Mormons: What does it mean that Michael holds the keys of Salvation?

[ParkerD]

Angels can appear to a human in any form, including a human, but they are still NOT human.

PS: No one looks on Adam with scorn. Neither do we hide sin and call it “good”.

Good day to you, RJ,
I certainly agree about not being “God incarnate”. Grace has a power beyond belief and beyond normal expectations.

So I take it that you think John was not receiving a vision or visitation from an angel who was a “fellow servant” and one of his “brethren” who had lived on the earth and had a testimony of Jesus. Here I thought that verse was quite clear.

How do you know from the Bible that angels can never be “human”?

I’m glad to read that “no one looks on Adam with scorn.” Why, then, are the other commandments he received besides the one not to partake of the forbidden fruit given such short shrift? It is as though he didn’t receive those other commandments at all, or wasn’t supposed to keep them or even think about them.

P.S. Why aren’t Adam and Eve allowed the benefit of receiving complete and total forgiveness for their sin with no carryover effects to their posterity, particularly given the complicated set of circumstances they were in?

 

[flyonthewall]

“What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet” (Ps. 8:5-7)

So LDS believe man was made a little less than himself?

I’d say the scriptural reference needs to be provided that humans are angels incarnate.

We don’t see it as man being made a little less than himself. We were all in the presence of the Father before this world, and we chose to come to earth to experience mortality. Here we can experience things we could not while still in the presence of the Father.
As was pointed out, angels are still in the presence of the Father, Jesus, became man, and was not in the presence of the Father while in mortality.
While we are in a “fallen” state it is true that we are a little less than the angels, but still the same creature.

RebeccaJ:

PS: No one looks on Adam with scorn. Neither do we hide sin and call it “good”.

Take a look at post #52. This post calls Adam a “collaborator” with satan. One who sided with the devil, even one of his demons.
Not sure how this fits in with your statement above.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by ParkerD
SteveVH,

Daniel said “the wise shall understand.”

The Bible is realiable. Daniel was receiving a reliable vision about the end times. “The wise shall understand.”

So, Parker, after telling me I’m just stupid are you now ignoring me as well? I’ve done my best to be charitable here and even defended your remarks to some extent. I’m beginning to have second thoughts.

Steve

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t appreciate the implication, Parker.

“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you considers himself wise in this age, let him become a fool, so as to become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God, for it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their own ruses’, and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.’” (1 Cor 18:20)

All of Scripture is reliable, but the interpretation of man without an authoritative and infallible guide is certainly not. I agree that Genesis is completely clear which is why I am amazed that you can arrive at such a conclusion.

The entire thrust of this portion of Genesis was that he sinned, not that he kept God’s commandments. READ THE WORDS. "You have eaten, then, from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat." (Gen 3:11)

This notion that God had placed Adam in an impossible situation to where he had to choose between which sin to commit is telling as to your understanding of God. God never causes one to sin. He cannot. Your scenario does exactly that. God gave two commands to Adam and forced him to break one of them in order to keep the other. This is absolutely an impossible and completely implausible explanation.

Please tell me you are kidding.

Good day to you also, SteveVH,

I did and do appreciate your comment “cutting me some slack”. Since I “wasn’t kidding”, and it didn’t appear that our conversation was dealing adequately with the subject but instead was sort of talking past each other, then I thought best to let it go.

The Daniel passage about “the wise will understand” doesn’t mean that anyone (if they are repentant and thus not among “the wicked”) is precluded from getting that kind of “wisdom” at the point in time that it becomes necessary.

I think Michael will be glad, indeed triumpantly glad, to have all of those in the “valley of decision” who join his side be stalwart with him, and at that point in time what will count is what is in the heart of each person as they get a clearer picture with the unfolding of the end times, of what sort of decision it is that each person is asked to make.

So I wasn’t trying to infer that you or anyone wasn’t among the “wise”. I do think being among the “wise” means being like the “wise men” who had knowledge of the prophecies about Christ and were thus looking for the signs of His birth and His mission to be fulfilled. I also think being among the wise means those who are that kind of wise will have “oil in their vessels” at the necessary time through their preparation:

Matthew 25:4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Wishing you a peaceful and pleasant day.

 

[SteveVH]

So I take it that you think John was not receiving a vision or visitation from an angel who was a “fellow servant” and one of his “brethren” who had lived on the earth and had a testimony of Jesus. Here I thought that verse was quite clear.

How do you know from the Bible that angels can never be “human”?

I’m glad to read that “no one looks on Adam with scorn.” Why, then, are the other commandments he received besides the one not to partake of the forbidden fruit given such short shrift? It is as though he didn’t receive those other commandments at all, or wasn’t supposed to keep them or even think about them.

