askandanswer

Conclusions from D&C 132: 16 - 17?

Recommended Posts

On 2/6/2021 at 9:12 AM, romans8 said:

Are the people who are appointed angels in verses 16-17 members of the telestial and terrestrial
kingdoms or are they solely members of the two lower divisions of the celestial?

Matteo

I don't know how much clearer things can be.  I've read the references you've provided and I see no evidence of any reference to telestials or terrestials being referred to as "angels".  I've asked you for such a reference and you keep repeating yourself.  So, until you've provided new references, you're going to keep getting the same answer.

It may behoove you to read the actual context of a passage before coming to conclusions about it.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not positive I understand the question, but will attempt to answer it.

'Demons' as you put it can be spirits who followed the devil and are part of his host.  When he rebelled in heaven he took 1/3 of the host of heaven with him.  These are his angels or as we could say, 'demons' of who are opposed to the designs of the Lord.

In addition, mortal individuals who choose to follow the adversary could go to hell after this life.  If they choose to follow the devil they will become his followers, not only in spirit, but if they are ever resurrected and regain a body as well.

A Prime example that probably falls in this camp is Judas Iscariot who was called a Son of Perdition by the Lord.  If he is such, it is probable he is going to follow the devil as his master and thus in his death became a 'demon' as you would put it, or an angel of hell. 

I think you did answer it, I  didn't word it very well at all so my apologies.  I should have worded like this

Were all the demons chosen at the fall in LDS theology?  

Is it just the 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that fell that are demons? Were all the hosts who fell human spirits?

Or can someone who goes to hell become a demon?  If so, do all those who go to hell become demons?

So I think you're saying that someone can become a demon in hell, like Judas Iscariot as in your example could have become a demon when he went to hell.  

Edited by marge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, marge said:

I think you did answer it, I  didn't word it very well at all so my apologies.  I should have worded like this

Were all the demons chosen at the fall in LDS theology?

No being is chosen (by God) for damnation. The damned select themselves.

Quote

Is it just the 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that fell that are demons? Were all the hosts who fell human spirits?

Demonology forms no real part of LDS theology. Anyone, spirit or flesh, who serves and loves Satan is a demon, at least in my definition.

Yes, all who fell were "human spirits", as you call them. They were spiritual children (creations) of God, and as far as I know, only such beings are capable of choosing their destiny.

Quote

Or can someone who goes to hell become a demon?  If so, do all those who go to hell become demons?

Our conception of "hell" differs from yours. In normal LDS usage, "hell" refers to the state of the spirits of the wicked after death and before their resurrection. During this time, they are in what we call (for lack of a better term) spirit prison. They are subject to the temptations, torments, and depredations of Satan and of those spirits that love and serve him. (Those among the deceased who embrace the doctrine of Christ and repent of their sins may accept the covenant of baptism—performed among the living using a living person as a proxy—after which they may enter the rest of the righteous to await resurrection.)

Many Latter-day Saints use the word "hell" to refer to what we normally call "outer darkness", the term used in the Book of Matthew. This is a post-resurrection kingdom of no glory, a place of filthiness reserved for those who remain filthy and will not abandon their sins. It is probably appropriate to call those who reside in this place demons, but it hardly matters what you call them. They are lost, and as far as has been revealed, irredeemable. As I understand our doctrine, after they are cast out, they have no more interaction with those serving in the various kingdoms of God.

Quote

So I think you're saying that someone can become a demon in hell, like Judas Iscariot as in your example could have become a demon when he went to hell.  

Judas Iscariot is called a son of perdition, but I am not convinced his infamous actions damned him to eternal torment. Throwing the price of betrayal back at those who paid him and then going and hanging himself in shame and despair do not strike me as the actions of someone who embraces and loves their wickedness.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, marge said:

I think you did answer it, I  didn't word it very well at all so my apologies.  I should have worded like this

Were all the demons chosen at the fall in LDS theology?  

Is it just the 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that fell that are demons? Were all the hosts who fell human spirits?

