[image from the Gospel Art library]
The carrot in LDS theology is the promise of exaltation. We inherit kingdoms, thrones, principalities and powers. We rule and reign in the House of Israel forever. We become gods, creators of worlds, and architects of existence.
Pretty nifty.
But think of all that we would give up.
Real Friends. People with lots of power, even in this mortal realm, don’t really have friends. They have sycophants and followers. If you have authority and control over someone else, you can be friendly with them. But friends … friends are those people who call you on it when you’re out of line and being a jerk. Friends see you at your lowest point and accept you for who you are. Friends are equals; they see you as an equal, and you treat them as an equal. Imagine giving up the chance to be in equal relationships for the sake of power.
Imperfections and Flaws. Imagine never being able to make a mistake. Or never being able to admit to a mistake. Even if you do screw up, your sycophants will find a way to justify it. They’ll turn morality into a pretzel before allowing you to have a flaw and be wrong. Being up on a pedestal is a real balancing act. Don’t ever slip.
Does God have friends? Does God ever wish that he could admit he totally got something wrong? Does God have a place where he can just exist, and take a break from being God? Being around people who don’t need you to be on your best behavior and in charge all the time is necessary to decompress and get your perspective back.
The best leaders (who are not necessarily the most rich and powerful leaders) have a leadership style that lets them be part of the team. They can accept feedback, give credit for ideas to others, admit when they made a mistake, change their minds, trust people without micromanaging them, and take their vacation days. This allows and encourages everyone else on their team to also act like human beings.
Dictators. Authoritarians. God. Anyone surrounded by yes-men and followers has a warped and curated view of themselves, others, and the impact of their dictates on real people. There’s a reason God isn’t right here on earth where we can ask him questions and challenge his dictates and doctrine. The closest thing to God on earth is a dictator.
Questions:
- What sort of person would you have to be, to aspire to be obeyed without question?
- Has anyone else noticed that the temple sealing ceremony is all about power and glory and doesn’t say a word about happiness?
- When you think of eternal progression, do you expect/hope to gain power over others? What do you hope to progress in, if it isn’t Godly power and authority?
- Would you want to spend lots of time with someone who is never wrong and who never wants you to disagree? I mean, we’re all supposed to worship God, but wouldn’t it be weird to spend a lot of time with him?
Wheat & Tares 
Hi, this has been making me think all morning. So many of the paradigms that Mormon eschatology turns on don’t work for me, but I’d always imagined back when I was trying my best to believe it all that my friends would be other gods. Like, you know, my little brother and his wife. So I never imagined it friendless.
Also, and this may be deluded, but I’m pretty sure my cat is my friend. We aren’t equals in any conventional sense, but for fifteen years she’s been there for me. I think there are many different types of friendships. Joseph teaching that we are reunited with our animal friends in the hereafter is a win for me.
Power and glory weird me out. But one look at the Nauvoo Legion uniforms (got a photo of a great-great wearing one) is enough to confirm it was totally some people’s thing. Being obeyed without question in most situations is gross, but I think it’s context-specific. I’ve been in a handful of situations with people I was leading that were so hairy that prompt, unquestioned “do as I say” was the order of the moment. I mean, I’m not a monster, but there have been a handful of times as a parent and a teacher I’ve demanded exact, unquestioning obedience. (We talked about the “why” after.)
The people I admire most in history were the ones who willingly relinquished power. We don’t hear so much about the ones who never sought it to begin with, but the people I’ve known like that in life are the absolute best.
So, while there are things I like about Mormon eternity I am all about (Margie+KittyBFF Forever!), if there is an afterlife (big “if” for me), the only thing that appeals about Exaltation is the eternally being with my husband and kids (and siblings, etc). The rest sounds like actual hell.
This is a fantastic post and it really resonates with what I’ve been thinking lately. I’ve actually always found it quite disturbing that the big promise of the afterlife (particularly for men; there’s definitely a gender aspect here, even though the church might claim there isn’t) is lots of power and authority. It seems to me that any afterlife based on the teachings of Christ would simply be an egalitarian place where we all had social relationships (family, friends, etc.) that were far superior to the ones we had on earth because we’d be better versions of ourselves in the afterlife, thus allowing us to further cement family and friendship ties. In fact, I think that’s one of the huge flaws with Mormonism; we’re supposedly down here having to learn how to be humble so that when we get awesome power and authority (for what purpose, I have no idea), we’ll be able to wield said power and authority with fairness and justice. That just seems wrong to me. So earthly probation is about staying humble and learning kindness in order that we can gain power? I really don’t see the relationship there and I think a lot of Mormon thinking about the afterlife doesn’t really match with the fundamental teachings of Christ.
