Translation, resurrection, and spirit bodies?

[_Danna]

I agree with you that a translated body would be similar to a resurrected one. Possibly a translated body is somewhere between a mortal body and a resurrected body. But digging up one reference where the resurrected body is called a ‘spiritual’ body, does not make it less substantially fleshy than indicated by the weight of evidence from a variety of other sources which confirm that a resurrected body is a tangible body of flesh, bones, sinews and so on. (I am not going to dig up sources here, this is common knowledge to anyone who earned their CTR ring).

If a body of flesh could operate in the spirit world, then, having atoned for your sins in Gethsemene, then Jesus did not actually need to die. He could have been transformed instantly and certainly didn’t need leave his body lying around for three days. But we are told that Jesus’ death was necessary for him to preach in the spirit world.

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also hath once suffered 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;

Jesus’ ministry in the spirit world was restricted to the three days when he was dead. Jesus had to have NO body to preach to the spirits in the spirit world. It was the limited amount of time he was able to spend in the spirit world that prompted Joseph F. Smith’s vision

D&C 138
27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection;
28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

Joseph F. didn't reveal that Jesus just started his mission at that time, and returned frequently to the spirit world after his resurrection. He reveals that Jesus organised a missionary effort to operate in his absence.

So I can’t accept that a translated body or resurrected body is somehow a universal passport to everywhere as it didn’t work like that for Jesus.

[_ludwigm]

I have translation problems.

Most of the citations in this thread make no sense, when I try to translate-to-hungarian-then-understand them.

Please don't forget, I am hungarian. I have to
1. read the english words
2. assemble them to english sentences
3. translate the result to hungarian = make hungarian sentences out of them http://www.answers.com/topic/translate : "1 To render in another language"
4. evaluate the new text
- if the translation (the hungarian text) makes no sense go to step1 and try again until eternity

.

.

Interestingly, in my whole life, I have understood every english text about radars and operational systems.

They are working entities, I think. Should I use the word existing?

.

.

.

[_Danna]

It is confusing enough for native english speaker.

I think there are two basic problems - First, Joseph Smith had his own definitions for some words, so now we have to work backwards to find out what he was talking about. Many words had special meanings too - like 'Celestial marriage' meaning polygamy. The book Mormon Enigma has a good explanation of the way words were used as codes to confuse the gentiles.

The second problem, in my opinion, was that a lot of early doctrine was very very shaky - leading to later redefining of words and concepts, and the development of so-called deeper doctrine over the years as Joseph and probably Sidney Rigdon and others attempted to patch over the gaps. Hence the Doctrine and Covenants being so much more complex and developed than the Book of Mormon = it had to be to explain away apparent contradictions and gaps.

So (from what I have learned over the past few days) a person could undergo:

Transfiguration this was a temporary change to the body that allowed the person to see God without sizzling up - I suspect this term was introduced to get around scriptures that said that no human could look God in the face.

Translation this was a change to the body that stopped a person from dying and kept their spirit in their body. But it was not resurrection. This term is only useful to tie together the concept of the priesthood requiring physical laying on of hands, with restoration of the priesthood to Jesus and apostles by Moses and Elias/Elijah. And also possibly to explain how early prophets were transformed to angels with bodies. People stayed translated until they were 'killed' and instantly resurrected some time later.(What do you mean Moses passed on the keys, he was dead, and no one had been resurrected yet?? Oh that, well actually he was a translated being and so on)

Resurrection Permanent uniting of the sprit and the body after death. The body is improved in some way. Better than translation.

Being a spirit The spirit body is always an adult body having grown up in the pre-mortal existance, spirits can interact with spirits, but not with physical bodies.

[_ludwigm]

...
I think there are two basic problems - First, Joseph Smith had his own definitions for some words, so now we have to work backwards to find out what he was talking about.
...
The second problem, in my opinion, was that a lot of early doctrine was very very shaky - leading to later redefining of words and concepts, and the development of so-called deeper doctrine
...

I see only one problem.

Joseph Smith and many of the early leaders didn't know what they were talking about.

Then, as it was and is true in similar authoritative structures, nobody have dare say "Bro Joe! This makes no sense!" and were born the new items of the dogma, after each other, again and again. The prophets said, so the thinking is over.

Next, today, in the very same authoritative structure the leaders have to explain away every stupid sentence said by previous leaders (the dogma), to save the structure.

[_Sethbag]

Next, today, in the very same authoritative structure the leaders have to explain away every stupid sentence said by previous leaders (the dogma), to save the structure.

Or they don't, and let it wither away and die on the vine, which is apparently what the LDS hierarchy have been doing for the last 30 years.