Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial

[Maidservant]

I thought I would not derail Ms. inquiringmind's thread, so I am beginning what I hope will be an interesting discussion regarding the nature of the idea and/or reality of the telestial, terrestrial and celestial kingdom, and what it really means and what those experiences really are.

I would like to start by point out that the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price make no use of these terms at all. They are wholly absent. Perhaps a lot can be said about the outlook of these books on our purpose of this life and eternity, but whatever had to be said or shown was done without these terms. Perhaps an equation can be made to the substantial principles behind them. It may also be of note that these three books cover some of the same time period of the age of man and God's dealings with man.

In the New Testament we only have one use of these terms. Paul introduces them in the letter written to the Corinthians and to me at least, it is very clearly an exercise in analogy, a learning exercise, an object lesson, although certainly the analogy speaks to a reality.

1 Corinthians Ch. 15 starting perhaps in verse 37.

Now Pauls object in this passage is not so much to talk about the final judgment, although there is some of that in there too, but to show the necessity of resurrection and the part it plays in the gospel i.e. eternal progression.

He talks about how a seed can only have in it the body that it IS--but he talks about how a seed must die before that body can be manifest. A grain seed must die before the body of the grain comes.

Then he talks about how there are three classes of astronomical bodies, meaning to show again that that something can only BE what it IS, and to remind his audience that they understand the difference of bodies even though there is also something the same (same and different can exist paradoxically at the same time). I don't know where he gets his astronomical classes. I don't know if he is drawing on the state of Greek philosophy (science) at the time, or what. But he is not introducing gospel here any more than any of the other object lessons we can often use. He is just trying to prepare the minds of the people for what he is trying to say about resurrection.

Having given the object lesson of the grain, animal species and of the astronomical bodies, he now tries to show the reality of what we can expect in life and eternity, and he does so not by speaking in triplicate (telestial, terrestrial, celestial), but by discussing a binary situation, again all to the point of the necessity of resurrection (not particularly about the kind of life we can expect after that, although some sense can reasonably be gained on that as well from his words). In fact, Paul speaks only of the kingdom of God (singular).

verse 42 through 55: So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

So the use of telestial, terrestrial and celestial either symbolically or actual (or both, they are not exclusive) does not seem to be taught in the past according to the records we have. We have to look to the Restoration (which is a very good place to look! ha ha).

So I will post on that next (the Restoration and these symbolic devices), but in the meantime, does anyone have some favorite quotes or passages or just personal insights on this subject that they would like to share?

[Maidservant]

Joseph Smith introduced the use of the concepts of telestial, terrestrial and celestial in the latter-days as part of the Restoration of the gospel, priesthood and church. Or rather, Jesus Christ introduced them by revelation through Joseph Smith.

There are eight sections in the Doctrine & Covenants that refer to this triplicate explanation of eternal progression and fate (or at least use the word "celestial"). Here is the list and by date.

Section 76 Feb 1832

Section 78 Mar 1832

Section 88 Dec 1832

Section 101 Dec 1833

Section 105 Jun 1834

Section 137 Jan 1836

Section 130 Apr 1843

Section 131 May 1843

I would love to start by discussing D & C 76, the earliest one. Anyone have any comments on that? Does anyone have any background about Joseph Smith's life and the state of the church at the time this revelation was given?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

The historical blurb printed in the D & C about section 76 says that Joseph Smith was in the process of revising the Bible and that Joseph Smith was realizing by several experiences that the Bible was incomplete in that many things regarding the salvation of man had been removed from it before arriving in the condition as he had it.

The blurb says that Joseph Smith was engaging with John 5:29: "And shall come forth [see v. 28]; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

According to Joseph's words (as shared in the preface blurb), it occurred to him as "self-evident" that the singular explanations (symbols?) of heaven could not account for the reality (of the progression and destiny of man). So here we have a thoughtful man who is reading the Bible at face value and still saying, "There has to be more."

In addition to his pondering, in response to his question, his seeking, he received a full revelation (76).

[cesc101]

So here we have a thoughtful man who is reading the Bible at face value and still saying, "There has to be more."

Sure!

