C
Catholic20064
Guest
Quoting from Mormon Doctrine and Covenants 129:
- Status
C
catsrus
Guest
Don’t you just love it when some Trinity denying so called “religion” tell us what we should know - according to their “scripture” invented by a 20 year old farm kid less than 200 years ago.
Especially in light of the truth given to all of us by The Son of God 2000 years ago.
I don’t even bother to try with these people anymore. If they are to have The One True Faith, God will open their hearts to it.
Especially in light of the truth given to all of us by The Son of God 2000 years ago.
I don’t even bother to try with these people anymore. If they are to have The One True Faith, God will open their hearts to it.
L
lax16
Guest
But what about the Jewish and Catholic definitions of angels - do we ignore thousands of years of faithful teaching on this subject?
C
Catholic20064
Guest
Probably not as long as the angel knows the correct way to shake hands with you.
J
Jay53
Guest
I copied this from the other thread because it was apparently off topic, but I think it fits in with this thread.
Do Mormons believe angels to be different physically from resurrected men? (i.e. do they have glorified bodies?) I guess I don’t understand the difference you are trying to explain - that being an angel is only a job description vs. the fact that Mormons also believe that the Sadduccees will be angels in their afterlife because they did not believe in the Resurrection vs. the fact that Moroni was an angel, but also a resurrected being (???) who is in an eternal marriage.
I’m confused about how not believing in the Resurrection factors into this.
All of this has also led me to another question with regard to eternal marriage: when does the eternal increase begin - or has it already begun? i.e. Moroni was supposedly married and in an eternal marriage - has he already had spirit children who are inhabiting their own earth, or is this something that everyone has to wait for the end of this world to happen first?
So exalted beings who are also “joint-heirs” can temporarily become angels if they have a specific message to bring to us/someone?
Do Mormons believe angels to be different physically from resurrected men? (i.e. do they have glorified bodies?) I guess I don’t understand the difference you are trying to explain - that being an angel is only a job description vs. the fact that Mormons also believe that the Sadduccees will be angels in their afterlife because they did not believe in the Resurrection vs. the fact that Moroni was an angel, but also a resurrected being (???) who is in an eternal marriage.
I’m confused about how not believing in the Resurrection factors into this.
All of this has also led me to another question with regard to eternal marriage: when does the eternal increase begin - or has it already begun? i.e. Moroni was supposedly married and in an eternal marriage - has he already had spirit children who are inhabiting their own earth, or is this something that everyone has to wait for the end of this world to happen first?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Jay53,
Becoming a “joint-heir” is a promise that is an eventual condition, not a “right after you’re resurrected” condition. However, if your question as posed was needed for some reason, then of course that would be within the realm of possibility. An angel such as the Angel Moroni had a specific, defined and known mission to the earth and was sent to fulfill that mission at a specific time.
There are different kinds of angels. The Angel Gabriel gave a message from God, and was not a resurrected being but yet was an angel of glory and light. (This does not mean the Angel Gabriel would not soon–within four years or so of the Annunciation–be resurrected, but was not at that moment in time.) Since Christ’s resurrection had happened as of the time of Moroni living on the earth, when Moroni received an assignment from God to visit the earth with a specific message and purpose then it is logical that he would do so as a resurrected being of glory and light since the resurrection was at that point in time (the 1800’s) an event that Christ had begun to fulfill for humankind.I’m confused about how not believing in the Resurrection factors into this.
The resurrection of the Sadducees or others with limited belief in Christ in the spirit world and neither belief in eternal marriage and its eternal covenants, nor belief in the process of becoming a “joint heir” with Christ through His guiding them to be changed through the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, means that they are not going to be in a position of being qualified to be a “joint heir” (since they rejected that opportunity by their choices) but yet they can receive a glorious resurrection where they will be able to serve joyfully as a resurrected being in a meaningful way throughout eternity. Their resurrected condition will be “as the angels” with a similar meaning as Paul notes in Hebrews 1. In contrast, those who are “heirs of salvation” as noted in Hebrews 1:14 are not angels, but receive the glory of being a “joint heir” with Jesus Christ, who is “so much better than the angels” (Hebrews 1:4).
