The Three Levels of Heaven

[Blossom76]

Hi

I was asked by my husband about the LDS doctrine of the three heavens, I explained that there are three different levels of heaven and depending on how you live your life depends on what level you go to.  He asked me for a bible reference to back it up, I know there is one but I can't remember or find it anywhere, can someone please help me by telling me the scriptures that back this up?  Thanks so much

 

Blossom

Edited October 31, 2017 by Blossom76
Spelling!

[anatess2]

Here ya go.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/degrees-of-glory

 

 

[Blossom76]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Here ya go.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/degrees-of-glory

 

 

Thank you! I'll make these scriptures part of our bible study tonight and let you know what he says - Thank you so much x

[Blossom76]

Well Bible Study didn't go my way

1st Corinthians 15:40-42 - my husband explained to me that this is about the resurrection and it is talking about the difference between our heavenly and earthly bodies.  I was a bit blindsided so I asked him to show me, we have an interlinear bible so he could show me in the original Greek.  The words they use is 'epourania' which literally means Heavenly but in the king james was translated as celestial, the other word is 'epigeia' which literally means 'on land' or 'earthly' again the king james translates it as terrestrial.

"There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;"

I tried not to get upset because I couldn't argue it because he was factually correct so I moved onto 2nd Corinthians 12:2 - if Paul was called up to the third Heaven obviously there is a 1st and 2nd Heaven right?  Apparently not, to ancient Jews the third heaven just meant actual heaven, to them the first heaven was the clouds, the second heaven was the stars, and the third heaven was heaven where God and Jesus was.  So when a Jew said the third heaven that's what they meant. My husband is very well educated and I just felt silly in the end, he wasn't mean about it, in fact he was very understanding, and could see how someone would misinterpret these verses.  I just let him lead the rest of the study.

Can anyone help me with any other passages that help prove the validity of the teaching of the three heavens? Please help.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Blossom76

[prisonchaplain]

I'm guessing many of the knowledgeable LDS posters here will be jumping in to offer you references and explanations. However, it may help to know the context of this Bible study you are having with your husband. Is he Christian, but not LDS (that's how I am reading your post)? If so, your study may prove difficult. Without a belief in the truth of LDS prophets and scriptures so many doctrinal discussions lead to impasse. Your are stuck using the Bible, and for some doctrines, even the most well-versed members here will tell you it can only hint at what the other scriptures spell out. It's good that you are studying together. That speaks well of your relationship. Still, if we know the context better, you will likely get better counsel. 

[zil]

Quote

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

Joseph Smith - History 1:11-12, emphasis mine.

He was describing how, when he was a young man, the various preachers (Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterians, etc.) all disagreed on what the Bible passages mean.  If they didn't agree then, we cannot expect agreement now.

[Blossom76]

We study together twice a week at a minimum, we were both raised catholic and have always had a very strong faith, my husband is still very strong in his faith, it is me who is questioning things and studying the LDS Church.  He does not approve BUT he is very supportive of me.  It was very frustrating because I didn't have a leg to stand on (He wont accept the LDS scriptures or prophets as proof of LDS doctrine, so I am stuck with the bible (which he knows inside out, back to front, in Greek, Hebrew and english) so it is hard, any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

And as far as context, he prefers to read the whole chapter (which is what we did and then I could see that it was all about the resurrection) so just single verses is not going to have much weight with him.

[Blossom76]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Joseph Smith - History 1:11-12, emphasis mine.

He was describing how, when he was a young man, the various preachers (Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterians, etc.) all disagreed on what the Bible passages mean.  If they didn't agree then, we cannot expect agreement now.

Thanks, I did actually say something similar to him, which started a discussion on Authority, which I ended up not being able to prove the great apostasy or that the LDS church had the Authority.  Hubby showed me from the bible (Matthew chapter 16, the whole chapter) if that is true then Jesus lied and he couldn't believe that Jesus would lie - that was kinda the end of bible study for the night.

