Celestial and Terrestrial

[Rivers]

I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words  “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.”   I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven.  This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me.  Joseph Smith  knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he?  Am I missing something?  Or do we just need to accept  that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?

 

[SettingDogStar]

19 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words  “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.”   I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven.  This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me.  Joseph Smith  knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he?  Am I missing something?  Or do we just need to accept  that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?

 

This always confused me as well. While I still believe Paul was in reference to the “levels” of heaven, the words are used very differently in our theology.

[JLHPROF]

Actually I find the idea fascinating.

Celestial = Heavenly, Terrestrial = Earthly/Worldly, Telestial = Hell/Underworld

Yet all are levels of resurrection.  The implications are many.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words  “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.”   I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven.  This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me.  Joseph Smith  knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he?  Am I missing something?  Or do we just need to accept  that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?

 

I'm not sure where the difficulty lies.  Paul wrote:

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

I don't think the names have much doctrinal significance. The rankings of these places of glory could have been designated Level One, Two and Three.  Not very literary, however.  In the language of the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants (which would be English), Level One is called Celestial, Level Two is called Terrestrial and Level Three is called Telestial.  For the first two we have a clear callback to Paul's language as expressed in the English language KJV.  Since Paul failed to provide an adjective to go along with the glory of Level Three, or the stars, Joseph Smith or the Lord (I'm not sure if Joseph was reporting the Lord's words, or paraphrasing what he had heard the Lord say) provided one, Telestial, which was a new coining; the word didn't exist before then.  Anyway, if Paul's naming of sun, moon and stars had been important (since relatively, they are listed from brightest to dimmest) we might have had two different set of titles to choose from, depending upon which ancient language we wanted to take them from.  These are derivations from "sun, moon and stars" in the respective language.

From the Greek: Iliosian Fengarian; and Asterian.  (These are from Modern Greek, not sure if Koine - NT Greek -- is the same for these)

From the Latin: Solisian (or Solarian); Lunarian; and Stellarian

Now, aren't you glad that you have Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial?

Or if you still don't like these names, what would be your preferred names for these Kingdoms of Glory?  Keeping in mind that what God calls them is probably not revealed.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words  “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.”   I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven.  This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me.  Joseph Smith  knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he?  Am I missing something?  Or do we just need to accept  that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?

Even so, verse 42 shows that, just as there are varying glories in the cosmos and spiritual states, "So also is the resurrection of the dead."

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Rivers said:

I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words  “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.”   I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven.  This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me.  Joseph Smith  knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he?  Am I missing something?  Or do we just need to accept  that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?

Lots of ways to interpret this. In the old Hebrew view there were three tiers. The heavenly, the earthly and then under the earth was the land of the dead. 

It's quite possible that Joseph's use in D&C 76, which came out of his study & translation of the Bible was tied to this. We know that while he was while working on the NT that he was consulting Clarke's Bible Commentary as part of "studying it out in his mind." The entry for 2 Cor 12  and 1 Cor 14-15 give a fairly brief but interesting overview of Hebrew cosmology as well as discussing the ideas of three heavens or seven. There were also lots of other books discussing seven heavens in Joseph's environment as well as three. Joseph rather than following the idea of the heavens in Paul instead uses imagery based upon perhaps an understanding of the terms celestial and terrestrial and representing the earlier three tier system. 

IMO the descriptions in D&C 76 are influenced by the text of Clarke for 1 Cor 15:42. Why Joseph sticks with the earlier Jewish cosmology rather than the later cosmology of the Hellenistic era isn't quite clear. Various theories have been postulated for the origin of telestial for what appears to be sheol in this earlier cosmology. But none of them (IMO) are really satisfactory. There's a lot of mixing of different cosmologies and even if Clarke is an influence, Joseph takes it in very different directions.

It's extremely likely that Joseph was familiar with Buck's Theological Dictionary as well. While I don't think there's been a systematic study, it seems clear to me some JST elements were influenced by that Dictionary. In the entry for heaven that dictionary discusses the dispute over degrees of glory and levels in heaven. The entry for Hell mentions the idea that it was in the earth (i.e. below the earth). 

