Eternal Life

[Anonymous]

In Dieter Uchtdorf’s recent First Presidency Message, he stated something that I have always deeply believed, but had never before now seen in the teachings of the church:

Dieter F. Uchtdorf – First Presidency Message, July 2012 Ensign wrote:

Yes, there will be moments of beginnings and moments of endings throughout our lives, but these are only markers along the way of the great middle of our eternal lives

I have always heard in the church that “Eternal Life” is the reward given to those who are exalted. A future state, not something we live in the present. Here was McConkie’s take on this in his rebuke to Eugene England:

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

“The life that God lives is named eternal life. His name, one of them, is ‘Eternal,’ using that word as a noun and not as an adjective, and he uses that name to identify the type of life that he lives. God’s life is eternal life, and eternal life is god’s life. They are one and the same. Eternal life is the goal we shall obtain if we believe and obey and walk uprightly before him. And eternal life consists of two things. It consists of life in the family unit, and, also, of inheriting, receiving, and possessing the fulness of the glory of the Father. Anyone who has each of these things is an inheritor and possessor of the greatest of all gifts of God, which is eternal life.

When we look at the scriptures, we get a mixed story. In LDS scriptures, more than half the references refer to Eternal Life as something to obtain, indeed the concept of exaltation:

D&C 14:7 wrote:

And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

D&C 88:4 wrote:

This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;

But in the new testament, the vast majority of verses speak of ‘having’ eternal life, not obtaining it:

John 6:54 wrote:

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

1 John 5:11,13 wrote:

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

These are among the majority of new testament quotes including the term “Eternal Life” as if it is something to have now, and yes, meaning life beyond the now as well.

But there was something more mystical in Jesus’ statements, having nothing to do with life beyond this moment:

John 17:3 wrote:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Even Joseph Smith spoke in his early scriptures, pre 1830, about eternal life in the present in a mystical (mysteries) sense:

D&C 6:7 wrote:

Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.

So, what is the correct definition of “Eternal Life”?

Is President Uchtdorf on solid ground speaking of us being in the middle of Eternal Life?

[Anonymous]

I see godhood and Eternal Life (God’s life) as descriptive of a condition.

So, I agree completely with Pres. Uchtdorf.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I see godhood and Eternal Life (God’s life) as descriptive of a condition.

So, I agree completely with Pres. Uchtdorf.

? a condition…of this life? a condition to attain somewhere out there in the eternities?

[Anonymous]

I think of Eternal Life as living forever, and living in God’s presence.

In this life I will die, and I am separated from God to dwell in the lone and dreary world for some time, while I work to develop god-like qualities. Therefore, this life is a time to prepare to meet God, it is a work in progress, and a stepping stone towards Eternal Life.

I don’t think we can obtain Eternal Life yet while in this life. We are in the middle, not yet at the destination.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t think we can obtain Eternal Life yet while in this life. We are in the middle, not yet at the destination.

understood. how then do you explain this quote?

Dieter F. Uchtdorf – First Presidency Message, July 2012 Ensign wrote:

Yes, there will be moments of beginnings and moments of endings throughout our lives, but these are only markers along the way of the great middle of our eternal lives

Was Uchtdorf wrong? Why do the majority of new testament verses mentioning Eternal Life refer to it as something that you have and not something you will obtain.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

understood. how then do you explain this quote?

Dieter F. Uchtdorf – First Presidency Message, July 2012 Ensign wrote:

Yes, there will be moments of beginnings and moments of endings throughout our lives, but these are only markers along the way of the great middle of our eternal lives

Was Uchtdorf wrong? Why do the majority of new testament verses mentioning Eternal Life refer to it as something that you have and not something you will obtain.

Our lives are eternal. What we “obtain” is just another phase of the eternity that is our existence. The fullness of that in the here and now, if you’re a believer, is to know God and Jesus. Jesus speaks of the now because that is what we have. To think of it as some sort of prize means that we have nothing until we have that and that is clearly not the case, speaking as a marginal believer.