I dont want to start trouble in my marriage, but if I can't show him from the bible that the LDS church is the only true church on earth and not the Catholic Church he will not allow me to be baptised (he says I'm already baptised, I'm already confirmed so I have the holy spirit with me) It's hard because his faith is so important to him and our church life together is a cornerstone of our marriage. 

Sorry to bother you all with my marriage problems, I appreciate all your support.

[Anddenex]

49 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I tried not to get upset because I couldn't argue it because he was factually correct so I moved onto 2nd Corinthians 12:2 - if Paul was called up to the third Heaven obviously there is a 1st and 2nd Heaven right?  Apparently not, to ancient Jews the third heaven just meant actual heaven, to them the first heaven was the clouds, the second heaven was the stars, and the third heaven was heaven where God and Jesus was.  So when a Jew said the third heaven that's what they meant. My husband is very well educated and I just felt silly in the end, he wasn't mean about it, in fact he was very understanding, and could see how someone would misinterpret these verses.  I just let him lead the rest of the study.

Will you please ask him scripture and verse where first heaven is the "clouds," and second heaven is "stars," and third is where God and Jesus were? I would love to read this myself, and since he is keen on Biblical passages, surely he knows scripture and verse in the Bible for this reference.

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Anddenex

[zil]

You will never be able to prove to anyone that their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.  If the Lord wanted one faith, one authority proven beyond doubt by scripture, he could have ensured that.  Instead, it's quite clear he expects us to search out truth and act in faith, constantly seeking more truth, drawing closer and closer to him until the end.

As for Matthew 16, I assume we mean these verses:

Quote

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

...especially 18.  the thing is "this rock" is not Peter, it is a word play on Peter's name, but "this rock" is referring back to verse 17 - flesh and blood (not even Christ's flesh and blood) revealed the truth to Peter, but rather God the Father revealed the truth to Peter, and it is upon the rock of revelation that the church was built.

There's no shortage of scripture and explanation about the great apostasy, but your husband will reject those as well since there are always alternate ways of looking at things.  I would recommend you not try to convince him of anything.  He has found the truths he wishes to find and does not wish to look elsewhere for more.  Trying to convince or convert him when he's not interested in that will do more harm than good.  Rather, continue your own study, let the Spirit teach you, for in the end, only the Holy Ghost has the power to convince anyone of truth, no reading or logic or clever argument will do it, the Spirit will.

If it comes to the point where you join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and he doesn't, let your happiness, your devotion, your faith, your service, your virtue testify to him that you have done the right thing.  Make sure your decision does not harm your marriage.  Love and serve your family as any good wife would.  Respect your husband's choice to stay where he is, support him in that as he is supporting you now.  This will soften his heart better than all the scripture interpretations in the world.  If anything will peak his interest, it's that.

[bytebear]

I think this is one of those instances where there are two things going on.  Yes, 1 Cor 15 is talking about the corrupt becoming incorruptible, and I would look at the fall of Adam.  In Adam all die, but in Christ shall all be made alive.  (verse 22).  This is critical.  All people will be made alive, resurrected.  Not just the righteous, not just the believers, but everyone, even the most evil sinners.  So, we establish that everyone will be resurrected.  Now, how does the degrees of glory play in?

"There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;"

Notice, the use of the word "glory".  He switches concepts from earthly to heavenly in a bit of poetic license I believe, and compares our "glorious" body and the distinction between those resurrected in an "earthly" state vs a "heavenly" state. And that's the key.   Mormons believe that to enter celestial glory one must be baptized, reborn into a new life, a heavenly life.  So, those who live an earthly life will be resurrected to an earthly glory, and those who covenant to a heavenly life will be resurrected to a heavenly body.   Joseph Smith equated this to the sun vs the moon, and then expounded that the stars mentioned represent a "telestial" glory, not even worthy of earthly glory, but a sub-glory, but a glory, nonetheless. But whose glory cannot even compare to the moon, let alone the sun.

And by the way, this was not just made up by Joseph Smith, but was revealed in a vision, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants section 76.

