M
Mtdobbs
Guest
Guilty also! 
- Status
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Welcome Alaris,
This is a tough place to be a LDS, but I suspect that I cause some of this problem.
Anyway, if you have not encountered Margaret Barkerās work you should look into it. She is a non-LDS, but was so taken by some of the connections she made and later discovered Hugh Nibley had ALSO made (before she did) that she read all the uniquely LDS scriptures in a day. She has been connected with the CoJCoLDS academic community since then.
Long ago I read a couple of her books including:
The Great Angel: A Study of Israelās Second God.
There are many LDS reviews of her work and she has spoken at BYU a few times now. Here is a non-LDS review:
I would say that her view and the view of most LDS who interact with her is that āthe Angel of the Lordā is the second Person of the Trinity. I would not find it remarkable to discover that SOME of the Biblical references lean away from this, some may lean towards the view you espouse (āthe Angel of the Lordā is the third Person of the Trinity), and some I imagine fit better in a more traditional (well, traditional LDS or traditional Catholic) view of angels.
I think we share with our Catholic brothers and sisters a recognition that āscripture does not interpret itself.ā There are authoritative interpretations that must align (or be guided by) sacred Tradition (Catholic) or continuing revelation (LDS). As such, I do not think scripture will absolutely point in just one direction for your questions.
In any case, if you have not encountered Margaret Barkerās Temple Theology you should look at some of her works. She has a group of non-LDS fellow researchers and a group of LDS researchers who take inspiration from insights she recently (last 30-40 years) introduced or reintroduced to the academic community.
Charity, TOm
This is a tough place to be a LDS, but I suspect that I cause some of this problem.
Anyway, if you have not encountered Margaret Barkerās work you should look into it. She is a non-LDS, but was so taken by some of the connections she made and later discovered Hugh Nibley had ALSO made (before she did) that she read all the uniquely LDS scriptures in a day. She has been connected with the CoJCoLDS academic community since then.
Long ago I read a couple of her books including:
The Great Angel: A Study of Israelās Second God.
There are many LDS reviews of her work and she has spoken at BYU a few times now. Here is a non-LDS review:
I would say that her view and the view of most LDS who interact with her is that āthe Angel of the Lordā is the second Person of the Trinity. I would not find it remarkable to discover that SOME of the Biblical references lean away from this, some may lean towards the view you espouse (āthe Angel of the Lordā is the third Person of the Trinity), and some I imagine fit better in a more traditional (well, traditional LDS or traditional Catholic) view of angels.
I think we share with our Catholic brothers and sisters a recognition that āscripture does not interpret itself.ā There are authoritative interpretations that must align (or be guided by) sacred Tradition (Catholic) or continuing revelation (LDS). As such, I do not think scripture will absolutely point in just one direction for your questions.
In any case, if you have not encountered Margaret Barkerās Temple Theology you should look at some of her works. She has a group of non-LDS fellow researchers and a group of LDS researchers who take inspiration from insights she recently (last 30-40 years) introduced or reintroduced to the academic community.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
K
KJW5551
Guest
Jesus: āAnd I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.ā
Joseph Smith: " I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: āthey draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.ā
Emphasis mine. I wonder why itās hard to be LDS on this forumā¦
Edit: Itās also not helpful (and telling, honestly) that LDS here pretty much refuse to respond to any criticism whatsoever, no matter how valid. They ignore the criticism, claim unjust discrimination, and move on.
Joseph Smith: " I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: āthey draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.ā
Emphasis mine. I wonder why itās hard to be LDS on this forumā¦
Edit: Itās also not helpful (and telling, honestly) that LDS here pretty much refuse to respond to any criticism whatsoever, no matter how valid. They ignore the criticism, claim unjust discrimination, and move on.
Last edited:
O
OKComputer
Guest
Former LDS here. The LDS church isnāt what it claims to be. Itās a complete fraud started by a conman.
C
Crocus
Guest
We will not find common ground here as we believe in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
We will not find common ground in your proposal about the Angel of the Lord.
We believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen (including creating the angels)
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary (he died, rose, and will come to judge on the last day)
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
A
alaris
Guest
Michael is the premortal identity of Adam but he is referred to as Michael again post mortally. Letās see if my posting access is restored.
A
alaris
Guest
This is exactly what I am looking for. I wonāt have time to do a deep dive until tomorrow at the earliest. Thank you!
A
alaris
Guest
Thank you very much! No worries on the warm welcome. LDS have their own fuzzy forum trolls who are about as welcoming to non lds. I served my mission in Texas. Try to imagine what a warm reception lds receive in the Bible belt. Iām a big guy so at least they had to muster some courage rather than hide behind the interwebs.
I hope to have time to investigate the information you provided tomorrow. Thank you so much!
Side note to those trying to bait me into a base interaction: If youāre looking for an interaction at that level please look elsewhere. I can link you to a couple of lds forums where plenty are more interested in negative interaction and fewer are looking for a higher interaction and enlightment.
I hope to have time to investigate the information you provided tomorrow. Thank you so much!
Side note to those trying to bait me into a base interaction: If youāre looking for an interaction at that level please look elsewhere. I can link you to a couple of lds forums where plenty are more interested in negative interaction and fewer are looking for a higher interaction and enlightment.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
@alaris I never gave this topic any thought before you posted the thread, so thanks for contributing something new to the forums! Given that, I donāt have a solid opinion on this yet, though Iām now perusing the Church Fathers to see if this has been fleshed out before. From a cursory reading so far it appears that the Fathers generally agreed that the Angel of the LORD constituted a theophany, specifically a Christological one. This seems to make sense given the Angel of the LORDās general absence from the New Testament (Christ was incarnate by then).