I think it is a logical assumption (only making an assumption) that the answer to this question is that the kind of “eternal increase” you are talking about will be much later than the unfolding history of this present world–probably many thousands of years away. That is a condition to be learned about and prepared for in the eternities ahead.
By the term “present world” I mean all of us living, and also those spirits in the spirit world awaiting their resurrection, those beings who have already been resurrected (mostly at the time of Christ’s resurrection), and those who have not yet died. This is all one unified work we are a part of–the work of fulfilling the purposes of God during the period of this earth’s entire history up until that particular work that was set in process with the creation of this earth and of Adam and Eve is finished.
Spirits are in the spirit world teaching about Christ and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and that is an unfolding process there just as it is here on our physical earth. Resurrected beings such as Moroni can still interact and have a presence in the spirit world teaching and leading and strengthening those coming unto Christ, so Moroni and others (among the many righteous spirits or resurrected beings) have plenty to do as the history of this world and of the spirit world unfolds. It is easy to figure out that there is more teaching going on there than is going on here (by the numbers), but yet it is still a gradual unfolding process in the spirit world and not an “everybody gets it at once” process.
J
Jay53
Guest
Thank you for trying to explain. My question had evolved from the other thread about why Jesus came to America and zerinus didn’t want to answer because he thought my question was off topic. That was why I moved it here.
I think I’ve made this whole issue more confusing for myself - partly because I don’t understand the LDS thought and partly because I’m obviously approaching this based on a Catholic POV.
Given the OP:
How does the Angel Moroni fit into that? The obvious answer (to me, which may or may not be correct) is that he is the 1st description - “a resurrected personage having bodies of flesh and bones”. (But I’ve never heard of angels described in this way.)
But, should I also infer that not all resurrected beings are angels (i.e. Jesus)? What makes a resurrected being an angel - is it as Diana said, when they have a specific job or message to convey? Do they lose their status as “angel” once their “job” is complete?
Who would be considered to be in the 2nd category?
You’ve totally lost me here. I understand that there are different kinds of angels. There are the 9 choirs of angels: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Virtues, Principalities, Archangels and Angels. But you’ve lost me with your statement about the Angel Gabriel being or shortly after the Annunciation becoming a resurrected being. ??? Do the LDS believe that the Angel Gabriel (and St. Michael and St. Raphael by extension) were once men on earth? Perhaps you can point me to the Scripture where this belief is because I’ve never heard this in my life (that angels are resurrected beings, particularly St. Michael, St. Gabriel or St. Raphael).
Thanks for explaining this. Obviously I don’t agree, since I don’t believe there is all this preaching going on in the spirit world, but I appreciate the insight into your beliefs.
Z
zerinus
Guest
The word angel literally means “messenger”. Both in its original Greek form (from where it entered into English) as well as the Hebrew original (of which it is a translation) means “messenger”. Here is an etymology of the word in English, found on Wikipedia:
The word angel in English is a fusion of the Old English word engel (with a hard g) and the Old French angele. Both derive from the Latin angelus, and thence the Koine Greek ἄγγελος - angelos (‘messenger’) used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew מלאך mal’akh (yehowah) “messenger (of Yahweh)”. Source
That means that anybody and anything that does or can act as God’s messenger can be called an angel, including a mortal human being. Indeed, there are indications in the Bible that ordinary mortal human beings who have acted as God’s messengers have been called angels. Even the devil has his own “angels” (messengers). The reason why you find it difficult to understand the Mormon concept of an angel is that you cannot escape from the mental constraint of the Catholic idea of an angel as a member of a separate angelic “race”. If you get your thinking out of that mold, it becomes easy! If in your mind every time the word “angel” is used you substitute the word “messenger” for it, the question you are asking wouldn’t arise! Try it, and see if it works.
What Joseph Smith is trying to do in that scripture that was quoted is to make a distinction between two categories of beings that can act as God’s messengers or angels: resurrected beings and the spirits of righteous men (and women) in the sprite world who have not yet been resurrected, but who can still act in that capacity. But in the scriptures all beings who can act as God’s messengers, be they spirits, resurrected beings, or mortals, have been called angels. There is no such thing as a separate angelic “race”. The devil obviously cannot act as God’s angel because he is evil and God is good. Wicked people can’t do so either for the same reasons, be they dead or alive. But anybody else who can, will legitimately fall within the definition of an angel, be they mortal or immortal, dead or alive, in the spirit world or resurrected.
