Talk:Telestial kingdom

Origin of "telestial"

The origin of the word "telestial", which does not occur in other contexts, is uncertain, although some claim it means "distant" (since this realm is seen as being further from the seat of God than the other kingdoms), citing the meaning of other words that begin with the Greek prefix "tele-" (such as telephone and television). Another possible source might be the Greek adjective "telestikos", which means "mystical," "consecrational," or "initiatory."

Which "somes" claim it means distant? It should be referenced in the article.

"The origin of the word is uncertain"... Well, I don't know how it can be so: Either Smith said God used that word, or he said "I will call it telestial". Since I'm not Mormon I don't know.

What is certain is that it has zero relation with the greeks.

Did Smith know Greek? Because it's the only possible way the word had any relation with a Greek adjective. Well, if it was God who used the word, then the claim would mean God has his own language derived from Greek... funny. --euyyn 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What about teleology? [1] I don't think that Smith got it from the Greeks, but that he heard it somewhere, and it may have been Greek influenced. I'm sure "tele" has overtones of finality too. The explanation "far" makes sense, since the telestial kingdom is far from God in LDS theology.

NPOV

I feel that I must object to the mormon church members voilating the NPOV of the page. I have attempted on several occasions to add facts to this subject. They have all been removed by members of the LDS church. The fact that the information on the subject only address an LDS point of view proves simply that it is in clear voilation of the NPOV. Allow the posting of non-LDS information to this page and I would support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayandthelight (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 June 2007

Thank-you for taking your edits to the talk pages. Facts, verifiability and NPOV are two different things. I would encourage you, again, to read NPOV, as what you are describing does not violate it. People at one time may have thought that the earth was flat, but to say that this was taught or to believe it is not NPOV, but not supported. Spiritual things are always going to be not supported. If you believe Jesus was the Christ, you have four billion other humans who disagree with you. Just because you are in the minority doesn't make you wrong or right. It means you have a different opinion than someone else. That is very different than NPOV.

That said here are some issues with the "facts" that you added to this specific article. I will not spam all the other pages with similar comments as you have done, as it is unnecessary.

Let's start here. You wrote in this entry:

• "All of the information on this page is based on supposition and belief. As I do not wish to suppress others writings, I will simply present contrasting information. This page is constantly over written by Storm Rider ^(talk). Please help this gentleman to know that suppression of information will not be tolerated.

This is not 1 - relevant to this article. 2 - is not the appropriate place to have this discussion 3 - Any long-term wikipedia editor would have doen the same based on your additions, as they were considered vandalism, not relevant to the specific article and unsourced.

• "The United States Government to be overthrown in a few years"

This has no relvence to this page. What does this prophecy have to do with the Telestial kingdom. In fact, there is a complete page of Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr. that includes this one.

• "How can we test a person like Joseph Smith who claims to be a prophet?"

This introduces opinion, and again, is irrelevant to "Telestial Kingdom" the subject of the article. Wikipedia doesn't make conclusions on controversial topics, it does not lead the reader. It states what others have said on teh topic. Whether or not Joseph SMith was a prophet or not does not affect that Mormonism teaches of the "Telestial Kingdom." It is already history, it was already taught. It is irrelevant. Furthermore, it is vandalism to add this material to multiple pages.

• "Joseph Smith's false prophecies in the name of the Lord constitute one of the single greatest objections to his claim to be a latter-day prophet of God."

That is your opinion, and an opinion held by many. However, others think differently. Wikipedia policy is not to include opinion or origional research - much of what you introduced. Cite it and stick it where it needs to go. An article on Telestial Kingdom is not the place for this discussion.