[Anonymous]

In this life.

I believe in salvation and exaltation in this life – that the next life is just an extension of this life, so there is no next life – that it’s all this life – that it’s all one eternal round – that time is measured only unto man – etc.

For a slightly different take on it, written with a very focused goal in mind and intentionally not trying to be expansive outside that focus:

“Salvation in This Life” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/01/danger-of-doing-it-on-our-own.html)

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Should we want to discuss this further, may I suggest you open a new topic on what “etermal life” means? It really isn’t part of the TR interview topic.

This is from the TR interview thread. Looks like you beat me to it!

Really, the direction I was going with this is different from the direction you are going, so I’m not sure whether this is a thread jack or not. On the other hand, how many threads about the meaning of eternal life do we really need?

I’ll just plow on, and if we need another thread I guess one can be started.

The aspect of “eternal life” that interests me is the Heaven part. Living with God forever, etc. As I said on the other thread, until quite recently I thought that baptism was the gateway to what Jesus referred to as being “saved”. A more careful reading of current LDS sources suggests that it’s actually temple marriage. My bishop says that also and was a little surprised anybody could find anything else in the teachings of the church, although I have heard PH leaders teach this also, that baptism was the gateway to heaven.

So often people disagree in these threads because their underlying assumptions are different (uh oh, another possible thread jack). One tangle I perpetually get into with other “middle way” types is that, for me, the church gets to define what it is and the leaders have to be taken seriously. When the leaders continually claim the LDS church is the only true church, they set a high standard for it and for their own authority and I think they should be held accountable for that authority and for those statements. Thus I can have a crisis of faith over a single Ensign article where one GA quotes Marion G Romney as saying my salvation is dependent on my belief (or not) in the 1838 first vision story, where others just brush this stuff off and don’t worry about it.

OK, back to the point.

In the other thread you refer to “speculation”, and in this one you talk about whether Uchtdorf is correct or not in his use of the term eternal life. My feeling is that in order to consider yourself a believing and fully participating member of the LDS church, these men and their authority has to be recognized and their statements considered to establish some level of doctrine. I don’t think it’s possible to go every Sunday and hold a calling and maybe a TR and look like a good Mormon to others while still saying “well, the stuff they say is just their opinion” etc.

Although on the other hand D Todd Christofferson’s Sunday morning talk from the last GC has to be considered also, as well as a recent LDS newsroom post suggesting that the doctrine of the church was established by the standard works.

To me it’s all a mass of confusion at times. These guys claim to speak for God, and then you try to line up all their pronouncements and just go crazy trying to fit it all together.

I guess where I’m coming from on this is that in general recent talks and statements in “True to the Faith” are pretty clear that what most people consider “salvation” is obtained through temple marriage. Am I to try to take these things seriously, or is it just “speculation”, and there really is no doctrine and it’s up to me to pray and try to figure it out?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

it’s up to me to pray and try to figure it out?

and that also is a core Mormon principle, is it not?

Paradoxes and conflict – opposition in all things – according to the dictates of their own conscience – etc. ad infinitum

Some people want answers; I want the chance to explore.

Mormonism is expansive enough to provide both.

You might or might not like a poem one of my daughters wrote. Here’s the link:

“Imagine If” (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3098&hilit=imagine+if)

[Anonymous]

BobDixon wrote:

The aspect of “eternal life” that interests me is the Heaven part. Living with God forever, etc. As I said on the other thread, until quite recently I thought that baptism was the gateway to what Jesus referred to as being “saved”. A more careful reading of current LDS sources suggests that it’s actually temple marriage. My bishop says that also and was a little surprised anybody could find anything else in the teachings of the church, although I have heard PH leaders teach this also, that baptism was the gateway to heaven.

A few things to be kept in mind here.

