The Mortal Probation Is Necessary For Exaltation To Godhood

[cksalmon]

Heh, nice twist. Try again to understand what I'm saying.

I will try to make it simpler by leaving out the word "God".

We are literally children of our Father in heaven, hence, we are already divine beings, literally.

We're just not as perfect as our Father is, and we're also not as perfect as our Lord was before he came to this Earth to live his life as a mortal being.

Our goal is, or I think should be, to become perfect like our Father and as perfect as our Lord is, literally.

You came pretty close before, but God (our Father) is perfect.

It's just the rest of us (divine beings) who aren't necessarily perfect.

So, is it, contra LOAP, a "serial process?" Can one become more divine over time? Does one eventually become perfect (over time) such that one can say about another, "He's perfectly divine?" as opposed to imperfectly divine? (whatever that may mean).

But, again, I really have no idea what it would mean to say a being is "divine" but is not a "God." Perhaps that said person is only 55% divine? Or, 25%? Or, 97%?

What threshold must one cross in order for another to say truly, "That being is perfectly divine?"

To get back on topic, did Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or Elohim cross that threshold prior to their respective physical incarnations? Is the mortal probation necessary to the achievement of full godhood?

Best.

CKS

[charity]

Feel free to enlighten me about the specifics as you understand them. I take it then that you believe that Jesus was not fully divine prior to his Incarnation.

I take it, then, that you believe that the Holy Spirit is not currently fully divine.

I also take it that you believe Elohim passed through mortality prior to his exaltation to Godhood. It was "absolutely necessary" to the process.

Could you support these beliefs with textual evidence? Seriously. You're writing the things I previously assumed to be true. Kerry Shirts, however, assures me (on Blake Ostler's authority) that the Holy Spirit is currently fully divine--with no need for physical embodiment. I've also read several LDS state that Jesus was fully divine prior to Incarnation.

And I've come across few admissions that Snow was correct that "as man now is, God once was" (or, that Joseph Smith was correct in his King Follett sermon about the nature of God--i.e., that he was once a man, etc.).

You and I seem to be largely on the same page with regard to this issue. Others, however, disagree with us.

Best.

CKS

I believe that Jesus, by His conduct in the pre-mortal existence, and probably because of His inanate intelligence was far advanced over all of us before His birth here. I don't know what that means in terms of divinity. But I don't think He was able to experience a fulness of joy until obtaining a human body, dying, being resurrected and ascending to His Father, which occurred at least 3 days after the crucifixion.

My thoughts, my speculation, and it isn't anywhere that I have read, is that the Holy Ghost is more a calling than a person. More than one person could be the Holy Ghost at different times. And, whoever is the Holy Ghost, at the time that he is, is not fully divine yet, because of not having obtained a body yet.

I believe "as man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become."

I would like to talk to Kerry about his ideas. I don't know what "divine" entails and whether or not a person can be divine without being exalted.

I don't have any scriptures to point to, and I know it is unfair, but some of my ideas about this are based on the temple endowment which I cannot discuss. I really apologize for having to say that.

[Tarski]

It is absolutely necessary for us to gain a physical body to be exalted. Therefore, everyone has to get one in order to do that.

I think you don't understand our concept of Jesus' godhood prior to His resurrection.

Do you?

[cksalmon]

Luke 13:32

"And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."

The verse tells us that being perfect is much more than simply being without sin. Christ, who was sinless-was not perfected until after His resurrection.

Frankly, I think you're reading more into this verse than is actually there. I don't think one can exegetically draw a metaphysical pronouncement from this passage from the original Greek. Is Christ making a metaphysical declaration here? I.e., that he will become fully divine on the third day (presumably, after his resurrection)?

Probably not. Is this an oblique reference to his resurrection? Possibly.

Note the context, however: Today, I do this [miraculous work]. Tomorrow, I do this [miraculous work]. On the third day, I am [literally] completed. At any rate, the Greek in question in no way necessarily points to a metaphysical change in Jesus' nature. This is hinted at in the preceding phrases of the verse you cite: surely, Jesus cannot only be referring to the three days of his death and resurrection (as he states that on the first and second of the three days in question he is performing miraculous works). He is not speaking of miraculous works done on days one and two of his burial.

So, what does he mean here?