Is this helping you at all? -Visorstuff 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of a desire to collaborate, Sethie has left one bias tag up there... please indicate which sentences don't appear to be neutral to you wayandthelight. Sethie 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Visorstuff,

I agree that my comments about storm rider weren't pertinent to the article nor were they meant to be. It was put there to account for the fact that factual no-bias information that contrasts the opinions/agendas of another editor was removed to protect that agenda. Your focus on the subject lines of my information does not make the quotes that follow any less true or pertinent. I will be readding this information with the revisions that you suggested. I have a feeling that it will suppressed just as quickly. Prove me wrong. You are more than welcome to edit my information but I take objection to its complete removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewayandthelight (talk • contribs)

Sethie has just read over the article and the current version reads reads very neutrally. Visorstuff's response to the above text is very appropriate via how wiki operates. Sethie 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thewayandthelight, I've reviwed your edit history, and I stand by my statements above, and it looks as though I'm supported by at least one other editor, who has been around for a couple years. Sethie - welcome to the article, and hopefully mentoring Thewayandthelight. The issue is that an article on the Telestial Kingdom should talk about the telestial kingdom, not about Joseph Smith as a prophet or a charleton (other than him as the teacher of the doctrine). It shouldn't talk about the united states being destroyed or about cockroaches. It should talk about the telestial kingdom. How can I be any clearer. You will always get reverted if you introduce irrelevatn information to articles. -Visorstuff 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Objections to neutrality of telestial kingdom from thewayandthelight

My apologies if this is not what you meant for me to do. Below is the article with my comments inserted.

The telestial kingdom /this is a belief being presented as fact/ is one of three "kingdoms" or "degrees of glory", in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. /this concept is presented by Swedish theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in his 1758 book entitled Heaven and Hell but isn't mentioned/ It is an eternal status in the afterlife to which some portion of humankind will be assigned following the Resurrection and Judgment Day. /again...a belief not present as such/

The primary source of this doctrine is a vision recounted by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon /the primary source is from Emanuel Swedenborg's book which was written prior to the 'vision'/, at Hiram, Ohio on February 16, 1832. The origin of the word "telestial", which does not occur in other contexts, is uncertain, although some claim it means "distant" (since this realm is seen as being further from the seat of God than the other kingdoms), citing the meaning of other words that begin with the Greek prefix "tele-" (such as telephone and television). Another possible source might be the Greek adjective "telestikos", which means "mystical," "consecrational," or "initiatory."

The telestial kingdom is the lowest of the three degrees of glory, in which the highest or celestial kingdom is compared to the sun, the middle or terrestrial kingdom is compared to the moon, and the lowest or telestial kingdom is compared to the stars. According to the Church's interpretation, the Bible also indicates that these three kingdoms are connected with the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:40-42). Also, "in addition to the degrees of glory, there is a place of no glory, called perdition (or "outer darkness"), reserved for those who commit the unpardonable sin." (Bible Dictionary: Degrees of Glory)/again...presented as fact, not belief/

People who will attain the telestial kingdom in the afterlife include those "who received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:82) as well as "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:103). These people, who will rise in the second resurrection, must first suffer for their sins in the Spirit Prison (similar to the Catholic concept of Purgatory - see Common Latter-day Saint perceptions) until the Last Judgement, at which time they will be assigned to the telestial kingdom. There they are to be servants of God, however they will not be able go to the place where "God and Christ dwell." (D&C 76:112). In LDS theology the telestial kingdom is not unpleasant: "the glory of the telestial...surpasses all understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:89)./this tells of the judgement of liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie' and is not pertinent to the article./

It should be borne in mind, however, that the plan of salvation in Mormonism is centered on forgiveness of sins and redemption by Jesus Christ. Commission of the sins listed above does not automatically relegate the sinner to the telestial kingdom, but wilful refusal to repent of these sins may do so.

I would also like to see this article present some history on the subject. Show examples of the concept outside of the mormon religion that supports that other possililies. This article is solely based on a supposed vision by a man who benefited greatly from the fact that he was able to get others to believe in it. Now I know that is not how it should be presented to be neutral but it would certainly be historically correct. If this is not what you had in mind, I would happy to present my ideas in the format that you desire. Thewayandthelight 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When Sethie reads the article he sees:

The telestial kingdom is one of three "kingdoms" or "degrees of glory", in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is an eternal status in the afterlife to which some portion of humankind will be assigned following the Resurrection and Judgment Day.

The primary source of this doctrine

Hence, it is made clear it is a doctrine.

"his tells of the judgement of liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie' and is not pertinent to the article."

Well actually the article says that such people go to the telestial kingdom.