I personally don’t want power over anyone. I want community and friendship. The best experiences I’ve ever had (and sadly, they’ve been too few) have just been having long conversations with a good friend with whom you feel you can be completely yourself. I just want more of that; family, friends and conversation. Of course, if I can’t also have my dog and my guitar, it just wouldn’t feel right. But seriously, there’s a bit of a sinister underpinning here when one thinks about what you note about the temple. Are we really just working to be all-powerful beings who can boss other, lesser beings around? I mean, I know that it’s all supposedly about helping other beings on other worlds (worlds that we create?) achieve exaltation, but even then, it just feels really weird. I wouldn’t mind creating stuff, because that sounds fun, but a lot of the Mormon afterlife does not sound remotely like any afterlife I’d want to be part of, particularly because, as you point out, we talk a lot more about power, glory and authority than we do about happiness.
Related to this is the fact that LDS “exaltation” would be — for me — a nightmarish hell.
I have no desire to be a god, and to be running a 24 hour prayer line — forever and ever and ever. I would much rather be learning and seeing past time periods and cultures — from a million different worlds — than creating billions of spirit kids, and then wipe out most of them in floods or famines or fiery end of the world scenes, and do that again and again.
And in LDS theology, gods are not outside of time or space. You could create a billion worlds, and then take a nap for a billion years, and then do that a billion more times — and you’re still there. That unending time fills me with absolute horror (see “apeirophobia”).
Mormon folk make fun of a god who is outside of time and space, and an afterlife in which we (supposedly) wouldn’t have the opportunity to “learn and progress” as only a god could. But I would take that afterlife any day, compared to the nightmarish Mormon afterlife. And if that afterlife isn’t real, then I truly would prefer complete and total annihilation once I die.
Anything other than the Mormon afterlife. It’s sad that the main marketing tools that the church has to offer — the temple (in this life) and godhood (in the afterlife) are two products that many people really don’t want at all.
Two thoughts come to mind (on and off reader, first time poster) – while I can appreciate the question of “what are the tradeoffs of exaltation?”, it feels like one of those questions (as so many are to me), where what I know is dwarfed by what I don’t —
John 15:15 – “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”
And from Elder Renlund – “But God is not interested in His children just becoming trained and obedient “pets” who will not chew on His slippers in the celestial living room. No, God wants His children to grow up spiritually and join Him in the family business.“
I don’t know what exaltation is like, but I imagine it’s a lot like being a parent full time, but having the wisdom, energy, and strength to be their for you kids, at the best of your ability. I think that’s the intention of our Heavenly Parents, to bring us into the family business, to have partners, to enjoy life as they do. If that’s it, I’m down to keep moving forward.
Other than the part about cats, Margie pretty well voiced my thoughts. Maybe without allergies, and celestial litterboxes . . . . ?
To me, Mormon theology on the afterlife is so lacking, vague and contradictory that discussions what it will be like aren’t fruitful. They’re just discussions of personal beliefs and opinions that are used to fill in the gaps. The OP suggests that the difficulty of powerful people having friends on earth (already an assertion) is extended to heavenly friendship challenges. I don’t see why that would necessarily hold. As for imperfections and flaws, if the same spirit I have now will inhabit my body post-resurrection and judgement, I’ve still got a lot of work to do before we have to worry about me being perfect. I figure I’m going to need a sizable portion of that infinite stretch of time to get there. Perhaps even all of it. And finally, the OP seems to presuppose that God’s nature is some sort of combination of character depicted in the OT, the NT, the BoM and the D&C, with a dose of modern-corporate-suit-wearing-GA thrown in. Personally, I’m not sure I understand all that much about who God is, nor what they spend all their time doing.
These discussions can be interesting, but generally lead to me rejecting the premise, rather than discussing the consequences.
I that many LDS people, including some leaders, might speak out of turn when they try to tell us what heaven, or the celestial kingdom, will be like. They don’t know. Paul saw the third heaven (I am not sure exactly what that means), and told us “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” Jacob taught that the Jews sought for things which they could not understand, and they were blind because they looked beyond the mark. I think that the same can be said of us today. The standard works to not tell us what heaven will be like, and indeed they tell us (a) that our minds can’t comprehend it and (b) that anyone who teaches things “beyond the scriptures” errs.