That he is going to experience some metaphysical transformation such that on the third day he will become fully divine? One can't get that from the Greek, frankly.

At most, one can glean from the Greek here that "on the third day" Jesus' mission will be completed. His ministry will be at an end. You apparently assume some sort of top-down metaphysical declaration here, when, to my mind, the statement is bottom-up. "I am completed" (my purpose is fulfilled) on the third day.

Do you really think, from the Greek, that this constitutes some declaration of metaphysical change in the nature of Jesus?

I don't see it, frankly.

I don't think the KJV is somehow wrong here. I just think you're drawing a (metaphysical) conclusion that is not warranted with reference to the underlying grammar of the Greek text in question. I take this as a statement of missional completion, not as a statement of metaphysical transformation.

Christ, who was sinless-was not perfected until after His resurrection.

Since you believe that this is a metaphysical declaration, in what metaphysical sense was Christ not "perfected" until after his resurrection?

Best.

CKS

[tubaloth]

This question actually has been asked in different forms before. But I will give the same answer.

The best way for us to even remotely understand how a Godhead works is to us more simple examples. (and of course the scriptures that we are given).

In the pre-mortal life Heavenly Father asked for those that would fulfill the ROLE of the Savior and Redeemer for mankind. Because of Jesus Christ worthiness (probably the only one that had qualified himself for the calling) Christ was CALLED to be the Savior of the World, and part of that calling was to become PART of the Godhead.

We could use the example of a bishopric. All three members are part of the bishopric, but only one is the bishop.

I can only assume the same thing happen to some extent with the Holy Ghost. One was called to full fill that position because of some type of talent and worthiness that was developed in the pre-mortal life.

Now Christ doesnâ??t have the POWER of God impending in himself like God does. Christ power was because of Heavenly Father. The term is called divine investiture. I wish there was some good talks on this subject but none that I really know of. This means the power Christ had to create the earth wasnâ??t Power he had because he was a God. The power he had was because of his Calling in the Godhead!

(Just as a First or Second Counselor can act in behave of the Bishop in certain situations).

Now lets turn to D&C 93. The perfect text book on how Christ received a fullness of Glory. And how each of us can do the same!

(Doctrine and Covenants 93:11-13.)

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

When Christ was born onto this earth he was â??mortalâ? to some degree as all of us. The main point here was that Christ had the veil like all of us did.

(Doctrine and Covenants 93:16-17.)

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

It wasnâ??t until after Christ had done all the Father asked him to. After Christ had past the test of this life, did Christ then receive the fullness in himself!

The same holds true of each of us! We tap into the power of God and Grow from Grace to Grace, until we have overcome the evils of the world, and receive all the Father has!

We might then, provisionally, add

(3) Elohim either has always been deity (having never passed through this mortal vale/veil) or perhaps progressed to the status of deity prior to his taking on a mortal body

The idea of Elohim always being a God doesnâ??t hold up in the idea of the whole Idea of the Plan of Salvation.

The second would only happen to some degree if Elohim was the â??Saviorâ? of another world. The He was called to be a part of the Godhead until he passed through the Mortal Probation of his earth.

Hope that helps some.

[cksalmon]

My thoughts, my speculation, and it isn't anywhere that I have read, is that the Holy Ghost is more a calling than a person. More than one person could be the Holy Ghost at different times. And, whoever is the Holy Ghost, at the time that he is, is not fully divine yet, because of not having obtained a body yet.

There's no need to apologize to me, Charity. But, I think your view anent the Holy Spirit is out of sync with current LDS belief, frankly. I'll just label you heterodox. No necessary shame in that.

I believe "as man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become."

This is more than Gordon B. Hinckley will admit to.

I would like to talk to Kerry about his ideas. I don't know what "divine" entails and whether or not a person can be divine without being exalted.

He posts frequently here, so perhaps he will reply. I have a difficult time conceiving how one's being divine could be true without one's being exalted.

I don't have any scriptures to point to, and I know it is unfair, but some of my ideas about this are based on the temple endowment which I cannot discuss. I really apologize for having to say that.

No need to apologize. I just hope you can find a way discuss the relevant issues in a way that is consistent with your endowments.

If there are answers with which you're personally comfortable, I feel confident that you can express them in acceptable ways.

Best.

