Angels

[Vort]

Sorry to hear it, Steve. You have my best hopes for your mother.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, MormonGator said:

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

Amen! May you all find comfort.

[Steve Noel]

Thank you everyone. I appreciate the kinds words.

[Blackmarch]

so sorry to hear that, Steve. Prayin that the pain will be minimal and that she'll be able to recover.

[Steve Noel]

Thanks again everyone. It looks like they found it pretty early. The cancer has not spread. 

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

It looks like they found it pretty early. The cancer has not spread. 

Great news.

Again, all the best,
Lehi

[Steve Noel]

On 4/26/2016 at 1:45 AM, Jane_Doe said:

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.

You are right in that we believe that God, angels, and humans are all distinct types of beings (I'm with you in not being sure how to articulate this). So far I have basically summarized the entry on angels in the Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary. The references were included in that entry. I have never really studied angels in Scripture so I will state my thoughts tentatively. In Heb. 1:4-14 the author is emphasizing that the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels. In v. 14 he states that the angels are "spirits." I take this to mean that, unlike humans, they are not a body / soul-spirit unity. In Col. 1:16 Paul says that all things were created by or through Jesus. Paul mentions that some of the things created by Jesus are on earth and visible, but others are in heaven and invisible. He then lists "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Based on Eph. 6, we believe the angels (both good and fallen) to be included in these terms. In Eph. 6:12 Paul says that believers do not struggle against "flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Here Paul distinguishes between humans (flesh and blood) and heavenly beings which do not have flesh and blood. This is just a preliminary treatment. I have more to write, but my lunch break is over . I look forward to the interaction.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Steve Noel

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

You are right in that we believe that God, angels, and humans are all distinct types of beings (I'm with you in not being sure how to articulate this). So far I have basically summarized the entry on angels in the Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary. The references were included in that entry. I have never really studied angels in Scripture so I will state my thoughts tentatively. In Heb. 1:4-14 the author is emphasizing that the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels. In v. 14 he states that the angels are "spirits." I take this to mean that, unlike humans, they are not a body / soul-spirit unity. In Col. 1:16 Paul says that all things were created by or through Jesus. Paul mentions that some of the things created by Jesus are on earth and visible, but others are in heaven and invisible. He then lists "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Based on Eph. 6, we believe that the angels (both good and fallen) to be included in these terms. In Eph. 6:12 Paul says that believers do not struggle against "flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Here Paul distinguishes between humans (flesh and blood) and heavenly beings which do not have flesh and blood. This is just a preliminary treatment. I have more to write, but my lunch break is over . I look forward to the interaction.

I'm in a hurry so I won't have time to expound on this but I just want to throw this out there so you can start thinking about it...

It will be very helpful if, instead of trying to figure out how Angels are humans... ponder instead how humans are angels...

Here are a few concepts that start this off:

1.)  LDS do not believe in ex nihilo creation - basically, Man is dual in nature - with the spirit existing eternally, and the body created at birth.  The body is what makes these eternal spirits "Human".

2.)  Christ's ministry is teaching us humans that we are eternal spirits.  Only the body dies, the spirit lives on... at which point (and also the point before mortal birth) there is no difference in the physical manifestation of the Being (I think ousia is a better word) between us and angels.

So angels are - Spirits that have not yet been born into mortality or, spirits who have been born into mortality and have died.  As a specific example - the archangel Michael is  believed to be Adam (the first man) in his human stage of progression.

So... all the passages in the Bible that you read about the difference between angels and humans is simply the stage of their progression - where they are in this plan of happiness.

God has called upon angels (spirits) to minister to humans (spirits in the mortal stage of progression).

Hope this helps.

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

@anatess2,

I believe you've hit on a point that addresses the difference in interpretation of scriptures regarding angels.  Since others believe in ex nihilo creation, many passages about angels take on a different perspective.  With that assumption in mind, it may very well be easier to believe that they are separate.

On the other hand, if we assume angels are humans in other forms, then such scriptures would be easy to discount ex nihilo creation -- or at least infer that we existed (as spirits) prior to our mortal existence.

This logical interaction of already assumed principles is part of why we cannot agree on interpretations that seem so obviously one sided.  We have different assumptions that don't necessarily seem related, so we never bring them up.

Interesting.

[Steve Noel]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm in a hurry so I won't have time to expound on this but I just want to throw this out there so you can start thinking about it...

It will be very helpful if, instead of trying to figure out how Angels are humans... ponder instead how humans are angels...