Independent of these more orthodox theological works, there's the esoteric tradition where telestic fire is transformative. This comes out of the platonic tradition, particularly Renaissance figures influenced by the discovery of the writings of the late neoplatonist Iamblichus. One late 18th century translation of a text (The Chaldean Oracles but I'm not sure how it overall compares to modern translations) has the following: "The telestic life through a divine fire removes all the stains, together with every foreign and irrational nature, which the spirit of the soul attracted from generation..."

The idea is that hell is transformative for those who refuse the atonement. (See for example D&C 19) Off course there are also big differences in Joseph's scheme from the late theurgical neoplatonic conception or even more universalist conceptions of hell such as Gregory of Nyssa. I did a writeup a few years back if you're interested.

Edited August 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Rivers said:

I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words  “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.”   I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven.  This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me.  Joseph Smith  knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he?  Am I missing something?  Or do we just need to accept  that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?

 

Translation is a messy business. I would have used the conventional words we use in church. But as far as I can tell telestial is a made-up word.

Edited August 26, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Lots of ways to interpret this. In the old Hebrew view there were three tiers. The heavenly, the earthly and then under the earth was the land of the dead. 

It's quite possible that Joseph's use in D&C 76, which came out of his study & translation of the Bible was tied to this. We know that he was while working on the NT consulting Clarke's Bible Commentary. The entry for 2 Cor 12 gives a fairly brief but interesting overview of Hebrew cosmology as well as discussing the ideas of three heavens or seven. There were also lots of other books discussing seven heavens in Joseph's environment as well as three.

But we also know of course that there are  three divisions in the Celestial Kingdom, so I suppose that makes six, or five depending on how you see it.

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But we also know of course that there are  three divisions in the Celestial Kingdom, so I suppose that makes six, or five depending on how you see it.

A lot of scholars think that the note that became D&C 131:1 was actually talking about the three degrees of glory and not three degrees within celestial glory. It's a reasonable matter of debate and I don't have particularly strong feelings on the issue. As I mentioned Joseph alludes to a heavenly ascent of his own that went beyond the third heaven Paul visited. He's aware from Clarke's Bible Dictionary of the idea of seven heavens so I think reading D&C 131 as tied to that makes sense. But so too does the other interpretation.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But we also know of course that there are  three divisions in the Celestial Kingdom, so I suppose that makes six, or five depending on how you see it.

 

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A lot of scholars think that the note that became D&C 131:1 was actually talking about the three degrees of glory and not three degrees within celestial glory. It's a reasonable matter of debate and I don't have particularly strong feelings on the issue. As I mentioned Joseph alludes to a heavenly ascent of his own that went beyond the third heaven Paul visited. He's aware from Clarke's Bible Dictionary of the idea of seven heavens so I think reading D&C 131 as tied to that makes sense. But so too does the other interpretation.

 

Angels who are righteous. Elohim(gods). And YHVH are the three basic categories.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Angels who are righteous. Elohim(gods). And YHVH are the three basic categories.

Why do you distinguish Eloheim from YHVH? (I'm assuming this is a taxonomy of your own making unless you are referring to the categories in D&C 76 based upon who comes and visits each kingdom -- i.e. vs 62, 77, & 88)

Edited August 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words  “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.”   I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven.  This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me.  Joseph Smith  knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he?  Am I missing something?  Or do we just need to accept  that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?

This used to bug me. I've just tried to remember that they are "backwards" because I thought the terrestrial should be the lowest, but simply from an etymology point of view, tele means far or distant - hence telephone, television etc. Thus, those in the telestial kingdom are the furthest or most distant from God in the heavens. That reading makes complete sense to me now. They failed to exercise any faith on earth or in their third estate, and only repent when resurrected and facing their judge. They get taught by those in the terrestrial kingdom.

