A Different Way to Look at the Morning and Afternoon of the First Resurrection

I believe the "days" of creation are better understood as "(radically differing in length) periods of time" - and that any one of the days, for example, could have been millions of years in length.

With that background, the morning and afternoon of the first resurrection might last millions of years - or even stretch into the (plural) eternities.

We have SUCH a limited grasp of time that I'm am certain these terms are symbolic and nearly unknowable for now.

Mormon Reincarnation and Universalism

I am a universalist in the Biblical sense of "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) I don't see how any believing Christian can address that verse (or the entire chapter of 1 Cor. 15, actually) without being "universalist" in that way - since "all who die in Adam" means "all who ever have lived". In Mormon terms, that means I believe all who ever have lived (minus very few Sons of Perdition, who are the exception that proves the rule) will be "saved" and receive a degree of glory.

I also am universalist in that I believe exaltation is "available" for all - and I am "more universalist" than many other Mormons in that I believe we will be shocked in the end at the percentages that make up the various kingdoms. Frankly, I don't preach reincarnation, since it's not part of the Christian paradigm, but I see a "reincarnative process" in our theology that is missing completely from the rest of Christianity - that informs how we are universalist at heart.

At the very least, we teach of 5-6 distinct states of being - and one more if I am allowed to define creatively.

1) Intelligence (no idea, really, what that means);

2) pre-mortal spirit (no idea, really, what that means other than "created" by exalted parents - or what process was used in that creation);

3) Mortal human (a combination of "immortal" spirit and mortal body);

4) post-mortal spirit (a pre-mortal spirit with more memories); [*grin*]

5) post-resurrection being (which might or might not be "separated" [sorry for the pun] from);

6) post-judgment, "glorified" being (assigned to a kingdom overseen by a God [Father, Son or Holy Ghost].

7) The 7th stage would be Heavenly Parent.

It is noteworthy that the first SIX stages are universal in our theology. The only one that is not universalist in every way is #7 - Heavenly Parent. It also is instructive to note that those who accuse Mormons of being arrogant exclusionists almost "universally" are less universalist than we are. That is one of the most ironic aspects of religious debate I can imagine - and it influences my frustration with conversations with others about temple ordinances. Those discussions generally are couched in terms of the exclusionary arrogance such ordinances illuminate, when, in fact, they are the practical core of our universalism.

Why I Don't Like to Say that God Is "Embodied"

"Embodied" is a word we use sometimes when talking of God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ. I personally don't like to use it - specifically because of the baggage that surrounds defining the term as people struggle to explain exactly what it means. Let me try to explain.

1) The most concise statement is the one in D&C 130:22, which states:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit."

2) That appears to be a straightforward statement of "embodiment" - until you consider that we believe Spirits are "embodied" in a very real and "tangible" way.

D&C 131:7-8 says:

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

3) We speak generally of "flesh" as the outward surface of our bodies (the flexible structure "within" which we are organized) and "bones" as the inward, skeletal structure of our bodies (the "calcified" structure "around" which we are organized). Each of these aspects of our physical bodies is corruptible and subject to decay. The question then becomes, what does it mean to have a resurrected "body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's"?

By the way, we use the term "body of flesh and bones" because that was the way Jesus described His resurrected body to the disciples to whom He appeared, with whom he spoke and for whom He ate in Luke 24:37-39:

" But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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."

So, the D&C makes it clear that spirits are "tangible" and "embodied" just as our physical bodies are - only to a different degree and "discernibility". Given these statements, it becomes very difficult to say with certainty exactly what it means for God to be "tangible" with a body of "flesh and bones" and to be "embodied".

That is a long-winded way of saying that I hesitate to use the term "embodied" specifically I believe it does not describe the condition of the Father (and the Son) in any meaningful way - given our belief that spirits also are "embodied" in a very real way. I prefer to use a description that focuses more on our relation, and I think it is accurate to say that literally "becoming perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" - literally becoming god-like in the fullest sense by reaching a state of godhood similar to that of the Father - literally "growing up to be like Father" - is something that is not found in the orthodox Christian theology of our day. In fact, if there is one thing that gets us labeled as a heretical, damnable cult, that probably is it - even though it is taught MUCH more clearly in the Bible than in the Book of Mormon.

Given all of that, rather than saying that God is "embodied", I generally say something like, "God is our actual Father" - meaning a creator whose offspring can grow to become like Him - whose children can grow up and approximate Him - who is actually a Father in every sense of the word, not just the "spiritual" (or allegorical or symbolic or figurative) ones.

Honoring the Cross as Mormons

I read a wonderful post yesterday at By Common Consent by one of my favorite writers, Russell Arben Fox. It is entitled “Friday Reflections on Mormonism and the Cross” - and I recommend the entire post.

The following is not my typical Saturday resolutions post, but since my New Year's resolution for the past three years has been focused on various aspects of becoming more Christ-like, and since this is Easter weekend, I want to copy here my response on BCC to Russell's post - then add a bit more about Easter:

When I talk about the Atonement, I also reference the Sermon on the Mount – and I emphasize the command to be perfect. The wording in verse 48 says, “Be ye therefore perfect.” In the overall context of Chapter 5, I agree that this conclusion means that we become “perfect” by becoming the type of “blessed” person described in the previous verses. Finally, our footnotes for verse 48 define being perfect as being “complete, whole, fully developed” – and I re-word that as “finished”.

It only was at the end of his time on the cross that Jesus declared, “It is finished” – just before he “gave up the ghost”. Iow, it only was after the cross that the Atonement was complete – that Jesus fulfilled his own command to “be ye therefore perfect.”

I honor Gethsemane, but when we ignore Golgotha we worship an incomplete, paritally developed, imperfect Savior and Redeemer.

