Mormonism and Angels

[TOmNossor]

Of course conversely, in Christ, Catholics believe that men can become greater than the angels. Our Lady, Mary, for example, is honoured as Queen of the Angels. She is not an angel. She is now above the angels as God’s own Mother.

Again, I have a lot of thoughts about these two scriptures, but let me ask both you and Chris-WA.
It would seem to me that if Chris-WA is correct, Hebrews 2:7 means we are a species that is lower than another type of species that Chris thinks Hebrews 2:7 calls “angels.”
You are then saying it is the Catholic position that this lesser species, us, can be transformed into a greater speicies.

Either human BEINGs will forever be LESSER than angel-species or human-BEINGs will be transformed into a different type of BEING/species that is greater than angel-species. I do not think that changing into different types of species is Catholic teaching?

I guess it will not be too forward of me to say plainly that in addition to OTHER things, I do not think being “lesser” than ??? in Hebrews 2:7 has anything to do with ontological species-ness. In other words, I think Chris-WA (with or without agreement from Catholic Tradition) has misread Hebrews 2:7 in this way at least.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

Again, I have a lot of thoughts about these two scriptures, but let me ask both you and Chris-WA.
It would seem to me that if Chris-WA is correct, Hebrews 2:7 means we are a species that is lower than another type of species that Chris thinks Hebrews 2:7 calls “angels.”
You are then saying it is the Catholic position that this lesser species, us, can be transformed into a greater speicies.

Either human BEINGs will forever be LESSER than angel-species or human-BEINGs will be transformed into a different type of BEING/species that is greater than angel-species. I do not think that changing into different types of species is Catholic teaching?

I don’t agree with your conclusion that human beings will be forever lesser than angels or be transformed into a different species. You pose an either/or that doesn’t follow. I was simply trying to point out that angels are not humans and humans are not angels. We will always be humans, but in heaven we are perfected. We have the opportunity to go through the redemptive process. The angles do not-- at least there is no evidence of it in scripture.

I guess it will not be too forward of me to say plainly that in addition to OTHER things, I do not think being “lesser” than ??? in Hebrews 2:7 has anything to do with ontological species-ness. In other words, I think Chris-WA (with or without agreement from Catholic Tradition) has misread Hebrews 2:7 in this way at least.

Tom, you’re getting too philosophical–how un-Mormon of you! It’s Mormons who say philosophy contributed to the corruption of the early Church and led towards the “Great Apostacy.” I take this scripture for the simpler meaning it has–humans were created less than angels. If you are created less than something else, you are not the same thing as something else. Seems pretty simple. Now that doesn’t mean we remain “less than” the angels. The truth is quite the opposite, but that has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

You have a talent for digging into the weeds, but I think you often miss the bigger picture.

 

[twf]

Again, I have a lot of thoughts about these two scriptures, but let me ask both you and Chris-WA.
It would seem to me that if Chris-WA is correct, Hebrews 2:7 means we are a species that is lower than another type of species that Chris thinks Hebrews 2:7 calls “angels.”
You are then saying it is the Catholic position that this lesser species, us, can be transformed into a greater speicies.

Either human BEINGs will forever be LESSER than angel-species or human-BEINGs will be transformed into a different type of BEING/species that is greater than angel-species. I do not think that changing into different types of species is Catholic teaching?

I guess it will not be too forward of me to say plainly that in addition to OTHER things, I do not think being “lesser” than ??? in Hebrews 2:7 has anything to do with ontological species-ness. In other words, I think Chris-WA (with or without agreement from Catholic Tradition) has misread Hebrews 2:7 in this way at least.

Charity, TOm

Man was created lower than the Angels. Our base nature is lower. Grace perfects nature. In baptism, St Paul tells us, we “put on Christ”. St Peter tells us that we have become “partskers of the divine nature.” In the womb of Mary, the divine and human natures were mystically joined. So yes, our base human nature in lower than the angels, but in Christ, we become something more. Our Lady and the saints remain human, but they participate in the divine life. They now share in Christ’s divine nature as He shares in our human nature.

 

[TOmNossor]

I don’t agree with your conclusion that human beings will be forever lesser than angels or be transformed into a different species. You pose an either/or that doesn’t follow. I was simply trying to point out that angels are not humans and humans are not angels. We will always be humans, but in heaven we are perfected. We have the opportunity to go through the redemptive process. The angles do not-- at least there is no evidence of it in scripture.