CKS

[bluebell]

Frankly, I think you're reading more into this verse than is actually there. I don't think one can exegetically draw a metaphysical pronouncement from this passage from the original Greek.

I disagree.

The greek word used for 'perfected' here is 'teleiovw' which, according to strong's concordance, has a few meanings-

"to make perfect, complete

to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to an end

to complete (perfect)

add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full

to be found perfect

to bring to the end (goal) proposed

to accomplish

bring to a close or fulfilment by event

of the prophecies of the scriptures"

This would mean, according to the greek, my interpretation of the meaning of this word is a valid interpretation.

Is Christ making a metaphysical declaration here? I.e., that he will become fully divine on the third day (presumably, after his resurrection)?

I believe that Christ is declaring that once He is resurrected He will be completed (perfected) which the greek definition supports.

Probably not. Is this an oblique reference to his resurrection? Possibly.

But, is there evidence that your interpretation is more valid than mine?

Note the context, however: Today, I do this [miraculous work]. Tomorrow, I do this [miraculous work]. On the third day, I am [literally] completed.

I do note it-

Christ tells the pharisee that in the present He is doing the work He came to do-that in the immediate future (tomorrow) He will continue to do the work He came to do and that it would not but until the 'far' future that His work would be done and He would be perfected.

His pronouncement is concerning Him not allowing anyone (even Harod) to hurry along His mission. However, amid that pronouncement we learn that His resurrection will perfect Him in a way that He is not yet perfected.

At any rate, the Greek in question in no way necessarily points to a metaphysical change in Jesus' nature.

I believe the greek in question very much can be interpreted to mean such.

This is hinted at in the preceding phrases of the verse you cite: surely, Jesus cannot only be referring to the three days of his death and resurrection (as he states that on the first and second of the three days in question he is performing miraculous works). He is not speaking of miraculous works done on days one and two of his burial.

I agree.

So, what does he mean here?

That he is going to experience some metaphysical transformation such that on the third day he will become fully divine? One can't get that from the Greek, frankly.

You keep saying that-but you've provided no evidence to support this opinion. What are your evidences?

At most, one can glean from the Greek here that "on the third day" Jesus' mission will be completed.

Again, i disagree that this is 'at most' what the greek can be referring to. The definition of the greek word, according to strong, can refer to such.

His ministry will be at an end.

Except that He comes back for 40 days and continues His ministry, right? That seems to contradict your intepretation here.

You apparently assume some sort of top-down metaphysical declaration here, when, to my mind, the statement is bottom-up. "I am completed" (my purpose is fulfilled) on the third day.

I have given you my reasoning for my interpretation using the greek. I would really appreciate your reasoning (other than opinion). Why is my interpretation less valid than yours?

I don't think the KJV is somehow wrong here. I just think you're drawing a (metaphysical) conclusion that is not warranted with reference to the underlying grammar of the Greek text in question.

I realize that-but you have not told me WHY your interpretation is more correct than mine-

I think you are drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the greek any more than mine is, yet you are giving it more weight than mine simply because it agrees with your beliefs and for no other reason-am i wrong on that? I could be.

Since you believe that this is a metaphysical declaration, in what metaphysical sense was Christ not "perfected" until after his resurrection?

He was not as God the Father with a perfected resurrected body of flesh and bone yet. He was incomplete (not perfected) until after the resurrection when He received such.

[cksalmon]

I'll respond soon.

CKS

[Doctor Steuss]

CKSalmon,

I give you a gift (this is the only place on the internet youâ??ll find this gem, and who knows how long it may remain):

Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity by Blake T. Ostler

Hugs,

Stu

[cksalmon]

CKSalmon,

I give you a gift (this is the only place on the internet youâ??ll find this gem, and who knows how long it may remain):

Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity by Blake T. Ostler

Hugs,

Stu

Thanks Doc!

I actually printed out Ostler's article from that very website some time ago. In the meantime, I lost the printout and had no idea where to find the text again.

I'm printing it out now.

CKS

[LifeOnaPlate]

I disagree.

The greek word used for 'perfected' here is 'teleiovw' which, according to strong's concordance, has a few meanings-

"to make perfect, complete

to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to an end

to complete (perfect)

add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full

to be found perfect

to bring to the end (goal) proposed

to accomplish

bring to a close or fulfilment by event

of the prophecies of the scriptures"

This would mean, according to the greek, my interpretation of the meaning of this word is a valid interpretation.