T
TheosisM
Guest
perhaps a silly question, but what does the Bible say about the nature of angels? Also, how does Judaism view the nature of angels, and what is the basis for that view(s)?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
What sounds so wrong about it?
What it sounds like to me is close to comic books. But, that does not make it untrue.
We have to ask, how is this vision that Joseph Smith had, actually a true vision from a True God, and not a demon? Or delusion?
Z
zerinus
Guest
The Bible teaches that angels are men, and are in the human form. Whenever angels have appeared to man on earth, as recorded in the Bible, they have appeared as men, or in the form of men, even when even when they have been supernatural (i.e. resurrected) beings. They have always appeared as men, and on some occasions identified themselves as men. The best example is probably in the Revelation of John:
Revelation 19:
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation 22:
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
I recall having had a long discussion about this quite a while ago with someone on this board, but I haven’t been able to find the thread. All of this was discussed then, and I gave many references in the Bible where angels have been men.
T
TheQuestioner
Guest
Just because they are fellow servants does not mean they are men. It means that they have a servant status, just as us, and so in that respect we are equals. Also, since Mormons believe angels are men, then how come no female angels have been identified? Surely if an angel is a glorified man there should be glorified women as well.
T
TheQuestioner
Guest
ok, we’re gonna settle this problem here and now.
From the Summa found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Angels (Spirit)
SUBSTANCE: Their substance considered absolutely (50), and in relation to corporeal things, such as bodies (51) and locations (52). Their local movement (53).
INTELLECT: His power (54) and medium (55) of knowledge. The immaterial (56) and material (57) objects known. The manner (58) whereby he knows them.
WILL: The will itself (59) and its movement, which is love (60).
ORIGIN: How they were brought into natural existence (61) and perfected in grace (62). How some of them became wicked: Their sins (63) and punishment (64).
Click on “absolutely (50)” and read.
From Article 1 of “bodies (51)”
I answer that, The angels have not bodies naturally united to them. For whatever belongs to any nature as an accident is not found universally in that nature; thus, for instance, to have wings, because it is not of the essence of an animal, does not belong to every animal. Now since to understand is not the act of a body, nor of any corporeal energy, as will be shown later (75, 2), it follows that to have a body united to it is not of the nature of an intellectual substance, as such; but it is accidental to some intellectual substance on account of something else. Even so it belongs to the human soul to be united to a body, because it is imperfect and exists potentially in the genus of intellectual substances, not having the fulness of knowledge in its own nature, but acquiring it from sensible things through the bodily senses, as will be explained later on (84, 6; 89, 1). Now whenever we find something imperfect in any genus we must presuppose something perfect in that genus. Therefore in the intellectual nature there are some perfectly intellectual substances, which do not need to acquire knowledge from sensible things. Consequently not all intellectual substances are united to bodies; but some are quite separated from bodies, and these we call angels.
St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us.
From the Summa found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Angels (Spirit)
SUBSTANCE: Their substance considered absolutely (50), and in relation to corporeal things, such as bodies (51) and locations (52). Their local movement (53).
INTELLECT: His power (54) and medium (55) of knowledge. The immaterial (56) and material (57) objects known. The manner (58) whereby he knows them.
WILL: The will itself (59) and its movement, which is love (60).
ORIGIN: How they were brought into natural existence (61) and perfected in grace (62). How some of them became wicked: Their sins (63) and punishment (64).
Click on “absolutely (50)” and read.
From Article 1 of “bodies (51)”
I answer that, The angels have not bodies naturally united to them. For whatever belongs to any nature as an accident is not found universally in that nature; thus, for instance, to have wings, because it is not of the essence of an animal, does not belong to every animal. Now since to understand is not the act of a body, nor of any corporeal energy, as will be shown later (75, 2), it follows that to have a body united to it is not of the nature of an intellectual substance, as such; but it is accidental to some intellectual substance on account of something else. Even so it belongs to the human soul to be united to a body, because it is imperfect and exists potentially in the genus of intellectual substances, not having the fulness of knowledge in its own nature, but acquiring it from sensible things through the bodily senses, as will be explained later on (84, 6; 89, 1). Now whenever we find something imperfect in any genus we must presuppose something perfect in that genus. Therefore in the intellectual nature there are some perfectly intellectual substances, which do not need to acquire knowledge from sensible things. Consequently not all intellectual substances are united to bodies; but some are quite separated from bodies, and these we call angels.