I do not know what heaven will be like, but I have faith that it will be good. I am satisfied with being a joint heir with Christ to all that the Father has, and we do know that God will dry every tear and will right every wrong. How I do not know. I prefer a more limited belief but aligned with what little we have in the scriptures to a more detailed belief that is perhaps beyond the mark. That’s just me.
The one thing I’m sure of is that no one really has a clue what eternity, if it exists, looks like. I do believe we continue to exist after this mortal realm though I understand why some don’t, but no one alive really knows for certain. Going back to a previous post, I’m very open to the idea of reincarnation as one possibility of eternity. If that’s the case, I don’t know what happens when you don’t want to take any more turns because I do think we continue to have agency. I like the comments that discuss furthering ties with family and friends, community, and increasing in knowledge and experience – sounds lovely! I don’t think we die and magically become a more perfect person, but agree that it’s a long process to refine ourselves.
I think the OP makes excellent points regarding power and the quest for it. As a female, being one of many wives to a male “god” or a servant to the highest degree, has zero appeal. If Mormon heaven is legit (meaning the CK), given my current understanding, that’s an absolute no for me. That said, I don’t think it is legit, but can see why it appeals to some men. I’d much rather spend my time with beings who are equal to me. There, respect, friendship, and love can exist rather than having a subservient relationship. One concept I do like from Mormon teaching is that wherever you are, you will be comfortable.
I agree that the church uses the “eternal package” as their big selling point. However, once you get over the idea of the “spending eternity with my family” part and consider the details, it doesn’t make sense and loses appeal to a lot of people. I’ve never thought about the dynamics discussed by the OP and agree that they don’t sound appealing as far as our understanding is at this time. My hope is that whatever happens in the next round, we are happy.
The “Church” (Brethren, manuals, temple, handbook, etc.) have NOT done a very good job of selling us on the beauty of the Celestial Kingdom. Yes, it would be great to be togther forever with my family (even that idea has it’s caveats). But the day-to-day life has never been presented as anything worth pursuing. We like to talk about concepts like glory and joy but we still don’t know crap about daily life. And I bet that’s because it’s all made up. Just my opinion of course.
I just got back from a family vacation in the tropics with my wife, my kids, and their spouses. I paid to avoid money stress on their part (some kids get paid well and others are still in college, etc). We all have a great time, and we agreed this was one of the best family vacays ever.
We were tired of each other after 1 week in paradise. I love my wife but I needed some alone time. If they were supposed to follow my every whim, what a freaking disaster that would be.
Eternity with my family? Just give me visitation rights a couple of days every week or month and call it good.
This is going to get some negative feedback: If God is a Mormon diety, he’s a prick, definitely surrounded by sycophants and men aspiring to be mission APs and stake presidents.
Not long after RMN banned the word “Mormon” I was talking to a friend about how bad I felt about losing the word and said something about how that can’t possibly be the most important issue for the prophet to receive revelation on. She replied with a faith-promoting rumor. She knows someone who knows RMN’s grandson, and the grandson said that RMN is so cautious about people taking his words too seriously that he hardly ever talks or tells stories about his youth because he doesn’t want his grandkids and great-grandkids taking every idle word he says as some sort of revelation. The point of the story is that if RMN talked about This Issue, then it’s really important.
I mean, apocryphal source aside, the idea that a grandpa avoids chit-chatting with his grandkids and telling stories because he’s worried they’ll take him too seriously is pretty sad. That’s what being promoted to God would be like. Everything you say has to be scripture. That’s so much pressure.
I have some leadership ability, but I sure wouldn’t want my every word to be taken that seriously.
As a lawyer, we sometimes run into this issue. We had a court hearing on Tuesday, and the judge said something about what he wanted but didn’t make it really specific. And we’re all puzzling about what he meant and how to make it happen. It’s just an odd thing to have to be right because you have so much authority.
Not a lot that resembled my understanding of Exaltation, I’ll admit.
I’ve always thought the most bare-bones definition of Heaven was a place where all people are happy and satisfied. Whether through gaining knowledge I didn’t have previously, or having the most negative aspects of my personality more or less burned out of me (I’m leaning toward knowledge), I think life as an Exalted being will meet that criteria regardless of what it may look like to people right now. I do get that “going where you’re comfortable” argument as well.
I realize God isn’t limited to four dimensions, but for a being with all power and glory, He sure seems willing to spend a lot of time with me. More than most people actually.