Here are a few concepts that start this off:

1.)  LDS do not believe in ex nihilo creation - basically, Man is dual in nature - with the spirit existing eternally, and the body created at birth.  The body is what makes these eternal spirits "Human".

2.)  Christ's ministry is teaching us humans that we are eternal spirits.  Only the body dies, the spirit lives on... at which point (and also the point before mortal birth) there is no difference in the physical manifestation of the Being (I think ousia is a better word) between us and angels.

So angels are - Spirits that have not yet been born into mortality or, spirits who have been born into mortality and have died.  As a specific example - the archangel Michael is  believed to be Adam (the first man) in his human stage of progression.

So... all the passages in the Bible that you read about the difference between angels and humans is simply the stage of their progression - where they are in this plan of happiness.

God has called upon angels (spirits) to minister to humans (spirits in the mortal stage of progression).

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks for this. It does seem that when considering this question the related question of the nature of humanity becomes essential. There are some major worldview differences between us. Evangelicals do not believe that humans existed as spirits prior to their mortal life on earth. When we die we do exist without a body, but this is temporary and unnatural. The resurrection will make us whole again. Even in this temporary state between death and resurrection, we do not believe that we are like the angels. In other words, there are different kinds of spirits. I will have to continue to wrestle with this. It is fascinating how considering one point branches out into several related issues.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@anatess2,

I believe you've hit on a point that addresses the difference in interpretation of scriptures regarding angels.  Since others believe in ex nihilo creation, many passages about angels take on a different perspective.  With that assumption in mind, it may very well be easier to believe that they are separate.

On the other hand, if we assume angels are humans in other forms, then such scriptures would be easy to discount ex nihilo creation -- or at least infer that we existed (as spirits) prior to our mortal existence.

This logical interaction of already assumed principles is part of why we cannot agree on interpretations that seem so obviously one sided.  We have different assumptions that don't necessarily seem related, so we never bring them up.

Interesting.

Exactly. We have different worldviews. It is difficult to read from another's worldview in order to understand their reasoning.

[Steve Noel]

It is clear that I do not have an adequate grasp of the LDS perspective yet.  Is every person an angel before they come to earth? Similarly, does everyone who dies become an angel immediately upon death? I have a couple LDS books that may address this as well. I will also reference them.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Vort]

An angel is a messenger of God, someone doing God's work. In that sense, we can be angels while in mortality. Not all served God premortally to the same degree, and not all will serve him hereafter to the same degree, so I think it would be incorrect to say that we all were/will be angels.

Note that this is the Biblical view of angels. Acts 12:15 tells about how, after Peter's escape (release) from prison at the hands of an angel, he went to Mark's house and knocked at the gate. A young girl, Rhoda, was so amazed at seeing him that she ran in to tell the others that Peter was at the gate. They said she was crazy, then said, "It is his [Peter's] angel." They (mistakenly) assumed that a post-mortal Peter was appearing to them as an angel.

[bytebear]

41 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Is every person an angel before they come to earth? Similarly, does everyone who dies become an angel immediately upon death?

No, every pre and post mortal person is a spirit, but not all spirits are angels.  And we know that Satan is a fallen angel, so from the LDS view, an angel is more of a calling or a position, and not a state of being.  Adam was the Michael the archangel, but he was created physically and was no longer an angel or at least no longer in the same role once he became flesh (or once his spirit and body were united).

Edited April 28, 2016 by bytebear

[bytebear]

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

Note that this is the Biblical view of angels. Acts 12:15 tells about how, after Peter's escape (release) from prison at the hands of an angel, he went to Mark's house and knocked at the gate. A young girl, Rhoda, was so amazed at seeing him that she ran in to tell the others that Peter was at the gate. They said she was crazy, then said, "It is his [Peter's] angel." They (mistakenly) assumed that a post-mortal Peter was appearing to them as an angel.

 

Similarly in Revelation 22: 8-9, an angel appears to John, and John falls to his knees in worship, and the angel tells John that he not worthy of worship and is a fellow servant and of the prophets.  I suspect he was a former prophet of old and was acting as an angelic messenger.

Edited April 28, 2016 by bytebear

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Note that this is the Biblical view of angels. Acts 12:15 tells about how, after Peter's escape (release) from prison at the hands of an angel, he went to Mark's house and knocked at the gate. A young girl, Rhoda, was so amazed at seeing him that she ran in to tell the others that Peter was at the gate. They said she was crazy, then said, "It is his [Peter's] angel." They (mistakenly) assumed that a post-mortal Peter was appearing to them as an angel.