The same process that brought about the Book of Moses. Now, notice that "it was after the Prophet had translated John 5:29 that this vision was given."

[cesc101]

In the New Testament we only have one use of these terms. Paul introduces them in the letter written to the Corinthians [...]

So the use of telestial, terrestrial and celestial either symbolically or actual (or both, they are not exclusive) does not seem to be taught in the past according to the records we have. We have to look to the Restoration (which is a very good place to look! ha ha).

[...] does anyone have some [...] personal insights on this subject that they would like to share?

Well, just a personal insight... The Book of Moses was a translation/revelation to JS based on the Old Testament, The Book of Abraham talks of Abraham as the father of the covenant people - a central theme of the Old Testament (the uniqueness of the hebrew nation.)

Now, in my own view, the Old testament dealth mostly with the introduction/sustainance of religion/concept of God to the hebrew people. So basically, destination or end game of next life was not the central concept then (just my observation...)

The new testament must have had the idea, but like JS noted in the introduction to D&C 76, "it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Lets not forget that it was revealed to JS in a vision, am sure he used Pauls terms to word these kingdoms for clearity and understanding (just my thoughts...)

[Maidservant]

Well, just a personal insight... The Book of Moses was a translation/revelation to JS based on the Old Testament, The Book of Abraham talks of Abraham as the father of the covenant people - a central theme of the Old Testament (the uniqueness of the hebrew nation.)

Now, in my own view, the Old testament dealth mostly with the introduction/sustainance of religion/concept of God to the hebrew people. So basically, destination or end game of next life was not the central concept then (just my observation...)

Yes, I find the Old Testament outlook on serving God to be very interesting and hope to delve into it further at some point. It seemed to be that obedience to God resulted in protection and prosperity in this life. The object of making choices and being obedient in order to gain entry into a condition of afterlife is missing.

The new testament must have had the idea, but like JS noted in the introduction to D&C 76, "it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." Lets not forget that it was revealed to JS in a vision, am sure he used Pauls terms to word these kingdoms for clearity and understanding (just my thoughts...)

I think you are right that he got the words from Paul, but I think he used it differently than Paul did, because Paul never talked about the destiny of man as being described in these three ways. Paul's reason for bringing up the astronomical bodies was to be a bridge for his audience's understanding that if they could accept the differences of plants, animals and astronomical bodies, then they should also be able to understand that there was a difference in mortal and immortal bodies (and experience).

But this does not invalidate Joseph Smith's (or Jesus Christ's) way of using the conceptual device differently to provide truth for us today. But my point would be it is a brand new way (or at least according to the records we have). More on D & C 76 from me soon. Hope to hear more on what you have learned, cesc! Or from anyone.

[CASteinman]

According to Joseph's words (as shared in the preface blurb), it occurred to him as "self-evident" that the singular explanations (symbols?) of heaven could not account for the reality (of the progression and destiny of man). So here we have a thoughtful man who is reading the Bible at face value and still saying, "There has to be more."

In addition to his pondering, in response to his question, his seeking, he received a full revelation (76).

As I understand it, the Revelation was written by Rigdon who also received it with Joseph. I don't think Joseph wrote the words.

[Maidservant]

As I understand it, the Revelation was written by Rigdon who also received it with Joseph. I don't think Joseph wrote the words.

Oh, interesting. I hadn't considered that. It does say he also received the revelation.

[CV75]

I thought I would not derail Ms. inquiringmind's thread, so I am beginning what I hope will be an interesting discussion regarding the nature of the idea and/or reality of the telestial, terrestrial and celestial kingdom, and what it really means and what those experiences really are.

D&C 88:33-34 talks about telestial, terrestrial and celestial degrees of glory, and the rest of the section ties these glories into “kingdoms.” Verses 33-35 apply to how we experience this life and need not wait until the final judgment to experience one glory or kingdom or another.

Moses 1 demonstrates this in a few ways:

Verses 13-15: Moses could not relate at all to the devil’s kingdom but could to the one he was faithful to: “And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely?” In verse 15, Moses adds, “…his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me.” So if not altogether, then to a degree.

Verse 5: “Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.” So we can behold some (and then more) of His works and some (and then more) of His glory, which we do by degrees as we become sanctified.