In just the last year or two, I’ve come to think of the Plan of Salvation as the ultimate pay-it-forward scenario. What do I get for exaltation? I do all I can help others obtain the same. If it’s even just a fraction of the satisfaction and happiness I get from seeing my own kids progress, I imagine that alone would be worth it. That’s ultimately the real carrot.
Others here have brought up in the past that being all knowing could get boring pretty fast. I don’t think that would be the case, but I also tend to think the omniscience of exalted beings is limited to their own creations. As such, I look forward to reading books from the Shakespeare, Austen, Cervantes, and Tolkien equivalents of the other worlds my Heavenly Parents created (or their siblings or parents for that matter), as well as vacationing to some of these worlds. With all things before you, I’d imagine you’d have all the time in the world for the best work/life balance.
I think that we cannot imagine what things will be like in the CK or when we attain godhood. For example, Janey sounds afraid of being *expected* to be perfect, because what if she is wrong? Well, rest assured that when you attain perfection, Janey, you won’t be wrong, because you will be all knowing and all those other omnipotent things.
What I am saying is that we just can’t imagine being gods, who are all knowing, all powerful, blah, blah, blah. Of course I would be afraid in my current condition to have my word taken TOO seriously because I really could be wrong. For example, right now my diabetic husband is on some medicine that is making his blood sugar go dangerously low. Well, I had the same thing happen when I was on that same medication and the PHD pharmacist examined my blood sugars levels, my A1c, and adjusted my meds. He had more knowledge about the drugs than even my doctor and he pulled me off the one medication and put me on something else. So, my husband wants me with that same experience to tell him what to do about his meds making him drop to dangerous levels. Yeah, I went through that, but I don’t have the knowledge to fix his blood sugars and I don’t want him asking me for advice. I could be wrong. Because I don’t have the knowledge. But imagine if I have made it to godhood and am *all knowing.* THEN I would have the knowledge. Then I would feel safe giving him advice, because I am all knowing. Yeah, makes me laugh, because now I am so stupid and uneducated that I can’t even imagine having that kind of knowledge.
Being a god would be like the transition from child to adult. When you are a kid, you are friends with other kids, because they are your equals. As an adult, you have other adults as friends. Because they are your equals. On earth, we don’t have gods hanging around, so who would you be friends with? But in the CK, there would be other gods to be friends with. The problem on earth that makes kings lonely is there are not two kings in the same country. But notice how in the past kings married royalty from other countries. A marriage would be arranged between the daughter of king of France to marry the son of king of England—-because they are equals. Elisabeth of England was married to *Prince Philip* because they were near equals. At least peers. It was never Prince Harry marries a commoner from America who grew up poor and some of her relatives on her father’s side for sure seem like poor white trash. Harry and Megan are not peers. He is royalty; she is a commoner. She didn’t fit into his world. So, of course when we are gods we will be married to and friends with other gods. In the CK there should be plenty and they will be our equals.
As far as what we would be doing, well being female I probably don’t get lots of power and glory, but, eh, don’t want it anyway. So, I want a nice lab with green house attached where I get to design the genetics of flowers and trees, mosses and mushrooms. On the beach, my genetic research lab will be on a nice beach with no neighbors in view.
I will NOT be eternally pregnant. I don’t know how spirit children are produced, but I won’t do it the way we do on earth. Children will be grown in my other lab that will be a nice mountain setting, by a stream. With no neighbor in sight.
If heaven is spending eternity with your extended family… Why is being an empty nester so much fun?
I enjoy the arts. When making art there are moments of grace and serendipity that are unplanned and amazing. But does God have those?
All of this cosmology is derived from Joseph Smith’s inaccurate translations of Egyptian funerary papyrii.
<
div>
Sent from my iPhone
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
The multiple commenters who have said we don’t really know what the next life will be like are exactly right. We don’t. It’s all speculation. And the idea that we shouldn’t worry about it got stuck like a grain of sand in a clam shell, and I have produced a pearl of wisdom.
The reason the discussion about the afterlife is important in this life is because the Church is patterned on the idea of a God with no peers who never makes a mistake. This is why Church leaders can’t come right out and say that, for example, the POX was a mistake or that polygamy was just Joseph Smith’s idea. This is why the Church won’t apologize for the priesthood ban. This is why Pres Nelson doesn’t want feedback about banning the word “Mormon”.
