Angels

[Steve Noel]

56 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I would agree that he is putting them into two groups. Where I'm loosing you is how you get to the bolded part (bolding mine) and how this relates to different substances and whatnot.

I'm not sure I follow the first part of the question. The text in Heb.1:13-14 states that the angels are sent to serve or minister to believers. There are two distinct groups in this text: the angels who minister, and the believers who are ministered to. I think that is all the article was trying to convey. I could be wrong.  I don't know that the article was trying to make a point from these references about substances. 

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The text in Heb.1:13-14 states that the angels are sent to serve or minister to believers. There are two distinct groups in this text: the angels who minister, and the believers who are ministered to.

But the angels can minister without being ontologically different from those to whom they minister. I minister to those in my stewardships, and they put their pants on one leg at a time, just as I do.

Lehi

Edited April 26, 2016 by LeSellers

[Steve Noel]

39 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

And you have missed my point entirely.

Your original clam was that man and angel were of different types, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Your source, Zondervain, used 1 Cor 6:3 and Heb 1:14 as the basis for this. My point is that neither of these scriptures has anything to do with a supposed difference between the "species".

I confess to going further afield than you did because I have heard this all before, and refuted it. We all have history (some more than others, since there has been more time for some than for others — I know I'm among the eldest here, having seen more than six decades of this, starting when I was in my early teens. These arguments have not changed my vision of angels. That's partly because of the hours of study behind my statements, and partly because I have seen the same arguments dressed up in different costumes, each new advocate assuming that his version will be persuasive. It ain't never worked.

My tact this time was to short circuit the expected thrust of argument, that is, to rebut what is surely to come before it casts a shadow on the discussion.

Lehi

I'm sorry Lehi, but you are involved in an one man argument. You are mixing different issue in this thread together. I will try one more time to clarify. I follow your arguments about the texts from the dictionary regarding angels and men. That is one of the issues being discussed in this thread, but it is not the only issue. In my OP I also gave some responses to Carborendum's question about the differences between God and angels. In my response to this question I referenced Rev. 5 to say that the angels are part of the created order, but God is not. Based on this text I wrote that the implication was that God was uncreated. Vort disagreed. She thinks that is my inference, but not an implication of the text. Again, the discussion about Rev. 5 has nothing to do with the difference between angels and men or worshiping angels. This was a separate discussion about the difference between angels and God. In response to this separate discussion you wrote,

Quote

Every created thing, including both angels and men, is a single class. This passage does not divide us into to groups, but combines us into one. Using it to show we are different from angels is illogical.

Clearly, you thought that I was referencing Rev. 5 to argue that angels and humans are distinct. You are mixing the two different discussions in this thread. The discussion about Rev. 5 is about the difference between angels and God, not angels and humans. The rest of the posts are about angels and humans. When I tried to point out your misunderstanding you continued to argue against a position nobody here has expressed. You wrote,

Quote

 

This implies that we worship creatures. We do not.

We do not worship angels.

We do not worship Moroni, Mormon, or any other ancient prophet.

We do not worship Joseph Smith (as some have alleged repeatedly).

And, to make the point yet again, this does not establish any distinction between man and angels. Nothing in the Bible does.

 

Do you see that you are mixing conversations here?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

But the angels can minister without being ontologically different form those to whom they minister. I minister to those in my stewardships, and they put their pants on one leg at a time, just as I do.

Lehi

Fair enough. As I said, I don't know that the writer of the entry in the Bible dictionary was intending to demonstrate an ontological distinction from this text. I may be incorrect.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

If you read Revelation 5 you see that "every created thing" is worshiping the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb. If the Father and the Son are "created things," then they would be included in the phrase "every created thing." It is all-inclusive. Please explain why you do not think that this implies that the Father and Son are not created?

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. You wrote:

Quote

The implication is that God is uncreated, but angels are part of the creation of God. God is omniscient, angels are not. God is omnipotent, angels are not. God is omnipresent, angels are not. God is eternal (meaning had no beginning and will have no end), angels are not.

I understood this to mean:

Quote

The implication is that:

• God is uncreated, but angels are part of the creation of God.
• God is omniscient, angels are not.
• God is omnipotent, angels are not.
• God is omnipresent, angels are not.
• God is eternal (meaning had no beginning and will have no end), angels are not.