Verse 11: while Moses could only endure this experience by being “transfigured” in the Lord’s glory, he could still remember it and live up to it (a celestial level of existence).

Verse 25: “And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice…” in this case Moses received glory to the point of hearing the voice, but not to the point of his seeing what God had shown him before. Then in verse 31: “And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face.”

Now all this may be relative. One man's telestial glory be another man's celestial, and this may be where Jospeh Smith was coming from. But there is a place where the Lord physically dwells and places where He spiritually dwells. We can be with Him in any of these places in an exalted sense, but only with Him in one place in the sense of a lesser kingdom, if he allows that at all.

[cdowis]

While these terms are not used in the BOM, Alma describes the concept in Alma 40-42, the concept of restitution and restoration. We are restored to the condition that resides within us, based on our thoughts, desires and acts. Those who are filthy cannot reside in the presence of the Father, for example. There must be a place for them to reside throughout eternity.

But you are correct that the fullness of the Gospel has been reveled in these last days, where such things were not clearly understood until the latter days.

[Maidservant]

There is a lot of material in D & C 76, of course, and it has to be one of my favorite all-time or all-around passages in the scriptures. It is a feast!

So I have been thinking how best to approach it in terms of posting briefly on the board, and so I will focus on the verses that actually bring up the terms telestial, terrestrial and celestial; although I think the whole message in the entire revelation works together. If anyone wants to bring in other verses and how they impact the use of those terms and/or our understanding of our eternal destiny, by all means do so.

In verses 50 through 70, Jesus Christ reveals the fullest potential men and women can hope for and experience in eternity. And/or Joseph (and Sidney) are trying to describe in English what they are having revealed to them in a way that can be carried by word. And I get the sense that this is somewhat of a difficult task--that this greatest potential of eternal life for the sons and daughters of God is beyond words.

In these verses a lot is given, both about what these kind of people DO (or choose, etc) in order to be considered to be described by these verses; as well as, having DONE, what they will be able to live or receive.

Joseph uses a lot of amazing terminology that positively excites me, drawing upon phrasing from lots of ancient traditions, in an attempt (and success) to trying to describe the reality. "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise", "church of the Firstborn", "after the order of Enoch" and even the "general assembly and church of Enoch", "dwell in the presence of God", "come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God", among others.

He concludes with describing another property of these people who have prepared in such a way: "These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical." (v 70)

So in this place, the idea or property of celestial is applied to bodies. Remember, Joseph's initial premise was to understand the resurrection posited in John 5:29, so when we are resurrected, our bodies our returned to us, but in what condition, we ask.

Now I want to talk about why I consider 'telestial, terrestrial, and celestial' as a phrase to describe what reality there is, to be a device. It may be an awesome, durable device, but a device still. Even Joseph writes "whose glory of the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical". He understands this to be a device for coming to understanding. In our modern age we understand the sun to be on the same nature as the stars of the sky, the only difference being our proximity to this particular star. And the moon is an object completely different. So to understand this as a reality, it breaks down. But to understand it as a device, then it is helpful. We COULD just say "highest heaven", "middle heaven", "lowest heaven", but that's just not as pretty .

But to talk about it like this thus far, is in the end an exercise in semantics. What ABOUT these three ideas, whether we call them high/medium/low or celestial/terrestrial/telestial? What ABOUT them can really be said?

Well, up to verse 70, we have only word the word celestial and it was applied to bodies. The other verses speak for themselves and would yield their truths to deeper pondering and study of which I won't take any more time in this particular post simply due to the volume of spiritual information one could get here. But feel free to say anything that you would like to bring forward in these verses. But one question I have is why have we favored the "telestial/terrestrial/celestial" device? Why haven't we latched on to, for example, the church of Enoch device as a way to admonish us to prepare for that eternal future? I don't know. It's curious to me. I don't mind the telestial, terrestrial and celestial device, I rather like it, of course. But I want to understand the reality it MEANS.

