Month: May 2019

TIMING

Waverly (not his real name) seemed like a very intelligent person. I had known him for more than a dozen years. I had watched him intently for the previous couple of months trying to decide if I should share my new views with him. That Sunday I decided I would but decided to start slow, not with a barrage of books but just with a scripture. The scripture I chose was BofM Moroni 6: 1-4. Currently NC Moroni 6:1

I arrived at priesthood opening exercises early that morning. Waverly and I were in the same High Priest group. I thought if I could peak his interest it would be a valuable addition to his understanding of Christ’s gospel. I really thought he could be poked and awakened. As he walked by shaking everyone’s hand in a very friendly manner, I held on to his hand for a few seconds longer and asked if I might share a scripture with him. His response was quick and easy, “sure.” I handed him my open book and asked if he would read the first four verses and tell me what he thought. I waited quietly as he read:

“And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers, were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. 2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins. 3 And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end. 4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ: and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.”

Waverly looked at the scripture for the longest time as though he might never have seen this before. Then he turned and looked at me for many seconds. His face was scrunched in an angry expression, and reddening as he continued to look at me. Then he hissed (I swear that is the right word), “I don’t know what it means, but it can’t mean what you think it means.” I was taken aback, partly by his expression, but also by his reaction to the words of the scriptures. I had offered no interpretation, and really, the insides of me were hoping for a good discussion, something which perhaps would start with, “I’m not sure what it means. What do you think it means?” Instead he slammed the book shut and stomped off to the other side of the stage where we held the opening of the meeting. I was really deflated. As I sat there, a little befuddled by what had taken place, my first thought was that I had lost a friend, not that we were ever really fast friends, but the potential for it had certainly vanished. My next thoughts were about what there is in such a scripture which creates a fight or flight response. In Waverly I saw both; in the expression and reddening of his countenance, and in his stomping off to the distant corner of the stage. I never said a word during this onslaught, and can only conclude his reaction was because of the words of the scripture. How could this have presented such a threat?

Can the paradigms we put together for ourselves as we are taught by loving teachers and leaders while growing up, and the friendships and the family relationships we develop for ourselves who meet the expectations of the traditions and values these paradigms spin off and establish, can this cause us to turn on one who simply presents us with a statement which seems not to fit in our box, even when read from a book we declare is true? It can. I have seen it happen. It’s not right, but I think we have all been guilty. But such a reaction means we have not assimilated many other truths and required responses also taught in those same books. The one that immediately leaps to mind is how we should respond when we perceive someone has done us a wrong.

Well, enough philosophy. If Waverly ever reads this post I want to apologize to him. It was not right first of all to spring something on him for which he hadn’t been prepared. The Book of Mormon has those things all through it. Things we have never seen until all of a sudden! We usually see such things on our own, (we think) or in friendly groups after the Spirit has prepared us enough to be able to see them (and thus seeing them, appreciating them, and becoming responsible for them). And secondly, I have subsequently learned things work out much better if I wait until a person asks first. And in this case he hadn’t asked. My timing usually sucks, but I do love a good discussion.

I have posted this writing in messages from the recorder, rather than my own personal writings because of my responsibility to record the names of those baptized according to the Doctrine of Christ, and because the scripture which was written by Moroni meshes so closely with the Doctrine of Christ as found in 3 Nephi 11:31-41 (NC 3 Nephi 5:9) and in D&C 10:64-70. Some of the points I see are:
* Multiple baptisms each done at critical times in the person’s life.
* Belief in Jesus Christ.
* Repentance.
* Receipt of the Holy Ghost.
* Recording of the name of the person baptized.
* Humility.
* The great key role of Jesus Christ in it all.

You may see many more things.

Keith
Recorder

PS.

On July 1st I will begin transferring all the names submitted for baptisms performed through 2018 into the special book. These names must be entered alphabetically, which means that if you have not submitted your name by this above stated deadline, it will not be entered into the main body of the entries for your particular year. There will be a provision for an amendment to each year, but again, if you are late on your submission your name will not be entered into the main body of the submissions.

If you cannot account positively for your name having been submitted, then you should take personal responsibility to see that it is done by submitting your name yourself. It will be an easy thing for us to identify and resolve redundancies. What will be impossible for us, will be to record your name into the main body if it is not submitted by the date specified above.

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. 

Keith
 

EQUIVALENCIES

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.

Keith

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!!