I believe that Christ is declaring that once He is resurrected He will be completed (perfected) which the greek definition supports.

But, is there evidence that your interpretation is more valid than mine?

I do note it-

Christ tells the pharisee that in the present He is doing the work He came to do-that in the immediate future (tomorrow) He will continue to do the work He came to do and that it would not but until the 'far' future that His work would be done and He would be perfected.

His pronouncement is concerning Him not allowing anyone (even Harod) to hurry along His mission. However, amid that pronouncement we learn that His resurrection will perfect Him in a way that He is not yet perfected.

I believe the greek in question very much can be interpreted to mean such.

I agree.

You keep saying that-but you've provided no evidence to support this opinion. What are your evidences?

Again, i disagree that this is 'at most' what the greek can be referring to. The definition of the greek word, according to strong, can refer to such.

Except that He comes back for 40 days and continues His ministry, right? That seems to contradict your intepretation here.

I have given you my reasoning for my interpretation using the greek. I would really appreciate your reasoning (other than opinion). Why is my interpretation less valid than yours?

I realize that-but you have not told me WHY your interpretation is more correct than mine-

I think you are drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the greek any more than mine is, yet you are giving it more weight than mine simply because it agrees with your beliefs and for no other reason-am i wrong on that? I could be.

He was not as God the Father with a perfected resurrected body of flesh and bone yet. He was incomplete (not perfected) until after the resurrection when He received such.

Consider me impressed. Very well stated.

[PacMan]

Yet, consider the following claims (and feel free to disagree with them):

(1) Jesus Christ progressed to the status of deity prior to taking on a mortal body

(2) The Holy Spirit progressed to the status of deity without ever having had a mortal body

Being a "god" has as much to do with a state of being as a title. It's kind of like being called a "Jew." Psalms is clear in calling men Gods (disagree with it, but then explain why Christ uses it as a defense), and does so to reiterate their potentials. Clearly one given dietous superiority is a god, be he exalted or not. As such, neither Christ nor the HG during the times of the OT were exalted gods, nor were they perfected (Christ said so himself); yet clearly they were gods with authority being exercised over mortal men.

PacMan

[Black Moclips]

Everything makes much more sense once you realize that the person we associate as "God" isn't perfect. A couple of million years more evolved maybe (due to his thousands of reincarnations), but not ultimately perfect. If you had everything and were everything, what purpose would your existence serve? You wouldn't create to achieve more glory, because you are already ultimately satisified and powerful, etc etc. God is on the same road we are, albeit much further down the road. It feels good to think and believe your deity is all-(insert adjective here), but that doesn't make it true.

I know I know, completely heretical and against established doctrines. But that is where the fun is!

[Lightbearer]

Follows an extension of an off-topic tangent from another thread.

One way (among several) to resolve this tension is to posit that Elohim was once a man and passed through mortality as a necessary step along his path to exaltation. I haven't seen many LDS here willing to embrace that notion (though there have been notable exceptions). Then, at least, one of three LDS Gods would conform to the general rule.

Thoughts?

CKS

I don't know about anyone else but I can say that I know God was once a mortal man and advanced to Godhood just as the doctrine of the Church teaches. I think your questions have been answered by others however let me chime in by quoting from the Gospel Principles manual as well:

(Gospel Principles, Unit Ten: Life After Death, 47: Exaltation, 301)

"When we lived with our Heavenly Father, he explained a plan for our progression. We could become like him, an exalted being. The plan required that we be separated from him and come to earth. This separation was necessary to prove whether we would obey our Fatherâ??s commandments even though we were no longer in his presence. The plan provided that when earth life ended, we would be judged and rewarded according to the degree of our faith and obedience. We would then be assigned to the place for which we had prepared.

Jesus taught, â??In my Fatherâ??s house are many mansionsâ? (John 14:2). From the scriptures we learn that there are three kingdoms of glory in heaven. The Apostle Paul mentioned that he knew a man who was â??caught up to the third heavenâ? (2 Corinthians 12:2). Paul named two of the kingdoms in heaven: the celestial and the terrestrial (see 1 Corinthians 15:40â??42). The celestial is the highest, and the terrestrial is second. Through latter-day revelation we learn that the third kingdom is the telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:81). We also learn that there are three heavens or degrees within the celestial kingdom (see D&C 131:1)...