If you meant only that the implication is the first bullet point, then my comment is irrelevant. If you meant the entire bulleted list as formatted above, then I stand by my statement. The non-omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence of angels is not implied.

More importantly, you and I understand the word "eternal" much differently, and have radically different concepts of the nature of existence. I maintain (and this is a part of LDS doctrine) that we ourselves, you and I, are eternal beings. God created us, in that he organized our intelligence into spirits. But the intelligence of man is eternal, self-existent, and uncreated. Thus, to be a "created" being does not disqualify one from being "eternal". This is as true for angels as for us.

The very idea of ex nihilo creation, at least in its modern form, appears to be a creation of Philo of Alexandria. Philo was an interesting character, a rich and intelligent Jew who more or less personified the fears of the Maccabees and other ancient Jewish leaders of the creeping Hellenization of their religion. Philo tried to incorporate what he saw as brilliant ideas of Plato and other Greek philosophers (especially Stoicism and various mystical elements) into Jewish thought, and he believed that ex nihilo creationism was a particularly clever way of resolving all sorts of conflicts. It is interesting that the Jewish philosophers and rabbis of Philo's time pretty much rejected him, but many of the early Christian "fathers" looked to his writings for guidance on religious and philosophical matters.

Ex nihilo creationism always fails when the topic of free choice and agency arises. This is obvious, and has been pointed out (and studiously ignored) for two thousand years. The argument is simple and unresolvable: If God created us from nothing, then before he ever created us, he knew perfectly (because of his omniscience) what choices we would make and whether we would be saved or damned. He also could have created us otherwise (because of his omnipotence), yet he chose not to. Thus, those of us who will be damned will be so because God refused to create us more righteous, as he might have and as he fully knew before ever accomplishing our creation. In other words, the responsibility for our evil choices lies squarely on God's shoulders, just as surely as the responsibility for the actions of a computer program I write is mine, not the program's.

[Jane_Doe]

A couple of thoughts here--

1) @Steve Noel, thank you for a most enjoyable thread.  I've always wanted to understand how mainstream Christianity arrive at their conclusions about angels and the details of those conclusions.  

 

2) I thought of a better way to praise my question: the discussion thus far and the verses therein has been focused on A) humans & angels actions and B) different ways of grouping them.  Me, being a human who works with humans, I then think: ok, I know humans whom have different roles/actions ( football players vs cheerleaders vs fans, righteous vs wicked).  I also know a million ways to group people, including righteous servants of God and rebellious ones.

But it is my understanding that mainstream Christian do not view angels as the same "species" or "class of being" or whatever the appropriate term is (forgive my ignorance) -- and I'm not seeing where that's coming in with the verses presented.

 

3) Admittedly this is a side tangent, and more for Steve's FYI -- LDS folks typically don't use the "created versus uncreated" paradigm to explain divinity or differences between God and man, and there is a difference in understanding of concepts there.  Instead, LDS folks typically use the "child & parent" paradigm in describing God and His relationship/difference with men.

[Steve Noel]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. You wrote:

I understood this to mean:

If you meant only that the implication is the first bullet point, then my comment is irrelevant. If you meant the entire bulleted list as formatted above, then I stand by my statement. The non-omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence of angels is not implied.

Agreed. I do not think Rev. 5 teaches all of these things. I only meant to say that the first point is an implication of the text.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

In another thread we began to discuss the significant difference between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals on angels. Since this was a diversion from the topic of that thread I decided to move it here. I find this to be an interesting topic. It is not one that seems to receive much attention in our debates/discussions. That is understandable since this is not an essential belief. Here are 2 quotes that highlight the difference:

From the Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary article on angels: 

From the LDS Beliefs article on angels : 

This is something that really perplexed me when I read the story of Joseph Smith for the first time. He relayed that a former human being, Moroni, appeared to him as an angel. This immediately made me suspicious of Joseph Smith. For this seemed to contradict what God had already revealed about angels in the Bible. Here are some of the texts I referenced when Carborendum asked about how I view angels and how they differ from God:

Others have weighed in with questions/comments in the previous thread. I will try to interact with them as I get the time.
 