We don't actually know what these people meant when they said this. We can only speculate. Some understand this to mean that it was Peter's personal angel, not that it was Peter as an angel. Others have speculated that every person has a personal guardian angel. It was a popular Jewish belief that these guardian angels matched the look of those they protected. It is likely that this is the background for this statement. Ultimately though, we don't know. Regardless, it would not be correct to say that this text represents "the Biblical view of angels." 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

It is clear that I do not have an adequate grasp of the LDS perspective yet.  Is every person an angel before they come to earth? Similarly, does everyone who dies become an angel immediately upon death? I have a couple LDS books that may address this as well. I will also reference them.

(Other people have already done a good job answering this, but maybe another 2 cents will help).

Before this life, we were spirits without a body.  During this life spirits with a body.  After death again spirits without a body.  After resurrection spirits with a glorified body.

LDS don't believe that there's any special substance or species associated with being an angel.  Rather, as previously stated, angels means "messenger" so any spirit delivering a message is an messenger (aka angel).  If you look in the Bible, every time angels are mentioned it is in regards to them delivering a message ("peace on Earth", "He is risen", etc).  There's nothing in scripture about different species or special substances, just messengers delivering messages-- always an action.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

We don't actually know what these people meant when they said this. We can only speculate. Some understand this to mean that it was Peter's personal angel, not that it was Peter as an angel. Others have speculated that every person has a personal guardian angel. It was a popular Jewish belief that these guardian angels matched the look of those they protected. It is likely that this is the background for this statement. Ultimately though, we don't know. Regardless, it would not be correct to say that this text represents "the Biblical view of angels." 

Not sure why you think this is not a Biblical view. It's in the Bible, and it was the view of the believers.

A Peter-shaped personage standing at the gate would be thought to be Peter, either in life or death, and not some guardian angel that just happened to look like Peter. The obvious interpretation is that they were saying that his "angel", or in other words, his postmortal spirit, was standing there. It seems to me that any other interpretation wrests the scripture, and would be used only to arrive at some predetermined end.

[Traveler]

It is easier to say one is on a quest for truth than it is too actually do so.  Jesus taught of 3 distinct elements of a quest for truth.  He spoke of these elements symbolically as to Knock, Seek and Ask.  One principle I have learned about a quest for truth – To enter such a quest with preconceived notions is not a quest for truth (especially as Christ taught) – it is a quest for validation and the most effective temptation to abandon truth in favor of false beliefs and false traditions.

Because the temptation to validate rather than seek is so prominent in us all – my first effort in posting is to see if those showing strong opinion have honestly considered alternatives.  If it is obvious they have not – I will first encourage them to honestly knock, seek and ask about alternatives (even if I am not convinced of the truth of it – just that in the journey of truth it ought to be considered) to see their reaction.

 

22 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

You are right in that we believe that God, angels, and humans are all distinct types of beings (I'm with you in not being sure how to articulate this). So far I have basically summarized the entry on angels in the Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary. The references were included in that entry. I have never really studied angels in Scripture so I will state my thoughts tentatively. In Heb. 1:4-14 the author is emphasizing that the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels. In v. 14 he states that the angels are "spirits." I take this to mean that, unlike humans, they are not a body / soul-spirit unity. In Col. 1:16 Paul says that all things were created by or through Jesus. Paul mentions that some of the things created by Jesus are on earth and visible, but others are in heaven and invisible. He then lists "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Based on Eph. 6, we believe the angels (both good and fallen) to be included in these terms. In Eph. 6:12 Paul says that believers do not struggle against "flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Here Paul distinguishes between humans (flesh and blood) and heavenly beings which do not have flesh and blood. This is just a preliminary treatment. I have more to write, but my lunch break is over . I look forward to the interaction.

 

 

It appears to me that the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary” is your tangent to preconceived notions.  It appears to me as a red flag when you interpret Heb. 1:4-14 that “the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels” in ways that the scriptures did not intend.  I would point out that Jesus clearly taught that the “Father” is “superior” to him.  Yet you seem to believe that Jesus is G-d?  And of the same essence as the “Father”?  This type of smorgasbord approach of picking and choosing preconceived notions from scriptures is in my mind the means used to divide those that would be followers of Christ that would otherwise be of one mind and heart if they would seed such answers from G-d rather than efforts of man like the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary”.  My first recommendation to you is to consider if there is any possibility that the sacred scriptures can be interpreted according to LDS teaching.  Keep in mind that our foundation is not just a study (which is definitely an element) but that these principles have been taught directly by angles and revelations given directly to prophets as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and others as recorded in ancient scripture.