If you have a source which claims the doctrine came from Swedenborg's book, present it! Sethie 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The following article shows a compare/contrast opinion on this subject. [2] Could you review and see if you think that it is conclusive enough to represent my opinion on this matter? Thewayandthelight 22:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thewayandthelight. I've just reviewed the article you suggested. I'm sorry, I didn't see anyting about "telestial kingdom" in the article at all. Nor do I think I fully understand your concerns of this article, but I am trying.

Let me break down your concerns:

1. The telestial kingdom is one of three "kingdoms" or "degrees of glory", in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. your concern is that "this is a belief being presented as fact." Is the telestial kingdom not a doctrine of the LDS Church?
2. Your concern: "That this concept is presented by Swedish theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in his 1758 book entitled Heaven and Hell but isn't mentioned. You are right, that is not in this article. Nor did Emanuel Swedenborg advance this concept any more than Paul or Jesus or others who discussed three heavens. The idea is very old of three heavens. Nor did Swedenborg use the term Telestial, however, his ideas are discussed at Celestial Kingdom, and quite prominently, as that is where that information is...relevant.
3. Same paragraph:It is an eternal status in the afterlife to which some portion of humankind will be assigned following the Resurrection and Judgment Day. Your concern: "again...a belief not present as such." the decision was made on wikipedia and a policy put in place to not re-qualify [every sentence]. If we did, we'd have sentences like this that hurt reliability: Some people claim that Joseph Smith claimed to allegedly teach that some Mormons believe that Polygamy may be lived in the afterlife. It hurts readability. We introduce the context in the paragraph and assume readers are smart enough to know this is a belief of the LDS church, not of everyone or that it is factual. Hence the "is a doctrine of the Church.." leads the reader to know that everything afterwards is from the context that to LDS people this is doctrine. Later, the article may include a contrarian viewpiont, even in the same paragraph, and the context should be changed.
4. The primary source of this doctrine is a vision recounted by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon Your concern: "the primary source is from Emanuel Swedenborg's book which was written prior to the 'vision'. Again, please cite this. Telestial is not something Swedenborg taught. According to a quick google search of [three heavens], Jews taught the concept as well. But Smith's teaching of "Telestial Kingdom" and who goes there was actually unique. Not to say he was the originator of the idea, as I personally believe the idea existed long before even Jesus.
5. According to the Church's interpretation, the Bible also indicates that these three kingdoms are connected with the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:40-42). Also, "in addition to the degrees of glory, there is a place of no glory, called perdition (or "outer darkness"), reserved for those who commit the unpardonable sin." (Bible Dictionary: Degrees of Glory) Your concern: again...presented as fact, not belief." It starts the idea with "according to the church's interpretation." This is all under the context that this is the church's teaching, not a known fact. If you want facts, edit geology articles, which at times are just as controversial. This is religion. Religion by very nature is philosophy and not "fact."

• I won't address the other concerns that Sethie already did. Again, if you have more research on the lowest heaven that is called telestial, add it in. That's what Wikipedia is for. We'll all be more enlightened if you have that information to share.

1. Your concern that This article is solely based on a supposed vision by a man who benefited greatly from the fact that he was able to get others to believe in it. Yes. and this article and this artile and this article and this article are based on similar things. The ideas or spiritual experiences of one or a few men.

• Also, keep in mind that religious doctrines do change. In reviewing your edit history, you talk about doctrines of the LDS church that are no longer doctrines. That is like saying that the southern baptists teach that blacks should not be educated, that ministers should be able to have slaves, that there are seperate heavens and hells for blacks and whites and that blacks are descendants of cain. What was once the reason for the Northern/Southern baptist split is no longer taught by the southern baptist convention (as of the early 1970s). To make such a claim against that religion would be insulting, yet, many seem to think its fine to do with a hierarchal or "centalized doctrine" church, such as the LDS Church, Catholic Church or Jehovah's Witnesses.

