Angels

[MaryJehanne]

On June 30, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Overwatch said:

As far as the sons of perdition are concerned I cannot say if they are redeemable or even want to be. They are not animals or creatures but fallen sons and daughters of God once divine and beautiful. Now they are in deep, hateful darkness. I said in prior post that they despise us and desire our down fall. It is my, personal hope, that they could repent... come back to Father.

You see... I have had wonderful experiences also. I can tell you as the Sun shines in the sky, that we look like God, He is our Father. He is not only powerful but more loving than you can possibly imagine. He is very interested in ALL of our progression. With that being said he has provided us with protection in this life against the fallen.

YOU, yes YOU are more powerful than the demons WHEN you call upon the Lord and receive His power and protection. If you are deeply afraid... don't be. They aren't gargoyles or black ominous phantoms. Yes I understand they change themselves and can make themselves look creepy (believe me I know) I have, through the holy spirit, seen them without the smoke and mirrors. I saw a spirit in human form, dressed in the royal clothes of home (but soiled in sin) I saw a very, very unhappy child of God suffering from their choices.

I think I understand! That part was your personal opinion, not strict LDS doctrine?

Thank you, Overwatch.  Catholics don't believe angels (fallen or otherwise) have a human form, though. They don't have arm or legs or a head or eyes or any of that. The only reason they take on the appearance of a physical human being is because that's what we understand. I'm not more powerful than a demon, in myself, but God certainly is, and by Him His Church. 

I really appreciate you taking the time to help walk me through this, Overwatch! I know trying to compare ideas in different Churches can be frustrating and difficult.

 

On June 30, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Jane_Doe said:

A dog has a dog spirit, not a human one.  We don't spend a lot of time talking about dog spirits (in fact pretty much never ever ever). 

LDS do not believe one of Satan followers (a fallen spirit/ fallen angel / demon / whatever you want to call it) can be redeemed.  They made their choice to follow Lucifer/Satan and it cannot be undone. 

LDS also believe that Satan and his followers have forever gone bad.  

This isn't quite accurate.

When we say "human" we'll usually talking about the flesh & blood ones walking around here on Earth.  Individuals who don't have bodies (for whatever reason) are usually just referred to as "spirits".  You could say "human spirit" but that seems a little redundant.  

I would also be cautious about your statement "with the attributes proper to mankind" and would want to unpack that further before commenting on it. 

Note: if one of the attibutes you're attributing to humans is a "sin nature" that a statement that needs MEGA unpacking as their are major difference here between LDS and Catholics.

 

 

 

(Bytheway, great questions!  Very thoughtful and probing)

Okay! That may be similar to the Catholic view, since we believe the soul is the animating principle of life, but that animals and plants have lesser souls that die along with the body.

Thank you for clearing that up! I was thoroughly confused at this, but then I looked back at Overwatch's post, where she explained that what I thought was doctrine, she was expressing as a personal opinion. 

 

I realize the point you're trying to make there, but you're still talking about something that's the same nature, just missing one of its parts. In Catholicism, whether a person is dead and without a body, living on Earth, or resurrected at the end of time, they still have a human nature. When we talking about man, whether living or dead, we mean man. I know this may be different from the LDS language and belief, but I'm just trying to present my belief so that you can understand my perspective!

By attributes common to mankind, I mean as opposed to that of angels. In Catholicism, sin is not part of human nature, it's a perversion of it. By nature, I'm hinting at form, such as the will, soul, spirit, body, intellect, etc. I didn't mean that as an argument against your belief about angels, I just mean for you to understand the way I view the world in this area, since you believe that angels, men, and gods technically come from the same beings. I was trying to emphasize that while the LDS hold that angels are men (without bodies), when I'm discussing these things, I'm coming from a different perspective, one in that angels are an entirely different nature.

I'm glad they're fruitful for you too!

 

On June 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM, Overwatch said:

When people talk about perdition, or those who have committed the unpardonable sin, I think it is over looked that we are required to forgive others as many times as they ask for forgiveness. While sins vary in severity all sin is sin. They are perdition because THEY REFUSE TO REPENT AND ACTIVELY FIGHT AGAINST FATHER. <-- This is it. God is merciful and calls to the living to repent. This life is the time to prepare to meet God. We should all be striving to achieve all that the Father has waiting for us. 

Once we die and the righteous are resurrected and the wicked are dealt their punishments. Once they suffer for their sins (for refusing the Savior's sacrifice) They will bow before the King, recognize He is the Christ and be given whatever increase their works merit and Mercy of God allow.

