Celestial and Terrestrial

[longview]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

A comment from your link:

Pedro A. Olavarria says:

January 27, 2010 at 9:12 pm

The “tele” in Telestial comes from “television”.
The people who go there did nothing but watch TV during mortality thus keeping them from the important stuff;)

ps. This is meant to be a cheesy half-joke.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

A comment from your link:

Pedro A. Olavarria says:

January 27, 2010 at 9:12 pm

The “tele” in Telestial comes from “television”.
The people who go there did nothing but watch TV during mortality thus keeping them from the important stuff;)

ps. This is meant to be a cheesy half-joke.

Re: the non-cheesy half of the joke: I don't think it works.  D&C 76 seems to described the Telestial Kingdom as being peopled by genuine baddies (as in "those who on earth willfully reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, and commit serious sins such as murder, adultery, lying, and loving to make a lie (but yet do not commit the unpardonable sin), and who do not repent in mortality").  In contrast, the Terrestrial Kingdom "is for those who lived honorable lives on the earth but 'were blinded by the craftiness of men' and were 'not valiant in the testimony of Jesus.' Those who did not receive a testimony of Jesus while on earth, but who could have done so except for their neglect, are also heirs to the Terrestrial Kingdom (D&C 76:72-74, 79)."

Fortunately, it is not for me to parse out who goes where.  That's way outside my purview.

I will note, however, that "{a}lthough the least of the degrees of glory, yet the Telestial Kingdom 'surpasses all understanding' (D&C 76:89)."  This idea, that even most of the worst of us will nevertheless receive blessings from God in the eternities, and that these blessings "surpass{} all understanding," has long been a strong indicator to me of the benevolence and love of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

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.

You could also refer to it as heaven, as they do, because they are mostly correct on that point.  There is only one heaven, when seen as a whole, but there are many different degrees of glory of peoples in that one kingdom of heaven.  And while Hell is forever most people don't stay in that state forever.

Quote

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. 

I think you are mostly correct on this last part of your post.  It might help if you thought of glory as a particular degree of intelligence, or how intelligent someone is.  Not only in what they know or profess with their mouth but also how they actually live.

People who reject intelligence just don't grow to be as intelligent as other people who accept the light and truth they are offered.  Look at how many people reject what we know is the truth, according to the light we have received to help us know it.

Maybe those who reject intelligence now will accept it later but as of now they are in their current condition.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Ahab

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Some historians like Steve Flemming think it comes out of the hermetic/neoplatonic culture. The word "telestic" was common in translations of Iamblichus and so forth available to Joseph Smith. It doesn't completely work but has some overlap with certain views of hell within Christianity. As I mentioned in that T&S post on hell there was a view prominent in early (pre-Augustine) Christianity and having a resurgence at the time of Joseph of hell as transformative. That is if you don't make use of the atonement where Christ purifies you then you go to hell where you get purified the hard way. That's what D&C 19 seems to point towards. Telestic seems to suggest that as well in the platonic and hermetic tradition although there are big differences as well. 

The other possibility is that the telestial kingdom and the spirit prison are the same. (There are some hints of that belief in the Book of Mormon) That is the place one goes upon death is a waiting place. To be redeemed is to then ascend out of that place. In greek thought the telos or end of life is the telos or death. So telestial, while not a proper Greek word, ends up being a slight neologism for the realm of the dead.  An other possibility arises out of the Myth of Er in Plato where there the ends or consequences of our actions. While what usually gets focused on are good ends, the ends of sin would be that world. So telestial as the place of ends or consequences also makes sense. It'd then have some overlap with the Greek conception of Tartarus.

[JAHS]

On 8/26/2019 at 9:16 AM, 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.

 

Include me as one of those "scholars". I have often suspected that there really are not 3 other levels in the Celestial kingdom but that there are just the three main levels of heaven.  What would the other two levels in the Celestial kingdom be there for?
D&C 76: 70 says about the Celestial kingdom:  "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."
It sounds to me like anyone in the Celestial kingdom are all on an equal level whose glory is even the glory of God, which would require the new and everlasting covenant of marriage for all of them.
 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Include me as one of those "scholars". I have often suspected that there really are not 3 other levels in the Celestial kingdom but that there are just the three main levels of heaven.  What would the other two levels in the Celestial kingdom be there for?

