>    believe that God the Father also has a glorified body of flesh and
>    *bone*, ...
    
    	I knew that ... I also know that that's way off the mark of any
    teaching found in the Bible.  (Tell me, though, do you believe that
    God, in his body of "flesh and bone" eats and excretes like other
    bodily life forms?)
    
    								-mark.

    Re: Note 118.81 by ILLUSN::SORNSON

    Hi Mark,
    
>   'Fleshly' life, and human life in particular, doesn't
>   exist when there is no blood in the flesh.
    
    I agree that mortal life does not exist without blood. However, upon
    resurrection, the body is changed to make it immortal. One of the
    changes, according to LDS belief, is that it no longer has blood.
    Rather, some different fluid courses through the body. 
     
>   If Jesus remained in a fleshly state, he could not have
>   "inherited the kingdom of God," even if he didn't have blood in his
>   body.  The same applies to 'regular' humans, too.
    
    According to LDS belief, something about the combination of flesh *and*
    blood is what makes the body mortal and unable to inherit the kingdom
    of God. Flesh itself is apparently not such a restriction. 
    
    Jesus rose with a body of flesh and bones, as he testified. He retained
    that body and ascended into heaven with that body. The Bible does not
    teach that Jesus layed his body down again after the resurrection. He
    did not die again by laying down that body. He became immortal and he
    inherited the kingdom of God with his body of flesh and bones. 
    
    Also remember that, when Jesus rose from the dead with his physical
    body, so did many others, and they appeared to many. The reality of the
    resurrection means that we shall come forth with (perfected) physical
    bodies, just as Jesus did, no more to die.
    
>   do you believe that
>   God, in his body of "flesh and bone" eats and excretes like other
>   bodily life forms?
    
    This is not known, as far as I am aware.
    
    Rich
                                              

    re .85 (RIPPLE::KOTTERI)
    
    Rich,
    
    	Hello again, and thanks for the answers.  They do help me
    understand your position more fully.  If you threw in a few more direct
    references to the Bible, I'm sure that would help me understand even
    further why you believe what you do.
    
    	I'm sure your answers adequately represent the LDS view on those
    matters, but you haven't yet said much to convince me that your views
    are really substantiated by the Bible.  Below, I'll explain further why
    I feel that way.
    
>    I agree that mortal life does not exist without blood. However, upon
>    resurrection, the body is changed to make it immortal. One of the
>    changes, according to LDS belief, is that it no longer has blood.
>    Rather, some different fluid courses through the body. 
    
    	I agree that the resurrection to immortal life in the heavens
    entails giving the resurrected ones a different sort of body (which
    Paul calls a "spiritual body" at 1Cor 15:44), but I disagree that it's 
    a body of flesh.  Further, even if those bodies were "flesh" of some
    sort, when viewed against the Bible alone, it's purely speculation on
    your part that "some different fluid courses through the body" (though
    I wouldn't be surprised if LDS writings, which you accept as Scripture,
    make this exact assertion).
    
    	I take it that you feel that although the Bible says that "flesh
    and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," if a person is made up of
    "flesh and some other fluid", that scripture isn't violated.  Is that
    what you really are saying?  If so, that strikes me as a bit of a
    stretch, since it seems pretty clear to me that that passage means NO
    FLESH of any sort inherits heavenly life.
    
    	To begin with, Paul illustrates the difference between "physical"
    and "spiritual" life by first enumerating various types of fleshly
    life:
    	
    			"For not all flesh is alike;
    			but there is one kind for men,
    			another for animals, another
    			for birds, and another for fish."
    			(1Cor 15:39 RSV)
    
    Notably, he excludes "spiritual" life forms from the list, and includes
    only those that exist as flesh and blood (and bone too, for that
    matter).  He then points out that "celestial" bodies and "terrestrial"
    bodies differ in glory, to illustrate that life in the heavenly realm
    should not necessarily be understood by comparing it to life on earth.
    