I will speak on beyond verse 70 next time, how the astronomical theme is developed.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Maidservant

[CASteinman]

Here are the only known eye witness accounts of the Revelation being received:

Philo Dibble, as published in the Juvenile Instructor, 15 May 1892:

The vision which is recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants was given at the house of "Father Johnson," in Hyrum, Ohio, and during the time that Joseph and Sidney were in the spirit and saw the heavens open, there were other men in the room, perhaps twelve, among whom I was one during a part of the time—probably two-thirds of the time,—I saw the glory and felt the power, but did not see the vision.

The events and conversation, while they were seeing what is written (and many things were seen and related that are not written,) I will relate as minutely as is necessary.

Joseph would, at intervals, say: "What do I see?" as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see. Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, "I see the same." Presently Sidney would say "what do I see?" and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, "I see the same."

This manner of conversation was repeated at short intervals to the end of the vision, and during the whole time not a word was spoken by any other person. Not a sound nor motion made by anyone but Joseph and Sidney, and it seemed to me that they never moved a joint or limb during the time I was there, which I think was over an hour, and to the end of the vision.

Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which, Joseph remarked, smilingly, "Sidney is not used to it as I am."

Philo Dibble as published by the Juvenile Instructor 1882:

On a subsequent visit to Hiram, I arrived at Father Johnson's just as Joseph and Sidney were coming out of the vision alluded to in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in which mention is made of the three glories. Joseph wore black clothes, but at this time seemed to be dressed in an element of glorious white, and his face shone as if it were transparent, but I did not see the same glory attending Sidney. Joseph appeared as strong as a lion, but Sidney seemed as weak as water, and Joseph noticing his condition smiled and said, "Brother Sidney is not as used to it as I am."

[CASteinman]

Brigham Young did not like the Vision at first. This is what he said about his reaction to it:

After all, my traditions were such, that when the Vision came first to me, it was so directly contrary and opposed to my former education, I said, wait a little; I did not reject it, but I could not understand it. I then could feel what incorrect traditions had done for me. Suppose all that I have ever heard from my priest and parents—the way they taught me to read the Bible, had been true;—my understanding would be diametrically opposed to the doctrine revealed in the Vision. I used to think and pray, to read and think, until I knew, and fully understood it for myself, by the visions of the holy Spirit. At first, it actually came in contact with my own feelings, though I never could believe like the mass of the Christian world around me; but I did not know how nigh I believed as they did. I found, however, that I was so nigh, I could shake hands with them any time I wished.

(Deseret News—Extra (Salt Lake City), 14 Sept. 1852, p. 52)

[CV75]

But to talk about it like this thus far, is in the end an exercise in semantics? What ABOUT these three ideas, whether we call them high/medium/low or celestial/terrestrial/telestial? What ABOUT them can really be said?

I believe D&C 88:28-32 explains this. I meant to mention in in my prior post but forgot!

But one question I have is why have we favored the "telestial/terrestrial/celestial" device?

I think because a) as CA explained from Brigham Young's quote, the concept was such a new light bursting forth in latter-day revelation; b) it connects the exciting idea that physical things can have a spiritual glory and that spiritual things can have a physical manifestation, thus the promise of a completion of faith and its conversion into palpable knowledge, which everyone finds palatable; c) because we see things from our point of view and reckoning, we can easily imagine from physical light the corresponding spiritual realities.

[Maidservant]

D&C 88:33-34 talks about telestial, terrestrial and celestial degrees of glory, and the rest of the section ties these glories into “kingdoms.” Verses 33-35 apply to how we experience this life and need not wait until the final judgment to experience one glory or kingdom or another.

Yes. Hadn't taken a look at 88 yet, but good to know. I agree (or at least thus far unless my study turns up something else) that experiencing the glory (or kingdom) is a matter of preparation or condition, not necessarily dependent on death nor upon any certain time in the future.

Moses 1 demonstrates this in a few ways:

Verses 13-15: Moses could not relate at all to the devil’s kingdom but could to the one he was faithful to: “And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely?” In verse 15, Moses adds, “…his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me.” So if not altogether, then to a degree.

Verse 5: “Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.” So we can behold some (and then more) of His works and some (and then more) of His glory, which we do by degrees as we become sanctified.

Verse 11: while Moses could only endure this experience by being “transfigured” in the Lord’s glory, he could still remember it and live up to it (a celestial level of existence).