They (Church leaders) all think that God shouldn’t have a loyal opposition, should never admit to making a mistake, shouldn’t admit to making changes based on public pressure, shouldn’t have a peer who can roll his eyes and say, “c’mon, really?” And that’s why they act the way they do! They are acting out their version of God in this life, as leaders of the Church.
And that’s why it’s important to talk so much about how vague and unworkable the LDS idea of becoming gods with our own planets it. It helps people see that the way the Church is run isn’t healthy. Some faithful and stressed out people won’t tolerate “speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed” (Church leaders) but they can talk about how they don’t want to be eternally pregnant. Or that they don’t really want that much power. Or they could acknowledge that Godhood is such a lonely place. Then that leads into acknowledging that maybe it isn’t healthy for RMN to think that every thought in his head is inspired.
The discussion about what the afterlife will be like, and the comments about how everything we know about it is either vague or unpleasant, is important because it exposes the weaknesses about the way the Church is run.
I agree with many of the comments. The LDS version of the afterlife is a confidence game. It takes an element of truth – that people possess different levels of righteousness – and makes up a contest where if you act your best at “LDS church” then you will “win” and your “sacrifice” will be worth it.
There are many problems with this narrative. The most important one is it teaches we are saved by our works and not by the grace of God. Another problem is it creates a contradiction. The LDS model of salvation guilts the member to think they must work to exalt themselves, but allows others to be exalted without work!
(1) LDS members must be all in on the church & Tithing & Temple and doing their callings to be exalted. (2) Those who never did those things can also be exalted because members did their temple work.
Fine then. Put me in the second group and I’ll catch up with you all in the CK!
Seriously, why are LDS spending so much effort doing temple work for the dead if those people aren’t going to the CK? And if they are going to the CK why do they get to go if during mortality they didn’t do any of the things active LDS are required to do to receive temple ordinances?
Janey writes above: RNM’s “grandson said that RMN is so cautious about people taking his words too seriously that he hardly ever talks or tells stories about his youth because he doesn’t want his grandkids and great-grandkids taking every idle word he says as some sort of revelation.” If true (and it probably is), and if President Nelson’s own family can’t tell the difference between revelation and telling stories (in other words, if President Nelson’s own family is so follow-the-prophet that they can’t distinguish revelation from humor or anecdote or suggestion or idea or chatter), then maybe we should teach the difference from the pulpit in general conference. We say that our leaders aren’t infallible, but we act and teach like they are. Why does President Nelson not tell stories or talk about his youth with his own descendants? Maybe because he really does believe in prophet infallibility, and not only when he speaks ex-cathedra (like at general conference) but even in family settings. Does this sound healthy? My father could be quite serious, but he could also tell a joke, and I knew the difference. If I was ever confused, he made sure that knew that he was being light hearted. Imagine a general conference talk where the president of the church told us that he was fallible, that he was doing his best, and that he had made mistakes and would make more mistakes (without naming any), and that the object of our faith should be Christ and no one else, present company included.
Georgis,
In President Nelson’s first press conference a reporter asked some questions about Joseph Smith and his polygamy with women married to other men. President Nelson responded that we don’t have an infallibility doctrine for Joseph, or any prophet including himself.
I am sure he knows he’s fallible. It’s rather obvious. However he probably has mixed feelings about having it known generally. How some members follow the prophet without further thoughts must make him feel that he has been given incredible power, and he probably hopes to use that power to strengthen the church. However, his idea of what may strengthen the church is different than mine.
I agree with you that it would strengthen the church and eliminate some unhealthy thinking if he made it more clear in conference, that prophets and other leaders are fallible, and it’s necessary that we think for ourselves.
Why wait for the celestial kingdom? We can make heaven on earth! I for one am going to start becoming like my Heavenly Father now. First off, I‘m going have my children go through interviews to see if they are worthy to be in my presence. Then I‘ll have them come together weekly to sing my praises and tell me how great I am. It‘s a great plan!
I work in a technology company. My company classifies people’s roles as either management or individual contributor, which I think is common practice nowadays. In theory they have a promotion track for individual contributors who aren’t managers but have stayed with the company for a long time and progressed in their abilities. I’m temperamentally an individual contributor, but it’s been a long time since I’ve had a promotion, which sometimes has me questioning whether follow the temptation to try for the management track.
