What is the difference between "eternal life" and "eternal lives"?

[Hazzard]

I have a few thoughts, but I'll keep them to myself until I hear a few responses.

[RockyBalboa]

I gotta admit I'm not even sure what you mean or what your question means.

[creekster]

I guess saying a "v" and an "s" isn't what you're looking for?

[Archaea]

Is this a spin on the Adam God doctrine of eternal life being life with God and eternal lives, being those eternal reincarnation rounds?

[Hazzard]

[BEGIN ARGUMENT -- ADVANCED BY AN ACQUAINTANCE OF MINE -- THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "ETERNAL LIFE" AND "ETERNAL LIVES."]

In 1831 Peter, James and John restored certain sealing powers of the High Priesthood -- namely the power to seal anointings (e.g. anointings of the sick as well as the other type of anointings that occurred prior to the dedication of the Kirtland Temple) and the power to seal individuals up unto eternal life. There are countless instances in early church member's journals of Joseph and other church leaders "sealing up" members of the church -- occasionally entire congregations -- unto "eternal life." (I can get you multiple references if you'd like. For one example, see History of the Church, 1:466-467, where Joseph stated that he sealed up his father, mother and brothers Hyrum and William unto eternal life.)

Peter, James and John did not, however, restore the full sealing authority, or patriarchal authority. Elijah did, in the Kirtland Temple in 1836. This sealing authority includes the ability to bestow all power, allow people to inhabit the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, etc. In order to obtain the highest of the three degrees of the celestial glory, of course, one must "enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]." (D&C 131:2) Immediately after describing in great detail the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (see D&C 132:19-21), the Lord states that "strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and the continuation of the lives ..." (D&C 132:22, emphasis added). Two verses later he says "(t)his is eternal lives--to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent." (emphasis added)

Eternal life cannot mean (the argument goes) living with God in our families in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom because many members were sealed up unto "eternal life" prior to the restoration of the full sealing power in Elijah's 1836 visit. There must, therefore, be some other description for the glory made accessible by Elijah's visit, and that glory is the glory of "eternal lives."

[END ARGUMENT]

I'm not sure what to make of the argument. Perhaps you can poke some holes in it and we can go from there ... but don't hate me if I can't get back to the computer until tomorrow night. Thanks.

[il Padrino Ute]

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but it sounds like eternal lives is being used as a plural - as in members of the family as individuals, rather than a single unit.

As for those who were sealed up unto eternal life - did they go to the temple for the new and everlasting covenant after Elijah's visit? If so, they're covered.

To me, this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

[BlueHair]

I think this goes along with the eternity vs. eternities debate. Vaughn J. Featherstone spoke at one of our zone conferences in the Philippines. He noted that in his mind there is a difference between all eternity and the eternities. He was very careful to mention that it was strictly his opinion and not official church doctrine. He went on to say that eternity was a measure of time and did NOT mean forever. He said eternity is so long that in our limited earthly minds we couldn't comprehend the length of an eternity. It seems like he also said he thought an eternity is about 60 billion earth years. He believed that God would at some time in future eternities allow every one of his children to be in his presence, but not in the current eternity. He indicated that kingdom jumping would not happen in the current eternity, but would be allowed in future eternities. He said there is no way in his mind that God would banish someone forever. I remember taking great comfort in his talk because the Plan of Salvation had seemed so unfair to me.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I think this goes along with the eternity vs. eternities debate. Vaughn J. Featherstone spoke at one of our zone conferences in the Philippines. He noted that in his mind there is a difference between all eternity and the eternities. He was very careful to mention that it was strictly his opinion and not official church doctrine. He went on to say that eternity was a measure of time and did NOT mean forever. He said eternity is so long that in our limited earthly minds we couldn't comprehend the length of an eternity. It seems like he also said he thought an eternity is about 60 billion earth years. He believed that God would at some time in future eternities allow every one of his children to be in his presence, but not in the current eternity. He indicated that kingdom jumping would not happen in the current eternity, but would be allowed in future eternities. He said there is no way in his mind that God would banish someone forever. I remember taking great comfort in his talk because the Plan of Salvation had seemed so unfair to me.

Interesting idea, but it almost an invitation to sin at will, it seems to me, because if are eternal (in an eternities sense) then 60 billion years is nothing. Literally, it has no meaning. If you are living FOREVER, 60 billion is a drop in the bucket. I think VJF's idea only makes sense from a temporal point of view, not from an eternal point of view.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by creekster

Interesting idea, but it almost an invitation to sin at will, it seems to me, because if are eternal (in an eternities sense) then 60 billion years is nothing. Literally, it has no meaning. If you are living FOREVER, 60 billion is a drop in the bucket. I think VJF's idea only makes sense from a temporal point of view, not from an eternal point of view.

Is grace a license to commit sin?



Romans 6

1 What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?
2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?


14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!


18 and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I think this goes along with the eternity vs. eternities debate. Vaughn J. Featherstone spoke at one of our zone conferences in the Philippines. He noted that in his mind there is a difference between all eternity and the eternities. He was very careful to mention that it was strictly his opinion and not official church doctrine. He went on to say that eternity was a measure of time and did NOT mean forever. He said eternity is so long that in our limited earthly minds we couldn't comprehend the length of an eternity. It seems like he also said he thought an eternity is about 60 billion earth years. He believed that God would at some time in future eternities allow every one of his children to be in his presence, but not in the current eternity. He indicated that kingdom jumping would not happen in the current eternity, but would be allowed in future eternities. He said there is no way in his mind that God would banish someone forever. I remember taking great comfort in his talk because the Plan of Salvation had seemed so unfair to me.

You mean Vaughn J. Featherstone contradicted brm? grapevine wouldn't be impressed.