What Is Exaltation?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, just like our Heavenly Father. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give his children (see D&C 14:7).

This in short explains what the Church teaches about Exaltation. As for Elohim being a mortal man on another world, there is no doubt about that. As for details of His mortal life I think that is what President Hinckley meant when he said we do not know alot about it. We do not know a lot, but we do know that God is not now continuing to learn truths. He has all knowledge, all power, and all wisdom. We know He is the Father of our Spirits. We know we are gods in embryo, that is why we must be perfected through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In fact if you read the rest of that Chapter on Exaltation it answers the question:

"This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: â??It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. â?¦ He was once a man like us; â?¦ God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself didâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345â??46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

Imagine what joy each of us will have when we return to our Heavenly Father if we can say: â??Father, I did what you wanted me to do. I have been faithful and have kept your commandments. I am happy to be home again.â? Then we will hear him say, â??Well done; â?¦ thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lordâ? (Matthew 25:23)."

Just read the manual, it is clear and plain.

[BCSpace]

One way (among several) to resolve this tension is to posit that Elohim was once a man and passed through mortality as a necessary step along his path to exaltation. I haven't seen many LDS here willing to embrace that notion (though there have been notable exceptions).

Such is taught explicitly as LDS doctrine.

Then, at least, one of three LDS Gods would conform to the general rule.

The other two are under the same rule. How then can they be considered Gods when they hadn't passed through mortality? The answer is found in Abraham 3:18-19. It's all relative.

[Paul Ray]

So, is it, contra LOAP, a "serial process?" Can one become more divine over time? Does one eventually become perfect (over time) such that one can say about another, "He's perfectly divine?" as opposed to imperfectly divine? (whatever that may mean).

But, again, I really have no idea what it would mean to say a being is "divine" but is not a "God." Perhaps that said person is only 55% divine? Or, 25%? Or, 97%?

What threshold must one cross in order for another to say truly, "That being is perfectly divine?"

It's not a matter of becoming more divine, IMO. It's a matter of becoming more perfect.

We are already divine because we are literally children of God.

What we lack is the state of being perfect like our Father.

To get back on topic, did Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or Elohim cross that threshold prior to their respective physical incarnations? Is the mortal probation necessary to the achievement of full godhood?

Best.

CKS

Before our Lord came to this Earth to live as a mortal among us, he only had a spirit body, unlike our Father.

Our Lord now has a body which is like our Father's, so he is now more like him than he was before.

And during all of that time he was God.

[Tarski]

And during all of that time he was God.

So you don't need to have a body to be a God.

It also seems that one does not need a body to be happy (wasn't He happy?)

or to have all knowledge (did He not already have all knowledge?)

[BCSpace]

And during all of that time he was God.

So you don't need to have a body to be a God.

You need a physical body to be a God. You don't need a physical body to be perceived as a God.

[Paul Ray]

So you don't need to have a body to be a God.

I didn't say "a" God. I said God.

There is only one true God in all of existence, and that God exists as separate persons.

... with some of them existing in a state of perfection, and some not.

You were very close to being perfectly correct, though.

It also seems that one does not need a body to be happy (wasn't He happy?)

or to have all knowledge (did He not already have all knowledge?)

Yes, we can be happy without a body, but we can't be totally and perfectly happy.

If we are to be totally perfect we must possess a body, but we'll need more than a body to be totally perfect.

To the degree we possess all we can possess is the degree we'll be happy, and possessing all knowledge will also add to our happiness.

Enjoy the experience.

[bluebell]

So you don't need to have a body to be a God.

It also seems that one does not need a body to be happy (wasn't He happy?)

or to have all knowledge (did He not already have all knowledge?)

I think it's a matter of perspective.

If God is a title-like president is a title-then that doesn't mean that all who hold the title have the same attributes or characteristics.

The president of the local PTA and the president of the U.S. can both 'legally' hold the title of president, though that's about all the two positions have in common.

Likewise-one may carry the title of 'god' without having a body-but in LDS theology, one may not be exalted or hold that title of 'god' without one.

The same holds true for the second statement as well-it's all in perspective.

I was happy without children, but i received a higher level of happiness when i become a parent.

We can have a level of happiness without being exalted-but we cannot have a fullness of joy or complete happiness without it.