P.S. Why aren’t Adam and Eve allowed the benefit of receiving complete and total forgiveness for their sin with no carryover effects to their posterity, particularly given the complicated set of circumstances they were in?

Where in the world do you arrive at the conclusion that any angel “lived on the earth” as a human would? How do you know “from the Bible” that angels CAN be human?

The word “Angel” describes their office, not their nature. Angels are pure spirit in nature, as opposed to flesh and bone. They are fellow servants with us in that they serve God. However, they serve God in a different way than we do. They are His messengers from heaven and dwell with Him forever in heaven, being constantly in His presence. They do not need to be saved as we do. If they became human they would be subject to sin and require salvation. They have already made their choice and some have been thrown into hell along with Lucifer because of that choice. Jesus tells us that they “always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 18:10) They are DIFFERENT CREATURES than we are.

I think you become confused because you don’t distinguish between a creature and the Creator, believing instead that we will become Creators ourselves and that somehow we are in a constant state of morphing, from one nature to another, angel to human, human to divine. Out of nothing but gratuitous love, God invites us to become his adopted sons and daughters and to share in the life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We will behold the face of God, not become God. We are not sons and daughters in the same sense that Jesus is his Son. That title will never be capitalized when placed after our names.

Angels will always be angels and humans will always be humans, even in our glorified state after the resurrection.

 

[SteveVH]

Good day to you also, SteveVH,

I did and do appreciate your comment “cutting me some slack”. Since I “wasn’t kidding”, and it didn’t appear that our conversation was dealing adequately with the subject but instead was sort of talking past each other, then I thought best to let it go.

You may have been right. I will have to admit that there are certain comments made that stir my passions resulting in comments that I later regret. I did make a comment that I believe does have at least a little substance and on which I would really like you to address. To me, this is the crux of the matter:

The entire thrust of this portion of Genesis was that he sinned, not that he kept God’s commandments. READ THE WORDS. “You have eaten, then, from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat.” (Gen 3:11)

This notion that God had placed Adam in an impossible situation to where he had to choose between which sin to commit is telling as to your understanding of God. God never causes one to sin. He cannot. Your scenario does exactly that. God gave two commands to Adam and forced him to break one of them in order to keep the other? This is absolutely an impossible and completely implausible explanation.

Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

Where in the world do you arrive at the conclusion that any angel “lived on the earth” as a human would? How do you know “from the Bible” that angels CAN be human?

…
Angels will always be angels and humans will always be humans, even in our glorified state after the resurrection.

SteveVH,
The words “of thy brethren” (Revelation 19:10) seem to have a vastly different connotation for you than for me. To me, those words mean “of thy brethren” meaning “of those who are really and truly thy brethren, thy fellow mortal brethren of whom I (that angel) was once one.” “Don’t worship me, worship Him.”

So that’s “how I know from the Bible that angels can be human.” John knew from his vision that angels can come to earth and have once been human–“one of his brethren”.

 

[KathleenGee]

The tree of the forbidden fruit was knowledge that always leads people of the world to think they can become as gods…

To become as gods is the work of the Serpent, the Evil One, Satan who considered himself as a god and for this, was thrown into hell by St. Michael and the faithful angels.

There is a man, among the richest in the world alive right now, who wants to destroy America’s dominance in the world, and he has admitted that he has personal problems because he wants to be as a god.

Remembering that phrase from grade school, wanting to be like the gods – is the greatest and essential temptation from the evil one and something to be avoided at all costs.

 

[KathleenGee]

The angels are spirits with intelligence…and sudden self-awareness…once they knew themselves before God, they instantly either accepted God or denied Him.

Lucifer was the brightest and considered himself as god, began fighting and revolting and was cast down. I don’t think he wanted to be brethren ever.

 

[JHow]

…There is a man, among the richest in the world alive right now, who wants to destroy America’s dominance in the world, and he has admitted that he has personal problems because he wants to be as a god…

Does this person have a name?

 

[ParkerD]

You may have been right. I will have to admit that there are certain comments made that stir my passions resulting in comments that I later regret. I did make a comment that I believe does have at least a little substance and on which I would really like you to address. To me, this is the crux of the matter:

Thanks.