    	Finally, he gets right to the point about the resurrection to
    heaven:
    
    		"So is it with the resurrection of the dead.
    		... It is sown a physical body, it is raised
    		a spiritual body.  If there is a physical
    		body, there is also a spiritual body.  Thus
    		it is written, "The first man became a 
    		living being [lit. soul]"; the last Adam
    		[Jesus] became a life-giving spirit. ...
    		The first man was from the earth, a man of
    		dust, the second man is from heaven.  As
    		was the man of dust [i.e., of flesh], so
    		are those who are of the dust; and as is the
    		man from heaven, so are those who are of 
    		heaven.  Just as we have borne the image of
    		the man of dust, we shall also bear the image
    		of the man of heaven.  I tell you this, ...
    		flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
    		of God ...  For this perishable nature must put
    		on the imperishable, and this mortal nature
    		must put on immortality."  (1Cor 15:42,44-45,
    		48-50,53 RSV)
    
    By comparing the first man (Adam) as a living being (or soul) of flesh
    and blood -- manufactured out of the dust -- with Jesus as the "last
    Adam" who "became a life giving spirit" when he was resurrected, Paul
    explains the difference in kind between a "physical body" and a
    "spiritual body".  "Physical bodies" are human bodies made out of the
    "dust" (or physical elements) as flesh and blood.  "Spiritual bodies"
    are made of "spirit" (whatever that means).  By your own reading of
    Luke 24:39, Jesus cannot, in reality, be said to possess a body of
    "flesh and bone", since "spirits" are not made of flesh and bone, and
    Paul unambiguously says that Jesus is a "spirit" (i.e., a "life-giving
    spirit").
    
    	By the same reasoning, I don't see that it is possible to
    truthfully assert that God (i.e., "the Father") possesses a body of
    "flesh and bone" (though not with blood), since the Bible says that
    "God is spirit" (RSV) or "God is a Spirit" (KJV) [John 4:24]; and
    again, by your own rule, spirits don't have flesh and bones.
    
    	Getting back to Paul's dissertation on the heavenly resurrection,
    the NEB commentators provide the following background information to
    help establish the historical, religious context of Paul's remarks:
    
    		"The immortality of the soul freed of its
    		bodily prison was an idea natural to Greeks.
    		The Corinthians seem to have balked at the
    		idea of bodily resurrection.  Paul agrees
    		that the flesh has no part in the kingdom,
    		arguing that there are many kinds of bodies
    		and that Christians will receive bodies
    		made not of flesh, but of spirit."  (see
    		NEB ftn. in loc.)
    
    Since the pagan Greeks already believed that humans possessed immortal
    (and etherial) souls that separated from the body at death, the idea
    that they would live on in the spirit realm wasn't hard to convey.  The
    problem was to explain to those former pagans who became Christians
    that life after death didn't continue automatically by freeing the
    immortal soul as an unbounded, and continuing form, but rather that it
    would have to be restored to them by resurrection (at the sounding of
    the "last trumpet"), at which time they would be given "spirit bodies"
    to sustain them in immortality in the heavenly realm.  In other words,
    once resurrected, they would no longer be creatures of flesh (or
    "dust"), but would instead be spirit creatures of a higher, more
    glorious nature.  In reality, humans don't possess souls, but rather
    they ARE souls.  Once in heaven, they would retain their identities,
    but hold a different form, or be made of a different substance (i.e.,
    spirit, not "dust").
    
>    According to LDS belief, something about the combination of flesh *and*
>    blood is what makes the body mortal and unable to inherit the kingdom
>    of God. Flesh itself is apparently not such a restriction. 
    
    	As a Mormon belief, that's as maybe, but that idea (that flesh
    without blood can inherit the kingdom) doesn't come from the Bible.  It
    seems to me that Paul makes it pretty clear that flesh itself is done
    away with.  Fleshly life is associated entirely and only with life on
    earth, as composed out of the elements (or "dust") of the ground. 
    Heavenly life is "spiritual", and those creatures who reside there are
    "spirits", and thus non-fleshly.
    