Verse 25: “And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice…” in this case Moses received glory to the point of hearing the voice, but not to the point of his seeing what God had shown him before. Then in verse 31: “And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face.”

Good stuff. Yesterday I was also thinking on the experience of the brother of Jared and how that process, experience and result is described. But I didn't know if an experience like that was still preparatory to what we can hope for in God's promises for ourselves as individuals and communities (families). I would think that it is preparatory if only because the full possibility is so amazing.

Now all this may be relative. One man's telestial glory be another man's celestial, and this may be where Jospeh Smith was coming from. But there is a place where the Lord physically dwells and places where He spiritually dwells. We can be with Him in any of these places in an exalted sense, but only with Him in one place in the sense of a lesser kingdom, if he allows that at all.

Hmm, I never thought on relativity and at first thought, I don't know about that. But do you feel like elaborating on that?

I should mention that I am a firm believer in the reality of LAND or GEOGRAPHY or PLACE that comes with covenants and with being a celestial person. The covenants of Israel always involved land. For example in our modern times, we may say that we can make our home a heaven. I often think about how I bar any influence in the adversary once you cross the boundary of my yard. This is MY place and it is consecrated to God. But it is dependent upon my power as a creator of the CONDITION of that place (or upon my reliance upon the Savior and my Father and THEIR spirit, since I am just in training). So actual material space does come into the equation eventually, but only secondarily and subsequently as a consequence of WHO I AM.

Now it is not that Heavenly Father couldn't do this--create a PLACE under his influence and invite us there if we are people who wouldn't violate it. In fact he has done this in our temples, or at least where we can practice. But in the end, he can't do this by himself--we have to BE celestial, then any place around us is celestial also, whether we are God or John Q. Doe, Elders Quorum President and husband and father extraordinnaire.

I also understand Jesus and heavenly Father to be persons and so when we say dwell in their presence, there are only so many physical bodies you can pack into an area to where you could reasonably say you are neighbors. So when there is said PRESENCE, I think that means something a little different, maybe what you call spiritual presence.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

Alma describes the concept in Alma 40-42, the concept of restitution and restoration. We are restored to the condition that resides within us, based on our thoughts, desires and acts. Those who are filthy cannot reside in the presence of the Father, for example. There must be a place for them to reside throughout eternity.

I guess this highlights a personal question I have, or actually it is not a question, as I felt I have been taught to the point where it is now an answer, but maybe it is time to re-examine it.

I like that you bring up this passage and I think it is extremely relevant. And when I read a passage like this, I hear that we cannot be who we never were.

We have to become.

I hear that we will not be given anything but what we already have.

If we receive more than we are, then that is not restoration either (to me). If we were good and obedient people, but we did not learn how to truly be like the Father, then how can "being like the Father" be given to us? It is not a restoration, as Alma explains.

So for me, I have learned that it is a continuum. Always. We start small like a mustard seed. Then we become a tree. It's not an exercise in accomplishing a certain number of tasks and because we did well in them, we get a gift or wage.

We have to overcome, continually. In this life. In whatever life comes after that. Just as we did in the life before arriving here.

But maybe I am missing something (not directed at you, but at the scriptures as a whole).

I also like that you bring this up because it does talk about how WE are the point of the restoration. WE will be restored. It is about the condition WE are in, due to our choices.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

Here are the only known eye witness accounts of the Revelation being received:

Philo Dibble, as published in the Juvenile Instructor, 15 May 1892:

The vision which is recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants was given at the house of "Father Johnson," in Hyrum, Ohio, and during the time that Joseph and Sidney were in the spirit and saw the heavens open, there were other men in the room, perhaps twelve, among whom I was one during a part of the time—probably two-thirds of the time,—I saw the glory and felt the power, but did not see the vision.

The events and conversation, while they were seeing what is written (and many things were seen and related that are not written,) I will relate as minutely as is necessary.

Joseph would, at intervals, say: "What do I see?" as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see. Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, "I see the same." Presently Sidney would say "what do I see?" and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, "I see the same."