1. Revelation is not dictation. whatever the prophets, seers, and revelators have revealed on this is based upon inspiration, and is subject to the limitations of a person’s understanding. D&C 8:2-3 says that revelation — all revelation — happens within the mind and heart: this is what Joseph Smith referred to as “Spiritual Eyes”. Note Paul to Timothy:

Paul to Timothy, 2 Tim 3:16 wrote:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Or Peter’s words on this:

1 Peter 1:21 wrote:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2. No one knows what the cosmos will be like after death. No one. I’m not even sure it’s important. Hence, when people talk about the hierarchy of the heavens and the status of eternal bliss therein, it’s all speculation, albeit it may be ‘inspired speculation. No.One.Knows.

3. The words used to refer to eternal life are used in different ways depending upon who spoke them. Salvation has been typically used to refer to the redemption of men from the original sin and from their fallen state: this is the ‘free gift’. If others have been using salvation otherwise — I can’t help that. Exaltation is typically used to refer to the reward in the celestial kingdom. Eternal Life has been typically referred to in the church to refer to exaltation, not salvation; however in the New Testament, Eternal Life and Life Eternal are used interchangeably to refer to (1) the enlightened life lived in Jesus (where we are dead to the law and living the reborn eternal life), and (2) immortality. LDS sometimes use “life eternal” to refer to immortality. But there is no real discipline in these usages — it’s flexible.

BobDixon wrote:

So often people disagree in these threads because their underlying assumptions are different (uh oh, another possible thread jack). One tangle I perpetually get into with other “middle way” types is that, for me, the church gets to define what it is and the leaders have to be taken seriously. When the leaders continually claim the LDS church is the only true church, they set a high standard for it and for their own authority and I think they should be held accountable for that authority and for those statements. Thus I can have a crisis of faith over a single Ensign article where one GA quotes Marion G Romney as saying my salvation is dependent on my belief (or not) in the 1838 first vision story, where others just brush this stuff off and don’t worry about it.

Ok. If you’re going to come from a perspective that says that the church has a monopoly on all truth, then I can see how you’re going to have serious cognitive dissonance. If you want to reconcile without ambiguity everything every prophet has said about whatever, you’re going to blow a gasket — it cannot be done.

The concept of “only true church on the face of the earth” is one of the least defensible claims any church member can make. True means truthful in its entirety. If the church has been found to be false in any way, then the claim falls. Either Adam is God or not. Brigham Young said he was, later revelation said he wasn’t. Can’t have it both ways. Brigham Young REQUIRED polygamy of church leadership – GBH says it wasn’t doctrine. Can’t have it both ways. “True” fails somewhere here, and provably so.

Now, I can use a different definition, such as “directionally true”, or “true for me”, but then “only true church on the face of the earth” without qualification fails logically, because “only” and “face of the earth” are absolutes, and we’re talking about relative truth with “Directionally true” or “true for me”.

BobDixon wrote:

In the other thread you refer to “speculation”, and in this one you talk about whether Uchtdorf is correct or not in his use of the term eternal life. My feeling is that in order to consider yourself a believing and fully participating member of the LDS church, these men and their authority has to be recognized and their statements considered to establish some level of doctrine. I don’t think it’s possible to go every Sunday and hold a calling and maybe a TR and look like a good Mormon to others while still saying “well, the stuff they say is just their opinion” etc.

Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Joseph Smith would disagree with you. Brigham Young would disagree with you. We have minds that are to be used, spirits that are to be consulted, and free agency to choose not just between good and evil, but good and better as well. JS said “Try the spirits”. In each and every case we are taught something, we have a god-given responsibility to seek answers for ourselves. that a prophet says something means we ought to give it serious consideration — it does NOT mean that we should accept it blindly.

BobDixon wrote:

To me it’s all a mass of confusion at times. These guys claim to speak for God, and then you try to line up all their pronouncements and just go crazy trying to fit it all together.

Exactly. That’s why it is essential to keep to the basics and essentials, to have a correct approach toward truth-seeking, and to set aside things that aren’t important.