>    Jesus rose with a body of flesh and bones, as he testified. He retained
>    that body and ascended into heaven with that body. The Bible does not
>    teach that Jesus layed his body down again after the resurrection. He
>    did not die again by laying down that body. He became immortal and he
>    inherited the kingdom of God with his body of flesh and bones.
    
    	According to the Jerusalem Bible translators, the disciples
    "thought they were seeing a ghost" (Luke 24:38), so Jesus reassured
    them that he was real by saying, "a ghost has no flesh and bones as you
    can see I have."  Expressions in the Bible that combine "flesh" and
    "blood" go all the way back to the creation account, where Adam
    exclaimed that Eve was "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gen
    2:23), and generally express the thought of close kinship (cf. Gen
    29:14; Jg 9:2; 2Sam 5:1; 19:12; 1Ch 11:1.  Respecting Job, Satan
    challenged Jehovah to, "touch [Job] as far as his bone and his flesh
    and see whether he will not curse you to your very face" (2:5 NWT).
    This form of expression obviously doesn't exclude the presence of blood
    in the flesh; it just expresses that fact that we exist in a solid, and
    structured form, which symbollically is both an assurance of reality to
    us as ordinary humans and a point of common bonding.  Jesus, at Luke
    24:39, was simply reassuring them in terms that they would easily
    understand that he wasn't a "ghost".
    
    	Aside from this one instance, the evidence is rather to the
    contrary, that Jesus is not a being of "flesh", but is a spirit
    creature (cf. 1Pet 3:18 again, that he was "put to death in the flesh
    but made alive in the spirit).  I agree that the Bible doesn't teach
    that Jesus "layed down his body again after his resurrection", but it
    also doesn't teach that he was actually resurrected with a fleshly body
    again.  In fact, to the contrary, it teaches that he forever
    surrendered his life in a body of flesh:
    
    		"Consequently, when Christ came into the
    		world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings
    		thou hast not desired, but a body hast
    		thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings
    		and sin offerings thou hast taken no
    		pleasure. Then I said, 'Lo, I have come to 
    		do thy will, O God,'" ... And by that will 
    		we have been sanctified through the offering 
    		of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."  
    		(Heb 10:5-7,10 RSV)
    
    Since he "offered" his "prepared" body of flesh "once for all", if he
    was given it back again, he would, in effect, have taken back his
    offering.  Here, Christ is said to have fulfilled the prophetic pattern
    that was established in the Law, with his fleshly death being that which
    all the "burnt offerings" and "sin offerings" foreshadowed.  Although
    Christ's body wasn't literally burned up, and in THAT way offered, the
    last chapter of Hebrews (which I quoted before) makes it clear that the
    destruction of his body was permanant:
    	
    			"For the bodies of those animals
    			whose blood is brought into the 
    			sanctuary by the high priest as
    			a sacrifice for sin are burned
    			up outside the camp.  So Jesus also
    			suffered outside the gate in order
    			to sanctify the people through
    			his own blood."  (Heb 12:11,12 RSV)
    
    Jesus' death (in the flesh) "outside the gate" corresponded with the
    practice of burning up the bodies of the sacrificial animals outside of
    the temple or sanctuary boundaries.  If, as you say, Jesus was in fact
    given his same fleshly body back when he was resurrected, then his body
    was not figuratively "burned up outside the camp", which is what this
    passage says happened.
    
>                                                         The reality of the
>    resurrection means that we shall come forth with (perfected) physical
>    bodies, just as Jesus did, no more to die.
    
    	For the record (again for what it's worth), my understanding is
    that there are actually TWO types of resurrection; the first being the
    "first resurrection" (cf. Rev 20:6) to spirit life, which is granted to
    only a limitted few, who are chosen to rule from heaven with Christ
    over the earth during the millenium; and the second being a more
    general resurrection of humans back to life on earth as humans (cf. John
    5:28-29), which also takes place during the millenium.  Those who are
    brought back to life on earth are given bodies of flesh and bone AND
    blood (just like we have now, but in better shape :-), whereas those
    who are raised to heavenly life are given spirit bodies that are
    suitable for life there.
    