St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, you settle it for Catholics this way, certainly.
but…Mormons don’t get their doctrine from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Z
zerinus
Guest
You didn’t read the second quote very carefully. The angel actually identifies himself as one of the “prophets”.
Angel certainly include glorified women as well as men!
L
lax16
Guest
(I’ve posted this on another thread but this is probably a better thread for it).
Rabbi Ari Enkin from About.com Judaism states “Judaism does believe in the existence of angels. Angels are independent beings created by God intended to fulfill specific roles. They have no form or shape. Unlike commonly thought - people do not become angels after death. There is no relation to the soul of a person and the angels in Heaven.”
L
lax16
Guest
zerinus - The Book of Revelations should not be used as a source for an explanation that angels were once man/woman. It is far too futuristic and controversial for anyone to use as is if they know the meanings in the Book of Rev for sure.
Please cite other biblical references to prove your point (other than Rev and the BoM).
L
lax16
Guest
The reason Catholics find it difficult to understand is because Joseph Smith has redefined the meaning of angels as seen by Jews and Christian for thousands of years. Now can LDS believe that as their doctrine? Absolutely!
Christian/Catholics do not redefine angels because it would be in opposition to the angels of the Old Testament. You are right, we have constraints. In fact, that is a very good way of putting it zerinus, Catholics do have constraints as to our beliefs and doctrines. They have to flow out of Judaism and fulfill the Messianic promise. That’s it. We are not redefining anything else. Why should we?
Did angels need redefining? If so, why?
Z
zerinus
Guest
I disagree. The book of Revelation may contain many elements that are indeed difficult to understand; but all of it is not difficult to understand. Some parts are perfectly plain in meaning. If you wanted to use that argument you could exclude most of the Bible. Is Isaiah easy to understand? Are all the Old Testament prophets easy to understand? Are the writings of St Paul always easy to understand? So which parts of the Bible do you intend to exclude from the discussion? On the other hand, the passages in the Revelation that we are talking about are perfectly plain and easy to understand. Here is a more extended quote:
Revelation 22:
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
What is difficult about that to understand? The angel shows a fantastic vision to John; and when John is overwhelmed by the experience and falls down to worship the angel, the angel tells him that he is a guy like himself, and one of the prophets, and not someone that ought to be worshipped. What is difficult about that? Anybody can bring that kind of argument about any passage of scripture.
Whenever angels have appeared to mankind, they have appeared as men. They have never had any wings for example! Here is a quote:
Acts 1:
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he [Jesus] went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
They were two men! Okay, it doesn’t say that they had been mortal men; but coupled with the Revelations quote, it is another piece of the mosaic that builds a whole picture. Here is another quote:
Genesis 18:
1 And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
A careful reading of that passage in its proper context shows that those three men were in fact God and the two angels who later left to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah after rescuing Lot from it. And there are still more examples that could be quoted.
You should know by now that Mormons regard historical Christianity as well as Judaism to be apostate forms of religion, and the doctrines that they teach or believe in are not always correct, and do not always conform with the Bible. Just because something has been believed in for centuries does not make it true. All your arguments seem to boil down to that, which is manifestly a false argument. Judaism and Christianity also do not agree. There are fundamental differences between them, such as with regard to the divinity of Jesus Christ for example, or the Trinity. Each have believed their respective doctrines for centuries, so which one are you going to accept, the one that has been believed in the longest?
You can harp on about “redefining” things forever; but we believe that it is the Catholics and Jews who have “redefined” what is in the Bible! The Catholics and Jews disagree on fundamental doctrines; so who has been doing the “redefining” things from whose point of view? The Catholics have been “redefining” God from the Jewish point of view! So you need to make up your mind whether you want to be a Jew or a Christian for start. Once you have made that decision, maybe it will be time to start looking into Mormonism.
- Status