Here's the lesson manual on that vision.  It's deep, but I think helpful in understanding the LDS perspective.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-church-in-ohio-and-missouri/doctrine-and-covenants-76-the-vision-of-the-different-degrees-of-glory?lang=eng
 

Edited October 31, 2017 by bytebear

[Blossom76]

17 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Will you please ask him scripture and verse where first heaven is the "clouds," and second heaven is "stars," and third is where God and Jesus were? I would love to read this myself, and since he is keen on Biblical passages, surely he knows scripture and verse in the Bible.

 

There is no bible passage, he is talking about the actual Language and Terms of the ancient Jews, they are not going to have a passage in the bible explaining their own language.  But it is very easily looked up in historical evidence of the times. (unfortunately for me!) He did give me these to read but he was more insistent on learning what the Jews meant when they said certain things.  Understanding the language and terms of the ancient Jews was more important to him.  

Genesis 6:7 and Matthew 24:29

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Blossom76

[zil]

I think @Anddenex is asking because you'd think we Mormons would have heard this from anti-Mormons lots of times, but this is the first time I've ever heard it, and I suppose the first time he's heard it, which makes me wonder how it's "easily looked up".  (Just providing context for you.)

Edited October 31, 2017 by zil

[zil]

And here's a source (the third in my search results, the first two not supporting this understanding) which repeats this same idea.  It seems quite obvious to me that this is simply how some people choose to interpret the words used in scripture and that there isn't actually anything concrete supporting the idea.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_151.cfm

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, zil said:

I think @Anddenex is asking because you'd think we Mormons would have heard this from anti-Mormons lots of times, but this is the first time I've ever heard it, and I suppose the first time he's heard it, which makes me wonder how it's "easily looked up".  (Just providing context for you.)

Hubby did give me a couple of references to look at but he was more adamant on the fact that the Ancient Jews meant when they said certain things, he said you must look at the meaning of what the language of the times was saying.  Language changes and we are translating the bible from either Greek or Hebrew.  He was quite clear the when the ancient Jews spoke of heaven they did not just mean where God lives.  The first heaven is 'the atmosphere above us' the second heaven is "the sun moon and stars' and the third heaven is 'where God lives, above the other two heavens'

Here a couple of the spots in the bible that back this up, but he was more focussed on the fact that if you are going to understand what they ancient Jews were talking about you must first understand their language.

Genesis talks about the first heaven as the Ancient Jews would have seen it (Genesis 6:7) talking about birds of heaven, the first heaven is the sky.

Matthew talks about he second heaven (Matthew 24:29) Talking about the stars being in the heaven - so I guess you could say this is a reference to the second heaven

 

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

There is no bible passage, he is talking about the actual Language and Terms of the ancient Jews, they are not going to have a passage in the bible explaining their own language.  But it is very easily looked up in historical evidence of the times. (unfortunately for me!)

In addition to what @zil mentioned, your initial post begins with a request from your husband regarding "Biblical" passages of scripture (outside of personal interpretation) for evidence of three heavens. I am only requesting of him to prove by scripture his interpretation, acceptance, of "clouds", "stars", and "God and Jesus was."

Your initial statement, "there is no bible passage," answers my question. He is unable to provide what he himself is requesting. This is the intriguing aspect of arguments toward scripture. You have provided more than one passage of scripture, Biblical scripture, and it comes down to personal interpretation of these events. Who then ultimately has authority on scriptural interpretations? The answer is -- God.

If we want to know the truth, then we ask God. And the first passage shared in Corinthians does indeed deal with the heavens and resurrection. There will be bodies resurrected into the Telestial glory (resurrection), there will be bodies resurrected into Terrestrial glory (resurrection), and there will be bodies resurrected to Celestial glory (again resurrection). These verses deal with resurrection and heavenly glories.

So, as your husband would be unable to provide scriptural proof of his interpretation of the third heaven, then as PC mentioned, we are at an impasse, and the only person who solves or can tell us what is then true is God, through prayer. If people were solely convinced by "scripture" then the Pharisees would not have put their Savior to the cross. It was their personal interpretation that caused them to be blinded.