I feel like the concept of eternal progression is a really interesting and promising idea, but I think the concept got “management tracked”. In the management track, progression is measured by how many steps up the pyramid you’ve made and how many there are to go. It measures progress in terms of power attained more than by real personal growth. That, unfortunately, is how I think most Mormons have come to think of exaltation. But what if we could have an “individual contributor” track to exaltation? What if I don’t like being in charge of things and just want to keep getting better at things I like doing? That’s all I need out of an afterlife.
in Mormonism, we don’t spend much time discussing the problem of evil (if we can’t question the veracity of the BoM, how could we possibly question the morality of God?) But if I were to become a God, I would have to reckon with the problem of evil in my own way, wouldn’t I?
Unless I’m bound by some CK rule about creating a universe just like this one, I’d be keen on creating a universe that was free from cruelty and suffering, where my creations could just enjoy being alive and part of a larger cosmic whole without worrying about predation and taxes and root canals and tyranny and sexual harassment and senescence and such.
Sounds nice, right? Honestly, I’m surprised God didn’t think of it first.
First of all Janey, in answer to your first question, “What sort of person would you have to be, to aspire to be obeyed without question?”
Answer: A world class narcissistic prick. The principle of obedience has been so severely abused by the church, creating a power struggle rather than a searching and sharing of wisdom’s past. Every time we preach obedience as a stand-alone virtue, we undermine the principle itself. If obedience is just about following orders, complying with the powers that be then it becomes entirely disconnected from what it’s intended to achieve.
As for the dangling of “Power” as the preeminent reward in the CK, it’s seems obvious to me that we have failed miserably at reading and applying Jesus’s words. With this point, I think we have earned to critique of “worshiping a different Jesus”. He is constantly showing that his “peace” or his “power” or his way to resolve conflict are not our way of defining those terms.
In the classic verses found in Matthew 20:20-28, we see this somewhat desperate plea of a mother, inquiring of Jesus, she says, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” Jesus’ response is instructive but shocking.
Their definition of power would result in their enemies being crucified, not their messiahs.
Their definition of power included an earthly kingdom, not one that isn’t of this world.
Their definition of power had them at the top and in charge of everyone else beneath them, not being the servants of others.
They were in for a rather rude awakening.
The disciple’s definition of power is much like what we are seeing from many today, including many who claim to follow Jesus.
The response most of Christianity uses to a flawed and uncertain world is lip service certainty, saying; “Well, we know the truth and the world doesn’t. Enforcing these values is how to love the world best. They may not like us for that, but we can’t compromise the truth simply because other people disagree with it.”
This kind of logic completely misses the point of Christ’s entire earthly ministry.
Jesus had all cosmic power. Jesus was “one with God.” Jesus had all the authority and power given to him. Jesus was God’s truth, God’s Word incarnate.
Yet how did Jesus respond to a broken world? Jesus could have used all cosmic and political power to bend the world to his will, and “enforce the truth,” which was the temptation Satan offered to him in the wilderness. He could have responded this way, but he didn’t. Instead, Jesus proclaims the unthinkable concept of power not looking like power at all. He turns “power” upside down and backwards by descending below all things, by washing his disciple’s feet instead of demanding they wash his.
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. He embodied a servant. Jesus showed healing, and compassion, and pursued justice, putting the needs of those around him above his own, even at the expense of his own life.
Furthermore, one might think that by virtue of the oft quoted narrative told about what happened in “the war in heaven”, we would better understand that “power” is not something to be acquired or achieved, but only something to be shared and participate in. Satan comes forward as any egomaniac would, wanting to be the hero, but for what end? To grab the glory, to be noticed, validated, and given a position “over” the others. Meanwhile, Jesus, as the story goes, simply states “The glory be thine”, glory be God’s, or in other words, he leaves glory to the only place it can actually flourish, with the “Whole”. The word God in the original Aramaic is the word “Alaha”, in Hebrew it is “Eloha” or “Elohim”. Alaha means “unity”, and the “im” as the suffix to “Eloha” makes the term plural, meaning “many things functioning as one”, or “Unity”. So, in essence, Jesus is saying, Glory be thine, or Glory belongs to “Unity”, never to the one.
To make power or glory the aim of our temple ritual is doing exactly as Satan suggested, going down, obeying God’s words for sure, but only if he (or we) can ultimately get what he (we) wants, Glory and Power. Dante’s Inferno captures the sentiment this way; “It’s better to rule in hell, than to serve in heaven”. Jesus, if anything, is the revelation of a God never proclaimed in antiquity or mythology. He is a God that showed his power, not by force, but restraint, not by revolution, but by forgiveness. Jesus is the God that came to make himself human, to become one of us, descending below even the lowest and showing that the only power that will ever create heaven is “equality”.