As you study you will see that the Fallen/perdition receive the worst at the end of this trial because they hate until the bitter end. They receive NO glory and are cast into outer darkness. The ending and details of which is none of our business but theirs and God's. 

I agree, we should forgive people as often as they ask, as Christ said. And, yes, He calls all on Earth to repent.  

For Catholics, Everyone who has not gotten rid of their venial sins (and, of course, mortal sins), through confession and penance/indulgences on Earth before death will suffer in Purgatory before entering into the Beatific Vision for eternity. Anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell along with the demons and they endure separation from God for eternity.

For us, we're able to repent on Earth. Which is the perspective we're used to. But in Catholicism, angels do not have that, and never have. Angels have such a marvelous intellect and enormous knowledge and understanding, that in one decision, they made a perfect decision, in that it was whole and absolute in a way we are not capable of. That may sound weird since it's not something the LDS Church teaches, but that's what I'm working off of.

Have a wonderful Sunday!

 

[Jane_Doe]

@MaryJehanne, your posts are always so kind, thoughtful, and really go through things logically.  I majorly enjoy reading them

[Overwatch]

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I think I understand! That part was your personal opinion, not strict LDS doctrine?

 

Yeah. It makes no sense to me to have the 1/3 of the host of heaven hang around earth until this generation is done being judged unless they can somehow be redeemed. God doesn't need devils to do his work. This life already provides enough challenges: Affects of Human decisions, natural occurrences, health, accidents, etc... and yes a lot of my experiences are from first hand occurrences that happened to ME. So when others get all uppity I just let them believe what they want, not going to change what I went through. 

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you, Overwatch.  Catholics don't believe angels (fallen or otherwise) have a human form, though. They don't have arm or legs or a head or eyes or any of that. The only reason they take on the appearance of a physical human being is because that's what we understand. I'm not more powerful than a demon, in myself, but God certainly is, and by Him His Church.

No problem. So they are like a floating blob to you guys? 

 

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I really appreciate you taking the time to help walk me through this, Overwatch! I know trying to compare ideas in different Churches can be frustrating and difficult.

you're welcome

 

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

For Catholics, Everyone who has not gotten rid of their venial sins (and, of course, mortal sins), through confession and penance/indulgences on Earth before death will suffer in Purgatory before entering into the Beatific Vision for eternity. Anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell along with the demons and they endure separation from God for eternity.

^ This is why one side of my family left the Catholic church. I had an aunt that died and my Grandfather had been unable to get her baptized. He was told by the church authorities she was going to be separated from him forever. This did not sit well with my Grandfather and he left the church. To him his child was innocent and God could not be so unforgiving as to keep his child from him forever, especially being so young and pure.  This surprised many where he lived because so many loved him as he was always helping all his neighbors. He was a God fearing man and this pushed him over the edge. He then met the Mormon missionaries that confirmed his beliefs, they said children who die before the age of 8 are PURE and saved through the blood of Christ. 

I suppose I didn't fall far from the tree as anyone who tells me a child is going to hell (anywhere other than heaven) might as well be talking to a wall. 

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

For us, we're able to repent on Earth. Which is the perspective we're used to. But in Catholicism, angels do not have that, and never have. Angels have such a marvelous intellect and enormous knowledge and understanding, that in one decision, they made a perfect decision, in that it was whole and absolute in a way we are not capable of. That may sound weird since it's not something the LDS Church teaches, but that's what I'm working off of

Yeah, totally get why you are trying to make sense of it all. No worries. My Grandma still loves the Pope even though it has been many years since my family left the Church. I remember one time I was visiting her and she got all excited when she saw the pope on tv in his Pope mobile. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Overwatch

[MaryJehanne]

On July 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Jane_Doe said:

@MaryJehanne, your posts are always so kind, thoughtful, and really go through things logically.  I majorly enjoy reading them

I'm very glad, Jane_Doe! Thank you for replying!

 

On July 1, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Overwatch said:

Yeah. It makes no sense to me to have the 1/3 of the host of heaven hang around earth until this generation is done being judged unless they can somehow be redeemed. God doesn't need devils to do his work. This life already provides enough challenges: Affects of Human decisions, natural occurrences, health, accidents, etc... and yes a lot of my experiences are from first hand occurrences that happened to ME. So when others get all uppity I just let them believe what they want, not going to change what I went through. 