It is my position that if “being a little lower” indicates species specification as you claim, then ceasing to be lower indicates species CHANGE.
I submit that “being a little lower” does not indicate species specification and thus Hebrews 2:7 does not mean what you claim. It in no way militates against the LDS view of angels as pre-mortal or post-mortal humans.
I am not saying that it indicates that angels and humans are the same species, I am only responding to your claim that the Bible shows they are not. This was my conclusion concerning your Biblical verses when you posted them, but I resisted stating it. Then TWF’s words highlighted it so I pointed it out.

Tom, you’re getting too philosophical–how un-Mormon of you! It’s Mormons who say philosophy contributed to the corruption of the early Church and led towards the “Great Apostacy.”

The idea that philosophy must be rejected is a philosophy. Many LDS have recognized that philosophy is not the enemy. I say in consort with them that the philosophy that was laid over the Bible and created non-revealed dogmas is an error that we can point to when we are looking for the RESULTS of the apostasy. On of the doctrines that IMO is not correct and is not evidenced in the Bible is that angels and men are different SPECIES.

I take this scripture for the simpler meaning it has–humans were created less than angels. If you are created less than something else, you are not the same thing as something else. Seems pretty simple.

No, it is not simple. There are humans who are created less intelligent than other, less hairy than others, or less XYZ than others. This does not mean that they are different species. If being “less” meant different species than ceasing to be “less” would mean changing species, but it does not.
And just so you can further know where I am coming from, “angels” in Hebrews 2:7 as denoted by LDS and non-LDS scholars could and perhaps should be translated as “God” or “gods.” Hebrews 2:7 mirrors St. Irenaes’ words:
“For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;”
That being said, Hebrews 2:7 is not even about “making” or “creating” but rather about lowering below. This we know because a good study Bible (or a fair one like the LDS Bible) links us to Psalms 8:4-6 (which is being quoted by Paul). And the Hebrew there is not about creation at all.

Now that doesn’t mean we remain “less than” the angels. The truth is quite the opposite, but that has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

I do not think it is irrelevant because species differences are permanent (unless we are made a different species by a supernatural act of God), but Hebrews 2:7 is not about species differences like you suggested it was.

You have a talent for digging into the weeds, but I think you often miss the bigger picture.

I celebrate simple things like, “pray to know if the Book of Mormon is true.”
I reject simple things like, “Call no man Father” (one of the dumbest anti-Catholic arguments ever).
I think it is you who are not reading the Bible as complete book but taking an ENGLISH translations, relying upon ONE POSSIBLE meaning for the ENGLISH words, and then making an argument unsupported by the Bible as a whole or in its original language. It is the bigger picture I am trying to present.
I started by asking a question with no study, confident that LDS have scoured the Bible and there are no verses that unambiguously demonstrate our understanding is wrong. I then responded simply without addressing what you said, but seeing much ambiguity in the ENGLISH anyway. Then in response to TWF I did a little looking. And now in response to you I have looked farther. While I readily admit that the CoJCoLDS is not based on the Bible, but instead is based on the same thing the Bible is based on, the revelations of God; I do not think the Bible shows LDS understanding is wrong.
So, I agree that LDS and Catholics do not agree on the nature of angels. I merely assert that the Bible does not disprove LDS (or Catholic) views. Also, I got interested in Hebrew 2:7!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Man was created lower than the Angels. Our base nature is lower. Grace perfects nature. In baptism, St Paul tells us, we “put on Christ”. St Peter tells us that we have become “partskers of the divine nature.” In the womb of Mary, the divine and human natures were mystically joined. So yes, our base human nature in lower than the angels, but in Christ, we become something more. Our Lady and the saints remain human, but they participate in the divine life. They now share in Christ’s divine nature as He shares in our human nature.

You would really enjoy the book The Glories of the Divine Grace from TAN books.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I was wondering where Mormons got their concept of angels from because it’s very different from historic Christianity and Judaism.

The entry for angels in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism can be found here: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Angels

I hope this helps.

I can’t find an answer in the link other than the Mormon Church says so. I’ll assume that the Mormon belief is not biblical in origin.

 

[gazelam]

We will always be humans, but in heaven we are perfected.

What exactly is the definition of human? Is a resurrected man or woman still human? One synonym of human is mortal. Once resurrected one is then immortal, not mortal.

 

[kimg901]

The O.T does talk of the sons of God having relations with human woman because of their beauty and having children. They were called Nephilim. Was it angels that came down and did this? While I don’t buy into lds beliefs this does come from the bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What exactly is the definition of human? Is a resurrected man or woman still human? One synonym of human is mortal. Once resurrected one is then immortal, not mortal.

