Angels have no wings

[jayanna]

A cherubim is a heavenly creature, usually given the task to guard something. For example they are found in the holy of holies to guard the mercy seat, the way to the tree of life..

Here is a link that explains about the wings, etc, and cherubims https://lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/exodus-25-30-35-40?lang=eng&query=cherubim

[annewandering]

The point is that they are scriptures that say that angels have wings.

Well the Bible talks about fiery chariots too and dragons. :)

[jerome1232]

What, then, if not angels?

Malach, the word translated as angel, is a role, not a being. The role is that of a messenger. If we are talking about special beings, then cherubim and seraphim definitely count.

I did not realize that "angel" was a role! Based on the link to the Old Testament student manual given by Jayana, cherubim are indeed considered to be angels, though it does say the exact meaning is unknown.

Taking the "symbolic" approach is fine, as long as you are willing to concede that it could also be applied to such things as descriptions of God as a man.

I certainly do take some descriptions of God symbolically, I recal points in revelations I believe where his tongue is described as a sword of justice amoung various other things that are seemingly symbolic. Fortunatly we have modern revalation to help clear some of these things up for us and we don't have to rely soley on interperting the Bible.

Doesn't matter if it is the modern take on angels or not, Loudmouth asked for a scripture showing that angels have wings.

If the Holy of Holies can have a depiction of winged angels, then why not a primary play?

I understand you were responding to Loudmouth's post, I hope I'm not veering to far off of subject by trying to discuss and do some speculation about the description of divine beings. I'm certainly not oppossed to the depicition of angels with wings.

If someone were taking physical depictions literally from the Bible why do they take it so selectivly and create this beautiful human with feathery wings instead of the creature actually descibed. I wonder how many would recognize a six-winged, multi-eyed, four-faced creature as a biblical angel?

Not all of Gods creations are made in his image, are we the only creations that can aspire to becoming angles? I'm just doing some speculation.

Edited December 3, 2011 by jerome1232

[Snow]

I'm having a hard time finding a written statement or something I can show to a couple of mothers in my branch that angels don't have wings. There is a Primary show next week and a couple of mothers wanted to put wings on their children who were playing angels.

Does something have a passage or a quote with this?

Thanks

Wings? Neither do angels have feet, or hands or arm, legs or bodies. They're angels for heaven's sake.

Look at it is this way - if someone requires a written statement to accept that angels don't have wings - then they likely aren't bright enough to even read the statement.

[jerome1232]

Wings? Neither do angels have feet, or hands or arm, legs or bodies. They're angels for heaven's sake.

To my knowledge we believe that some of them are in fact resurected beings, and thus do have feet, hands, arms, legs and bodies. I suppose your statement holds true for beings which have not been resurected. Based on things Joseph Smith has said I assume they would appear to be in a human form not unlike a resurected being.

[frog75]

Angels may not have wings, but just outside the chapel in our church, there is a painting of "The Second Coming" in which Christ is surrounded by angels trumpeting and it really looks like they have wings in that painting. This is a painting my son and many other primary children love to stare at and I am sure they see wings when they look at it. I really don't see what it would hurt putting wings on the primary kids if this painting hangs in the chapel.

[maiku]

Angels may not have wings, but just outside the chapel in our church, there is a painting of "The Second Coming" in which Christ is surrounded by angels trumpeting and it really looks like they have wings in that painting. This is a painting my son and many other primary children love to stare at and I am sure they see wings when they look at it. I really don't see what it would hurt putting wings on the primary kids if this painting hangs in the chapel.

If it's the "blue background" second coming by Harry Anderson, The Second Coming by Harry Anderson - Christian Fine Art Prints and Framed Religious Paintings at LDS-Art.com there might be an explanation there. The painter isn't LDS, he's a seventh day adventist, we bought the painting (or rights to use it) in the 60's and one of our artist "painted out" the wings and lengthened Jesus' hair. The original version has winged angels.

Also note that Jesus is dressed in white even though he declared in Doctrine and Covenants that he would come in red.

[maiku]

Angels may not have wings, but just outside the chapel in our church, there is a painting of "The Second Coming" in which Christ is surrounded by angels trumpeting and it really looks like they have wings in that painting. This is a painting my son and many other primary children love to stare at and I am sure they see wings when they look at it. I really don't see what it would hurt putting wings on the primary kids if this painting hangs in the chapel.

The reason we didn't want to put wings on our angels is our branch is full of new converts with wrong ideas. There is an active effort to patiently and politely teach correct doctrine.

[Snow]

The reason we didn't want to put wings on our angels is our branch is full of new converts with wrong ideas. There is an active effort to patiently and politely teach correct doctrine.