The bottom line is that this article is an article and it is significant doctrine in mormonism, and deserves an article. whether or not to agree with it is left to the reader to decide. Again, the article is actually pretty good from an NPOV standpoint, your issue is if it is factual. I'm curious of your background? Are you religious" -Visorstuff 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Visorstuff. Youre the only one dragging your religion into this discussion. This is a discussion on the facts. Well I guess the real point is that I've read the book and Mr. Miller is right. Since this whole article is written around the mormon version of this topic, shouldn't additional information on the other origins be available as well? The Swedenborg's book itself is published (approx. 80 years before Joseph Smith's vision) so i dont know why we need to focus on that any further. If you want a published book on this discussion, D. Michael Quinn's book "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" discusses the similairities of Joseph Smith's writings and Swedenborg's. The fact that there was two individuals in history that had almost the same vision of 'heaven' and physically spoke with angels to acquire those visions should be mentioned. In this artcile or on its own with cross-references. All's that I'm saying is that there is much more to this subject that should be addressed. Disargeements? Thewayandthelight 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether there "should" be additional information depends on if it exists and meets WP standards. The webpage you provided earlier doesn't. Sweedenburg by himself, doesn't, per WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

Quinn's book sounds like it does and would work fine. Feel free to add refferences to it. Sethie 00:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie,

Thank you again for your feedback. I look forward to proving some input to this subject based on Quinn's book. I would hope that you would offer you expertise in the refinement of my article. I do have a question however. Isn't the article now based solely on Joseph Smith's writings without analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source? Is there a non-LDS source that establishs that Joseph Smith visions and teachings are based on a foundation of fact?

Thewayandthelight 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What case/analysis/synthesis do you see favored here, and by what editor?

"Is there a non-LDS source that establishs that Joseph Smith visions and teachings are based on a foundation of fact?" Sethie doesn't know. Sethie 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thewayandthelight, we must be talking past each other. There is not a non-Mormon source that mentions "Telestial Kingdom" anywhere in exsitence, that is my point. The word "Telestial" is purely a result of Smith's teachings. This is not an article about three heavens or the LDS plan of salvation. It is not an article about anything other than the LDS teachings of something called the "Telestial kingdom". Can you provide ONE reference that the word "Telestial" existed before Smith? If so, add it in and enlighten us. Now, if Smith was indeed influenced by this book or whatever you point is, add in how he got the book, what he took from it, and more. That has all been discussed elsewhere, though it may be a good addition to this article as well. Add it in, rather than complaining about us not doing it. You claim to have the sources, so do it... -Visorstuff 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition to article

I think that it should be presented in this article that Emanuel Swedenborg first stated this concept in his book entitled Heaven and Hell. Though it can not be proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it seems that this book and not a 'vision' was the influence that caused the three degree of glory or kingdoms to be adopted by Joseph Smith for the religion that he created. Mr. Miller presents a compling arguement in the following article: [3]

I would appreciate all opinions.

Thewayandthelight 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the idea of three heavens, if introduced as part of the article, should be attributed to Jewish culture, Jesus, Paul, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Imanuel Swedenborg, Joseph Smith and even Gordon B. Hinckley. The term "celestial kingdom" should be attributed to Swedenborg. The rest of the paper is presented as theory. -Visorstuff 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What you need Theway is a source which makes the connection. When Sethie reads, "t seems that this book and not a 'vision' was the influence that caused the three degree of glory or kingdoms to be adopted by Joseph Smith for the religion that he created." it really sounds to him like you are drawing conclusions and wanting to give voice to them here. That is not allowed per per WP:NOR and WP:SOAP.Sethie 00:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

From Sethie's talk page

The following article shows a compare/contrast opinion on this subject. [4] Could you review and see if you think that it is conclusive enough to represent my opinion on this matter? Thewayandthelight 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie did not even read the source you provided, because a quick look at it shows that it doesn't meet WP:RS. On the home page, he admits this is unpublished: [[5]] Sethie 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias tags

This seems to be the article where the discussions about Thewayandthelight's claims of bias in the Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom and Telestial kingdom articles. Is there actually a review of the neutrality of these articles, or should this really be dealt by a different Wikipedia method? Val42 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As they are writen now, Sethie does not see a single sentence that does not conform to WP:NPOV, and he is willing to look at any sentence or section that anyone thinks does.

Sethie left one bias tag to give theway a chance to state their case, and thus far, for Sethie he/she has not presented a case which Sethie finds convincing. Sethie 00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been over a month with no response, so Sethie is removing the tags. Sethie 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This page, the Celestial Kingdom page, the Terrestrial Kingdom page, and the Degrees of Glory page should all be merged. Even with them all combined, it wouldn't be that long of an article. There is a lot of duplication of facts between the four articles.Descartes1979 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)