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why do you distinguish Eloheim from YHVH? (I'm assuming this is a taxonomy of your own making unless you are referring to the categories in D&C 76 based upon who comes and visits each kingdom -- i.e. vs 62, 77, & 88)

Nope. It's a scriptural taxonomy. Not all elohim are YHVH. 

Jeremiah 33:16

16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.

See also Rev 14; Rev 21:17

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Nope. It's a scriptural taxonomy. Not all elohim are YHVH. 

Jeremiah 33:16

16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.

See also Rev 14; Rev 21:17

You have to read a lot into the text to say it is talking about three divisions in heaven. You see that, right?

There certainly are ways to get a tripartite division within heaven. Often in the medieval tradition you get them from crown, wisdom and understanding. In Judaism you often have angels, then the angel of the divine presence (the manifestation of God), and then the hidden God himself. In Ezekiel the angels are the cherubim supporting the angel of the divine presence. By the time of the Hellenistic era we have lots of multiplication of angels and eventually ties to Egypt and platonic emanations. In the Talmud the seventh heaven is God's abode, the next level is the abode of the pious and then below that the angels. So there is a tripartite division there for sure. 

While the seven heavens of the hellenistic period is clearly known by Joseph (and I'd argue known early with its connection to the temple known) he doesn't get too explicit, beyond talking of a level in celestial glory where one is like the angles. (Basically the unmarried) It's not at all clear he has two levels above that though. It's possible that he'd read about the Talmudic view which informed say D&C 132 or it could have been revealed as novel to him.

I don't see anything in LDS scripture suggesting how to read the above as indicating the structure you do though. The usual argument for three divisions beyond the literal reading in D&C 131:1 is typical ritual. If baptism gets one into Celestial glory and the endowment higher then that's at minimum two levels. Some then make further divisions based upon the temple (although I think those problematic). The other, more esoteric, arguments tend to involve Masonic speculation and various esoteric forms of hermeticism such as Jacob's ladder.

It's interesting that Dante's treatment has Jacob's Ladder only becoming visible in the seventh heaven. The lower rungs are Dante's view of purgatory (which parallels in some ways Joseph's treatment of the celestial) But for Dante after the seventh heaven there are still steps within heaven. Dante then has three more divisions, the heaven of the fixed stars or the firmament, the crystalline and then the final heaven Paradise where the city of God is located. Whether that influences Joseph I can't tell. All of Dante's imagery ultimately comes out of late antiquity as well as Kabbalism and a few other sources with ten emanations.

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

You have to read a lot into the text to say it is talking about three divisions in heaven. You see that, right?

There certainly are ways to get a tripartite division within heaven. Often in the medieval tradition you get them from crown, wisdom and understanding. In Judaism you often have angels, then the angel of the divine presence (the manifestation of God), and then the hidden God himself. In Ezekiel the angels are the cherubim supporting the angel of the divine presence. By the time of the Hellenistic era we have lots of multiplication of angels and eventually ties to Egypt and platonic emanations. In the Talmud the seventh heaven is God's abode, the next level is the abode of the pious and then below that the angels. So there is a tripartite division there for sure. 

While the seven heavens of the hellenistic period is clearly known by Joseph (and I'd argue known early with its connection to the temple known) he doesn't get too explicit, beyond talking of a level in celestial glory where one is like the angles. (Basically the unmarried) It's not at all clear he has two levels above that though. It's possible that he'd read about the Talmudic view which informed say D&C 132 or it could have been revealed as novel to him.

I don't see anything in LDS scripture suggesting how to read the above as indicating the structure you do though. The usual argument for three divisions beyond the literal reading in D&C 131:1 is typical ritual. If baptism gets one into Celestial glory and the endowment higher then that's at minimum two levels. Some then make further divisions based upon the temple (although I think those problematic). The other, more esoteric, arguments tend to involve Masonic speculation and various esoteric forms of hermeticism such as Jacob's ladder.