    								-mark.

    Re: Note 118.86 by ILLUSN::SORNSON

    Hi Mark, 
    
    As Ed so aptly pointed out in his recent note, it is impossible to find
    time to delve into all of the aspects of these topics as much as one
    would like, given other work and family priorities and such. This is
    admittedly a short response, not intended to fully address everything
    that you have said, because I don't have time right now. 
    
    I must differ with your interpretation that Jesus was not resurrected
    with a physical body. Jesus said "handle me and see...". The bodies of
    many others also rose, which I have also pointed out a number of times. 
        
    Certainly, Jesus was quickened by the spirit, as are all who are
    resurrected, as Paul testified. But when Paul testified so beautifully
    of the reality of the resurrection to the Corinthians, he also told
    them that men are resurrected with bodies that are incorruptable. He
    spoke of how, in the resurrection, bodies are raised, some with the
    glory of the sun, some the glory of the moon, and some the glory of the
    stars. We no more have a natural body that can die, but we have an
    immortal body, permanently quickened by the spirit, which can also be
    referred to as a spiritual body, and which can die no more. 
    
    Even Job understood this, when he testified that "though after my skin
    worms destroy this body, yet in my *flesh* shall I see God (Job
    19:26)". 
    
    Truly, a corruptible body (of flesh and blood) cannot inherit the
    kingdom of God, but an incorruptible body of flesh and bone (as Jesus
    testified he had in the resurrection) can. The blood is not only what
    gives mortal bodies their life, but it also makes them corruptible.
    They are made incorruptible in the resurrection. They are quickened by
    the spirit and thus are also referred to as spiritual bodies, not to be
    confused with bodies consisting purely of spirit. 
    
>   	By the same reasoning, I don't see that it is possible to
>   truthfully assert that God (i.e., "the Father") possesses a body of
>   "flesh and bone" (though not with blood), since the Bible says that
>   "God is spirit" (RSV) or "God is a Spirit" (KJV) [John 4:24]; and
>   again, by your own rule, spirits don't have flesh and bones.
    
    Allen has covered this scriptural reference in 4.2, and how it remains
    consistent with LDS belief. 
    
    As to Jesus taking his body again in the resurrection negating his
    sacrifice of his body, I would say that it was for this intent that the
    his sacrifice was made, so that he could break the bands of death and
    redeem us, as sinners. In Him was the Law of Moses fulfilled. His
    sacrifice was the culmination of all sacrifices before, and it also
    included taking upon Him all the suffering of mankind, in the Garden of
    Gethsemane. Indeed, his sacrifice was infinite. 
    
    If he did not rise with his physical body in the resurrection, then
    what became of his physical body that lay in the tomb? He *rose* from
    the dead, as the scriptures testify, just as we shall. Though worms
    destroy *our* bodies, yet in *our* flesh, we shall see God, just as Job
    said. 
    
    Of the resurrection, the prophet Amulek testified to the people of
    Ammonihah in the Book of Mormon: 
    
         Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the
         death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that
         all shall be raised from this temporal death. 
         
         The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect
         form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame,
         even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand
         before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright
         recollection of all our guilt. 
         
         Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both
         bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the
         righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their
         heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect
         frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be
         arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father,
         and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged
         according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be
         evil. 
         
         Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the
         mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal
         body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an
         immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto
         life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their
         bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spirtual and
         immortal, that they can no more see corruption. (Alma 11:42-45) 
         
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

================================================================================
Note 118.73               Promptings of the Holy Ghost                  73 of 89
BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"                           64 lines  13-DEC-1989 14:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	RE: Note 286.23 ILLUSN::SORNSON 

    
>    but I don't believe that the Bible teaches that
>    humans exist with a "spirit" that co-resides in (or with) their living
>    bodies.  
    