This manner of conversation was repeated at short intervals to the end of the vision, and during the whole time not a word was spoken by any other person. Not a sound nor motion made by anyone but Joseph and Sidney, and it seemed to me that they never moved a joint or limb during the time I was there, which I think was over an hour, and to the end of the vision.

Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which, Joseph remarked, smilingly, "Sidney is not used to it as I am."

Philo Dibble as published by the Juvenile Instructor 1882:

On a subsequent visit to Hiram, I arrived at Father Johnson's just as Joseph and Sidney were coming out of the vision alluded to in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in which mention is made of the three glories. Joseph wore black clothes, but at this time seemed to be dressed in an element of glorious white, and his face shone as if it were transparent, but I did not see the same glory attending Sidney. Joseph appeared as strong as a lion, but Sidney seemed as weak as water, and Joseph noticing his condition smiled and said, "Brother Sidney is not as used to it as I am."

Brigham Young did not like the Vision at first. This is what he said about his reaction to it:

After all, my traditions were such, that when the Vision came first to me, it was so directly contrary and opposed to my former education, I said, wait a little; I did not reject it, but I could not understand it. I then could feel what incorrect traditions had done for me. Suppose all that I have ever heard from my priest and parents—the way they taught me to read the Bible, had been true;—my understanding would be diametrically opposed to the doctrine revealed in the Vision. I used to think and pray, to read and think, until I knew, and fully understood it for myself, by the visions of the holy Spirit. At first, it actually came in contact with my own feelings, though I never could believe like the mass of the Christian world around me; but I did not know how nigh I believed as they did. I found, however, that I was so nigh, I could shake hands with them any time I wished.

(Deseret News—Extra (Salt Lake City), 14 Sept. 1852, p. 52)

Good stuff. Thanks for adding to our picture here.

[CV75]

Good stuff. Yesterday I was also thinking on the experience of the brother of Jared and how that process, experience and result is described. But I didn't know if an experience like was still preparatory to what we can hope for in God's promises for ourselves as individuals and communities (families). I would think that it is preparatory if only because the full possibility is so amazing.

Yes, I agree—“…no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth…”

Hmm, I never thought on relativity and at first thought, I don't know about that. But do you feel like elaborating on that?

Some elaboration on “one man’s telestial glory may be another man's celestial” (aside from repeating what you already wrote!):

1. As sinners enter the gate of baptism, we are start at different places. One man may feel as if he entered the “celestial” kingdom simply by quitting cigarettes—he feels reborn. Another man who had quit smoking years before but has now overcome the desire to snack in lieu of smoking may feel reborn into a higher kingdom, and view his former freedom from smoking alone no longer as “celestial”, but as “telestial”, for now he has overcome his desire as well as his action. Whenever we progress and replace our former state with one that is closer to God’s will, we advance in kingdoms. And since we progress at different rates and perceive different milestones, one man’s “arrival” may be another’s “departure”, and indeed it is even for the same man as he progresses.

2. I’ve heard it said that it would be hell for a sinner to dwell with God (Mormon 9:4). Perhaps we are all taken home to the same physical place in the resurrection, but because of sin some live in a state of denial and cannot see Him or enjoy is presence but are more comfortable with other “damned souls in hell.” The glories of our resurrected bodies are a function of what we are or what we are willing to receive, not so much where we live (if anything, the former drives the latter), since God’s glory is everywhere and accessible from anyone anywhere, to the degree they want it. So maybe we do all live in the same place, just with different realities, just as we do now.

3. I still think that in the celestial kingdom, where God physically dwells, we can also physically be with God at any time, but also that a moment with Him would be as good as a lifetime (D&C 88: 51-63), and having perfected patience and faith, it is all just as good. And of course verse 64 applies to the same process and relationship within the constraints of our mortal probation.

[Maidservant]

1. As sinners enter the gate of baptism, we are start at different places. One man may feel as if he entered the “celestial” kingdom simply by quitting cigarettes—he feels reborn. Another man who had quit smoking years before but has now overcome the desire to snack in lieu of smoking may feel reborn into a higher kingdom, and view his former freedom from smoking alone no longer as “celestial”, but as “telestial”, for now he has overcome his desire as well as his action. Whenever we progress and replace our former state with one that is closer to God’s will, we advance in kingdoms. And since we progress at different rates and perceive different milestones, one man’s “arrival” may be another’s “departure”, and indeed it is even for the same man as he progresses.

