Telestial Truths
May 30th, 2007 by Stephen Erastus Knudsen III
I want to share my testimony with you of the truthfulness of the telestial kingdom, and the fact that we are currently living in a telestial world.
First, the words of Paul, as he spoke to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15). It is dangerous to read things completely in their original context (because that context is too easily open to misinterpretation) but if you want, you can read the whole thing here.
.
.
Certain Corinthians challenged the idea that there was life after death. Some even asked what kind of body the dead were raised with.
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
They really were fools, as is anyone who demonstrates their lack of faith with a question like this. Paul is saying that the mortal flesh is not “quickened” (made heavenly or spiritual) unless it passes through death. That’s the way we become more like our father in heaven. And that is the argument Paul builds in a simple and plain and precious way.
First he explains the differences between earthly bodies and the differences between heavenly bodies (Paul called them “terrestrial” bodies and “celestial” bodies, because he didn’t know what those words really mean):
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
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.
There are different kinds of earthly bodies for different kinds of creatures on the earth – different “degrees” if you will. Likewise, there are also different kinds of bodies that exist in the heavens. Could this not be more clear?
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.
So you see, there are different kinds of bodies that exist on the earth and there are different kinds of bodies that exist in the heavens, so Paul was right – it is absolute foolishness to ask “what body do they come” when they are raised from the dead. Earthly bodies are earthly, and heavenly bodies are heavenly. Earthly bodies are natural and corrupt, but Heavenly bodies are spiritual and purified through Christ.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
The natural body is the earthly body that is “sown in dishonour” (please don’t make me explain what that means – your carnal minds should understand it quite well). The spiritual body is the heavenly body that is full of purity and power. Isn’t that clear? Why would anyone question this?
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Earthly, heavenly. Earthly, heavenly. Is it so difficult to see the progression here? Is it so difficult to understand what Paul is telling us? Is it so difficult to see how he is structuring his response to the Corinthians’ foolish question? Earthly becomes heavenly. Duh!
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
This could not be more plain or precious. We are earthly. We are now in the earthly state. God is heavenly. He is in a heavenly state. Our current earthly bodies will be changed to heavenly bodies. That is how death loses its sting. And that is how we know beyond any doubt that today we are living today in a Telestial glory (from “telos” which means star).
Why do people still get confused by this plain and precious doctrine? Can’t they see that Paul was clearly talking about three degrees of gloary?
Woah… slow down, Brother Stephen. It looks like you were feeling especially fervent tonight. Time for another ice block?
Cousin Stephen,
As soon as I have managed to will my hypertrichosis into submission, per dear Bro. Goode’s advice, which you did not contradict, I hope you will forgive me for my role in the ice blocks the memory of which Bro. Glenn brings to most painful remembrance. Uncle LaRoy only made me sit on one once, but I can only marvel that you came through so many of the blocks (all due, unfortunately, to my devious nature and tricks) with such a strong spirit.
Right on, Steve-o.
We’ve found that the women in Provo can be earthly and heavenly at the same time, if you get my drift.
Like it says in one of our songs. “If I said you have a heavenly body, would you hold it against me?”
I don’t get it. And please call me Brother Steve-o.
Knudsen, your connecting *telestial* with *telos* is preposterous.
It is called the tel-estial kingdom because it is the lowest kingdom, next to hell itself. tel, hell, get it? Some people obscure this connection by mispronouncing the word and saying the first syllable to make it rhyme with *tea*. But we all know where tea drinkers go.
Wrong! (except for your part about the tea drinkers)
Let me spell it out for you:
Celestial = Sun (from “Celos”)
Terrestrial = Moon (from “Terros”)
Telestial = Stars (from “Telos”)
And by the way. I know you are a fake. No self-respecting parent would really name their daughter that name.
Knudsen, fyi, my parents named me that because of my enormous brainpower.
You know the scripture about how when people become learned they think they are wise? You are obscuring the plain and simple parts of the gospel by showing off your knowledge of reformed Egyptian, or whatever that language is. There is no need to dress this doctrine up in fancy clothes, because it really is so simple a primary child can understand it.
celestial = highest, from cel, which is derived from ceiling, that which is above us.
terrestrial = We are on earth to be tested and to have trials, thus terres-trial.
telestial = lowest, next to hell. Tel, hell.