There have been any number of pronouncements in the history of this world that carried special significance for those beyond the people to whom they were addressed. Among them, within just our Christian heritage, are the following:

"Multiply and replenish the earth."

"Moses, my son."

"For unto us a child is born."

"Thou art blessed among women."

"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear him."

"It is finished."

All of these have grave import, but the greatest pronouncement in the history of the world might be simply:

"He is not here, for he is risen."

I simply add my voice here and state, with my own conviction, that, in a very real and powerful and important way:

He can be here, for he is risen.

Faith and the Resurrection

The reason the disciples had such a hard time understanding and accepting the resurrection was because they had no frame of reference to envision a physical, spatially-limited God. When Luke 24 describes their reaction to the appearance of the resurrected Jesus, it is explicit that they thought they were viewing a spirit. After all, they had a long history of recorded angelic/spirit visitations. Mary herself had been visited by an angel, and Moses and Elias had appeared at the Mount of Transfiguration in front of Peter, James and John. A spirit God they could understand.

Jesus went out of his way to demonstrate that the resurrection did not result in a spiritual condition. In Luke 24:39, he said explicitly, "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." He then ate in front of them to drive the point home completely. THEN, and only then, "opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (v.45)

Personally, I don't think it takes much faith at all to accept and believe in the limitless, formless, passionless, vast, spirit God of the Westminster Confession. That's pretty easy, frankly, since ALL religious traditions include that type of belief. It's much harder to understand and accept a physically resurrected, tangible, spatially-limited Being - but that's the message of the unique God of the New Testament. That takes real "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - since no other religion teaches it. It's easy to quote other verses to make the counter-argument, but to do so one has to ignore the words that are attributed to Jesus, himself. I'd rather work from the opposite assumption - that Jesus' words represent the best picture and the other verses need to be interpreted based on those words, even if it takes more faith to do so.

Explaining the Illogical: The Case for Faith in a Physical Resurrection

One of the things I like most about Mormonism is the almost extreme reliance on “explaining” rather than “convincing”. I don’t go into any of the discussions in which I participate in the Bloggernacle trying to “convince” anyone; I really don’t. I have no expectation that my words will be so eloquent that a reader will be compelled by my genius to acknowledge that Mormonism really is the kingdom of God on earth. (That was intentional hyperbole.) All I want to do is explain my own beliefs and perspectives - and often point out the double standard we often face in these types of discussions.

Honestly, that’s all. It’s not my job to try to “convert” or “convince” anyone; I understand clearly that there are smarter people than I who can create more intellectually powerful justifications than I. If intellectualism is the standard, then Christianity as a whole is doomed, since much of what it teaches is illogical and impossible to defend intellectually.

Frankly, that is true of all Christianity, but I believe it is true more for Mormons than it is for those who believe strictly in a spiritual state in the afterlife. The ultimate, illogical claim of Christ was not that he, as the Son of God and God incarnate, could forgive sins. After all, the Jews whom he taught believed in a method of forgiveness by God already. The most illogical claim of all was that his actual, physical body rose from the tomb, joined his immortal spirit and transformed into a tangible, immortal soul - and that, in this as with everything, He was and remains the express image of His Father and the example of what we also may become. His most illogical statement might very well have been, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24: 39) After all, the Jews whom he taught had no previous experience whatsoever with such a claim. To them, it was impossible - largely because it was outside the law and, therefore, illogical. The extension of that statement expressed by John, the Beloved, in his Intercessory Prayer to include all who would accept Jesus AND His Father was not accepted by the Jews then, and it simply is unfathomable to most Christians now.

Further proof of this is the denial of it by Christianity for centuries. Creedal statements and ministers have attacked the physicality of the resurrection that provides for us a way to become like God, the Father, and Jesus, the Son, in direct and unequivocal terms - even though other statements like the Westminster Confession of Faith are worded in such a way as to allow for a physical resurrection similar to Mormon doctrine. However, by denying this possibility these statements unintentionally, I believe, undermine the very foundation of the "Good News" that constitutes the need for faith inherent in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul based his great sermon on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 on the reality of that event - that it was and is fundamentally different than anything that had occurred previously in the history of the world, but that it was only the first such event in a LONG line of future, similar events for all God's children.

Denying that uniqueness by making the ultimate result of Jesus' resurrection for us "just another continuation of spiritual life" - disconnected from becoming like God - in all practical terms erases completely the uniqueness of our Christian faith - and that is a serious result, indeed.

For All Those Who Struggle In Any Way

Elder Wirthlin's analogy of God's orchestra needing more than just the piccolos to express the full beauty of His creation became an instant favorite of mine the moment he uttered it. I just came across another talk he gave (in the October 2006 General Conference) [Thanks, Paradox.] that touched me just as deeply and brought tears to my eyes as I read it again - and immediately reminded me of all those who struggle in any way, inside or outside the Church.

I hope it touches you as it touched me on this Easter weekend - especially coming from a truly gentle, beautiful apostle of the Master. I miss Elder Wirthlin, and I am confident, for him, Sunday has come.

"Each of us will have our own Fridays--those days when the universe itself seems shattered and the shards of our world lie littered about us in pieces. We all will experience those broken times when it seems we can never be put together again. We will all have our Fridays.

"But I testify to you in the name of the One who conquered death--Sunday will come. In the darkness of our sorrow, Sunday will come.

"No matter our desperation, no matter our grief, Sunday will come. In this life or in the next, Sunday will come."

Joseph B. Wirthlin, "Sunday Will Come," Ensign, Nov. 2006, page 30

If anyone wants to watch the entire talk, the video can be accessed at:

Sunday Will Come (Video)