[Blossom76]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

In addition to what @zil mentioned, your initial post begins with a request from your husband regarding "Biblical" passages of scripture (outside of personal interpretation) for evidence of three heavens. I am only requesting of him to prove by scripture his interpretation, acceptance, of "clouds", "stars", and "God and Jesus was."

Your initial statement, "there is no bible passage," answers my question. He is unable to provide what he himself is requesting. This is the intriguing aspect of arguments toward scripture. You have provided more than one passage of scripture, Biblical scripture, and it comes down to personal interpretation of these events. Who then ultimately has authority on scriptural interpretations? The answer is -- God.

If we want to know the truth, then we ask God. And the first passage shared in Corinthians does indeed deal with the heavens and resurrection. There will be bodies resurrected into the Telestial glory (resurrection), there will be bodies resurrected into Terrestrial glory (resurrection), and there will be bodies resurrected to Celestial glory (again resurrection). These verses deal with resurrection and heavenly glories.

So, as your husband would be unable to provide scriptural proof of his interpretation of the third heaven, then as PC mentioned, we are at an impasse, and the only person who solves or can tell us what is then true is God, through prayer. If people were solely convinced by "scripture" then the Pharisees would not have put their Savior to the cross. It was their personal interpretation that caused them to be blinded.

He didnt' want it to turn into a bible bashing exercise, he did give me a couple of references to explain better that when an ancient Jew said Heaven they didn't automatically mean 'Actual Heaven' it was a term that could also mean the stars or the clouds (Genesis 6:& and Matthew 24:29).  He was more interested in showing me that when you read an ancient text that was written in a different language and translated into english, you need to really understand the context of the original language.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Blossom76

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Hubby did give me a couple of references to look at but he was more adamant on the fact that the Ancient Jews meant when they said certain things, he said you must look at the meaning of what the language of the times was saying.  Language changes and we are translating the bible from either Greek or Hebrew.  He was quite clear the when the ancient Jews spoke of heaven they did not just mean where God lives.  The first heaven is 'the atmosphere above us' the second heaven is "the sun moon and stars' and the third heaven is 'where God lives, above the other two heavens'

Here a couple of the spots in the bible that back this up, but he was more focussed on the fact that if you are going to understand what they ancient Jews were talking about you must first understand their language.

Genesis talks about the first heaven as the Ancient Jews would have seen it (Genesis 6:7) talking about birds of heaven, the first heaven is the sky.

Matthew talks about he second heaven (Matthew 24:29) Talking about the stars being in the heaven - so I guess you could say this is a reference to the second heaven

 

Here is the first verse, "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." First heaven is not mentioned. The scripture passage only indicates what was created, confirming a personal interpretation of it related to first heaven.

The second verse, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" Again, this doesn't indicate or specify anything regarding a first, second, and third heaven. At least this verse does mention "heaven", but we fall again under personal interpretation.

[bytebear]

Sun, moon and stars don't always represent heaven, as in that case, and there's a verse in Revelation 12:1 " A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."  This particular verse is used in the symbolism of the Salt Lake temple architecture, but has nothing that I am aware of, to do with the degrees of glory.  But maybe the significance of the temple covenants does reflect that.

[Blossom76]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Here is the first verse, "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." First heaven is not mentioned. The scripture passage only indicates what was created, confirming a personal interpretation of it related to first heaven.

The second verse, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" Again, this doesn't indicate or specify anything regarding a first, second, and third heaven. At least this verse does mention "heaven", but we fall again under personal interpretation.

This is exactly his point, the literal translation of this scripture to English is Heavens NOT air.  Look I'm not trying to upset anyone, I am upset by all this.  But everything he told me checks out, so I dont know what to do now, I was just looking for support

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Blossom76

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

He didnt' want it to turn into a bible bashing exercise, he did give me a couple of references to explain better that when an ancient Jew said Heaven they didn't automatically mean 'Actual Heaven' it was a term that could also mean the stars or the clouds (Genesis 6:& and Matthew 24:29).  He was more interested in showing me that when you read an ancient text that was written in a different language and translated into english, you need to really understand the context of the original language.