No problem. So they are like a floating blob to you guys? 

That's a little closer, but a floating blob is still a physical form! To be a blob, you must have shape and dimension, and to float you must be physically present, moving through space and taking up space, displacing materials around you. 

It is closer to think of them as intellect and will (although this is too much of a restriction). You cannot see them, touch them, hear them, etc. They can create things to see, touch, and hear, but these things are outside of themselves. "The Angels are commonly called "minds," "intelligences" by theologians and philosophers. Dionysius calls them "celestial intelligences," "intellectual beings," "supercelestial beings," etc. Exalted knowledge and intelligence are the most outstanding qualities of an Angel according to human standards." "In calling the Angels "minds" and "intelligences" we do not mean to limit the Angelic nature to the intellect but we rather wish to stress the power of the Angelic perception, superior by far to our own both in itself and in its mode of operation." (The Angels)

(Probably not too important, but in reading some material on angels, I found I made a mistake in my labelling of natures! Although I do see the "Angelic nature" referred to, the Catechism said that, properly, their natures are spiritual, and that "angel" is not in reference to a nature, but to an office. (Angels are those spirits that communicate with us, it said, whereas the ones exclusively in heaven would solely be called spirits))

 

On July 1, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Overwatch said:

^ This is why one side of my family left the Catholic church. I had an aunt that died and my Grandfather had been unable to get her baptized. He was told by the church authorities she was going to be separated from him forever. This did not sit well with my Grandfather and he left the church. To him his child was innocent and God could not be so unforgiving as to keep his child from him forever, especially being so young and pure.  This surprised many where he lived because so many loved him as he was always helping all his neighbors. He was a God fearing man and this pushed him over the edge. He then met the Mormon missionaries that confirmed his beliefs, they said children who die before the age of 8 are PURE and saved through the blood of Christ. 

I suppose I didn't fall far from the tree as anyone who tells me a child is going to hell (anywhere other than heaven) might as well be talking to a wall. 

I'm not sure who these Church authorities were, but it's important to note that in especially these important matters, even priests are not allowed to simply re-define Church teaching on something. If you hear something odd, even from someone who seems like they should know, don't end your investigation with that. I obviously wasn't there to hear what exactly was said (so it may have been something that was misinterpreted?), but the Church has not declared that anyone is certainly in Hell, not even Hitler or Judas, because although we can see exterior actions and objective morality of materials, we are unable to know the will of a person and their subjective culpability, whether they repented in the final moments before death, and what action God has chosen to take in their souls. These people may have been expressing valid theories and views, but it seems that a boundary may have been crossed once they stated (if they did) the individual fate of your aunt's soul.

The teaching, which is true, your grandfather was being told about (By, I'm assuming, priests? Or deacons?) is that no one can go to heaven without the removal of Original sin, sin that a person did not commit, but is a leftover state of separation from God, initiated by Adam and Eve. It's as if a wealthy man caught someone who worked for him stealing and fired them, throwing them out of his house. The children and grandchildren of this person did not steal anything themselves, though they suffer the consequences that their parent brought upon them. But because God loves us, and wants us back, He provided His Church, and Baptism is the sacrament that initiates an person into that Church, into the Body of Christ, and removes this Original sin. 

The missing piece, however, seems to be that although the only way for us to remove Original sin is by the sacrament of Baptism, it is not God's only way. "However, we do know that the Church has always accepted that the righteous before Christ (who died in original sin) were able to attain heaven after the Resurrection, so this teaching clearly accepted that God makes exceptions to this rule. While man is bound by sacraments, God is not.  Although all who die in original sin descend to hell, it is also entirely possible that God can remove original sin from the souls of those he chooses right before their death." (Catholic Answers) Secondly, there are more types of Baptism than Baptism by water; there is also the Baptism of blood and the Baptism of desire. So, although Original sin must be removed, Baptism by water was not the only way that might have happened for your aunt.

To sum up this area of teaching on Baptism, here's a section of the Catechism (all emphasis added):

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

In the case you described, it is possible that the desire was there, and, although death interrupted the process, the will was already turned towards God. It is also entirely possible that your aunt, being young and incapable of making many decisions on her own and fully understanding the truths being presented to her, would have desired Baptism if she had known it was God's will (as mentioned above in the Catechism), and so also have died in love of God.

So, I would say, knowing only what you've told me about the conversation, it seems that the impression your grandfather left with was not necessarily correct.