Are you saying that the wingedness or winglessness of angels in a matter of doctrine - not art?

[maiku]

Are you saying that the wingedness or winglessness of angels in a matter of doctrine - not art?

do you really think angels have wings?

When a prophet says that angels don't have wings I consider that doctrine and not artistic perspective.

[annewandering]

Are you saying that the wingedness or winglessness of angels in a matter of doctrine - not art?

Isnt it?

[frog75]

The reason we didn't want to put wings on our angels is our branch is full of new converts with wrong ideas. There is an active effort to patiently and politely teach correct doctrine.

Haha.... I am a new convert and that doesn't mean I can only learn from people in the church. You don't need to shield the converts. We were smart enough to recognize truth in doctrine enough to join this church. Just got back from an endowment session and I was just baptized last year. I think converts can find their way just fine. There are lots of other important things converts wonder about besides wings on angels, like Heavenly Mother and Kolob.

[maiku]

Haha.... I am a new convert and that doesn't mean I can only learn from people in the church. You don't need to shield the converts. We were smart enough to recognize truth in doctrine enough to join this church. Just got back from an endowment session and I was just baptized last year. I think converts can find their way just fine. There are lots of other important things converts wonder about besides wings on angels, like Heavenly Mother and Kolob.

You may not have read my OP. I wasn't talking at all about what you just mentioned and I think you may have also misunderstood my statement about converts. I am also a convert so I too know what it's like, you're not the only one. I wasn't talking about shielding the converts, I was talking about not letting them or anyone else teach false doctrine.

The point I made, the point we all need to understand if we are to progress in the truth is that false beliefs and teachings cannot be tolerated. We cannot let members old or new teach or practice false doctrine, even in the little things. It can cause confusion which can lead to doubt, which can lead to shaken faith and losing the conviction that this is the church of the Lord.

I've actually found (including myself) that converts like to be corrected so they can better understand the truths of the kingdom.

[annewandering]

Thing, to me, is that angels with wings are like the fairies. Fantasy figures to have fun with. Not real people. If anything that would actually be a valid point against them.

[Guest]

You guys are hilarious!

Okay, listen... I was a devout Catholic for 30 years before I became Mormon. The Church that put wings on the Angel is the Catholic Church. Every statue or picture of an angel in the Catholic Church has wings.

Guess what... THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DO NOT BELIEVE ANGELS LITERALLY HAVE WINGS! An Angel in Catholic teaching is a spirit without a body like the Holy Ghost. No body = no wings! The wings IS AN ARTISTIC DEPICTION to identify an angel.

Okay, you have the standard Catholic Nativity Set. Mary is easily identified because she has a blue gown and white head cover, Joseph is also easily identified because of his staff. The shepherd is easily identified because of the lamb around his neck. The three wise men are easily identified because they have their crowns, and in addition, you know who is Gaspar because he is black, you know who is Melchor because he is kneeling, you know who is Baltazar because he is white and standing up. You know who is the Angel because... tat-tada... HE HAS WINGS!

Are we now then going to argue the doctrinal validity of one of the three wise men being black? Or how about the doctrinal validity of Joseph carrying a staff during the birth of Christ? Or that Mary doctrinally wore a head cover?

YOU GUYS ARE TOO SERIOUSLY SENSITIVE TO SUPER PIDDLY STUFF! Especially since there is no known religion on the planet that doctrinally proclaims angels to have wings other than the cherubim and seraphim who... without any doubt... was not the angel of the nativity!

Edit: Okay, maybe there's some tiny religion out there that doctrinally teaches they have wings - you know, like the ones that believe the Rapture is going to happen on May of 2011... or something.

Edited December 4, 2011 by anatess

[maiku]

WAKE UP AND READ THE POSTS!! No here is debating whether angels have wings or not. If you were to read the posts you would understand that I was simply looking for a quote (as stated in my OP).

[Guest]

WAKE UP AND READ THE POSTS!! No here is debating whether angels have wings or not. If you were to read the posts you would understand that I was simply looking for a quote (as stated in my OP).

Wake up right back! We weren't debating whether angels have wings or not... we are debating whether to put wings on Primary kids who are acting as angels in a Nativity Play!

The reason they don't want wings on the kids? Because it's not doctrinal! Crazy.

I mean, coz you know, Catholics put wings on their angels because... gasp! They think they really have wings! We have to teach them that angels really don't have wings!

And no, no, no, we can't have a Nativity Play on December 25 because, gasp! The kids might think it's really Jesus' birthday! What are we teaching these kids? Gee wheez lueez!