Neither do we; unfortunately though, when someone demands scriptural evidence and then provides interpretation (not scriptural evidence) of their belief it usually will end in "bible bashing" unless both are peaceful and accept that people have been given the freedom to believe as they will. @prisonchaplain is a great example on this forum (who is not LDS) of someone who magnifies this principle.

I have heard this argument many times, "you need to really understand the context of the original language." This is a half truth. I would be willing to believe "fisherman" over the "Pharisees" regarding Christ every day of the week. Now, who do you think knew the context of original language better -- at that day?

Who then is the source of all truth? God. The moment God reveals truth, it doesn't matter how studied you are in "original language" if the interpretation is only partially true.

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

This is exactly his point, the literal translation of the Hebrew to English is Heavens NOT air.  Look I'm not trying to upset anyone, I am upset by all this.  But everything he told me checks out, so I dont know what to do now

Let me be very clear, you haven't upset me, and I don't think you have upset anyone else.

Please don't be upset yourself, and remember it is OK if your husband doesn't accept this. @zil provided you with exactly what would be good for you. I will quote her, "I would recommend you not try to convince him of anything.  He has found the truths he wishes to find and does not wish to look elsewhere for more.  Trying to convince or convert him when he's not interested in that will do more harm than good.  Rather, continue your own study, let the Spirit teach you, for in the end, only the Holy Ghost has the power to convince anyone of truth, no reading or logic or clever argument will do it, the Spirit will."

The greatest gift we have is our "agency" in this life. The honor of "agency" is one of our greatest gift to others, and for others to honor our agency also.

I understand his point, and again his point falls under "personal" interpretation. I disagree with his personal interpretation of scripture. Nothing he has shared (through you) checks out. Not trying to offend you there, I am only being honest as you are seeking to be honest.

I wish you the best in your studies, and remember God is the source of all truth, not man, nor man's personal interpretation of scripture. I know what has been revealed as truth, not because of "original writings and context," but because God himself has revealed it to me by the power of his Spirit.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Well Bible Study didn't go my way

1st Corinthians 15:40-42 - my husband explained to me that this is about the resurrection and it is talking about the difference between our heavenly and earthly bodies.  I was a bit blindsided so I asked him to show me, we have an interlinear bible so he could show me in the original Greek.  The words they use is 'epourania' which literally means Heavenly but in the king james was translated as celestial, the other word is 'epigeia' which literally means 'on land' or 'earthly' again the king james translates it as terrestrial.

"There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;"

I tried not to get upset because I couldn't argue it because he was factually correct so I moved onto 2nd Corinthians 12:2 - if Paul was called up to the third Heaven obviously there is a 1st and 2nd Heaven right?  Apparently not, to ancient Jews the third heaven just meant actual heaven, to them the first heaven was the clouds, the second heaven was the stars, and the third heaven was heaven where God and Jesus was.  So when a Jew said the third heaven that's what they meant. My husband is very well educated and I just felt silly in the end, he wasn't mean about it, in fact he was very understanding, and could see how someone would misinterpret these verses.  I just let him lead the rest of the study.

Can anyone help me with any other passages that help prove the validity of the teaching of the three heavens? Please help.

I could say quite a bit from a historian's point of view...but in your husband's effect I don't think he is interested in any facts, historical or religious from the mood of what I'm hearing.  Overall, he's taken a slant on what he's going to listen to, correct or incorrect (as your epourania and epigeia explanation so aptly show), regardless of other interpretations, translations, etc.  What is interesting, is I think, as per the Catholic interpretation of the Bible, his explanation is actually is in question as it is taken from the Latin which has it as follows

Quote

VUL 40 et corpora caelestia et corpora terrestria sed alia quidem caelestium gloria alia autem terrestrium VUL 41 alia claritas solis alia claritas lunae et alia claritas stellarum stella enim ab stella differt in claritate VUL 42 sic et resurrectio mortuorum seminatur in corruptione surgit in incorruptione

In the latin, it is Caelestia and the word Terrestria.  Terrestrial is an exact extract of the  word Terrestria, which of course corresponds to earthly...but the difference he is trying to make is sort of weird as the three kingdoms are rooted a little in that but more so in verse 41.  Why is he referring to the Greek if he is Catholic...when the Catholic vulgate is where the origins of current interpretation come from?