I more or less agree with this process as descriptive of salvation actual. However, this is exactly where I think the device telestial/terrestrial/celestial breaks down*, because there is a continuum, not a clear boundary of one size fits all (or is there? I'm trying to see it, but can't yet!). God has said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God. But who is clean? None of us, by our actions, by our law. So thus we have our Savior who will actually clean us (by the Holy Spirit). But there is still the necessity of our participation, of our willingness, of process of experiencing and gaining knowledge (and I speak of KNOWLEDGE which is bodily and spiritual, NOT "set of information" knowledge). Otherwise why come to earth at all if Christ is willing to perform one great sacrifice (which he has done) and by this we are cleaned? There is still some process we have to do, even though I don't understand how it's all connected sometimes. And other times I do, but beyond the scope of this thread. [*break down does NOT mean completely useless, just means 'does not completely cover the whole idea']

I often think on the fact that I imagine myself to be doing all the good I am commanded to do in life. I do all right on the list: tithing, temple attendance, loving my kids, visiting teaching, etc etc etc. Certainly I still fail on all these things, but I'm MORMON, you know? But as Mormon as I could possibly get--or even as much as a disciple of Christ as I could get--I'm STILL separated from God. I will likely die, still separated from God. So if I'm separated from God--there is still some uncleanness in me. There is still some law that the Father obeys that I don't even have an inkling of yet.

Although I should say that I have been having some ideas and experiences on being close to my Father that may change my entire frame of thinking on this. That it really is "my spiritual eyes" that just have to be opened to see what is already here.

I’ve heard it said that it would be hell for a sinner to dwell with God (Mormon 9:4). Perhaps we are all taken home to the same physical place in the resurrection, but because of sin some live in a state of denial and cannot see Him or enjoy is presence but are more comfortable with other “damned souls in hell.” The glories of our resurrected bodies are a function of what we are or what we are willing to receive, not so much where we live (if anything, the former drives the latter), since God’s glory is everywhere and accessible from anyone anywhere, to the degree they want it. So maybe we do all live in the same place, just with different realities, just as we do now.

Which is what you've suggested here. And I bolded the part I thought was really cool.

That's why I have said (in other places) that maybe we are already HERE, in 'heaven', we just don't know it yet because we can't see it or receive it.

[CASteinman]

I am not at home, but at home I have a book about written about this topic. Someone else might have one. It is quite old.. written earlier in the 20th century. It is called "The Vision" by Lundwall.

[Maidservant]

Beginning at verse 71 in D & C Section 76.

Having introduced the term "celestial", the theme is continued in discussing the condition of peoples who have not reached the fulness. (Will they ever have an opportunity to reach the fulness? Or is it barred to them? Does section 76 even speak to that question, yay or nay, or is it silent on that element?)

so we have the following:

"terrestrial world" v 71 and telestial world v98, 109 ("inhabitants of the telestial world")

"they who are of the terrestrial" v 71

glory differs from the Firstborn group like moon differs from sun v 71

"bodies terrestrial" v 78

"vision which we saw of the terrestrial" v 80

"glory of the telestial" (as stars differ from moon) v 81 and also all of them spoken as glory v 89-92 and 96-98

discussion of ministrations between the glories, which may be a whole other subject and which is stated in what I think is a mysterious way: for example, "and the terrestrial through the ministrations of the celestial" v 86-88

also verse 111 is interesting, talking about receiving according to works, receiving dominion, and mansions; all seeming to be applied only to telestial people in this instance.

I want to note that a world is a system of people and how they relate to each other. A world is not a planet. A world will involve space and place, of course, because people always have to have something to walk on; but a WORLD is a way of laws and living. But just to say 'world' does not follow that it is set up like a segregated camp somewhere in the cosmos. That may be the case. But I don't think so, and I don't think any reading of the word 'world' requires or even makes that likely.

