Where did this word come from? I can't find it in my big American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. If it is really a word, why isn't in there? I am assuming the word has been around from the beginning of Mormonism, so again, why hasn't it made in the dictionary, even if it would be defined as a uniquely Mormon word?

Here's a quote from Eric Davis I saved:

The Telestial Kingdom – As I am typing this (on Windows Word) I notice the crooked red line under the word “telestial.” And there it is again. Joseph Smith invented this word entirely by himself. It does not exist anywhere prior to Smith’s work, and does not exist anywhere outside the Mormon Church. The word cannot even be found in dictionaries (a few dictionaries site the word in its Mormon reference, but in no other meaning). Supposedly Joseph was inspired to translate the Bible (after many plain and precious truths were lost), and he came across a particular passage in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42. Paul compares Celestial and Terrestrial glory to the comparison between brightness of the Sun, Moon and stars. He uses this comparison as a metaphor for resurrection of the dead. Death is compared to the corrupt earth and resurrection is compared to a perfect heaven. But Joseph Smith mistakenly believes that Paul is referring to three separate degrees of glory in heaven (Sun, Moon and stars) and thinks that the third degree, Telestial, was left out of verse 40, following Celestial and Terrestrial. The words Celestial and Terrestrial have Latin roots. Celestial comes from the words Cael (heaven or sky, the words were used interchangeably in ancient cultures), Estis (a suffix denoting adjectival use), and Al (a prepositional phrase meaning: of the/from the). Celestial would literally translate to: Of the heaven/sky. Terrestrial is a Middle English translation from the Latin roots Terra (earth or ground) and Al (of the/from the). Terrestrial would literally mean: Of the Earth. Celestial refers to heavenly bodies (Sun, Moon and stars), and Terrestrial refers to earthly bodies (humans, objects of nature, etc.). Terrestrial does not imply a degree of heavenly glory. If Celestial and Terrestrial both have Latin roots, then we should assume that Telestial must have some Latin root as well. The middle and end parts of the word have already been established in “Cel-esti-al.” The remaining syllable at the beginning of the word is Tel, which could be derived from the Latin Tele, meaning: Distant (borrowed from the Greek word of same spelling and meaning). In that sense, Telestial would mean: Of the distant. This word is entirely incoherent without a qualifier. What is the body at a distance from? Theoretically we could say that since God is at a distance from us, God is a Telestial body. Since Joseph never declares Telestial referring to distance from God, the word is rendered meaningless. We may just as well call it the Rrtwyfdpqgf Kingdom. For a real translation, Telestial means: Joseph Smith is Aerifervenal (my own invented Latin word for “full of hot air”).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 11:15AM by Heresy.

To be fair, lots of religious leaders make up words. Thetan check, anyone?

Check the description of the heavens by Emanuel Swedenborg. He lived not long before Joseph Smith's time and his writings would easily have been available to him. I even read once where Smith quoted Swedenborg.

Or more probably - in my opinion: Smith coined telestial himself by combining celestial and terrestrial.

To me this indicates that he did not know what the Latin words celestial and terrestrial mean.

Why telestial has not entered the dictionaries? Because it is a term from a negligible small church.

But to my amusement Telestial is also the name of a company dealing in telecommunications - see http://www.telestial.com .

wow! buy stocks now - their value will go through the roof come the final resurrection!

See Chapter 5 at the link. No telestial but the concept of three heavens.

http://www.theisticscience.org/books/hh/hh00toc.html

interesting discussions here (read the comments too)

http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/01/27/the-etymology-of-telestial/

"Smith coined telestial himself by combining celestial and terrestrial" - but if this is the case, shouldn't the telestial kingdom be between the terrestrial and celestial? As it is now, the telestial is the lowest. Of course JS doesn't use logic so why not?

"I think Smith did not understand what Paul says about celestial and terrestrial bodies in 1 Korinthians 15. Perhaps Smith did not understand the words celestial and terrestrial, borrowed into English from Latin." - Perhaps JS didn't understand anything but how to rape young girls and lie to his wife and everyone else.

In 1758, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote Heaven & Hell, where he first published the word Telestial (sorry Joseph Smith), including it's definition as a 3rd heavenly sphere (sorry Joseph), as well as his interpretation that Celestial, Terrestial, and Celestial are the three states of heaven, comparable to the sun, moon, and stars--- almost 100 years before Joseph Smith plagiarized this theory. Sorry Joe, you lose.

In 1758, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote Heaven & Hell, where he first published the word Telestial (sorry Joseph Smith), including it's definition as a 3rd heavenly sphere (sorry Joseph), as well as his interpretation that Celestial, Terrestial, and Celestial are the three states of heaven, comparable to the sun, moon, and stars--- almost 100 years before Joseph Smith plagiarized this theory. Sorry Joe, you lose.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Hell_(Swedenborg)

JS took Celestial, took the "C" and out and put a "T" there...

shazam- new word!


could have been Pelestial or Helestial or Gelestial

it's all made up...

m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JS took Celestial, took the "C" and out and put a
> "T" there...
>
> shazam- new word!
>
>
> could have been Pelestial or Helestial or
> Gelestial
>
> it's all made up...


I like "gelestial" the best. It sort of reminds me of "gelatinous."

I think Smith did not understand what Paul says about celestial and terrestrial bodies in 1 Korinthians 15. Perhaps Smith did not understand the words celestial and terrestrial, borrowed into English from Latin.

But Paul did not write those words. He wrote in Greek, saying "somata epourania" and "somata epigeia". Somata means bodies. Epourania is composed of epi = on and ouranos = sky or heaven, and epigeia is epi pluss gaia = earth. So what Paul said was something like "bodies of the kind that are on the sky" and "bodies of the kind that are on earth". This reflects the world view of the ancients, that there was a fundamental difference between heavenly bodies = sun, moon, stars and earthly bodies = humans, animals, plants, rocks etc. Those two groups moved according to different laws, the ancient supposed. It would take more than fifteen hundred years after Paul for Newton to show that planets and apples follow the same law of gravity.

Paul uses this ancient world view in an attempt to explain with what kind of bodies the dead will resurrect. First, he points out that the same plant can have two different kinds of body - the seed and the growing plant, and between them there is death of a kind. Then he points out that different kinds of beings have different kinds of bodies. First he points out that the flesh of humans, animals, fishes and birds is different, which was obvious to the ancients. It may be a little less obvious to us, who are used to words like cells, DNA and such. And then he points out that bodies on earth and on the sky are different, which (as I said) was obvious before Newton.

The point of Paul's reasoning is to show that 1. the same being can change its body but still remain the same - like the seed and growing plant, and 2. that there are different kinds of bodies. So, according to Paul, there should not be any difficulty in believing that the same being can be changed from the perishable, imperfect body on earth to an eternal, perfect body in the resurrection.

I think that what brought Smith off the track could have been verses 40 and 41. First, Paul mentions two kinds of bodies, those on the sky and those on earth. Then Paul specifies the bodies on the sky into three groups, sun, moon and stars. I think that Smith confused the two kinds in verse 40 and the three in verse 41, and so he thought something had been left out in verse 40. He did not notice that verse 41 is a specification of different kinds of bodies on the sky - like verse 39 is a specification of different kindes of bodies on earth.

And then he didn't understand the long words celestial and terrestrial, and he mixed it all up, possibly influenced by Swedenborg. But Swedenborg knew Latin, so he would know the words celestial and terrestrial.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 01:12PM by ipseego.

If I'm going to combine words, I prefer awesome mashups like Sharknado or Croctopus.