As that, I think discussing (arguing) over such things will get you nowhere.  I would take a different slant, as I think on this one you are going to be brow beat into submission.  Now if it is your OWN doubts you want addressed, I'd say the following.

Using your husband's argument of his "modern" interpretation of the words, it is the SAME argument that some try to rationalize that homosexuality is actually a good thing to do rather than a sin.  This is obviously a sin that any Christian would realize, but those who base their ideas simply off one interpretation of a word without the context will use anything to justify their explanation.  One needs to understand the context that it was used in and how it was used...this is why most translations have certain words show up in them, even if that word could be translated in several different ways.

My first thought is to select various versions of the Bible, as that will give you different slants on the actual interpretation.  I have a friend who loves to use the American Standard, as he finds that more authentic to our language usage...so when looking at that we find it translated as such

Quote

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. 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. ⁴² So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: ⁴³ 

To analyze a translation, one would then need to answer why the preponderance of many translations, translate certain words as certain words in English.  It is just as much the context that explains why translaters use certain words when they translate them, as it is the specifics of the word itself.  If you have a question over a translation, refer to OTHER bible translations and see what a majority of them translate the words to be.  You'll find a far more accurate assessment of such things then your husband trying to justify his own translation of a word.  That said...

Now the one that would agree with your husband the most is perhaps what I consider one of the more accurately translated bibles of our time which is the Holman bible, in it, it states...

Quote

⁴⁰ There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones. ⁴¹ There is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; for one star differs from another star in splendor. ⁴²So it is with the resurrection of the dead:

However, your husband latched onto the wrong thing, for neither talks about the three kingdoms in verse 40 (which is what he was referring to I assume, because if he was referring to verse 41, he entirely got it wrong from my estimation), but it is verse 41 in which the LDS thoughts on the three kingdoms arise. 

Now, each sect has it's own interpretation of the Bible, even if the bible itself isn't changing (unless you are a Jehovah's Witness, and then they have a very odd way of changing their ideas of the biblical translation).  Each group is going to have it's own interpretation of a verse.  It sounds as if your husband is well versed in his own sects interpretation of it.  That doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion, but I would highly advise against arguing against such, as in my opinion, it will get you nowhere.

You'd probably stand a better chance at convincing an Atheist of the interpretation, but then many of them will accept other interpretations because they will also point out evidence that indicates the Bible is false BECAUSE of changing interpretations throughout the years, with the first and foremost of it being that early Christians had a very different belief system and ideas than what came after Constantine and the early changes in the church during that period and the next 200 years after.

In fact, it's the very essence of modern Christian interpretations many atheists and non-Christians try to utilize to prove that the bible is NOT true. 

Obviously, I would not buy into that idea, but the point is that there are MANY interpretations of any single section of the bible.  Each sect will have a solid theological explanation (normally) for how they interpret it.  If you are trying to prove something in that fashion, you will never prove anything for those who are stuck in their interpretation being the ONLY interpretation possible (In my opinion).  In addition, arguing, fighting, and contention are of the adversary...love, kindness, and long suffering are Christlike.

In that light, these are the steps I would take instead.

First, find if you have a testimony of the gospel taught in the LDS church first and foremost.

1. Read the Book of Mormon and then pray to know if it is true or not.  If your answer is that it is not that is the end of it.

2.  If you are answered that the Book of Mormon IS true, than pray to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet.  If you feel that he is, then that will lead you to the rest.

3. If you gain this testimony of the truthfulness of the book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, pray for guidance on other aspects of the LDS religion.