As for the third statement-that's a matter of opinion. It could be argued that Christ did not have the knowledge of how to succor our hurts until He had experienced them Himself, for example-which did not occure until His Atonement.

Mainstream Christians and LDS Christians will also disagree on the level or extent of Christ's knowledge and whether it was complete before His resurrection.

[BCSpace]

So you don't need to have a body to be a God.

I didn't say "a" God. I said God.

There is only one true God in all of existence, and that God exists as separate persons.

But that's contrary to the Bible which teaches the plurality of Gods.

[Paul Ray]

Likewise-one may carry the title of 'god' without having a body-but in LDS theology, one may not be exalted or hold that title of 'god' without one.

That seems to be true in some circles, depending on which LDS tell others about their ideas, but I think it does some good to dispel that notion to help others see we're the same being as God.

What we lack is the state of being totally perfect in every way that is possible, and I think we should all focus on becoming perfect, as our Father is perfect, instead of talking about whether or not we are God.

[Paul Ray]

But that's contrary to the Bible which teaches the plurality of Gods.

No it's not.

The Bible teaches about the plurality of God.

There is only one God, and there are three person at least who are God.

I think I know what you mean when you say there are Gods, though.

I'm simply saying that all 3 of those persons are God.

[bluebell]

That seems to be true in some circles, depending on which LDS tell others about their ideas, but I think it does some good to dispel that notion to help others see we're the same being as God.

What we lack is the state of being totally perfect in every way that is possible, and I think we should all focus on becoming perfect, as our Father is perfect, instead of talking about whether or not we are God.

Paul-we lack a lot more than just perfection. We lack knowledge, that God has, for example.

But that's beside the point. I don't see your opinion here as being doctrine so i have no desire to 'dispel that notion to help others see we're the same being as God'.

I don't see myself as the same being as my Father in Heaven-just someone with the potential to be like Him.

[valkator]

I've written some critical remarks on this overall topic in a few other posts, but I'll offer a few more here that go beyond those in the attempt to bring the argument 'full circle', so to speak.

Given 'The Fall' as a reality that is present before us, we are left in the difficult position of attempting to retrace the steps which brought us to this current 'Earthly' state while also finding the way 'out of it', so to speak -- 'out of it' in terms of an expansion (or reexpansion) of our being which is sort of reflected in our pre-Fall state to some extent. I've argued that a 'Fall' to a lower realm and state of existence was absolutely not a necessity for achieving 'exaltation' if that is meant 'manifesting Godhood' in the higher realms. However, it did occur -- ultimately because we choose to Fall. Whether the 'deck was stacked' or not, we can't really debate the fact that we have chosen to enter this realm to learn about this realm.

Some will learn and will be 'exalted' -- or 're-exalted' - back into the celestial realms from which we fell. Others aren't going anywhere -- or may be going even further 'down' the proverbial 'chain of being'.

Whether or not the higher beings in the celestial realm that are looked to as 'guides' or 'parents' were or weren't in this realm prior to their current state of manifested being, their divine nature was always there -- just as it is within us. We can choose to climb up -- or go further down -- with the 'divine nature' becoming more manifest in 'exaltation' -- or more contracted and unmanifest in 'damnation', so to speak. The 'necessity' here of 'probation', as I'm seeing it, centers on the reality that we are 'here' and comes down to a question of, 'which way will we go'?

For myself, no other being can do it for me or 'save' me from anything. 'Christ', to me, isn't the mythicized (in terms of the historical model Jesus was cast within) 'put to death savior of mankind' - of whcih there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other examples -- but an archetype that can be found in many 'Christed' individuals throughout history -- and is within each of us if we awaken to it. Of course, I recognize that many can ONLY relate to an 'outer guide' and have a need for an 'outer savior' because they lack the 'something within' to 'be that', themselves -- their own savior. Hence, we have 'religion'. There's really nothing wrong with this -- just pointing out an observation. It just so happens that 'Jesus' is the most recent and powerful 'example' that I look to for guidance, inspiration, and 'salvation clues', so to speak. At any rate, I think the issue of whether or not 'mortal probation' - or 'Earthly probabtion' - was and is necessary for exaltation revolves around what the present reality actually is. In other words, as allluded to above: we ARE here -- so now what do we do?