SteveVH,

God certainly didn’t “force” Adam to break a commandment. But here was the scenario:

1. Eve wanted “wisdom”–more than she had before she partook of the forbidden fruit, while she was “innocent”.
2. She partook because she understood that being placed into a situation wherein there would be the knowledge of good and evil would allow her to gain wisdom. The serpent had prodded her decision making and tempted her, but she made the choice on her own.
3. She was going to suffer the consequences of her decision. She was going to “surely die.”
4. She “gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (He soon thereafter explains that he ate the fruit because the woman was given to him “to be with me”. ) She had been given to him as an “helpmeet” and as something “good” and indeed, essential in that it was “not good that man should be alone.”
5. So now they were both going to fall, and both going to die.
6. Adam accepted the consequence, but did it by choice because he had been given Eve “to be with me.” It was “not good that man should be alone.” That condition had not changed. There was no angel around telling Adam, “Wait–God didn’t mean you should think that just because she partook and she will be gone from here and thus you will be alone which God said is ‘not good’–that you should actually believe the words ‘helpmeet’ and the words ‘not good that man should be alone.’”
7. Adam made the choice to “be with Eve”. He partook of the forbidden fruit by choice, and in so doing was keeping commandments he had been given regarding his relationship with Eve.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
The words “of thy brethren” (Revelation 19:10) seem to have a vastly different connotation for you than for me. To me, those words mean “of thy brethren” meaning “of those who are really and truly thy brethren, thy fellow mortal brethren of whom I (that angel) was once one.” “Don’t worship me, worship Him.”

So that’s “how I know from the Bible that angels can be human.” John knew from his vision that angels can come to earth and have once been human–“one of his brethren”.

Parker, when the angel is speaking of “thy brethren” he is speaking of the brethren of John, not of himself as being John’s brethren. My translation (NAB) reads as follows:

“I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me ‘Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and and of your brothers who bear witness to Jesus’…”

He is a fellow servant of John and John’s brethren. He does not say that he IS John’s brethren.

 

[KathleenGee]

To be as gods, I think Eve also fell to curiosity, and to be separate and independent of God…

Adam heard the Lord say not to eat of that fruit…and the fruit is an awareness one should not go to…

The forbidden fruit is essentially pride. Adam also took of it and defied God as well.

 

[KathleenGee]

(Yes, this person has a name, and it comes up all the time…I just read his comments last week…he is like a communist/fascist/hard core capitalist rolled into one…He is one of those hard core types who thinks nothing of the massive transferring of wealth from one area of the world to another irregardless of the impact it has on the common, every day person who just wants to live an honest and peaceful life.)

 

[JHow]

SteveVH,

God certainly didn’t “force” Adam to break a commandment. But here was the scenario:

1. Eve wanted “wisdom”–more than she had before she partook of the forbidden fruit, while she was “innocent”.
2. She partook because she understood that being placed into a situation wherein there would be the knowledge of good and evil would allow her to gain wisdom. The serpent had prodded her decision making and tempted her, but she made the choice on her own.
3. She was going to suffer the consequences of her decision. She was going to “surely die.”
4. She “gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (He soon thereafter explains that he ate the fruit because the woman was given to him “to be with me”. ) She had been given to him as an “helpmeet” and as something “good” and indeed, essential in that it was “not good that man should be alone.”
5. So now they were both going to fall, and both going to die.
6. Adam accepted the consequence, but did it by choice because he had been given Eve “to be with me.” It was “not good that man should be alone.” That condition had not changed. There was no angel around telling Adam, “Wait–God didn’t mean you should think that just because she partook and she will be gone from here and thus you will be alone which God said is ‘not good’–that you should actually believe the words ‘helpmeet’ and the words ‘not good that man should be alone.’”
7. Adam made the choice to “be with Eve”. He partook of the forbidden fruit by choice, and in so doing was keeping commandments he had been given regarding his relationship with Eve.

This interpretation appears to mitigate Adam’s sin by qualifying his disobediance. It also betrays a rather low opinion of Eve and women in general. You accomplish this by reading the reason given for the creation of woman as a commandment and then assigning motive to Adam where the text doesn’t supply it. The “woman gave it to me” defense is not a justification of anything - it is simply evidence of how disobendience leads to further lying and rationalization on the part of the sinner.

 

[JHow]

…Yes, this person has a name, …

Are you willing to share the name with us?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, when the angel is speaking of “thy brethren” he is speaking of the brethren of John, not of himself as being John’s brethren. My translation (NAB) reads as follows:

"I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me 'Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and and of your brothers who bear witness to Jesus’…"

He is a fellow servant of John and John’s brethren. He does not say that he IS John’s brethren.

SteveVH,
I’ve never trusted the NAB translation. It has many deliberate changes in meaning.