A human consists of a soul that is immortal by nature and a body that is mortal by nature, It is Catholic teaching that miraculous grace bestowed on the soul, before the fall, protected the body from corruption and death. This grace gave humans the possibility of not dying. The Fall removed us from the immediate presence of God, a consequence of original sin is loss of original grace, and death of the body. At the resurrection the human body is reunited with the immortal soul, in the heavenly kingdom, and is restored to immortality. This restoration, in and through Jesus Christ, is an increase in grace compared to now and before the fall.

So your question or analogy here, is like saying, a human by nature has five senses, and if by some accident or other event a sense is lost, this means the person is no longer human. And if by some means a missing sense is regained, the person is now human again. Not so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Psalm 8 is about the author of the Psalm, reflecting on creation. The Psalmist sings first about creation. The heavens, the stars, of man being created less than the angels. Angels being a created, heavenly being. If the Psalmist were singing of stages of human beings, the praise that the Psalmust is giving God would make no sense. It would be saying God created humans lower than humans. The Psalmist is using profundity in his poetry. It isn’t profound at all to notice and comment that humans are created lower than humans.

The Psalm continues with praising God for bestowing grace on a lower creation, referencing Genesis and the dominion given to man over the earthly creation.

In Hebrews, as in other places in the NT, St. Paul is teaching that Christ lowered Humself for a while, referencing creation by referencing Psalm 8. St. Paul called this emptying Himself. It is teaching the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, God who became Man. Then using Psalm 8 as a prophecy of Jesus Christ, explains how Jesus is the exemplarary new Adam…again referencing creation, and of course the fall. St. Paul teaching that we are a new creation in Christ. We die to sin and are raised up with Christ. Grace increased.

Likewise it would be meaningless, even nonsensical, to begin this teaching by saying, Jesus lowered himself below humans and became lower, than a human. Say huh and what?

 

[RebeccaJ]

If the Mormon argument is, St. Paul is referencing Mormon “progression”, then other problems of doctrinal (Mormon) continuity are raised.

Progression is, a non-corporal uncreated entity progresses by becoming corporeal and then progresses again by becoming a God. All humans are incarnated, in Mormon teaching. If being incarnated is a lowering of oneself, taking on flesh being a lower form of existence, then the concept of taking on flesh as a higher form of existence, progressing towards becoming a God, is contradicted.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello RebeccaJ,
I am not sure if you read what I wrote so let me offer you a little more.

Psalm 8 is about the author of the Psalm, reflecting on creation. The Psalmist sings first about creation. The heavens, the stars, of man being created less than the angels.

I said earlier …

And just so you can further know where I am coming from, “angels” in Hebrews 2:7 as denoted by LDS and non-LDS scholars could and perhaps should be translated as “God” or “gods.” Hebrews 2:7 mirrors St. Irenaes’ words:
“For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;”
That being said, Hebrews 2:7 is not even about “making” or “creating” but rather about lowering below. This we know because a good study Bible (or a fair one like the LDS Bible) links us to Psalms 8:4-6 (which is being quoted by Paul). And the Hebrew there is not about creation at all.

So, Psalm 8: in the NABRE (the one on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website) translates “Elohim” as “god.” The footnote explains that Elohim in Hebrew means “God” or “the gods.” It explains that the Greek usually substituted a word meaning “angels.” This of course is why I pointed to Psalm 8 as it is what Paul is quoting. To “square the circle” the NABRE in its footnote says, “The meaning seems to be that God created human beings almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world.”
The NABRE again moves along to make my other point that this is a setting below or a “below for a little while.” In the New Testament, the NABRE adds text to the Bible that is not present in the Greek in order to explain this is “below for a little while” because that is surely what Paul meant. They are right to do this; now if they could move forward and create a consistent read of Elohim in the scripture then they would be even more right. Biblical scholars unmoored from Catholic Tradition (be they LDS, Catholic, Protestant, or nones) have been pushing the word “Elohim” towards it much more clear meaning “gods” for a long time. Scholarship aligning with LDS thought!!!
So Rebecca, why are you saying “angels?” Were you trying to contradict what I had said or had you not read it?

I liked fine much of the rest you wrote, but I was not saying “stages of human” in my post at all. You were responding to a point I didn’t make. I was saying “lower than God or gods” and like Irenaeus “for a time.” Again what Irenaeus said:
“For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;”

Your linking to Christ’s kenosis (from Phil 2:7) :
Phil 2:6-7:

Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,

I think is well placed.