BobDixon wrote:

I guess where I’m coming from on this is that in general recent talks and statements in “True to the Faith” are pretty clear that what most people consider “salvation” is obtained through temple marriage. Am I to try to take these things seriously, or is it just “speculation”, and there really is no doctrine and it’s up to me to pray and try to figure it out?

I believe that many of the talks are trying to put a fence around the law, and make the gulf between living the gospel and “the world” as large as possible. This is inherently a deceptive practice, one which Jesus condemned.

The gospel is not about threats or all-or-nothing acceptance. It’s about loving and following the savior, loving one another, making mistakes, learning for oneself, teaching and supporting one another, and authentically being you in harmony with all that is.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

how then do you explain this quote?

Dieter F. Uchtdorf – First Presidency Message, July 2012 Ensign wrote:

Yes, there will be moments of beginnings and moments of endings throughout our lives, but these are only markers along the way of the great middle of our eternal lives

Good questions. Let me think..tap, tap, tap. I guess it strikes me as talking about 2 different things. Eternal Life in capitals is the condition that we will receive after judgement day. Judgement day is a time period in the future, therefore, cannot be now. This earthly life is a time to prepare to meet God, when we might enjoy Eternal Life.

wayfarer wrote:

Was Uchtdorf wrong? Why do the majority of new testament verses mentioning Eternal Life refer to it as something that you have and not something you will obtain.

I would not say Uchtdorf was wrong, I would say his context was talking of our eternal experience, or eternal existence, but not the Eternal Life promised to those who are obedient.

So, I think there is an eternal nature of our beings, of which, our mortal experience is the middle part of our eternal lives, which extend to our pre-earth existence, and will extend to our post-mortal existence.

But the Eternal Life I was thinking of is taught as what we are ordained to, at some point in the future to achieve through faith (Acts 13:48), or something we “seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (Rom 2:7).

I do not think I walk in God’s presence now, but walk by the Spirit, and feel of God’s love, and Adam symbolizes my journey of being separated, for a time, from God’s presence. I am not now immortal (I will surely die), and I do not yet have Eternal Life (living in God’s presence), even if I am in the middle of my eternal progression, where I will at times find peace to my soul as taught by gospel principles, and practice living a Christ-like life that I hope to also live in God’s presence in the future.

[Anonymous]

Seems like this is just talking about two meanings of an ambiguous term:

Celestial Kingdom = Exaltation = Eternal Life

vs.

living forever = eternal life = always existing = one eternal round

[Anonymous]

bc_pg wrote:

Seems like this is just talking about two meanings of an ambiguous term:

Celestial Kingdom = Exaltation = Eternal Life

vs.

living forever = eternal life = always existing = one eternal round

so…sure — it’s apparent that people use the terms for distinct semantics.

But are we really sure they’re different?

If god or a god is timeless, s/he is the same from everlasting to everlasting. in those moments of inspiration where, as Jesus and the Psalmist put it, “Ye are gods”, have we not transcended time?

William Blake wrote:

To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour.

The mystic in me says there is much more here and now than meets the eye.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I do not think I walk in God’s presence now …

Thanks, Heber. I think I just had an epiphany thanks to you. I do walk in God’s presense, in as real a sense as I could ever hope to. Life is good.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

I do not think I walk in God’s presence now …

Thanks, Heber. I think I just had an epiphany thanks to you. I do walk in God’s presense, in as real a sense as I could ever hope to. Life is good.

I agree and yet I don’t. If I am seperated from the presence of God and that is the definition of spiritual death then I am spiritually dead. Yet we are not dead – either in the physical sense, or in the sense that we are not static but rather grow/hope for positive change in the future, or in the sense that we are responsive (in various degrees) to promtings/administerings of the spirit. Yet in this latter context I would argue that we can never be fully spiritually dead in this life niether in the next unless we become Sons of Perdition. Such is the paradox.

[Author]

Posts