Iām curious, what leads you to believe that of the three members of the Godhead this must be specifically a theophany of the Holy Ghost? Why not Jesus? Given the LDS teaching laid out in the Endowment a pre-Mortal theophany of Christ in the Old Testament would certainly resonate. It would also align your position with the Early Church Fathers which is something Iāve found many Mormons strive for in an attempt to show continuity between the LDS Church and Apostolic Christianity.
Iām curious, what leads you to believe that of the three members of the Godhead this must be specifically a theophany of the Holy Ghost? Why not Jesus? Given the LDS teaching laid out in the Endowment a pre-Mortal theophany of Christ in the Old Testament would certainly resonate. It would also align your position with the Early Church Fathers which is something Iāve found many Mormons strive for in an attempt to show continuity between the LDS Church and Apostolic Christianity.
G
gazelam
Guest
Correct. And this belief lines up perfectly with the Bible. Paul speaking to the unconverted Athenians states in Acts 17:29 āSince therefore we are the offspring of Godā¦ā The word āOffspringā comes from the greek word āgenosā meaning ārace, stock, or kinā. (See http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/17-29.htm)
Yes. And again, this lines up with the Bible.
Romans 8:17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.
The faithful will inherit from God the Father everything that Christ inherited, including The Fatherās divine nature.
G
gazelam
Guest
This statement about the LDS church is 100% incorrect.
A
ascetic
Guest
Iāll get back to you once Dark Side of the Moon stops synching up to The Wizard of Oz (happens when she meets the Scarecrow, btw since itās the end of the album)
!Like someone else said I couldnāt follow it either. OP, were you talking about the angel Moroni? I may be remembering wrong, but I thought that was where the name āMormonā came from.
K
KJW5551
Guest
Donāt you think Jesus would have mentioned humans becoming gods if it was true? Wouldnāt that be kind of central to his message?
T
twf
Guest
Yes I agree. The constant Mormon bashing is extremely uncharitable. You see it every time a Mormon comes to postā¦a hoard of otherwise well meaning Catholics descend on the thread and start screeching BE GONE WITH YE YOU UNCLEAN PAGAN, MORMONS ARENāT CHRISTIANS!"
Great way to evangelize guysā¦
The fact that the Catholic Church doesnāt recognize Mormon baptism is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
@alaris
There is a tradition that suggests that the Angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Christ. I think a fairly solid scriptural argument can be made to support this position, but it isnāt popular in Catholic circles. Regardless, it is true that this being speaks as and with the authority of God, and not as a mere messenger. This is the first time Iāve come across the idea that the Angel of the Lord was the Holy Spiritā¦
Great way to evangelize guysā¦
The fact that the Catholic Church doesnāt recognize Mormon baptism is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
@alaris
There is a tradition that suggests that the Angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Christ. I think a fairly solid scriptural argument can be made to support this position, but it isnāt popular in Catholic circles. Regardless, it is true that this being speaks as and with the authority of God, and not as a mere messenger. This is the first time Iāve come across the idea that the Angel of the Lord was the Holy Spiritā¦
O
OKComputer
Guest
How?
Was Joesph Smith criminally accused of āglass looking?ā Yes.
Is the book of Abraham nothing like he said it was? Yes
Can archeologists find anything that backs up the book of Mormon? No
Was Smith duped by the Kinderhook Plates? Yes
I could go on and on, but there is a reason that only LDS believe in his claims. No one else does. And āfairā Mormon preaches to those who are looking to back up what they already believe.
Was Joesph Smith criminally accused of āglass looking?ā Yes.
Is the book of Abraham nothing like he said it was? Yes
Can archeologists find anything that backs up the book of Mormon? No
Was Smith duped by the Kinderhook Plates? Yes
I could go on and on, but there is a reason that only LDS believe in his claims. No one else does. And āfairā Mormon preaches to those who are looking to back up what they already believe.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
Are these off topic? YES!
I am so disappointed in these post that are so unrelated to the OP
J
jack63
Guest
I didnāt think my question about the relevance to everybodyās daily life about whether the angel of the lord and the Holy Ghost are the same thing was that irrelevant.
I watched the Popeās documentaryā¦our first Jesuit pope. It talked about what faith means to people in poverty, who are suffering, and who are dying. It talked about faith and itās relation to the environment and science. Pope Francis mentioned Dostoyevsky (Brothers Karamozovā¦notes from the undergroundā¦the two of his novels Iāve read).
The topic alaris brings up seems to be about finding strange connections in scripture. There will be a disconnect with most Catholics. They wonāt know how or why to relate.
I watched the Popeās documentaryā¦our first Jesuit pope. It talked about what faith means to people in poverty, who are suffering, and who are dying. It talked about faith and itās relation to the environment and science. Pope Francis mentioned Dostoyevsky (Brothers Karamozovā¦notes from the undergroundā¦the two of his novels Iāve read).
The topic alaris brings up seems to be about finding strange connections in scripture. There will be a disconnect with most Catholics. They wonāt know how or why to relate.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
The Catholic Church isnāt a denomination.
A
alaris
Guest
I really donāt want to get off topic here, but ā¦ well ā¦ here you go
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
- Status