		This is where I feel you are wrong.  The Bible does indeed 
	teach that there is a separation between spirit and body.  The spirit
	would have to co-reside with the body because that is the only way
	they could exist until the resurrection when the are inseparably
	joined for all eternity.  Now the Bible has many a case of evil
	spirits co-residing within one persons body, but I will not use them.
	The best example in my mind is Christ himself.  In Luke 24 we find

	36. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them,
	    and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
	37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and they supposed that
	    they had seen a spirit.
	38. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts
	    arise in your hearts?
	39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me,
	    and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

	Here is the fact that we have spirits that look like ourselves;
	else why would the disciples be afraid in the first place?
	Second we can see that Christ also says that spirits do not have a
	body of flesh and bones.  These scriptures indicate to me that there
	are spirit bodies and there are fleshly bodies.  When Christ's 
	fleshly body lay in the tomb for three days, what happened to his 
	spirit?  That is found in 1 Peter 3.

	18. For Christ also hath once suffer for sins, the just for the
	    unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in
	    the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
	19. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
	20. Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of
	    God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
	    wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

	Here the spirits of the people killed by the flood in Noah's day
	were kept in a prison of spirits.  Note that the flesh can be killed
	but not the spirit.  Lastly, there is again in Luke 24 verse 46
	where Christ told his disciples "Thus it is written, and thus it 
	behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:".
	Now what rose - his fleshly body - and what made it rise - his
	spirit body.

	The resurrection of Christ is discussed very well by Paul in
	1 Cor. 15:12-29.  In verses 42-58 Paul talks about the different
	states of mankind and points out the spiritual and fleshly bodies.
	There are so many more references in the Bible about our spirit
	bodies.  Maybe Allen has already covered some of these and can point
	you to the right places.

    
>    	Tell me, do you sometimes actually hear a "still small voice," or
>    are you just speaking figuratively?
    
	Yes, there have been times when I did indeed "hear" a voice.

	Charles
    

    Does anyone have any explanations for when Christ was crucified and
    when the resurrection took place.
    
    Traditionally, it is supposed to be Friday for his death and Sunday
    monring for his resurrections.  But he, himself, said in Matt112:39-40
    that he "would be three days and three nights in the heart of the 
    earth".  Friday to Sunday is neither 3 days nor 3 nights.  According to
    scriptures the women went to the tomb early on Sunday morning and he
    had ALREADY been resurrected.
    
    On interpretation I read put his death on Wednesday.  A complex
    argument was given that on the week of his death, estimated to be 31AD,
    two Sabbaths were observed, the usual weekly Saturday and a  special
    Annual Sabbth (of which there were only 7).  Thus, when they took
    Christ down in preparation for the Sabbath, it was this Annual Sabbath.
    If interested, I can put that information into this note.  
    
    I am just wondering if anyone has an explanation for how Christ
    fulfilled his 3 days and 3 nights. Friday death to Sunday resurrection
    does not work. Friday night and Saturday night make 2 nights (where's
    the third?). Friday day and Saturday day make 2 days (where's the
    third?).
    
    Given my previous notes about the Germanic/Anglo-Saxon spring
    celebration of the Moon/Spring/Fertility Goddess Oestre, I am starting
    to think that Easter, as celebrated today, is a pagan holiday that has
    been whitewashed with the thinnest of Christian "paint"; similar to
    what was done with Christmas, christianizing the Roman celebration of
    the Saturnalia.
    
    Your thoughts on this matter are welcome.
    
    Paul
    

	RE: <<< Note 401.1 by CAPNET::RONDINA >>>
          -< When did Christ die and resurrect? >-

>    Does anyone have any explanations for when Christ was crucified and
>    when the resurrection took place.
    
>    Traditionally, it is supposed to be Friday for his death and Sunday
>    monring for his resurrections.  But he, himself, said in Matt112:39-40
>    that he "would be three days and three nights in the heart of the 
>    earth".  Friday to Sunday is neither 3 days nor 3 nights.  According to
>    scriptures the women went to the tomb early on Sunday morning and he
>    had ALREADY been resurrected.
    