4.  If you have a testimony, it does not matter what your husband states.  He can say whatever he wants to say, but he CANNOT claim what he states is what you believe, your interpretation, or your knowledge.

       a.  This is why testimony is such a strong thing, because it IS a fact regarding your own faith.  It is  a fact of what you have a testimony of.  When discussing Bible or religious facts, outside reading the bible straight up (without outside interpretation, just the verse itself), then the ONLY facts that stand in that are what each individual themselves believe or have faith in.  Their belief is not the fact, but that this is what they believe is the fact (aka...my opinion that Joseph smith was a prophet is just an opinion, but it is a fact that I believe he was a prophet).

      b.  Interpretation is NOT fact, it is, just an opinion.  The facts are testifying what one believes, and the actual things that version or translation of the bible actually states.

5.  At that point, your husband can reconcile to the fact of your belief, or he can become more adversarial (and hence more akin to the adversary than of the Kingdom of Heaven).  Either way I would suggest loving him regardless, and showing him Christlike love in return. 

My personal opinion is that steadfast belief and testimony I feel are better at converting others than trying to argue about a verse's interpretation.

Edited October 31, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[prisonchaplain]

If I am understanding the original poster correctly, her husband is a Catholic, confident in his faith and unusually well-versed in the Bible. She is an investigator, apparently trying to convince her husband of problems in Catholicism, and the correctness of the LDS faith. Further, this husband is supportive of the original poster's spiritual searching, even though he does not believe her current focus (LDS) is correct.

First, I am truly impressed. @Blossom76 you appear to have a strong relationship and a wise, understanding husband. I sincerely congratulate you. Perhaps, since you are still investigating, it would be good to take time to become convinced yourself. You might give hubby updates on your searching, and ask him questions now and then. However, it just seems like an unnecessary and losing battle for an LDS-investigator to attempt pursuasive Bible study with a convinced and educated Catholic--especially when both sides are married. Relax in this new faith you are exploring. Become convinced and sure for yourself. God will direct your steps and give you the insights you need.  Oh...and do rejoice in your marriage--it really does sound like it's built on solid trust.

[Blossom76]

14 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If I am understanding the original poster correctly, her husband is a Catholic, confident in his faith and unusually well-versed in the Bible. She is an investigator, apparently trying to convince her husband of problems in Catholicism, and the correctness of the LDS faith. Further, this husband is supportive of the original poster's spiritual searching, even though he does not believe her current focus (LDS) is correct.

First, I am truly impressed. @Blossom76 you appear to have a strong relationship and a wise, understanding husband. I sincerely congratulate you. Perhaps, since you are still investigating, it would be good to take time to become convinced yourself. You might give hubby updates on your searching, and ask him questions now and then. However, it just seems like an unnecessary and losing battle for an LDS-investigator to attempt pursuasive Bible study with a convinced and educated Catholic--especially when both sides are married. Relax in this new faith you are exploring. Become convinced and sure for yourself. God will direct your steps and give you the insights you need.  Oh...and do rejoice in your marriage--it really does sound like it's built on solid trust.

Thank you so much, and you are right, my husband takes his faith very seriously and right now he thinks my soul is in danger.  And he does know the bible very well. I wasn't trying to 'prove LDS doctrine to him' I was super excited to show him from the bible the truth of the Three Heavens, all that happened was he showed me a few very good reasons to question this doctrine.    My Hubby is wise and kind and very loving and extremely well educated and very successful in his career.  He provides me with a wonderful life and I would never disrespect him.

And to answer @JohnsonJones hubby was NOT using Latin at all, his interlinear translation of the bible is from Hebrew and Greek directly into English, which he is quite insistent that is how you should be reading it, especially if you are going to base doctrine on the interpretation of what you are reading.

I will keep praying and reading the Book Of Mormon and attending both Mass and LDS church (I literally have no Sunday left at all LOL) but I can't hide my studies from my Husband, he has asked that I share with him what I am learning and I can hardly deny him that.