Here’s another way to look at it:
Celestial
Terrestial
Telestial
↓
sun
moon
stars
↓
Where the Father dwells
Where the Son dwells
Where the Holy Ghost dwells
↓
heavenly
earthly
something that only Joseph Smith knows
↓
Green light
Yellow light
Red light
↓
Peter
James
John
↓
bishop
1st counselor
2nd counselor
↓
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris
↓
1st Nephite
2nd Nephite
3rd Nephite
↓
U
S
A
↓
Ho
Ho
Ho
↓
Larry
Curley
Moe
It seems as if this post has taken on somewhat of a humerous note!
Seriously though, if we were to truly understand the words of Paul coupled with our knowledge gained from the temple experience then we can begin to understand that this earth right now is the Telestial Kingdom and that we have Telestial bodies and that we enjoy the telestial glory which is the presence of the holy ghost. What Paulis ultimately trying to teach us is that we progress from lower levelsof glory on the earth until we become “heavenly” or Celestial. You see, once the earth becomes Celestialized there will no longer be Telestial or Terrestrial kingdoms as they will of passed away in the earths own progression. We all at that point will either be in the Celestial Kingdom or be cast off from the earth into outer darkness.
Wasn’t it Nibley who said that telestial could come from a Greek “teleoites” which has connotations of initation and bringing into?
Sorry to get serious on y’all :)>
Rob,
How do you get that from Paul? I see a very clear dichotmoy in his presentation. He says there are:
1. Terrestrial (earthly) types of bodies that are flesh, and
2. Celestial (heavenly) types of bodies that are light (glory)
There is no room for a third category here. And “telestial” doesn’t even make any sense.
Under the Terresrial category Paul gives three examples: beasts, fishes, birds.
Under the Celestial category he gives three examples: sun, moon, stars.
So how do we take the leap that:
sun=celestial,
moon=terrestrial,
stars=telestial?
By that logic, we would also have to say that
beasts=celestial,
fishes=terrestrial,
birds=telestial.
Are we not expected to take the JST literally then, that what Paul “meant to say” was “telestial?” I don’t see how that fits (and the degrees of glory is actually one of my favorite doctrines of the church).
One of the problems with the Seminary proof-texting model for understanding the scriptures is that it relies on knowledge outside the text for the text to mean what we want it to. In other words, these scriptures that we are taught as irresistable logical proofs are often used to “prove” the very doctrine you have to assume to make them mean what we we say they mean, i.e., they rely on circular reasoning. In this case you are relying on the temple to give you the plain meaning of this text, which is fine as long as we realize that the meaning we impose is then not in the text waiting to be extracted from it, but rather given to the text by us. I realize many folks would find the notion that the text does not contain the meaning to be disturbing, but I actually think it frees us from doubt and fear of not living up to the “correct” meaning of the text, a meaning that we cannot know. (If anyone here reads Ricœur, I think you’ll see his obvious influence on my thought.)
I’d also note that your notion of progression from one kingdom to another is not church doctrine du jour. Right now we treat them as separate realms and, once you are in one, you progress in it, not out of it. Whether that is right or not is another matter, but few members seem to get what you want out of it…
For what it’s worth, the whole 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 bit that we treat as proof positive of our doctrines is well known to folks in other religions who don’t see it all in the way we do. Costanza, please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know most scholars of religion treat it is a rather straight-forward engagement with middle Platonic thought that saw a hierarchy of existence with corrupt, earthly elements that will be overcome through the divine: i.e., part of perfection is leaving behind the earthly to take on the spiritual. This traditional reading is thus pretty near the exact opposite of what we take it to be (an affirmation of the preservation of the body in the celestial realms).
Are you sure he didn’t somehow connect it to DŠRT via metathesis of the Š and R, subsequent lateralization of R to L and devocalizing of the D to T, i.e., DŠRT -> TeLeST? The he could say that going to the Telestial kingdom got its name because that where the bees will go and all those who inhabit that realm will endure eternal stingings of bees, a doctrine clearly held in the Egyptian Book of Breathings (if you use the special FARMS edition)…
The degrees of glory could very well be one of the most misinterpreted doctrines in our church according to our current understanding as it completely undermines the gospel that Jesus Christ taught his disciples on both continents.
