The Thief went to the Third Heaven

[_Albion]

An interesting thought. My Oxford dictionary defines the word terrestrial thus: "...on or relating to the earth or dry land...inhabitants of the earth." Celestial is explained thus: "positioned in or relating to the sky or outter space: belong to or relating to heaven." Yet Smith claims that terrestrial represents a heaven synonymous with the stars. Clearly Paul uses the two terms to define once again the difference between our earthly body (terrestrial relating to this earth) and the gloried body after it is resurrected to the Celestial state. Is there anyone else but Mormons who take this passage out of context in the same way?

[_ldsfaqs]

An interesting thought. My Oxford dictionary defines the word terrestrial thus: "...on or relating to the earth or dry land...inhabitants of the earth." Celestial is explained thus: "positioned in or relating to the sky or outter space: belong to or relating to heaven." Yet Smith claims that terrestrial represents a heaven synonymous with the stars. Clearly Paul uses the two terms to define once again the difference between our earthly body (terrestrial relating to this earth) and the gloried body after it is resurrected to the Celestial state. Is there anyone else but Mormons who take this passage out of context in the same way?

You really don't know what you are talking about Albion

1. Mormons know very well that the Earth in culture and scripture has been referred to as Terrestrial (a.k.a. TERRA a.k.a. EARTH), and Celestial for the Heavens. We aren't dumb.

2. The "stars" comparison, is simply that, a comparison to show the differences in GLORY. The Sun, Moon, Stars has nothing to do with actual "doctrine". It's simply to show the differences in GLORY with the different kingdoms.

3. The "stars" refers to the Telestial Glory, not Terrestrial as you claimed.

4. You thus misrepresent Joseph and Mormonism.

5. There is no "out of context" occurring here with Mormonism. All we have done is added a third state to the "Glory's", by NAMING IT. In case you weren't paying attention, in VERSE 41 there are THREE GLORY'S mentioned. We call that of the stars Telestial. Just because verse 40 doesn't mention the name of the third glory doesn't mean anything, there are three glory's.

Do you even know what those glory's refer to? No you don't. You just ignore the verse, we don't because we have added revelation on the subject.

6. We know very well that most of the chapter is referring to earthly and heavenly bodies. All we have done is "clarified" something that wasn't given detail in 1 Corinthians. Of course, God actually did it, not us. You ignore God, your problem, not ours.

[_ludwigm]

We aren't dumb.

If "we" means You and me, then I am uncertain.
I am not dumb. What about You?

1. Mormons know very well that the Earth in culture and scripture has been referred to as Terrestrial (a.k.a. TERRA a.k.a. EARTH), and Celestial for the Heavens.

Do You read regularly the SCRIPTURES?

And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—

The heading of Section 88:17–31
Obedience to celestial, terrestrial, or telestial law prepares men for those respective kingdoms and glories;

[_Albion]

If I have mixed titles it is a simple error and not deliberate misrepresentation. Since there is no such word as telestial, except in the imagination of Joseph Smith, and as you have agree terrestrial refers to earth my point is still intact no matter it refers to sun, moon or stars.

Finally, a Mormon admits that it is Joseph Smith's additions on which they base their "understanding" and not necessarily on the Bible passage which, I repeat, makes absolutely no reverence whatsoever to three heavens. No matter how you want to stretch the passage you are ultimately placing your trust in Joseph Smith and not God's word as presented in the Bible. Apparently, as you admit, you place your salvation in the hands of this man. Shifting sand indeed.

[_gdemetz]

It doesn't matter what you want to call it, Albion. The fact remains that you have apparently been mislead about the "Chistian" Jewish thinking in those days. The fact also remains that according to the Bible there are three distict glories of the resurrected body, and their are also three heavens mentioned. Doesn't it make sense to you that the three different glories would be assigned to the three different heavens of which Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both saw in prophetic vision?!? It would truly NOT be a restitution of all things if true prophets did not see true visions! Do you know of any evangelical prophets that have seen TRUE visions?!?

[_Albion]

gdedmetz, please present evidence to the contrary if you are arguing against the primitive understanding of the third heaven as Paul mentioned...that is earth, the first heaven, the skies the second heaven, and the firmament the third heaven and place where God dwells. As I have said before, Mittens gives a very clear presentation on this subject while your response is.......And no, it does not make sense to me that there are three different glories representing three heavens because basic comprehension tells me the passage is about the difference between the earthly human body and the resurrected human body. Perhaps in your understanding there are also "heavens" represented by animal flesh, the flesh of birds, and the flesh of fish that Paul talks about before he continues the analogy with sun, moon and stars. You misinterpret the passage to support Joseph Smith and then bring his co-conspirator into the discussion to support your argument. No, there are no "evangelical" (not quite sure why you continue to use one branch of Christianity as some kind of pejorative when the position I present is the view of Christianity in general...Mormons stand alone as far as I know in their bizarre belief) prophecies because there is no need since the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation. Then, too, Smith didn't have any TRUE visions either....but then who knows what he might have been smoking when he looked into his hat.

[_gdemetz]

I have just presented it! Now it's your turn to show me in the Bible ANYTHING that backs up what you are saying!

[_Albion]

No you have not. You charged that I have been "mislead" in my argument for the view of the known world extant at the time of Paul. If I have been mislead where is your evidence that I have been mislead. Arguing the Mormon position is not evidence at all...it is just the Mormon position.... not supported by Christians of every stripe around the world. Again, I suggest you go back to Mittens very clear explanation and give evidence to refute it. Your opinion is not evidence of me being "mislead."

[_gdemetz]

I have quoted the Bible as well as modern scripture, Albion! Just quote me one scripture that would back up anything that you are Mittens hjave stated, on any of your points that I cited!!!

[_Albion]

There are many historical facts about ancient Israel that are not included in the Bible but which are accepted understanding of terms, customs and such. The Christian understanding of scripture is supported by 2,000 years of study and scholarship, while Mormonism is supported by reliance on the word of a convicted fraudster and false prophet. Proverbs 14:12 comes to mind.