It is possible that the people instructing your grandfather may have been referring to the theory of Limbo, an idea that was especially popular before Vatican II that said that children before the age of reason who died without Baptism would go to a "middle realm" that was neither bad nor good. This theory, however, was never doctrine, and has lost traction. In my personal, though certainly fallible, opinion, the idea of Limbo seems a bit unfounded and inconsistent with what we know about God, Heaven, and Hell. The prevailing reply now is that we trust in God's mercy. "Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church, as The Catholic Encyclopedia, published in the early 1900s, makes clear. But it was a common theological opinion for a good number of years." (Catholic Answers) 

 

On July 1, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Overwatch said:

Yeah, totally get why you are trying to make sense of it all. No worries. My Grandma still loves the Pope even though it has been many years since my family left the Church. I remember one time I was visiting her and she got all excited when she saw the pope on tv in his Pope mobile. 

Thank you.  Ha ha! I'm glad to hear she still has an attachment. 

[Sunday21]

Modern prophet acknowledges presence of angels

http://www.ldsliving.com/When-President-Hinckley-Acknowledged-to-Presence-of-Lehi-and-Other-Angels-at-a-Temple-Dedication/s/88789

[DennisTate]

On 7/4/2018 at 12:44 AM, MaryJehanne said:

I'm very glad, Jane_Doe! Thank you for replying!

 

That's a little closer, but a floating blob is still a physical form! To be a blob, you must have shape and dimension, and to float you must be physically present, moving through space and taking up space, displacing materials around you. 

It is closer to think of them as intellect and will (although this is too much of a restriction). You cannot see them, touch them, hear them, etc. They can create things to see, touch, and hear, but these things are outside of themselves. "The Angels are commonly called "minds," "intelligences" by theologians and philosophers. Dionysius calls them "celestial intelligences," "intellectual beings," "supercelestial beings," etc. Exalted knowledge and intelligence are the most outstanding qualities of an Angel according to human standards." "In calling the Angels "minds" and "intelligences" we do not mean to limit the Angelic nature to the intellect but we rather wish to stress the power of the Angelic perception, superior by far to our own both in itself and in its mode of operation." (The Angels)

(Probably not too important, but in reading some material on angels, I found I made a mistake in my labelling of natures! Although I do see the "Angelic nature" referred to, the Catechism said that, properly, their natures are spiritual, and that "angel" is not in reference to a nature, but to an office. (Angels are those spirits that communicate with us, it said, whereas the ones exclusively in heaven would solely be called spirits))

 

I'm not sure who these Church authorities were, but it's important to note that in especially these important matters, even priests are not allowed to simply re-define Church teaching on something. If you hear something odd, even from someone who seems like they should know, don't end your investigation with that. I obviously wasn't there to hear what exactly was said (so it may have been something that was misinterpreted?), but the Church has not declared that anyone is certainly in Hell, not even Hitler or Judas, because although we can see exterior actions and objective morality of materials, we are unable to know the will of a person and their subjective culpability, whether they repented in the final moments before death, and what action God has chosen to take in their souls. These people may have been expressing valid theories and views, but it seems that a boundary may have been crossed once they stated (if they did) the individual fate of your aunt's soul.

The teaching, which is true, your grandfather was being told about (By, I'm assuming, priests? Or deacons?) is that no one can go to heaven without the removal of Original sin, sin that a person did not commit, but is a leftover state of separation from God, initiated by Adam and Eve. It's as if a wealthy man caught someone who worked for him stealing and fired them, throwing them out of his house. The children and grandchildren of this person did not steal anything themselves, though they suffer the consequences that their parent brought upon them. But because God loves us, and wants us back, He provided His Church, and Baptism is the sacrament that initiates an person into that Church, into the Body of Christ, and removes this Original sin. 

The missing piece, however, seems to be that although the only way for us to remove Original sin is by the sacrament of Baptism, it is not God's only way. "However, we do know that the Church has always accepted that the righteous before Christ (who died in original sin) were able to attain heaven after the Resurrection, so this teaching clearly accepted that God makes exceptions to this rule. While man is bound by sacraments, God is not.  Although all who die in original sin descend to hell, it is also entirely possible that God can remove original sin from the souls of those he chooses right before their death." (Catholic Answers) Secondly, there are more types of Baptism than Baptism by water; there is also the Baptism of blood and the Baptism of desire. So, although Original sin must be removed, Baptism by water was not the only way that might have happened for your aunt.