	One thing of Jewish reconning must be remembered here--days of time 
	were from sunset to sunset.

	Jesus died Friday afternoon, and he was placed into the tomb before
	sunset Friday night.  That would be day 1.  Saturday sunset would be 
	the end of day 2.  After Saturday sunset would be day 3.   

	Saturday sunset ----------------+
	Friday sunset -+		|
		       |		|
	+--------------+----------------+--------------+
	| Friday Day 1 | Saturday Day 2 | Sunday Day 3 |
	+--------------+----------------+--------------+

	Jesus was ressurrected on "the third day" as he said in
	Matt. 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Mark 9:31, 10:34; Luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33.

	Eight verses of scripture refer to "the third day," and they were
	all fulfilled.  How you want to reconcile the one scripture is up
	to you as I don't know.

	Charles

    However the time is measured, the main points of Easter (to me) are:
    
    	Love
    	The Atonement
    	The Crucifixion
    	The Resurrection
    
    Words cannot express my gratitude for these acts, the greatest gifts
    that could be given, given to all by the one who least needed them.
    
    Re .7: good point, Charles.  I was planning to enter some text from James
    Talmage's _Jesus the Christ_ which make the same point; in fact I will.
    But first, a quote from the Book of Mormon, which does mention three
    hours and three days, but does not tell how these were measured or
    counted.  3 Nephi 8:19-23:
    
    	19  And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the
    lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the
    earth did cease - for behold, they did last for about the space of
    three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater;
    nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about
    the space of three hours - and then behold, there was darkness upon the
    face of the land.
    	20 And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the
    face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not
    fallen could feel the vapor of darkness;
    	21 And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither
    candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their
    fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at
    all;
    	22 And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer,
    neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the
    mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land.
    	23 And it came to pass that it did last for the spaqe of three days
    that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and howling
    and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the
    groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great
    destruction which had come upon them.
     
    
    From _Jesus the Christ, A Study of the Messiah and His Mission according to
    Holy Scriptures both Ancient and Modern_ by James E. Talmage
    
    			NOTES TO CHAPTER 37
    
    	1. *Precise Time and Manner of Christ's Emergence from the Tomb Not
    Known.* - Our Lord definitely predicted His resurrection from the dead
    on the third day, (Matt. 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Mark 9:31; 10:34, Luke
    9:22, 13:32, 18:33), and the angels at the tomb (Luke 24:7) and the
    risen Lord in Person (Luke 24:46) verified the fulfilment of the
    prophecies; and apostles so testified in later years (Acts 10:40, 
    1 Cor. 15:4).  This specification of the third day must not be 
    understood as meaning after three full days.  The Jews began their 
    counting of the daily hours with sunset; therefore the hour before sunset 
    and the hour following belonged to different days.  Jesus died and was 
    interred during Friday afternoon.  His body lay in the tomb, dead, 
    during part of Friday (first day), throughout Saturday, or as we divide 
    the days, from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday (second day), and part 
    of Sunday (third day).  We know not at what hour between Saturday sunset 
    and Sunday dawn He rose.
    	The fact that an earthquake occurred, and that the angel of the
    Lord descended and rolled the stone from the portal of the tomb in the
    early dawn of Sunday - for so we infer from Matt. 28:1,2 - does not
    prove that Christ had not already risen.  The great stone was rolled
    back and the inside of the sepulchre exposed to view, so that those who
    came could see for themselves that the Lord's body was no longer there;
    it was not necessary to open the portal in order to afford an exit to
    the resurrected Christ.  A resurrected body, though of tangible
    substance, and possessing all the organs of the mortal tabernacle, is
    not bound to earth by gravitation, nor can it be hindered in its
    movements by material barriers.  To us who conceive of motion only in
    the directions incident to the three dimensions of space, the passing
    of a solid, such as a living body of flesh and bones, through stone
    walls, is necessarily incomprehensible.  But that resurrected beings
    move in accordance with laws making such passage possible and to them
    natural, is evidenced not only by the instance of the risen Christ, but
    by the movements of other resurrected personages.  Thus, in September,
    1823, Moroni, the Nephite prophet who had died about 400 A.D., appeared
    to Joseph Smith in his chamber, three times during one night, coming
    and going without hindrance incident to walls or roof (see P. of GP.,
    Joseph Smith 2:43; also _Articles of Faith_, 1:12-14).  That Moroni was
    a resurrected man is shown by his corporeity manifested in his handling
    of the metallic plates on which was inscribed the record known to us as
    the Book of Mormon.  So also resurrected beings possess the power of
    rendering themselves visible or invisible to the physical vision of
    mortals.
    