LDS must recognize Christ is divine pre-incarnation and thus there is an inconsistency in Christ’s kenotic emptying if it is absolutely compared with our moving to our second estate (this is why I think the Jesus marrying thread arrives at false conclusions about the “need” for Jesus to be married). But to the extent that being away from the presence of our Heavenly Father during our second estate is an emptying, we too are “almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world” “for a little while.” because we are made less so that we might experience mortality and become as Christ is. Christ in LDS thought was fully divine before the incarnation and we are/were not. But, we did come from “the heavenly world” to experience our mortal live and I am certain there was sorrow and loss for us when we left the presence of our Father in Heaven (with hope and purpose, but still “sorrow and loss”).

So, I am not sure what to make of much of the rest of your post, but I thought I would point to what I think was a huge mistake in your post when you used “angels” and rejected “god” or “gods.” The Catholic Bible follows the same line of reasoning I offered (and I of course was reading from a Protestant and a LDS scholar, not inventing things).

My points in addressing Hebrews 2:7 are:

1. 
   *]It is better to use “lower than gods” or at least “lower than the heavenly world” rather than “lower than angels.”
   *]Because of this and other reasons, it is not separating humans and angels into different species thus does not militate against LDS thoughts on angels as was suggested.
   *]It is also not about creation persay because the Hebrew in Psalms is associated with being placed below (and perhaps temporarily) not associated with creation or being created as a lesser being.
   
   Do you disagree? What sort of authoritative sources would you point me to that agree with you and contradict what I have said? I can link you to the Protestant or the LDS I offered, but I hope quoting the Catholic NABRE is sufficient.
   Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello RebeccaJ,
I am not sure if you read what I wrote so let me offer you a little more.

I said earlier …

So, Psalm 8: in the NABRE (the one on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website) translates “Elohim” as “god.” The footnote explains that Elohim in Hebrew means “God” or “the gods.” It explains that the Greek usually substituted a word meaning “angels.” This of course is why I pointed to Psalm 8 as it is what Paul is quoting. To “square the circle” the NABRE in its footnote says, “The meaning seems to be that God created human beings almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world.”
The NABRE again moves along to make my other point that this is a setting below or a “below for a little while.” In the New Testament, the NABRE adds text to the Bible that is not present in the Greek in order to explain this is “below for a little while” because that is surely what Paul meant. They are right to do this; now if they could move forward and create a consistent read of Elohim in the scripture then they would be even more right. Biblical scholars unmoored from Catholic Tradition (be they LDS, Catholic, Protestant, or nones) have been pushing the word “Elohim” towards it much more clear meaning “gods” for a long time. Scholarship aligning with LDS thought!!!
So Rebecca, why are you saying “angels?” Were you trying to contradict what I had said or had you not read it?

I liked fine much of the rest you wrote, but I was not saying “stages of human” in my post at all. You were responding to a point I didn’t make. I was saying “lower than God or gods” and like Irenaeus “for a time.” Again what Irenaeus said:
“For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;”

Your linking to Christ’s kenosis (from Phil 2:7) :

I think is well placed.

LDS must recognize Christ is divine pre-incarnation and thus there is an inconsistency in Christ’s kenotic emptying if it is absolutely compared with our moving to our second estate (this is why I think the Jesus marrying thread arrives at false conclusions about the “need” for Jesus to be married). But to the extent that being away from the presence of our Heavenly Father during our second estate is an emptying, we too are “almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world” “for a little while.” because we are made less so that we might experience mortality and become as Christ is. Christ in LDS thought was fully divine before the incarnation and we are/were not. But, we did come from “the heavenly world” to experience our mortal live and I am certain there was sorrow and loss for us when we left the presence of our Father in Heaven (with hope and purpose, but still “sorrow and loss”).

So, I am not sure what to make of much of the rest of your post, but I thought I would point to what I think was a huge mistake in your post when you used “angels” and rejected “god” or “gods.” The Catholic Bible follows the same line of reasoning I offered (and I of course was reading from a Protestant and a LDS scholar, not inventing things).

My points in addressing Hebrews 2:7 are:

1. 
   *]It is better to use “lower than gods” or at least “lower than the heavenly world” rather than “lower than angels.”
   *]Because of this and other reasons, it is not separating humans and angels into different species thus does not militate against LDS thoughts on angels as was suggested.
   *]It is also not about creation persay because the Hebrew in Psalms is associated with being placed below (and perhaps temporarily) not associated with creation or being created as a lesser being.
   
   Do you disagree? What sort of authoritative sources would you point me to that agree with you and contradict what I have said? I can link you to the Protestant or the LDS I offered, but I hope quoting the Catholic NABRE is sufficient.
   Charity, TOm

1. 
   Well we’ll have to disagree. LDS “interpretation” read a whole belief system into the text that isn’t there and dismisses entirely what is there (obvious references to creation).