What I am getting at with Paul is that he is trying to explain that progression exists with us and that each change also brings a different body type (one less prone to disease or even an immortal body). Once we grasp the idea that we currently have telestial bodies and that one is resurrected with the glory consistant with the earth then things fall into place such as when the millennium comes the earth will lose its “Telestial Kingdom” status and will be quickened with a new glory- that of a Terrestrial Kingdom. Those quickened at that time will recieve Terrestrial bodies.
Fenevad:
Remind me to stop drinking water when I read these threads…
Also, the Church actually does teach a progression between unfixed kingdoms in the temple. There we are taught that in order to return back to heavenly Fathers presence we must all go through the Telestial Kingdom (the world in which we now live) then through the Terrestrial and finally into the Celestial and back in the presence of the Father.
Fenevad’s point about Corinthians is correct. Also, it’s important to note that his use of “ju jour” is important here. Rob is correct to sense that the idea of migration between kingdoms is, at best, unsettled by the scriptural texts we have. In fact, early in the 20th century, that very issue became a flashpoint between Talmage and some others. Talmage was advocating the reading that Rob has articulated in this thread and his views were basically dismissed and marginalized by the critical mass of church authorities who imposed their views (that kingdoms are fixed), which still dominate official church teachings today.
Thank you Costanza. Rob, Costanza is correct that I’m not saying that you are wrong (hence the “du jour” to point out the changing nature of these things), but rather that you have arrived at a reading that many others would disagree with. My point is that, while it seems obvious to you that the passage in Corinthians means your interpretation, it is only obvious because you have that interpretation. Someone else who comes to the text with a different interpretation will take something else away from it, even though the text is the same in both cases. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it does mean that the text does not “prove” an interpretation, but rather leaves itself open to various interpretations. I hope that clarifies what I meant. I really have no problem with what you are writing, and I think you are right that Temple symbolically takes us through the path you are describing.
This is a very interesting discussion to wake up to (I’m in Tokyo, by the way).
Rob and NJensen, Thank you for pulling this thread out of the humorous tailspin (not that there’s anything wrong with that…). I am glad to see it get some serious consideration. I am pretty much with J. Snell on this one.
A few years ago, I was preparing to teach 1 Cor 15 in gospel doctrine (back when they let me talk in front of other members in the ward) and I read through the chapter from beginning to end for probably the first time in my life. I was well familiar with the scriptures-chase scriptures we use to support baptism for the dead and the degrees of glory, and I wanted to use those in my lesson. But I could not for the life of me figure out how to fit “telestial” in to the equation, and it was disturbing.
I went to Oxford’s Dictionary to get the definition and etymology of “telestial.” I found that it has no meaning outside of Mormonism. We invented the word. It is not even clear what we invented it from.
It also dawned on me for the first time that “terrestrial” means “earthly” (duh) and that sun-moon-stars were all examples of differing celestial bodies, not — as I had thought — symbols for celestial-terrestrial-telestial. Where did telestial fit? Where did that come from?
When I read 1 Cor 15:40 without the JST, I understand how it fits in with everything else in that chapter:
When I read the JST, I don’t understand it:
The question it leads me to is this: What are we supposed to make of the JST? Are these truths that he recieved through the urim and thummim? Are they meant to correct errors in the original text, or are they meant as a supplement? How did he get the word “telestial?” I understand how it fills the psychic need to complete a three-pattern, but I really don’t see at all that this was what Paul was intending.
SuperMOn,
Don’t forget:
Big
Bad
Wolf
Glenn,
Personally I think that the whole point Paul was getting at was that there are differences in an earthy body and a heavenly body. Why the JST adds a third is kind of confusing because it really seems to sidestep the original intent of Pauls message that the glory of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God- only a heavenly (incorruptible) body can inherit the kingdom of god. This leads also to point out that Paul refers to heavenly in the Celestial sense, or that of a kingdom of god heirness.