 

 

16 hours ago, Vort said:

An angel is a messenger of God, someone doing God's work. In that sense, we can be angels while in mortality. Not all served God premortally to the same degree, and not all will serve him hereafter to the same degree, so I think it would be incorrect to say that we all were/will be angels.

Note that this is the Biblical view of angels. Acts 12:15 tells about how, after Peter's escape (release) from prison at the hands of an angel, he went to Mark's house and knocked at the gate. A young girl, Rhoda, was so amazed at seeing him that she ran in to tell the others that Peter was at the gate. They said she was crazy, then said, "It is his [Peter's] angel." They (mistakenly) assumed that a post-mortal Peter was appearing to them as an angel.

 

15 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

We don't actually know what these people meant when they said this. We can only speculate. Some understand this to mean that it was Peter's personal angel, not that it was Peter as an angel. Others have speculated that every person has a personal guardian angel. It was a popular Jewish belief that these guardian angels matched the look of those they protected. It is likely that this is the background for this statement. Ultimately though, we don't know. Regardless, it would not be correct to say that this text represents "the Biblical view of angels." 

 

Again this appears to me to be a preconceived smorgasbord approach to scripture.  We do not have to speculate – the time referenced in scripture was a time of great spiritual manifestations (including angles concerning the resurrection) to vast numbers of believers that I submit was greater than those that conceived the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary”.  We do not have to speculate that Luke, the divinely inspired author of one of the Biblical gospel testaments of Christ, felt it necessary to include this notion in his Acts narrative of the Apostles of Christ.

 

I have had a personal experience with an angel of G-d.  Admittedly my experience was not concerning this or any other doctrine; rather a call or awaking to repentance.  But I can testify and witness that your preconceived notions of angels is not accurate.

 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

It is easier to say one is on a quest for truth than it is too actually do so.  Jesus taught of 3 distinct elements of a quest for truth.  He spoke of these elements symbolically as to Knock, Seek and Ask.  One principle I have learned about a quest for truth – To enter such a quest with preconceived notions is not a quest for truth (especially as Christ taught) – it is a quest for validation and the most effective temptation to abandon truth in favor of false beliefs and false traditions.

Because the temptation to validate rather than seek is so prominent in us all – my first effort in posting is to see if those showing strong opinion have honestly considered alternatives.  If it is obvious they have not – I will first encourage them to honestly knock, seek and ask about alternatives (even if I am not convinced of the truth of it – just that in the journey of truth it ought to be considered) to see their reaction.

 

22 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

You are right in that we believe that God, angels, and humans are all distinct types of beings (I'm with you in not being sure how to articulate this). So far I have basically summarized the entry on angels in the Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary. The references were included in that entry. I have never really studied angels in Scripture so I will state my thoughts tentatively. In Heb. 1:4-14 the author is emphasizing that the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels. In v. 14 he states that the angels are "spirits." I take this to mean that, unlike humans, they are not a body / soul-spirit unity. In Col. 1:16 Paul says that all things were created by or through Jesus. Paul mentions that some of the things created by Jesus are on earth and visible, but others are in heaven and invisible. He then lists "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Based on Eph. 6, we believe the angels (both good and fallen) to be included in these terms. In Eph. 6:12 Paul says that believers do not struggle against "flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Here Paul distinguishes between humans (flesh and blood) and heavenly beings which do not have flesh and blood. This is just a preliminary treatment. I have more to write, but my lunch break is over . I look forward to the interaction.

 

 

It appears to me that the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary” is your tangent to preconceived notions.  It appears to me as a red flag when you interpret Heb. 1:4-14 that “the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels” in ways that the scriptures did not intend.  I would point out that Jesus clearly taught that the “Father” is “superior” to him.  Yet you seem to believe that Jesus is G-d?  And of the same essence as the “Father”?  This type of smorgasbord approach of picking and choosing preconceived notions from scriptures is in my mind the means used to divide those that would be followers of Christ that would otherwise be of one mind and heart if they would seed such answers from G-d rather than efforts of man like the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary”.  My first recommendation to you is to consider if there is any possibility that the sacred scriptures can be interpreted according to LDS teaching.  Keep in mind that our foundation is not just a study (which is definitely an element) but that these principles have been taught directly by angles and revelations given directly to prophets as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and others as recorded in ancient scripture.