Edited December 4, 2011 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

You know, Anatess, I never knew that Catholics view the wings as symbolic, so thanks for that. I should have expected it, though--I've seen Catholic pictures of God that had a little triangle over the head, and even before I learned it was a symbol of the Trinity I didn't think Catholics actually believed God has a triangular halo.

I can at least see why someone would have questions about what kinds of portrayals are kosher for a primary play. The Church does occasionally have guidelines about this kind of thing that one wouldn't expect. For example, the Handbook has an explicit proscription on any skit depicting God the Father.

[annewandering]

A lot of people early on did believe they had wings. Other wise why was there 'relics' in the Catholic church of pieces of angel wings and feathers?

[Guest]

You know, Anatess, I never knew that Catholics view the wings as symbolic, so thanks for that. I should have expected it, though--I've seen Catholic pictures of God that had a little triangle over the head, and even before I learned it was a symbol of the Trinity I didn't think Catholics actually believed God has a triangular halo.

I can at least see why someone would have questions about what kinds of portrayals are kosher for a primary play. The Church does occasionally have guidelines about this kind of thing that one wouldn't expect. For example, the Handbook has an explicit proscription on any skit depicting God the Father.

Yes, and Primary has to be very careful with the material they choose to use when teaching children. I'm the Primary Song Leader. I am not allowed to use a cartoon/comicbook type drawing of Jesus. I have to use an actual picture. And, I can't just use a picture of Jesus from my Catholic library either.

But, I can use a dove as a picture symbol for the Holy Spirit. No, we don't believe the Holy Spirit is a bird. I can use people with white gowns as a symbol of pre-mortal world. No, we don't necessarily believe we wore white gowns before we came to earth.

A Primary President/Bishop could say no wings. That's fine. But, don't tell me that it's because it's not doctrinal. And don't tell me it's for the benefit of recent converts!

[Guest]

A lot of people early on did believe they had wings. Other wise why was there 'relics' in the Catholic church of pieces of angel wings and feathers?

Anne, I'm very very familiar with things Catholic. You're going to have to give source on this because I've never heard of this before.

The only beings in the Catholic faith who are depicted as having wings are Cherubim and Seraphim who are the top two angels of the heirarchy. And even then, their wings are considered a poetic depiction of their function and not literal wings.

But, of course, like the Marian Apparitions, there are cases when heavenly beings appear and use objects to symbolize their message, e.g. the smell of a rose, etc., so I can understand how you can have a wing/feather having been used by a heavenly being to symbolize their message, although I've never heard of this relic before.

Edited December 4, 2011 by anatess

[annewandering]

I wish I knew where I ran into that. I pick up tidbits here and there and what I do remember is it was a long time ago. Back before internet. If I run into it again I will post.

Honestly it was probably just someone who was using a 'relic' idea to promote something way back in the early middle ages. Not long ago I was reading that the Catholic church was getting rid of a lot of that kind of thing for obvious reasons. Dont remember where I read that either but it was interesting and, I thought, a pretty good plan. Maybe not to destroy them, because, after all, they do hold historical interest, but because they cant be very inspiring any more.

I dont doubt at all that you do know lots more about it than I do. lol I am no expert at all. Just something I pickedd up somewhere.

[maiku]

thanks to all who gave me the quote I needed from History of the Church. I am satisfied with my answer and consider the matter closed.

[Snow]

do you really think angels have wings?

When a prophet says that angels don't have wings I consider that doctrine and not artistic perspective.

That angels don't have wings is obvious. No living, breathing, thinking human being (at least no living, thinking Mormon) would believe otherwise. That angels are depicted as having wings is simply an art convention. If someone says otherwise, surly they are pulling your leg.

[Still_Small_Voice]

It doesn't really matter to me if children in a play are wearing little angel wings or not. I did find this teaching and I thought it was interesting:

"The word cherubim usually refers to guardians of sacred things. While the exact meaning of the word is not known, most scholars agree that these cherubim represented “redeemed and glorified manhood” or “glorified saints and angels” (Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, s.v. “cherubim,” p. 75). Since Latter-day Saints do not believe that angels have wings, as they are often shown in religious art, the commandment to form wings on the cherubim may raise some questions. Another revelation indicates, however, that wings symbolically represent the power to move and to act (see Doc. & Cov. 77:4). Between these cherubim on the mercy seat, God told Moses, He would meet with him and commune with him. Latter-day revelations state that angels stand as sentinels guarding the presence of God (see Doc & Cov. 132:19).

https://lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/exodus-25-30-35-40?lang=eng&query=cherubim