So how might this be interpreted in light of section 76? Good question! It just may hold out that Josephs Smiths recording of section 76 is only what he saw and would still need further revelation to fully interpret it. For instance- the section begins with Joseph telling what he saw and was commanded to write. This does not mean that everything Joseph saw would be interpreted as perfect doctrine because Joseph was still learning about the doctrine of glory. You will also notice that only two groups of bodies are resurrected- the “just” and the “unjust”. The unjust are further pronounced to be the “ungodly” so we can presume that the just would be the godly. Now if you continue reading it appears that between what Joseph is recording and what he is actually seeing there is some break down of knowledge as it is curiously mentioned that the 1st group- the “just” only consist of “celestial” grade which would be consistant with what Paul was getting at. After it speaks of this Celestial group it goes on to also mention the two lower glorious groups, the Telestial and Terrestrial. Where I think the break down in knowledge comes into play is that the reading coupled with our temple knolwedge leads at least myself to believe that Joseph was actually seeing the history of the earth as it passed through its various stages of glory (Telestial kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom) from adam until it is celestialized and did not realize it or understand it at the time but thought of the two kingdoms as being future eternal worlds.
So if what i propose is true then Paul would be most correct in his assessment of there being really just two grades of bodies- the corruptible and the incorruptible because Telestial and Terrestrial bodies would oth fall under the corruptible status whereas only the Celestial or heavenly bodies would be incorruptible.
It would be very interesting indeed if section 76 ended with verse 70! and then a new section was started with verse 71 with an interpretation of what is meant by the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms!
An interesting reading Rob. Maybe it would help if I define some of my terminology right from the start so I don’t confuse myself too greatly. Celestial in the LDS sense means “highest degree of glory.” Celestial in Paul’s sense means “incorruptible heavenly glory” (but not necessarily the “highest” degree of heavenly glory — he gives sun-moon-stars all as examples of his use of “Celestial”).
So with those definitions, I see the opposite from your stated conclusion. I think that Telestial and Terrestrial bodies (ressurected bodies) would fall under the incorruptible (Paul’s “Celestial”) status. LDS-defined Telestial and terrestrial bodies are still “perfected” bodies, aren’t they? They don’t age, get sick, die, lose their hair, get fat, etc. They just don’t have the fullness of glory that Celestial (LDS “Celestial”) resurected bodies have. That’s my understanding at least.
So do I take it then that in your reading every person ultimately receives the Celestial (LDS “Celestial”) glory? You see the earth as going through a telestial period (now), a terrestrial period (the Millennium?), and a celestial period (when the earth will be a giant crystal urim and thummim sphere). Is that right?
If it is, I still see a contradiction between Paul’s use of “Terrestrial” (corruptible, mortal, now) and the LDS use of Terrestrial (not now, the afterlife or Millennium, a resurected body that was been perfected to a lesser degree of glory than Celestial, but greater than Telestial).
And just to clarify, I’m not saying that I doubt D&C 76 — but I would rather prefer that revelation to be our claim to the degrees of glory rather than trying to superimpose this model onto Paul, where I still don’t see a clean fit.
Glenn,
Thanks for the clarification on your part. To clarify in simpler terms what I am getting at and to answer your questions, what I am getting at is that ultimately (post-millennium, judgment) there will only be two groups of people- Those that people the Celestial world and the other group will be those individuals who are cast aside into outer darkness. Section 76 alludes to this fact several times and yet it is a doctrine almost completely hidden or missed because of our intrigue with the whole three glories bit. Let me further explain-
In D&C 76:39-43 is a great truth in answer to the mystery. It says that through the gospel (obedience to the laws and ordinances) that all will be both cleansed and then saved except for the sons of perdition. Now remember that the gospel of repentance and baptism (effectual atonement) is only for the Celestial kingdom. Now then, it specifically states that “all” except the sons of perdition will be cleansed through the gospel. This cleansing only happens in the waters of baptism and the baptism of the holy ghost- the very law of the Celestial Kingdom! Now read in verses 50-52, it speaks of this same group mentioned back in verses 39-43 who Christ came into the world for and who the gospel is really for. Now skip ahead to verse 107 where it speaks of Christ delivering up the kingdom spotless before the father. This is in reference back to Paul concerning the great work to be done in perfecting our dead through the waters of baptism. Also consider that there will be Terrestrial people on the earth during the millennium who will become “perfected” and then recieve their Celestial reward because the inhabitants on the earth during this period will go on to inherit the earth forever.