Galatians 4:14 indicates that even Jesus is considered to be an angel. Exodus 2:2-6 seems to refer to God as an angel. Jesus redeems us (Genesis 48:16), and I take the same capitalized form to refer to Him (Exodus 23:20-23 and 32:34). Of course interpretations and conceptualizations can differ, but "angel" does refer to many kinds of messengers and servants sent from God (and imitated by the devil; 2 Corinthians 11:14), even The Messenger (Matthew 11: 10; Mark 1: 2; Luke 7: 27).

Edited April 26, 2016 by CV75

[Guest]

@Steve Noel,

Sorry I missed the discussion.  When we spoke earlier, I simply wanted to get across the message that these scriptures do not state it one way or the other.  I agree with Lehi (and I see that you conceded the point) that some of the verses don't even speak to the separation of species between the two.  But you can certainly draw a conclusion from them -- if you've already chosen to believe that way.  But to one who believes differently, it sure doesn't appear that way.  (c.f. Vort's first post on this thread).

I'd say that if someone is completely unfamiliar with either of our faiths, they'd probably look at these verses and say, "I dunno.  Could be" for either side.

My clearest example is that you point to 1Cor 6:3.

Quote

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

and state that this is clearly a separation of men and angels.  But this skips over the verse preceding it.

Quote

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Clearly a separation of "the world" and "the saints" or "you". Yes.  But it doesn't mean that we are a different species.  We are the same (humans) but in different circumstances and different roles, etc.  When this verse is included, it becomes more clear that the implication is that we ARE of the same species.

In the other thread you mentioned that our doctrine of glorified humans comes from the D&C and other LDS sources rather than the Bible.  That may be so.  The thing is, that so many of the references in the Bible are not clear on the doctrine.  And it is issues like this that, as Mormons, we are grateful for other sources of scripture to help clarify things.  I realize that it is not convincing for you, as a non-Mormon, to have to "revert" to other scripture.  And it is not my job to convince you of the truth of our doctrines.  But it is helpful for us to establish doctrine clearly rather than from interpretation or inference when the Bible alone simply isn't clear enough.

To emphasize the point, here is an article written by an evangelical Christian who states:

Quote

Now, it’s fairly difficult to prove this conclusively from the Bible – but it’s also fairly difficult to prove from the Bible that angels are not departed people. Contrary to what some may think, the Bible doesn’t answer this decisively either way. And in fact there are some indications that angels are people who have lived in this world.

So, it isn't just us Mormons with our "Mormon goggles".

He then goes on to say:

Quote

 the strongest evidence that an angel is the spirit of a person who has departed can be found two passages in Acts. The first of these is in chapter 12 of Acts, which describes Peter’s miraculous escape from prison and his appearance to the other Christians at the house of Mary. When Peter arrived at the door, the servant girlrecognized his voice, and was so excited that she left him there and ran back to tell the others that he had arrived. They did not believe her; but when she insisted, they said, “It is his angel” (Acts 12:15) The assumption seems to be that a person has “an angel” that can be mistaken for the person themselves.

I read this passage several times and I can't tell how he got that from these verses.  But somehow he got that implication.  I still don't see it and I WANT to believe it is clearly saying so.  But the truth is that it isn't clear.  And that's my point.  All the Bible verses simply aren't clear on the topic.  So, I don't quite get how you say that to believe so "immediately invokes suspicion to a student of the Bible."

Edited April 26, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

8 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Do you see that you are mixing conversations here?

If so, I plead confusion based on a lack of context and intertwining threads within the topic..

My singular point is that the Bible does not clearly show that angels are not men, which was the original issue.

But even if we ignore that, the difference between angels and God is not all that clear, either. Just as a father is both different from, and the same as, his children, we see God as being different from, and the same as, His children (who include angels).

The only significant difference, theologically, between the majority of Christians and us Saints is our view of who man is, not Who God is. If we resolve that question, the rest falls neatly into line.

Lehi

[Guest]

I believe that my late dad and my ancestors have acted in my behalf and rushed to my aid, as angels that I desperately needed at the time. The circumstances behind those beliefs are personal and irrelevant; suffice it to say that at first I was very uncomfortable with the idea (I kept thinking of other cultures worshiping their ancestors), but as I've looked into it more, I'm surprised that I've missed that piece of doctrine my whole life. There's a lot to back it up. 