They are levels of glory and glory is the intelligence of God.  Basically they accepted a certain degree of intelligence but no more than that.  There are levels of glory because there are varying levels of intelligence among us, the kind of being we refer to as God.

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

D&C 76: 70 says about the Celestial kingdom:  "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."
It sounds to me like anyone in the Celestial kingdom are all on an equal level whose glory is even the glory of God, which would require the new and everlasting covenant of marriage for all of them.
 

It depends upon how you interpret "even the glory of God", I suppose. 

First I would say that God in this case is a reference to our Father in heaven, so a better interpretation would be "even the glory of our Father".

Second I would say the "even" in the "even the glory of our Father" is an indication of the range of glory of those who are in that Celestial degree of heaven, which is to say that although there will be many people with that degree of glory, the Celestial degree, not everyone will be equal in intelligence to our Father, although there will be some who are or who are in the process of becoming that intelligent.  All will have accepted, intellectually, the principle and law of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage but not everyone will have chosen to abide in that covenant.  And only those who live in that relationship can know what it is like for someone who lives in that way.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It sounds to me like anyone in the Celestial kingdom are all on an equal level whose glory is even the glory of God, which would require the new and everlasting covenant of marriage for all of them.

Or eternal progression has everyone spread out such that levels don’t really serve any purpose. With the quality of awareness we have of each other, such categorizing is likely unnecessary imo. 

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or eternal progression has everyone spread out such that levels don’t really serve any purpose. With the quality of awareness we have of each other, such categorizing is likely unnecessary imo. 

Unnecessary if you would rather just remain ignorant about how intelligent someone is, I suppose.  I think it's useful just to know that there are varying degrees of intelligence among people, now as well as later, because with that knowledge we can understand why people are the way they are.  Some just don't know any better, and some aren't really interested in knowing any better.  Some just want to do whatever they want to do, regardless of what anyone else thinks about their thoughts or their behavior, and some people want to become like our Father and Jesus and are willing to learn whatever it takes to do that.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Ahab

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

You could also refer to it as heaven, as they do, because they are mostly correct on that point.  There is only one heaven, when seen as a whole, but there are many different degrees of glory of peoples in that one kingdom of heaven.  And while Hell is forever most people don't stay in that state forever.

I am not sure if there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I kinda feel there is, but I am not sure, but I think if so, then the kingdom of heaven incorporates everything. Your statement of hell is basically right on the nose. Hell is forever unless people accept Christ and repent. That is the only way to escape the damnation of Hell. Hell is also eternal in scope or degree. Some will suffer more than others. 

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think you are mostly correct on this last part of your post.  It might help if you thought of glory as a particular degree of intelligence, or how intelligent someone is.  Not only in what they know or profess with their mouth but also how they actually live.

People who reject intelligence just don't grow to be as intelligent as other people who accept the light and truth they are offered.  Look at how many people reject what we know is the truth, according to the light we have received to help us know it.

Maybe those who reject intelligence now will accept it later but as of now they are in their current condition.

I will say this. If I appear intelligent it is only because I believe I have been faithful to the word I have received - even when faced with temptations not to believe. I accepted what the Church taught, and what I learned through the spirit, and was eventually given more understanding. So it was a long and slow process of growing in the word. It is the Isaiah scripture of line upon line precept upon precept which I learned from this Church when I was a youth. A lot of modern Christianity seems to say I already know all I need to know, and am not open to any more....Do I need to point out that is growth limiting? Thanks for your input.  

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am not sure if there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I kinda feel there is, but I am not sure, but I think if so, then the kingdom of heaven incorporates everything.

I'm not totally sure about that either, or if heaven and the kingdom of heaven are the same place.  I think of heaven as the universe, the one place where every place is, but the kingdom of God could be only the part God or all of the good guys preside over and maybe not where Satan and his bad guys are allowed to reign.  There must needs be opposition in all things, I suppose, and so there must always be a place for the evil as well as the good.

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Your statement of hell is basically right on the nose. Hell is forever unless people accept Christ and repent. That is the only way to escape the damnation of Hell. Hell is also eternal in scope or degree. Some will suffer more than others. 

Yes I think we agree on this issue.