Now to further back up this claim turn to D&C 29:26-28 where it speaks of only two groups at the great last day of judgment (post-millennium)- the righteous and the wicked. This fulfills the Teachings of Christ where he speaks that all will be gathered to either his right hand or his left. The right hand of God is the Celestial Kingdom of God- it is the Holy city mentioned by John in Revelations. The left hand is outer darkness- a place void of any glory at all. Now skip to verses 43-45 where once again it speaks of the believers who go on to eternal life and the disbelievers who receive their wages in darkness from the devil- only two groups!
In answere to you question of what the glories are- yes, I believe that the “Telestial Kingdom” & “Telestial world” as is mentioned in the scriptures is nothing more than the world in which we now live. The temple refers to our world right now as both the “Telestial Kingdom” and the “Telestial world”. The temple also makes clear that there will come a point when man progresses from this Telestial world into the Terrestrial world. It is completely safe to assume then that when Christ comes again that the earth will pass away as by fire and then be quickened by the glory of Christ. All the righteous living on the earth at that time will be quickened to that glory (Terrestrial) at that time. This does not necessarily mean that all those quickened by the Terrestrial glory will become perfect and immortal though it can be implied.
The important point to all of this musing over the glories really boils down to the purpose of God which is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”. This is what is meant in Corinthians and in section 76 when it speaks of Christ delivering up the kingdom spotless unto the father. It means that all peoples of every time and race from Adam until the end will have had their proper anointings, ordinances and covenants sealed up for eternity- except for the sons of perdition. You see there really is no point in teaching a doctrine of an eternal Telestial world separate from the direct presence of god where souls dwell who both are saved from the devils grasp (chains of hell) and yet do not accept the gospel. Section 29 makes clear that believers are “doers” of the Celestial law while disbelievers never overcome their “spiritual fall” and instead are consigned to outer darkness. So in reality the doctrine of an eternal Telestial kingdom where souls are hoplessly consigned forever goes against the very words of Christ himself- hence- my belief that section 76 really needs further revelation in order to properly interpret the meanings of the two lower kingdoms. It could be that God already has revealed the truth of this in the temple but we are too stuborn headed to grasp the whole idea that we really are in the Telestial kingdom right now- the same kingdom as is mentioned in section 76.
It may be that we already have the real truth and doctrine of progression and what the kingdoms “really mean” but that the church as a whole are not ready to fully grasp the concept that pretty much everyone will end up in the CK in the end!- Except of coarse- the SOP!
Rob, for what it is worth, you are essentially arguing an Origenist position (except that Origen was even more universalist: he held that everyone, Satan included, would eventually be saved by a just and loving God), something which was rejected in the fourth century by early Christians, but an idea of great antiquity nonetheless. The position you outline has some advantages if you want to correlate the Bible and BoM with the D&C, because it eventually casts the D&C system as a heaven and hell dichotomy. Again, though, realize that the D&C text doesn’t say what you want it to, at least not obviously: you read it that way because you know the answer from the start. It is just as easy to read it in a way that supports the three kingdoms as destinations if you start out with that assumption, and many people read it that way.
Again, you may be right, but I want to point out that it isn’t just a matter of “if only people read this text right.” You point to the Temple, but one could just as well argue that the course shown there is the course one goes through in mortal life to be ready for a Celestial law at the end of this life, but that not everyone will follow the course of Adam and arrive at the Celestial Kingdom or go to Outer Darkness: there will be those stuck in the middle somewhere. Again, I am not saying this (the traditional LDS interpretation) is the right interpretation, but it is still a reasonable one based on the texts you cite. The important thing is that the text does not inevitably lead to your interpretation, so it is not a matter of just reading it “right.”
Absent some sort of revelatory clarification, neither position can be positively asserted on the basis of the text alone (per Costanza’s statement about this exact issue being a bone of contention between Talmage and others). If you feel that you have received personal revelation that your reading is right, I won’t gainsay it, but I would think you’d personally have come to some sort of conclusion as to why the Church and its current leaders teach otherwise. I’m curious what that explanation is.
Finally, you state that may be that “the church as a whole are not ready to fully grasp the concept…” Why would that be? If your interpretations is the way it is, I don’t see it as hard to grasp, nor do I see why Church leaders would hide such knowledge or actively teach something different. Since you’ve obviously given this a lot of thought, this question must be another you have a satisfactory personal answer to, and I’m curious what it is.