 

 

16 hours ago, Vort said:

An angel is a messenger of God, someone doing God's work. In that sense, we can be angels while in mortality. Not all served God premortally to the same degree, and not all will serve him hereafter to the same degree, so I think it would be incorrect to say that we all were/will be angels.

Note that this is the Biblical view of angels. Acts 12:15 tells about how, after Peter's escape (release) from prison at the hands of an angel, he went to Mark's house and knocked at the gate. A young girl, Rhoda, was so amazed at seeing him that she ran in to tell the others that Peter was at the gate. They said she was crazy, then said, "It is his [Peter's] angel." They (mistakenly) assumed that a post-mortal Peter was appearing to them as an angel.

 

15 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

We don't actually know what these people meant when they said this. We can only speculate. Some understand this to mean that it was Peter's personal angel, not that it was Peter as an angel. Others have speculated that every person has a personal guardian angel. It was a popular Jewish belief that these guardian angels matched the look of those they protected. It is likely that this is the background for this statement. Ultimately though, we don't know. Regardless, it would not be correct to say that this text represents "the Biblical view of angels." 

 

Again this appears to me to be a preconceived smorgasbord approach to scripture.  We do not have to speculate – the time referenced in scripture was a time of great spiritual manifestations (including angles concerning the resurrection) to vast numbers of believers that I submit was greater than those that conceived the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary”.  We do not have to speculate that Luke, the divinely inspired author of one of the Biblical gospel testaments of Christ, felt it necessary to include this notion in his Acts narrative of the Apostles of Christ.

 

I have had a personal experience with an angel of G-d.  Admittedly my experience was not concerning this or any other doctrine; rather a call or awaking to repentance.  But I can testify and witness that your preconceived notions of angels is not accurate.

 

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@anatess2,

I believe you've hit on a point that addresses the difference in interpretation of scriptures regarding angels.  Since others believe in ex nihilo creation, many passages about angels take on a different perspective.  With that assumption in mind, it may very well be easier to believe that they are separate.

On the other hand, if we assume angels are humans in other forms, then such scriptures would be easy to discount ex nihilo creation -- or at least infer that we existed (as spirits) prior to our mortal existence.

This logical interaction of already assumed principles is part of why we cannot agree on interpretations that seem so obviously one sided.  We have different assumptions that don't necessarily seem related, so we never bring them up.

Interesting.

 

17 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Exactly. We have different worldviews. It is difficult to read from another's worldview in order to understand their reasoning.

 

My background is Roman Catholic from a very devout Roman Catholic family.  I have had a strong testimony of the gospel from my Catholic days complete with spiritual experiences.  I started investigating LDS beliefs when I asked my husband - who was an inactive LDS that lived the Catholic life with me - if he was ready to take the path towards Catholic baptism.  My husband, in one of his rare moments of calm seriousness in our lives (which signifies he is completely and absolutely immovable and that it is very deeply important to him) held my shoulders and looked me in the eye and said, "I'm not going to be Catholic.".  Needless to say I was very, very bummed (I had hopes he'd become Catholic since he was attending Masses, choir practice, serving in activities, super duper supportive etc.) and in my moment of weakness sarcastically asked him - "Oh, so you think I'm going to hell?".  And he calmly replied, "You're going to heaven, I have a great chance of going to hell."  That got me curious and so I started asking questions about the LDS faith.

Because I already had a strong testimony of the gospel, if there's anything that the LDS teaches that contradicts that testimony, I could immediately dismiss it as not true.  What I found, after several years of pondering the differences, is that the differences in understanding is rooted on teachings that are missing from the Catholic Church such as, pre-mortal existance, eternal marriage, and the Godhead.

The difference in Angels - pre-mortal existence, a missing teaching in the Catholic Church.  So, if I accept the teaching of pre-mortal existence as true... the rest of the things that I know about angels remain true... only their substance changes... which, if I really think about it, does not matter in my testimony of the existence of angels guiding me in my life.

 

[anatess2]

P.S.

The title Angel is just like the title God.  It connotes a certain level in a spirit's state of being as well as the spirit's calling (or office).  The Angel's calling is to be a heavenly messenger to bring to pass God's purpose on earth - this is different from a prophet proclaiming God's message.  The title Prophet is also a calling within the mortal state of being.  The Angel's state of being is such that he has a spirit body and has achieved a certain state of righteousness.  The God's calling is the gathering of spirits and bringing to pass their progression through eternal life towards perfect joy.  The God's state of being is Perfection.