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I will say this. If I appear intelligent it is only because I believe I have been faithful to the word I have received - even when faced with temptations not to believe. I accepted what the Church taught, and what I learned through the spirit, and was eventually given more understanding. So it was a long and slow process of growing in the word. It is the Isaiah scripture of line upon line precept upon precept which I learned from this Church when I was a youth. A lot of modern Christianity seems to say I already know all I need to know, and am not open to any more....Do I need to point out that is growth limiting? Thanks for your input.  

Thank you for your input too.  I like finding people who I agree with and I try to share what I know however I can.  In regards to my intelligence I would say pretty much the same thing as you did.  I have done some really stupid things in my life, which shows that I by myself am not or at least have not been very intelligent at times, and I attribute any  intelligence i have to God who gave it to me. I still have to try to be more of a disciple rather than a rebel.

[theplains]

On 8/26/2019 at 9:15 AM, Stargazer said:

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.

There are many stars which make our sun insignificant in comparison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoW8Tf7hTGA)
so it may not be appropriate to refer to 'telestial' glory as this third class.

Thanks,
Jim

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by theplains
missed a part

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

There are many stars which make our sun insignificant in comparison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoW8Tf7hTGA)
so it may not be appropriate to refer to 'telestial' glory as this third class.

Thanks,
Jim

 

Those are all in relation to what we can see on this planet.  From this planet the stars we can see, other than our sun in our solar system, are not as bright as our sun or our moon.

When God showed Moses all of his creations he said he was focused on telling him about things pertaining only to this planet, and I think he did that with Abraham too when he told him about his creations. And also with Paul when he showed him the degrees of glory.

Brightness is an interesting descriptor for glory, too, since we're talking about the intelligence of our kind of being.  The glory of God is intelligence and some us us may never be as bright as he is.  It's awesome to think that we even have the chance to ever be.

[marineland]

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

Those are all in relation to what we can see on this planet.  From this planet the stars we can see, other than our sun in our solar system, are not as bright as our sun or our moon.

When God showed Moses all of his creations he said he was focused on telling him about things pertaining only to this planet, and I think he did that with Abraham too when he told him about his creations. And also with Paul when he showed him the degrees of glory.

Brightness is an interesting descriptor for glory, too, since we're talking about the intelligence of our kind of being.  The glory of God is intelligence and some us us may never be as bright as he is.  It's awesome to think that we even have the chance to ever be.

It seems that brightness does not refer to some intensity of light in relation to earth but some
degree of magnitude when compared to something as a standard.  Similar to a teaching i read
that Jesus was ranked as (became) a God in the premortal existence when he reached a
pinnacle of intelligence.  The glory of God is intelligence as you said. 

The brightness of his body did not (?) change but more likely he just reached some level of
magnitude for his intelligence and then he was designated to be a God (where he was not a
God beforehand). Kind of like people becoming graduates only after graduating.

As for the moon, there are times that it almost appears invisible and yet a distant star is
giving more light (the moon actually doesn't produce any light but only reflects it). The stars
for that matter give us a tremendous amount of light.  If brightness is a standard, then the
moon only reflects but does not produce brightness.  

[theplains]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Those are all in relation to what we can see on this planet.  From this planet the stars we can see, other than our sun in our solar system, are not as bright as our sun or our moon.

On a clear sky, when the moon is shining in its full glory, I can see see that the intensity of light
coming from a distant planet or star is greater than the moon.

But then again, beauty brightness is in the eye of the beholder 🙂

Jim

[theplains]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

It seems that brightness does not refer to some intensity of light in relation to earth but some
degree of magnitude when compared to something as a standard

1 Corinthians 15:40 onwards is sometimes difficult to understand.  I think Paul is referring to the
sun, moon, and other stars as celestial objects whereas Earth (terra) is terrestrial.  The glory of the
sun (a star, celestial) differs in glory from other stars (celestial too).  The moon and the other
planets would be celestial too (because they are outside / extra-terrestrial).  I would say he
is only talking about celestial and terrestrial (only two) because the next several verses split into
a comparison of the two types of bodies (not a comparison of three). Example: sown in
corruption, raised in incorruption. Sown in dishonour, raised to glory. Sown in weakness, raised
to power. Natural body, spiritual body.  In simple terms, apples to oranges - not apples to oranges
to pears.

Thanks,
Jim

[marineland]

15 minutes ago, theplains said:

The glory of the
sun (a star, celestial) differs in glory from other stars (celestial too). 

That was my feeling too.