[Guest]

This painting has become a favorite of mine. I hope to get a nice copy someday. 

[Traveler]

Steve Noel,

 

I feel for you on this forum – kind of like being a lion in a den of Danial’s.

 

It is always interesting to me that anyone in search of truth thinks that ancient Biblical texts can be used as a single authority to determine doctrine.  I do not imply this thought just because I am a scientist and engineer but because of my profound love and respect for the true and living G-d that is a G-d of truth.  In the empirical world of science (which is the means by which I support my life, my family and from which I pay my tithes and offerings to G-d) I deal a great deal with documents.  One thing I have learned over years of dealing with documentation is that by cutting and pasting one can easily draw incorrect conclusions that were never intended by the author of any specific text.

 

I do not intend to highjack your thread with the philosophy and science of Biblical textual criticism – only to point out that even among the respected scholars (experts) educated in the rigors of “Traditional Christian” doctrine there is vast, varied and heated disagreement in the specifics of just about any doctrine and the meaning of any ancient Biblical text.

 

For the discussion of this thread we are specifically addressing the differences and similarities between G-d, man and angles.  Part of the problem I see is that Jesus in reality while alive is indistinguishable between any “true” definitions of man or G-d - especially any definition believed by a person that is so “disciplined” in the commandments of G-d that they can rightfully claim to be a follower and “disciple” of Jesus Christ.  Please let me go to the very heart of such doctrine by some reference to scripture.

 

I begin with Genesis Chapter 3 verse 24:

 

Quote

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

 

In this reverence Cherubim are plural (more than one) but the flaming sword is singular.  However, the purpose or intent of Cherubim is to keep the way to the “tree of life”.  In fact the term Cherubim is plural – meaning there is more than one keeper of the way to salvation?

There is much that can be discussed in this one simple verse but our question is to determine the distinctions of difference between man, G-d and angles.  I submit that in this single term “Cherub” and the manner that this term is use in this verse in Genesis that any symbolism in scripture attached to this specific term can be directly applied to the Man Jesus Christ and G-d.  Beginning with Jesus Christ as the one and only “keeper of the way” thus fulfilling the role of G-d, man and the very definition of angel or Cherub as defined by Traditional Christian.  You may think you can find a scripture to defend your point of view – but in reality it will only conflict and contradict other scriptures and how traditional Christians define such interpretations.  Things like resurrection and being at the “right hand” of G-d or being one with G-d and Christ.

Doctrine in scripture is at best extremely vague and any attempt by humans to define specifics without G-d divine assistance will only result in contradictions.  Not just in the person explaining the specifics but also in the individual understanding the specifics.  But this is a whole other discussion.

 

The Traveler

Edited April 26, 2016 by Traveler

[zil]

21 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I believe that my late dad and my ancestors have acted in my behalf and rushed to my aid, as angels that I desperately needed at the time. The circumstances behind those beliefs are personal and irrelevant; suffice it to say that at first I was very uncomfortable with the idea (I kept thinking of other cultures worshiping their ancestors), but as I've looked into it more, I'm surprised that I've missed that piece of doctrine my whole life. There's a lot to back it up. 

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six, 1843-44 Pg.325

"When men are prepared, they are better off to go hence.  Brother Adams has gone to open up a more effectual door for the dead.  The spirits of the just are exalted to a greater and more glorious work; hence they are blessed in their departure to the world of spirits.  Enveloped in flaming fire, they are not far from us, and know and understand our thoughts, feelings, and motions, and are often pained therewith."

I am certain that your dad, and others, are aware of you, and, at times, do indeed come to your aid.

[anatess2]

Just wanting to put this out there... in case Steve Noel doesn't know it yet...

We, Mormons, believe God, Angels, Cherubims, Seraphims, Saints, Man... are all the same species.  Yep.  So, just like God's essence is uncreated, Man's essence (we can refer to it as consciousness or sentience or WILL) is also uncreated... same with Angels and stuff.

So basically, the words God, Angels, Saints, Man, etc are simply different States of Being (or states of progression) or different Callings  of that individual's consciousness within the Plan of Happiness.  God, of course, being the Most High - that State of Being or that WILL that is Perfection - who created all things, including the mortal bodies and spirit bodies (eternal form) of all consciousness gathered in His Kingdom.