All right, so now I will in my next post (eventually) make some commentary on this material. Or anyone can comment, of course.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Maidservant

[Rob Osborn]

This earth is the telestial kingdom. The earth during the millennium is the terrestrial kingdom and then after the end comes the celestial will be the earth. At that point will come the great separation of the sheep and the goats- those on the right hand and those on the left hand. All those on the right hand will then dwell on the earth which will be of celestial glory while all those on the left will be cast out into outer darkness with the devil and his angels...

it is that simple.

[Maidservant]

This earth is the telestial kingdom. The earth during the millennium is the terrestrial kingdom and then after the end comes the celestial will be the earth. At that point will come the great separation of the sheep and the goats- those on the right hand and those on the left hand. All those on the right hand will then dwell on the earth which will be of celestial glory while all those on the left will be cast out into outer darkness with the devil and his angels...

it is that simple.

Interesting. I agree to the point that the progression to experiencing the celestial kingdom is a community effort just as much or more as an individual effort. (And located here on this planet since this is where we are.) A crucial element to celestiality is our hearts being bound together in one, so that is something that cannot be experienced as single individuals.

Your comments on being cast out I personally haven't thought on much, so can't make any reply although certainly the scriptures discuss being cast out, but I would like to revisit those to see what they really say before I can say I think I (personally) understand. It sounds like you've done some study on it for yourself, though .

[CV75]

I think the device telestial/terrestrial/celestial breaks down*, because there is a continuum, not a clear boundary of one size fits all

* * *

That's why I have said (in other places) that maybe we are already HERE, in 'heaven', we just don't know it yet because we can't see it or receive it.

Perhaps for the sake of discussion I’m using the terms more flexibly than is customary or than is even intended. No matter how wrong, wicked or spiritually dim someone may be in my estimation, if they are doing their best with the light they have, God’s grace will accept them as going in the right direction (toward exaltation) and as they get a taste of this, they sense “heaven on earth” and a hope in what is promised to them through their faithfulness. I think this sense is part of what Alma talks about in discerning what is real (Alma 32).

Often the diagrams of the Plan of Salvation, which show the three circles for the three kingdoms, exclude representation of the Lord’s Atonement, Mercy and Grace, and only the Judgment. So their purpose is limited, while D&C 76 and 88 include these other vital principles in relation to the kingdoms of glory. So in this sense the three kingdoms don’t cover the whole idea and we have to explore them as integrated with the other principles.

I believe there is a continuum between the kingdoms as well (D&C 88:37).

I also believe There are many things to be learned and done between doing our best in this life and our entering into exaltation; we are only on the right path. I think Joseph Smith commented on this, saying that some advancement is done in the spirit world and some after the resurrection. And some people have indeed entered into their exaltation already, or at least the celestial kingdom (D&C 132:29, and section 137, which also shows the principle of grace operating in relation to Alvin’s presence in the celestial kingdom).

I would agree that we are already in a locale where God is present (D&C 88:40, 7-13)—and it is a very big place!--but that we come to realize it for ourselves by degrees (D&C 93: 11-14, 29; 2 Nephi 28:30).

[Ahab]

So I will post on that next (the Restoration and these symbolic devices), but in the meantime, does anyone have some favorite quotes or passages or just personal insights on this subject that they would like to share?

By the terms telestial, terrestrial, and celestial I understand our Lord to be saying, both personally and through his prophets, that there are 3 different orders or degrees we will be resurrected to, when we are resurrected, and I see each one as a symbol for how much light we were willing to receive in this world.

For example, if we receive the light symbolized by the term telestial in this world, which is compared to that of the stars, then when we are resurrected we will have that same order or degree of light restored to us.. and so on for terrestrial and celestial.

The celestial glory is the greatest of all and compared to that of the sun because it is the source of the light the moon and stars show only some of... as we see the stars and moon from our perspective on Earth... similar to how many people receive only some of the light that is given and available to us through God.

I think it's pretty awesome to think of having as much light as God does, but in this world we truly are the ones who have that much light, through the Lord's Church and the revelation God gives us, while the rest of the world has or reflects only some of that light. All we in the Church need is for God to reveal more to us, through his Church and the additional revelations he will give us. Everybody else on Earth just needs to accept more of the light that we have.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Ahab