    

    Thanks for the entries about the 3 days thing.  Yes, I agree you can
    find 3 days, i.e. part of Friday, Saturday and part of Sunday.  But
    Christ also said he would be "3 nights in the earth" (Matt 12:40).
    Friday night, Saturday night and... No matter how you cut it there is
    no 3rd night. Either resurrection did not happen on Sunday or he
    was crucified on some day other than Friday.
    
    Personally I like the Wednesday explanation.  It works better in
    fulfilling the 3 days and 3 nights requirement.
    
    See my dilemma?
    
    Paul
    

	RE: <<< Note 401.9 by CAPNET::RONDINA >>>
            -< Yes, but where are the 3 nights? >-

>    Thanks for the entries about the 3 days thing.  Yes, I agree you can
>    find 3 days, i.e. part of Friday, Saturday and part of Sunday.  But
>    Christ also said he would be "3 nights in the earth" (Matt 12:40).

	In this case I would have to consider the one scripture over the
	other eight.

>    Either resurrection did not happen on Sunday or he
>    was crucified on some day other than Friday.
>    
>    Personally I like the Wednesday explanation.  It works better in
>    fulfilling the 3 days and 3 nights requirement.
>    
>    See my dilemma?
    
	Paul,
		Yes, I see the dilemma, and I agree with you.  I also have
	a personal opinion that if one scripture bothers me, especially when
	it could contridict many others, then I leave it alone.  It is the
	same with the creation in "seven days."  There are many things we
	can not yet explain, or have not all the information.  Don't let one
	little scripture hang you up.  Christ repeatedly stated that he would
	arise from the dead on the third day, and he did.  The fact that he 
	did is really all that is important.  Overcoming death both physically
	and spiritually is what really concerns us and is pertinent to our 
	salvation.  Anything else isn't.

	Charles

I think as in many cases where we think scriptures conflict, it is because we
don't have all the facts.  I was told by a Jewish convert that the term sabbeth
refers to many holy days in addition to the friday/saturday combination. 

We read Sabbath and assume friday, but in fact the most likely sabbath of
interest was the passover which happens on the night of the first full moon
after the Vernal Equinox (I make no claims for correct spelling anywhere in
this note ;-).  That can happen on any day of the week, and could very likely
have been a thursday/friday combination in the year the Lord was Crucified
which allows him to have been in the tomb thursday night, friday night, and
saturday night.

My guess on this non essential question.

Roy

    re: 11
    
    Hello,
    
    I can see how the Thursday cruxification would be more plausible than
    the Wednesday cruxification.  I believe I have read in the NT where
    the Saviour arose from the grave "in the morning" "being the first day 
    of the week" (or something to that effect) on the third day.  That would 
    therefore satisfy the scriptures and the theory how long He was there.
    Thus Thursday sundown He was in the tomb, where he stayed through
    Friday sundown (1st day), through Saturday sundown (2nd day) and arose
    in the third day, Sunday.  
    
    This is all well and good in theory, providing that He isn't reported
    (read scriptures) that He was in the tomb a full three days, which 
    would place the burial back on Wednesday and the resurrection sometime
    on the Saturday evening (after sundown).
    
    Just a thought.
    
    John.