[Blackmarch]

7 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

In another thread we began to discuss the significant difference between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals on angels. Since this was a diversion from the topic of that thread I decided to move it here. I find this to be an interesting topic. It is not one that seems to receive much attention in our debates/discussions. That is understandable since this is not an essential belief. Here are 2 quotes that highlight the difference:

From the Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary article on angels: 

From the LDS Beliefs article on angels : 

This is something that really perplexed me when I read the story of Joseph Smith for the first time. He relayed that a former human being, Moroni, appeared to him as an angel. This immediately made me suspicious of Joseph Smith. For this seemed to contradict what God had already revealed about angels in the Bible. Here are some of the texts I referenced when Carborendum asked about how I view angels and how they differ from God:

Others have weighed in with questions/comments in the previous thread. I will try to interact with them as I get the time.
 

 

 

The corinthians reference doesn't say anything about whether angels are human or not or from the same family of beings, merely that one can be elevated to a point where they will sit in judgement of them. The hebrews reference can also be read that way (similar how one person can be made better than an other or elavated in status over another- A theme that is present elsewhere in the scriptures). in it's simplest conception an angel is merely a messenger for God, whwether he uses a spirit, a mortal, a resurrected being, or some other being.

I know a man who left his sect of christianity and eventually found the LDS church because his experience with a visitation was utterly unlike anything his upbringing in his sect had lead him to expect.

[CV75]

I would just add that the resurrected saints in Matthew 27:52-53 served as messengers and so can justifiably be considered angels of immortal flesh and bone. In JS-H1, Joseph Smith first describes Moroni as a personage and later calls him both an “extraordinary [and] heavenly messenger,” and eventually an “angel.” As far as managing one’s suspicion goes, changing paradigms has to be voluntary.

[CV75]

I would just add that the resurrected saints in Matthew 27:52-53 served as messengers and so can justifiably be considered angels of immortal flesh and bone. In JS-H1, Joseph Smith first describes Moroni as a personage and later calls him both an “extraordinary [and] heavenly messenger,” and eventually an “angel.” As far as managing one’s suspicion goes, changing paradigms has to be voluntary.

[Steve Noel]

Hey all, lots of good posts to respond to here. It may take me a while though. Just found out today that my mother has lung cancer. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Hey all, lots of good posts to respond to here. It may take me a while though. Just found out today that my mother has lung cancer. 

So sorry about your mother. I'm sure I speak for the entire forum when I say we are all praying for you. 

[LeSellers]

20 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Just found out today that my mother has lung cancer. 

I am so sorry. My father died of cancer, and it is a miserable experience for all: the victim and his family as well.

My prayers are with you and her.

Lehi

[Guest]

I'm so sorry, Steve. I hope her prognosis is good and treatments go well. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Hey all, lots of good posts to respond to here. It may take me a while though. Just found out today that my mother has lung cancer. 

Best wishes and prayers from me as well.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Hey all, lots of good posts to respond to here. It may take me a while though. Just found out today that my mother has lung cancer. 

Oh Steve!  My dad had lung cancer too.  Look into getting your mom in a clinical trial for Avastin.  My dad's cancer was at Stage 4 metastasized to the ribs when the cancer got detected.  He was given under 6 months.  We flew him from the Philippines to Houston and got him on the trial and he was on the trial for over 2 years.  Unfortunately, he went into a devastating depression due to his intense dislike of being far from home so we had to take him out of the trial to fly him back to the Philippines where he passed away a few months later.

My workmate's mom also had Stage 4 cancer when it was detected over 15 years ago.  She got into the Avastin trial in Orlando.  She's been in the trial for over 15 years and her cancer has not progressed at all.  She continued to work at her desk job and only takes off a Friday and a Monday every 6 weeks to get the treatment.   She gets treated on a Friday and she's back to work by Tuesday.  She retired from her job a couple years ago when she turned 65 and became eligible for SS.

i pray that your mom and your family finds peace under the care of the will of God.

Edited April 27, 2016 by anatess2

[Maureen]

Sorry about your Mom's bad news Steve. Sending prayers and good thoughts to you and your family.

M.