Please don’t take any of this response as hostile: it certainly isn’t meant to be. I just think there are some consequences of your position regarding the present-day Church that you need to clarify.
And if I am remembering the endowment ceremony right, advancement from one stage to another is conditional — you have to accept certain things, fulfil certain covenants, attain certain knowledge, and if you do, you move on. I realize it is all symbolic. I am very impressed with Rob’s arguments. It says a lot about the role of choice in vernacular religion to me. I like it.
Fenevad,
I realize that my views seem somewhat disoriented from the church leaders current teachings. Let me try to explain where the problems might arise.
You see in our church we have certain definitions for words and phrases that have been modified from modern christianity that tend to settle in our own language the questions that commonly arise from a three final kingdom set. For instance- Take the word “damned” or “damnation”. In order for the word to fit with a 3 separate glory set the word has to be modified from what would normally be the right definition because we teach that one can both be saved and yet damned at the same time in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom. So instead of defining the word to solely mean a condemnation of the wicked in hell, we teach it that it means to be slowed or stopped like one would dam a stream. But this definition is completely a “mormon” definition that cannot be gotten from scripture. What happens is that words like this get popularized by high ranking church leaders to fit what they believe and from then on it becomes uniquely mormon without any scriptural backing. There are other words and terms like salvation and eternal life also that take on uniquely mormon definitions that have been popularized by high ranking leaders.
The point I am getting at is that it becomes ever increasingly difficult to change a system of beliefs when no one understands that there is a problem or when so many past leaders have taught a certain way. Let me further explain the logic of it-
Jesus taught that everyone must believe in him and be baptized or they would be damned- no ifs, and or buts! In this sense he specifically meant that unless man yielded himself unto Christ and obeyed they would forever be chained down in the devils grasp. There could possibly be no escape without strict compliance to this eternal principle and law. Section 138 of the D&C backs this claim up that only those(the rebellious dead) who accept Christ and believe and are then baptized by proxy in the spirit world will be released from the bondage of damnation. This teaching goes against our current teaching that one can pay the penalty themselves through suffering without ever obeying the command of Christ to repent and be baptized. In section 25:1 it states that those who believe in Christ are sons and daughters in his (Celestial) Kingdom. This also applies to the dead- even the wicked dead!
The reason the church as awhole is not ready for these truths is pointed straight to the simple fact that we teach two different plans of salvation- that outside of the temple where there is no progression (from kingdom to kingdom) and that inside of the temple where progression (from kingdom to kingdom) is required. Whenever I bring this up someone always says that the temple is just symbolic though and doesn’t really mean that. So I wonder then if baptism for the dead is also symbolic and doesnt really mean anything- do you get my drift?
So to say that obviously the members are not ready to understand the truth it is because they perhaps cannot grasp the eternal truth that we are currently in the Telestial kingdom which will soon be transformed into the Terrestrial Kingdom.
Damn is from Lat. damnō, ‘to judge, impose a penalty.’ The idea of damming a stream is one of the most silly folk etymologies I know of in the Church. You are correct that it is entirely a Mormon definition.
Alright brothers, let’s watch our language here. I did not start this post as an invitation for potty mouths.
I completely agree that most people in the church don’t really understand the Truth, and for that there must needs be a great shift towards repentance. It is refreshing to see that at least one of you is making it.
But Brother Stephen, if everyone repented then your clear spiritual superiority would be challenged. I mean come on, we both know that half the fun is knowing that you are a few notches above the rest of the rabble on the old Celestial O’Meter.
Brother Costanza,
I can see that you misunderstand my motiviation. Perhaps it is your Latvian Orthodox background, but in no way do I want to be so superior to others. It is really not my fault that I am more righteous. I just don’t understand why people don’t take the gospel more seriously. I actually want them to. I would LOVE for people to repent and catch up with me — especially if I am able, in some small way, to be a great influence in their transformation. The worth of a soul, Brother Costanza. The worth of a soul.
Are you kidding me? More righteous than everyone else? I guess that rumor that you were directly descended from Pharisees wasn’t unfounded after all. How’s the view from your personal Rameumption?