It's interesting that Dante's treatment has Jacob's Ladder only becoming visible in the seventh heaven. The lower rungs are Dante's view of purgatory (which parallels in some ways Joseph's treatment of the celestial) But for Dante after the seventh heaven there are still steps within heaven. Dante then has three more divisions, the heaven of the fixed stars or the firmament, the crystalline and then the final heaven Paradise where the city of God is located. Whether that influences Joseph I can't tell. All of Dante's imagery ultimately comes out of late antiquity as well as Kabbalism and a few other sources with ten emanations.

Do righteous angels make it to the celestial kingdom per D&C?

Do those who are righteous and follow all the covenants become gods/elohim per D&C?

Are those scriptures I cited valid? If you answer yes, then I pose you have just uncovered the third basic kingdom of the celestial kingdom. No more debate is necessary. Congratulations.

I would further add that the 3 levels of the celestial kingdom are reflected in our Lord's parable of the sower. The seed that fell on good ground brought forth fruit - some 30, some 60, and some 100 fold.

Edited August 27, 2019 by RevTestament

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do righteous angels make it to the celestial kingdom per D&C?

Do those who are righteous and follow all the covenants become gods/elohim per D&C?

Are those scriptures I cited valid? If you answer yes, then I pose you have just uncovered the third basic kingdom of the celestial kingdom. No more debate is necessary. Congratulations.

I would further add that the 3 levels of the celestial kingdom are reflected in our Lord's parable of the sower. The seed that fell on good ground brought forth fruit - some 30, some 60, and some 100 fold.

I'd say the parable of the sower refers to the three kingdoms, not the levels within the celestial glory. 

However to the point, you're going to have to slowly explain your exgesis of those scriptures because I honestly can't fathom how you are reading them. At minimum it seems a very indiocyncratic reading.

That there are at least two divisions in the celestial kingdom seem clear based upon D&C 132:16. That there is a further division doesn't seem explicit anywhere. D&C 131:1 seems the closest and as I said most historians tend to read that as a textual error.

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say the parable of the sower refers to the three kingdoms, not the levels within the celestial glory. 

However to the point, you're going to have to slowly explain your exgesis of those scriptures because I honestly can't fathom how you are reading them. At minimum it seems a very indiocyncratic reading.

3 degrees, I think you mean. The 3 degrees of heaven.  They're all part of the kingdom of heaven.  There is only one heaven, and any reference to any degree of heaven is a reference to the one and only kingdom of heaven.

edited to add: and the 3 degrees of heaven are referring to the 3 degrees of glory in the kingdom of heaven.  One heaven, with people of varying degrees of glory in that kingdom of heaven.  And the glory of God is intelligence.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ahab

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

3 degrees, I think you mean. The 3 degrees of heaven.  They're all part of the kingdom of heaven.  There is only one heaven, and any reference to any degree of heaven is a reference to the one and only kingdom of heaven.

I think the language can get tricky because they function along several different categories. We have degrees of glory, types of bodies, kingdoms, judgments and so forth. There's in addition to that the heavenly ascent, ritualistic "ascents" such as in the temple and so forth. You also have, possibly symbolic, ties to the levels. So say in Revelation 2-3 you have each of the cities written to symbolically representing the ascent with the church's sins representing things to beware of. At each level there's a gift along with a characteristic of god one obtains. The "third heaven" in this example of textual interspersion is where Eden is and where you encounter the tree of life and its fruit. God's symbolically given a sword which may be a type of emulation. This matches heavenly ascent literature of the era where Eden was usually in the third heaven or third palace depending upon the type of ascent.

The reason I bring this up is terminological. Is heaven only the highest heaven? Or is it each? Typically in the symbolism of the era this can be seen as tied to ascent through the seven planets (the moving stars then known). Sometimes it's seen as an ascent after the fixed stars through varying levels. Sometimes as I mentioned you go through the seven steps of either Jacob's Ladder or the planets and then have more steps in the celestial realm. There's a lot of variation in that regard in the hekholat (moving through palaces/mansions), merkabah (descending through levels on a chariot), various cosmological levels of the era, or even the divine manifestations or characteristics in the sefiroth.

