A greater chance than becoming LDS President

Pinning down what comprises ascending “Jacob’s ladder” is kind of an elusive thing. There isn’t an exact overlay between the plethora of pattern’s of ascension.  In fact another seeming path of ascension seldom discussed is that of gaining the experience, thus the titles of so many players there seems to be a need of, in the running of a world like this one.  For instance it requires an Adam, a Noah, a Melchizedek, an Abraham, dispensation heads, greater and lesser prophets, etc, etc, etc.  And standing as a great light above all, one who becomes a Savior of us all.  

Granted there is experiential overlap between some or all these characters, so I don’t know if it’s absolutely essential to become every one of these, and so thus I don’t know if it’s even proper to consider all these roles as a pattern of ascension.  Maybe that’s the same order of thinking, we indulged in when we thought the line of ascension was elder’s quorum president, bishop’s councilor, bishop, high councilor, sp councilor, sp, mission president, 70, apostle, and then becoming that high and holy luminary, president of the church, which none of us ever had a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming. I term this the BY – RMN pattern of ascension.

No; I think the most likely pattern of ascension is ordinance based, with these ordinances grounded in commandment, covenant and subsequently knowledge. For example, marrying a woman who will covenant with you that you are her choice, and that she will remain with you and love and sustain you; and then having that association and those promises ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise, thus constituting an ordinance recognized as a required part of ascension on Jacob’s ladder. In fact nothing higher than where that ordinance puts you on that ladder will be attained unless or until this ordinance is in place.

The above paragraphs are a segue into the something below that has consumed a lot of my thinking lately.

If Jesus Christ and myself are begotten sons of the same spiritual parents, then it would seem that the redemptive sacrifice made by our Father in His round of creation would have been for both of us.  I am assuming that the Father made a similar redemptive sacrifice in a realm of creation which would have been created for Him as the selected Redeemer because of the many times Christ said, in this creation, “I only do those things which I have seen my Father do.”

This redemptive sacrifice which the Father made, would have been for all of the inhabitants of that world for which He (The Father) would have been designated as God.  But just as in this round of creation most will not reap the full effects of the sacrifice offered and given by the Son, so that redemptive sacrifice by the Father as the Son may be that which is termed by Alma as a preparatory redemption for those coming here who were prepared to only accept a portion.  Not for Christ, however, because He made full acceptance of what was offered by the Father, and became entitled to become a redeemer Himself.

So, for those that accept in this round of creation the full effect of what our Savior has now made possible again, we (they) become entitled to the right to be a redeemer, and for those that don’t accept the offered fullness, that which Christ has done will be considered for them another preparatory redemption, and they will move on again, added upon by what they have received.  In other words they will receive a resurrection and a portion of glory, but not a fullness.  And around it goes, each round being a preparatory redemption for the one to follow.  However, each round spinning off a few who become Sons to Him who becomes their Father, becoming redeemers themselves in this path of ascension.

It seems implausible to me that Christ’s redemptive sacrifice saved Himself (that’s almost an oxymoron).  It, however, did propel Him into becoming like the Father, having life and resurrection endemic within Himself, and it did save His Wife, just as we have learned that the Father’s redemptive sacrifice saved the Mother.  That redemptive sacrifice by the Father also saved the Son.  And for those who are now prepared for, and accept the fullness of the redemptive offering of the Son in this round will also be saved as Sons to Him who now becomes their Father.  For where was there ever a Son without a Father or a Father without a Son?

For those to whom the offered, redemptive sacrifice remains only a preparatory sacrifice, will, when they awake and resume and complete the climb, probably be saved as a Son to a completely different Father than the one to whom they now pray.

I think there may very well be the potential for a significant number of redeemers produced from this round of creation, and creations a plenty created by their Father (He whom we now call the Son) for which there is a need and opportunity. 



Since the blog post “Why a Temple” came out, I have sat in on way too many conversations which weigh the pro’s and con’s of being taken “up to a high mountain” into the presence of Jesus Christ in order to receive one’s Calling and Election versus receiving it through what most are convinced is the way more mundane process of receiving one’s covenants and ordinances through a temple ceremony in Zion. When I’m asked what I think, I usually just say “sounds like they are equivalent for the purpose to me.” Here’s why I say that:

There are too many equivalencies made in too many of Denver’s writings for us to not understand that the rites, and covenants, and ordinances received in the temple In Zion will be the same as though we had stood in the presence of Christ to receive these things. Below I have presented some things he has said:

. “Information can be sacred. It can be controlled by God so that when He determines to communicate it to man He will do so either by catching the individual up into the heavenly realm or by commanding that a temple be built to house His revelations. Either option will require that those who enter in must be approved by His decree, because the way is guarded by sentinels who protect what is Holy from what is profane.” (The Holy Order paper. P.4, last paragraph.). the “either/or” in this case is the establishing of an equivalency.

. “The purpose of a temple (meaning an actual temple commissioned, ordered, blessed, accepted, and visited with His Presence) becomes holy ground and the means for making available to faithful people in every state of belief and hope the opportunity to receive, by authorized means, the same covenant, obligation, association, expectation and sealing through an authorized and binding arrangement in sacred space. This is the SAME THING they can receive from God directly if they enter into His presence while still in the flesh.” (“Why a Temple” P. 3, 1st paragraph. Emphasis mine.)

. “The purpose of a temple (meaning a real temple) is to substitute for the temporary ascent of a mortal into God’s presence.” (“Why a Temple” P. 3, 2nd paragraph.) Now my personal feeling about the word “substitute” is that it doesn’t just mean “to stand in place of, until….” If I substitute a different brand of yeast in bread making, it is intended that it will work just as well in making the bread rise. And if it does so, then it is an effective “substitute.”

. “In ritual (through the temple) it is possible to convey a great body of information with symbolism, metaphor, relationships, and types that work on the mind the same way that visionary experiences directly with God convey.” (“Why a Temple” P. 3 Paragraph #3.)

. “The LDS version of temple rites is insufficient to allow anyone to obtain the right to ascend to God’s presence in eternity. The Lord will fix this, as He intends to establish an Ensign to which all nations (meaning scattered, covenant Israel) will return in the last days and there receive their crowns at the hands of servants who will minister covenants for this purpose” (D&C 133: 31-34). (Why a Temple” P. 4-5.)

So, if we are hinging our belief against the equivalency of these things because of a statement made by Denver wherein he said; “The Temple ceremony is not the real thing. It is a symbol of the real thing.” Then we must also say that a visionary experience with Christ is also not the real thing (meaning exaltation) but is a symbol of the real thing. Both accomplish the same thing, which is to convey information that the individual is authorized after death to continue the upward ascent. Neither a promise from the lips of Christ nor temple rites are the upward ascent, but both promise that we are authorized, and teach how to continue in that ascent. And according to JS that will still be a long while after we die and have accomplished many things which make us exactly as Christ is, with life and resurrection within us.

The great thing about having one with The Holy Order on the earth is that he can minister as the Holy Spirit of Promise, which to my mind is to minister as, and in the stead of Jesus Christ, according to His command.

And God does this all for mankind, because He will not even be thwarted by the weakness of men.


PS Now by making these comparisons am I saying there is no need to seek the face of Jesus Christ? Heavens no, it’s a commandment!!