Here is the verse in the earlier Douay Rheims translation:

Latin Vulgate Bible
Douay-Rheims Bible
The Apocalypse Of Saint John
Chapter 19

[10] And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We don’t see it as man being made a little less than himself. We were all in the presence of the Father before this world, and we chose to come to earth to experience mortality. Here we can experience things we could not while still in the presence of the Father.
As was pointed out, angels are still in the presence of the Father, Jesus, became man, and was not in the presence of the Father while in mortality.
While we are in a “fallen” state it is true that we are a little less than the angels, but still the same creature.

Please show me where an angel was ever described as being born.

Take a look at post #52. This post calls Adam a “collaborator” with satan. One who sided with the devil, even one of his demons.
Not sure how this fits in with your statement above.

When we sin we are collaborating with Satan. The opposite is to seek collaboration with God, to forsake our sinful nature and align ourselves to Him. More to the point, as Christians we should adhere to Christ. I thought you understood this.

 

[ParkerD]

This interpretation appears to mitigate Adam’s sin by qualifying his disobedience.

JHow,
No–it is looking at the actual text and the actual circumstance and seeing that Adam had several commandments, not just one.

It also betrays a rather low opinion of Eve and women in general.

No–Eve desired wisdom. This is not a bad thing. This was not a prideful thing. This is actually a great thing–wisdom. God told Solomon he had desired a good thing when he desired wisdom. If you’re saying that when Eve gave Adam the forbidden fruit because she knew she was going to die, then perhaps you think I’m saying she was conniving, but all I’m saying is she acknowledged the situation, and so did Adam.

You accomplish this by reading the reason given for the creation of woman as a commandment

It was “not good that man should be alone.” Eve was an “helpmeet.” Those words are there for the purpose that they be read, not ignored.

and then assigning motive to Adam where the text doesn’t supply it.

Adam said what his “motive” was: “thou gavest to be with me”.

The “woman gave it to me” defense is not a justification of anything - it is simply evidence of how disobedience leads to further lying and rationalization on the part of the sinner

I didn’t write that the “woman gave it to me” was a justification.

Adam didn’t lie. (That may come as a surprise to you.)

Adam didn’t “rationalize”. (That may come as a surprise to you also.)

Peace and good day to you.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

God certainly didn’t “force” Adam to break a commandment. But here was the scenario:

1. Eve wanted “wisdom”–more than she had before she partook of the forbidden fruit, while she was “innocent”.
2. She partook because she understood that being placed into a situation wherein there would be the knowledge of good and evil would allow her to gain wisdom. The serpent had prodded her decision making and tempted her, but she made the choice on her own.
3. She was going to suffer the consequences of her decision. She was going to “surely die.”
4. She “gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (He soon thereafter explains that he ate the fruit because the woman was given to him “to be with me”. ) She had been given to him as an “helpmeet” and as something “good” and indeed, essential in that it was “not good that man should be alone.”
5. So now they were both going to fall, and both going to die.
6. Adam accepted the consequence, but did it by choice because he had been given Eve “to be with me.” It was “not good that man should be alone.” That condition had not changed. There was no angel around telling Adam, “Wait–God didn’t mean you should think that just because she partook and she will be gone from here and thus you will be alone which God said is ‘not good’–that you should actually believe the words ‘helpmeet’ and the words ‘not good that man should be alone.’”
7. Adam made the choice to “be with Eve”. He partook of the forbidden fruit by choice, and in so doing was keeping commandments he had been given regarding his relationship with Eve.

Yes Parker, we have been through this before and I just can’t buy any of it. It would seem, if what you say is true, that rather than focusing on the commandment that was broken (the eating of the forbidden fruit) God would have said something along the lines of*“Thou hast chosen wisely, my son, and kept mine commandments which are superior to the commandment which thou hast broken.”*. Not a word is found that supports your premise.

The fact that God, in His goodness and wisdom, gave man a helper, does not mean that man can’t screw it up. Of course it is not good that man should be alone. This does not constitute a commandment, its just a fact of life and was a gift.

Breaking down your statement No. 7 - “He partook of the forbidden fruit (SINNED) by choice, and in so doing was keeping the commandments(NOT SINNING) he had been given in regarding his relationship with Eve.” So, he sinned in order not to sin. He was placed in a position, by God, in which he had no choice but to sin. He had to sin in order to keep God’s other commandments. I’m sorry, and I don’t mean this in any way personally, but that is absolutely preposterous. It means that God, as well as Adam had found Himself in quite the pickle. It is much like commanding someone to drive to a place 90 miles away within a half hour without breaking the speed limit. If you speed I will punish you and if you don’t reach your destination in a half hour I will punish you. Do you see how absolutely ludicrous this is?