So what's "heaven" really depends upon the context. Much as within the church we typically rhetorically only mean the Celestial kingdom as heaven but there's also definitely an universalist element to D&C 76 with all three degrees being heaven in a strong sense as well.

To be clear, a common technique of the medieval era in esoteric Judaism was to read into fairly innocuous verses symbolism that means it is actually talking about those sorts of things. That reaches it zenith in the rise of Kabbalism in the late medieval period. (The era of the Zohar although many elements go back much earlier) I'm fine with that kind of esoteric reading to explain a doctrine. But I think we have to have some justification for that particular reading. So I can take say Genesis 1:1 as refering to the council in heaven as taught by Joseph Smith because he made that exegesis explicit. It's also in certain Kabbalistic readings, although Joseph's varies somewhat from them.

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say the parable of the sower refers to the three kingdoms, not the levels within the celestial glory. 

However to the point, you're going to have to slowly explain your exgesis of those scriptures because I honestly can't fathom how you are reading them. At minimum it seems a very indiocyncratic reading.

That there are at least two divisions in the celestial kingdom seem clear based upon D&C 132:16. That there is a further division doesn't seem explicit anywhere. D&C 131:1 seems the closest and as I said most historians tend to read that as a textual error.

Oh, Clark, come now. You aren't going to make me keep going are you? How many rooms did the ancient temple have?

How is it that Christianity got so far off base? I am not referring to you, but I guess it is comforting to some to believe that we all receive the same reward no matter what we do. While, I do hope all are saved and escape the pangs of hell, the uniform salvation doctrine has led to so much wickedness in the world. It is just not scriptural. I think you need to reexamine the parable of the sower and the seed, and compare it to D&C 76. Who would be those who hear not the word, and fall away? Are you really going to say that they are the same as the 30 fold? Yeshua himself tells us in Matthew that He will give us according to our works. 

Dan 12:3 And they that be ^awise shall ^bshine as the ^cbrightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to ^drighteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the language can get tricky because they function along several different categories. We have degrees of glory, types of bodies, kingdoms, judgments and so forth. There's in addition to that the heavenly ascent, ritualistic "ascents" such as in the temple and so forth. You also have, possibly symbolic, ties to the levels. So say in Revelation 2-3 you have each of the cities written to symbolically representing the ascent with the church's sins representing things to beware of. At each level there's a gift along with a characteristic of god one obtains. The "third heaven" in this example of textual interspersion is where Eden is and where you encounter the tree of life and its fruit. God's symbolically given a sword which may be a type of emulation. This matches heavenly ascent literature of the era where Eden was usually in the third heaven or third palace depending upon the type of ascent.

The reason I bring this up is terminological. Is heaven only the highest heaven? Or is it each? Typically in the symbolism of the era this can be seen as tied to ascent through the seven planets (the moving stars then known). Sometimes it's seen as an ascent after the fixed stars through varying levels. Sometimes as I mentioned you go through the seven steps of either Jacob's Ladder or the planets and then have more steps in the celestial realm. There's a lot of variation in that regard in the hekholat (moving through palaces/mansions), merkabah (descending through levels on a chariot), various cosmological levels of the era, or even the divine manifestations or characteristics in the sefiroth.

So what's "heaven" really depends upon the context. Much as within the church we typically rhetorically only mean the Celestial kingdom as heaven but there's also definitely an universalist element to D&C 76 with all three degrees being heaven in a strong sense as well.

To be clear, a common technique of the medieval era in esoteric Judaism was to read into fairly innocuous verses symbolism that means it is actually talking about those sorts of things. That reaches it zenith in the rise of Kabbalism in the late medieval period. (The era of the Zohar although many elements go back much earlier) I'm fine with that kind of esoteric reading to explain a doctrine. But I think we have to have some justification for that particular reading. So I can take say Genesis 1:1 as refering to the council in heaven as taught by Joseph Smith because he made that exegesis explicit. It's also in certain Kabbalistic readings, although Joseph's varies somewhat from them.