To sum up this area of teaching on Baptism, here's a section of the Catechism (all emphasis added):

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

In the case you described, it is possible that the desire was there, and, although death interrupted the process, the will was already turned towards God. It is also entirely possible that your aunt, being young and incapable of making many decisions on her own and fully understanding the truths being presented to her, would have desired Baptism if she had known it was God's will (as mentioned above in the Catechism), and so also have died in love of God.

So, I would say, knowing only what you've told me about the conversation, it seems that the impression your grandfather left with was not necessarily correct.

It is possible that the people instructing your grandfather may have been referring to the theory of Limbo, an idea that was especially popular before Vatican II that said that children before the age of reason who died without Baptism would go to a "middle realm" that was neither bad nor good. This theory, however, was never doctrine, and has lost traction. In my personal, though certainly fallible, opinion, the idea of Limbo seems a bit unfounded and inconsistent with what we know about God, Heaven, and Hell. The prevailing reply now is that we trust in God's mercy. "Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church, as The Catholic Encyclopedia, published in the early 1900s, makes clear. But it was a common theological opinion for a good number of years." (Catholic Answers) 

 

Thank you.  Ha ha! I'm glad to hear she still has an attachment. 

Have you ever read about the near death experience of former Atheist Howard Storm Ph. D?

If so..... would you say that his case could one of those exceptions to the general rule of somebody going to heaven without having been baptized?

[MaryJehanne]

On July 19, 2018 at 9:38 PM, DennisTate said:

Have you ever read about the near death experience of former Atheist Howard Storm Ph. D?

If so..... would you say that his case could one of those exceptions to the general rule of somebody going to heaven without having been baptized?

No, I haven't!

Do you mean if he had really died, died permanently? It may have been... I don't know the story. If he had to come back to make amends, then the vision was probably a warning that he was on the wrong path, in which case he may not have been heading to heaven if he had died at that moment. If He was serving God, by serving Good as he knew it, as best as he could, and the vision had told him basically that he was doing a good job, but didn't know the fullness of the truth, then it's possible he'd have been a case of sainthood without water baptism (if he had died at that moment).

God bless!

[DennisTate]

13 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

No, I haven't!

Do you mean if he had really died, died permanently? It may have been... I don't know the story. If he had to come back to make amends, then the vision was probably a warning that he was on the wrong path, in which case he may not have been heading to heaven if he had died at that moment. If He was serving God, by serving Good as he knew it, as best as he could, and the vision had told him basically that he was doing a good job, but didn't know the fullness of the truth, then it's possible he'd have been a case of sainthood without water baptism (if he had died at that moment).

God bless!

I read his book My Descent Into Death several years ago.  

It was actually published by Anne Rice.... the author of the Vampire Lestat series.  

His book really blew her mind!

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html

[MaryJehanne]

1 hour ago, DennisTate said:

I read his book My Descent Into Death several years ago.  

It was actually published by Anne Rice.... the author of the Vampire Lestat series.  

His book really blew her mind!

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html

Thanks for the link, Dennis! If you're interested in near-death experiences, here are some more: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=604990, https://youtu.be/_EFKnoH6bqs?t=1m54s

God bless!

 

[Blackmarch]

On 6/25/2018 at 9:53 PM, MaryJehanne said:

Hello, guys!

I wanted to ask about something I've been thinking about for a little while... What are angels & demons and their abilities in the LDS religion?

If I've got this right, I know the LDS Church teaches that angels are humans who either haven't been born yet or have been born and died. They're basically the soul apart from the body. 

Does the LDS Church, then, believe demons are wicked souls? Are demons only people who have died or those who haven't been born as well? Or are there no such thing as demons in LDS theology? What abilities do the LDS believe angels and demons have and do they influence your everyday life? 

I also saw the LDS Church doesn't believe in guardian angels? Is that right?

Thanks so much & God bless!

they are people who are in direct service to their master.

demons would be spirit people who serve satan and his desires they will never have a chance to be born to this world and thus never get a physical body. angels are those who are in direct service to God and Christ. however with angels, they can be spirits who will yet be born to this world, they can be spirits who have been born to this world but have not been resurrected yet, or they can also be beings of both of physical and spirit body.

I wouldn't say that they church itself believes in guardian angels in the sense that that is an actual job for an angel... butthey do believe that angels can and do intervene in the affairs of people for good, as well as that the term gaurdian angel is used a lot (so you could say it is traditionally believed by quite a few).

Edited August 29, 2018 by Blackmarch