There are 3 persons who are in the God state of being - Our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

And there ya go... touching 2 missing teachings from the Catholic Church... Pre-mortal Existence (Eternal nature of our Spirit) and the answer to that Great Mystery that makes the three Persons one God.

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by anatess2

[Blackmarch]

14 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

It is clear that I do not have an adequate grasp of the LDS perspective yet.  Is every person an angel before they come to earth? Similarly, does everyone who dies become an angel immediately upon death? I have a couple LDS books that may address this as well. I will also reference them.

I operate under the understanding that Angel = a messenger of God. (and it seems to me a connotation with it is that it is a direct messenger kind of like a courier)
I haven't seen anything that says we were all in such a position before this life, or explicitly stating that all righteous people will gain that calling after this life... but on the other hand that in this life we are commanded to take upon us the name of Christ and share it with everyone and so in a sense become a messenger in that sense which would continue on after this life, however to me being an angel would seem to be a bit more specific than that.

We've had prophets state (prarphrasing) that the angels that we do have visit us personally in this world are ones that are either to be born into this world at a future time, or had been born to this world and are either spirit beings or resurrected beings who lived on this world previous to their visitation.

I can't recall anything saying that only the human family are angels or related to them OR that angels are completely unrelated to the human family.
Similarly I can't recall anything that says that they are totally unrelated to God.
THere are distinctions within various writings.. but nothing to that extent that I can recall. (one can say that there are also many distinctions within humankind itself as well.. so that even when something is distinct from something else it doesn't mean that it's totally unrelated)

Anyways just some thoughts in addition to the subject of your question.

[Rhoades]

 

17 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

It is clear that I do not have an adequate grasp of the LDS perspective yet.  Is every person an angel before they come to earth? Similarly, does everyone who dies become an angel immediately upon death? I have a couple LDS books that may address this as well. I will also reference them.

 

17 hours ago, Vort said:

An angel is a messenger of God, someone doing God's work. In that sense, we can be angels while in mortality. Not all served God premortally to the same degree, and not all will serve him hereafter to the same degree, so I think it would be incorrect to say that we all were/will be angels.

Note that this is the Biblical view of angels. Acts 12:15 tells about how, after Peter's escape (release) from prison at the hands of an angel, he went to Mark's house and knocked at the gate. A young girl, Rhoda, was so amazed at seeing him that she ran in to tell the others that Peter was at the gate. They said she was crazy, then said, "It is his [Peter's] angel." They (mistakenly) assumed that a post-mortal Peter was appearing to them as an angel.

 

16 hours ago, bytebear said:

No, every pre and post mortal person is a spirit, but not all spirits are angels.  And we know that Satan is a fallen angel, so from the LDS view, an angel is more of a calling or a position, and not a state of being.  Adam was the Michael the archangel, but he was created physically and was no longer an angel or at least no longer in the same role once he became flesh (or once his spirit and body were united).

 

I think most of the time when we hear the word "angel" we think of messengers of God.  These are usually

a) spirits of people that haven't been born yet

b) spirits of those that have departed this life awaiting resurrection

c) resurrected messengers of God

And, of course someone could call another mortal an angel but they're using the word metaphorically.

However, there are some exceptions where the word angels is used in place of  spirits.  For example, in Jude 1:6 when it says "And the angels which kept not their first estate..." and Matthew 25:41 saying "devil and his angels"  In cases such as those, I read it as spirits.

However, I don't think you'd ever find an LDS person using spirits and angels interchangeably.  They'd mean a non-mortal with a special calling to act as a messenger of God.

[Rhoades]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

 

So, if I accept the teaching of pre-mortal existence as true... the rest of the things that I know about angels remain true... only their substance changes... which, if I really think about it, does not matter in my testimony of the existence of angels guiding me in my life.

 

 

Learning about the pre-mortal existence adds new meaning in other areas too.  For example, these scriptures take on new meaning if you think of spirits in God's presence before their mortal lives:

Job 38:4-6 (Sons of God shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth.)

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Speaking of death it says "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."  The word "return" becomes more literal.

Jeremiah 1:5  "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."  This takes on new meaning to think of Jeremiah as a spirit being with God and him being ordained by God and prepared to come to his mortal life.