I've noticed that heaven is generally a term for what is above, like how in Genesis heaven is described as what is above the earth, or this planet.  And as I'm sure you know there are quite a few things above the earth, or this planet.  We have clouds, and the atmosphere of this planet, and other planets and stars and so on above that.  I say above but they are generally all around us.  And from some other planet others could look at where we are and perhaps think we are above them.  Generally whatever is in the sky is what we can think of as being in heaven, and since all things do not have the same kind of body we can say there are many different kinds of bodies, whether they are on this earth or on some other planet or solar system or galaxy, wherever it is.

I keep going back to how the glory of God is said to be intelligence, or what I think of as his kind of intelligence, and considering how all people on this planet are the same kind of being he is, what could it be that distinguishes us.  We're all people, and we're all of the same kind of intelligence, I would say, but how much glory do we have when compared to the level or degree of intelligence that he has?  Right now I would say not as much, but we might get there someday.

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Oh, Clark, come now. You aren't going to make me keep going are you? How many rooms did the ancient temple have?

I'm asking you not to just quote scripture you think says this but which doesn't appear to say that to anyone else and explain why you interpret it the way you do. I don't doubt you believe these passages mean this. I'm asking why you think that. I find it odd you're dodging what should be a fairly trivial thing to do.

Edited August 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm asking you not to just quote scripture you think says this but which doesn't appear to say that to anyone else and explain why you interpret it the way you do. I don't doubt you believe these passages mean this. I'm asking why you think that. I find it odd you're dodging what should be a fairly trivial thing to do.

I am sorry if it is not evident to you. Cheers.  

[Calm]

Not evident to me either.

[smac97]

On 8/26/2019 at 9:40 AM, mfbukowski said:

But as far as I can tell telestial is a made-up word.

Apparently so.  Kevin Barney designates it as a neologism.  I haven't researched it, but Barney is a pretty solid resource.  

The above link includes his thoughts on the etymology of the word.  Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

ETA: "Telestial" is the name of cell phone service provider.  

Edited August 28, 2019 by smac97

[RevTestament]

Ok, for the sake of the reader I will return to this subject.

Matt 16:27 For the ^aSon of man shall come in the ^bglory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall ^creward every man according to his ^dworks.

So, if He saves all from the pangs of Hell, does that mean they all receive the same reward? LDS Christians of course say no. Yeshua says no. Much of modern Christianity says yes despite the plain and repeated words of not only Christ, but John, James and others to the contrary. They have this vague idea of heaven as one big, happy room where everyone goes who doesn't go to permanent hell. I will call this the court of the Gentiles. Those who are saved from Hell, but never learn to exercise any faith live in the city outside of the temple. D&C equates this to the telestial kingdom or the furthest from God. These are probably those who break the commandments and teach others to do so - which Yeshua says "shall be the least in the kingdom." Matt 5:19. They live in the Holy City, but never enter the temple thereof. In the parable of the sower they are likened to that which fell on poor ground by the wayside, and never took root. Then there are those who are good, but while in the world never really accept the yoke of Christ. They can be likened to the terrestrial kingdom or the court of the gentiles/women. In the parable of the sower. they are likened to that which fell in stony places or among thorns and began to take root, but the cares of the world led them astray or they were deceived, and their root(faith) withered. The last category all took root. They exercised faith, and grew in wisdom or the word/seed. Some thirty, some sixty, and some 100 fold. They are rewarded according to their works in Yeshua's own words, and He gives 3 categories.  They can be likened to the court of Israel(celestial kingdom) in which there was a porch from which the word was delivered from and to messengers/angels, the sanctuary, and the holy of holies. This is how Gentiles can be grafted into the branches of Israel. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. It reflects the order of heaven. Well, that is all I have to say on the subject now. 

PS. This strongly implies a preliminary or "second" judgment because He says they will get their reward when He returns - this of course is opposed to a last judgment everyone must wait for. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by RevTestament