 

[TOmNossor]

Well we’ll have to disagree. LDS “interpretation” read a whole belief system into the text that isn’t there and dismisses entirely what is there (obvious references to creation).

RebeccaJ,
I am saying that I have the NABRE Bible from the Catholic Bishops site to back up my points.
I am asking if you have ANYTHING other than what you WISH the Bible said to back up your points.
I asked very clearly.
We may disagree, but I will take data and references over your opinion and so should everyone who reads this.
Charity, TOm

P.S. References to creation were dismissed by me because they have nothing to do with different “species” for angels and men. The scriptures were not referring to creating a lower and creating a higher, but placing below “temporarily.” If that was not clear, I am sorry. It was not about dismissing the initial verses of Psalms 8 at all only about demonstrating what I claimed I demonstrated.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
I am saying that I have the NABRE Bible from the Catholic Bishops site to back up my points.
I am asking if you have ANYTHING other than what you WISH the Bible said to back up your points.
I asked very clearly.
We may disagree, but I will take data and references over your opinion and so should everyone who reads this.
Charity, TOm

P.S. References to creation were dismissed by me because they have nothing to do with different “species” for angels and men. The scriptures were not referring to creating a lower and creating a higher, but placing below “temporarily.” If that was not clear, I am sorry. It was not about dismissing the initial verses of Psalms 8 at all only about demonstrating what I claimed I demonstrated.

Cuz arguing with you is like trying to convince a flat earther that we live on a globe…I don’t need to spend my time trying to convince you of anything. I also am not performing for a crowd.

The NAB and the NABR are the Bibles that I use. Until you stop dismissing creation as irrelevant, I highly doubt you will get it. But of course I understand that discussing created creatures is pointless to someone who doesn’t actually believe they themselves, are created.

ETA…you’re doing that thing again where you take Catholic teaching, put a Mormon spin on it and proclaim you understand the Catholic teaching better than Catholics do. You already know what I think about this method…it’s dishonest at the best.

Gosh you know it says right there in our Catholic Bible we were created lower than heavenly beings. Clear as day to me we are a different creation from heavenly beings. Genesis describes the creation of earth and its creature including us. Whether you want to call them gods or angels, is irrelevant, the point is the were created before our creation. God did not create man twice, therefore it is logical that the heavenly beings who were created before us are a different species. You muddle scriptures with Mormon teachings of preexistence that ARE NOT THERE…coming to illogical conclusions.

 

[rmcmullan]

To answer the original post, the idea that Angels were not a separate species came from Moroni himself, the angel that sits on the top of most of the temples with a horn. He appeared to Joseph Smith to teach him and to tell him of a record he had kept when he was a man (around 400 AD). So, at least in Moroni’s case, he was a resurrected man with a message and priesthood duty to fulfill.

On an unrelated note, it’s very difficult to get Christmas ornaments that show angels as anything other than females. As I understand it, angels are always men. Are there any examples in the Bible of female angels?

 

[RebeccaJ]

To answer the original post, the idea that Angels were not a separate species came from Moroni himself, the angel that sits on the top of most of the temples with a horn. He appeared to Joseph Smith to teach him and to tell him of a record he had kept when he was a man (around 400 AD). So, at least in Moroni’s case, he was a resurrected man with a message and priesthood duty to fulfill.

On an unrelated note, it’s very difficult to get Christmas ornaments that show angels as anything other than females. As I understand it, angels are always men. Are there any examples in the Bible of female angels?

I don’t think we take the depictions of angels in kitschy items too literally.

That being said, Biblical apparitions of angels appearing as humans is an angel taking on human appearance. Taking on a female appearance would not be a problem for most Christians.

 

[Stephen168]

I can’t find an answer in the link other than the Mormon Church says so. I’ll assume that the Mormon belief is not biblical in origin.

To answer the original post, the idea that Angels were not a separate species came from Moroni himself, the angel that sits on the top of most of the temples with a horn.

I agree; not biblical.

 

[rmcmullan]

Not Bibilical? But not in contradiction to the Bible. Perhaps in contradiction to Catholic scholar’s interpretation of the Bible and Jewish tradition. This is the difference between Mormons and Catholics: we believe in continuing revelation.

 

[Stephen168]

Not Bibilical?

Yes, as the source of Mormon belief is not based on the revelation of Jesus Christ, The Apostles, or Christian tradition.

This is the difference between Mormons and Catholics: we believe in continuing revelation.

I know, it allows the Mormon Church to invent new beliefs, whether it conflicts with the revelation of Jesus Christ, The Apostles, Christian tradition, or not. The early Christian warned us of this practice.