It depends on what you consider human spirits.  Those that fell at the time were those who had the ability to become mortal men and woman like us, but whether that composes the entirety of what people consider 'demons' today is unclear.  We know that 1/3 of the host of heaven fell, but there is much we do not know and which the scriptures do not tell us.  Of that 1/3 that fell, they would be considered 'demons' by many religions today.

Not all of them were chosen at the fall in LDS theology.

2 hours ago, marge said:

Or can someone who goes to hell become a demon?  If so, do all those who go to hell become demons?

Yes, someone who goes to hell can become a 'demon' as you would put it, however, that does not necessarily apply to everyone who goes to their in spirit.  We have a belief that the atonement of Jesus Christ is an extremely powerful thing and that it can save all men from Hell if men so desire to be saved from Hell.  They must accept the atonement of the Savior (and if they are ignorant of it, it will be taught to them) and he will still be able to save them if they so desire.  Those will not become 'demons' as we would understand it.   You could say it is sort of like the Catholic version of Purgatory, except in our version if they completely reject the Lord, they will truly end up in Hell rather than being saved.

2 hours ago, marge said:

So I think you're saying that someone can become a demon in hell, like Judas Iscariot as in your example could have become a demon when he went to hell.  

Yes.  The inference is that a Son of  Perdition is someone who will not accept the atonement of Jesus Christ.  Such have been named in several instances in the Bible and normally, when the Lord calls someone a Son of Perdition or Perdition it indicates some very severe things.  The site for our Church has this to say about Perdition and Sons of Perdition...

Quote

The followers of Satan who will suffer with him in eternity. Sons of perdition include (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality and (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God. Those in this second group will be resurrected from the dead but will not be redeemed from the second (spiritual) death and cannot dwell in a kingdom of glory (D&C 88:32, 35).

  • Mercy hath no claim on that man and his final doom is never-ending torment, Mosiah 2:36–39.

  • He is as though there was no redemption made, Mosiah 16:5.

  • Those who deny Christ’s miracles to get gain shall become like the son of perdition, 3 Ne. 29:7.

  • They will receive no forgiveness in this world or the next, D&C 76:30–34 (D&C 84:41; 132:27).

  • They are the only ones who will not be redeemed from the second death, D&C 76:34–48.

  • Sons of perdition deny the Holy Spirit after receiving it, D&C 76:35.

  • Sons of perdition deny the Son after the Father has revealed him, D&C 76:43.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JohnsonJones Thank you, its making a lot more sense to me now.  I appreciate the time you put in to answer me.

Thank you for the Catholic analogy too, that helps me understand it so much better as that's what I was raised with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, marge said:

Is it just the 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that fell that are demons? Were all the hosts who fell human spirits?

Just for fun, I could, perhaps add something that may be helpful in understanding scripture but first I must explain that my major in college was mathematics.  The ancient Hebrews (and Jews) did not have very advanced number theory system.  They understood the integer (counting) number but did not have a concept of fractions.  They also did not understand the concept of "zero".  Sometimes our modern science clouds our understanding of ancient scripture.  We are told in scripture that a third part of the spirits of heaven followed Satan.  It is not exactly correct to define this as the fraction of 1/3 but the correct understanding was that Heaven was divided into 3 parts - one of which followed Satan.  We do not know - although it is possible that the 3 parts had the same number of spirit souls - but that is unlikely.

In another place we are told that Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days.  He was crucified on a Friday and was buried quickly as not to extend into the Sabbath (which was Saturday).  On Sunday Jesus arose from the dead.  If we carefully count this time period as we do today - We will discover that from Friday to Saturday evening would be one day and then from Saturday evening to Sunday morning would not be much more than a half day.  Using our mathematics we cannot even get 2 full days - let alone 3.

I would not bother to bring this to light and I do not intend to make a big deal of it except some insist in understanding all scripture literally - which can be problematic. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2021 at 8:44 AM, Carborendum said:

I don't know how much clearer things can be.  I've read the references you've provided and I see no evidence of any reference to telestials or terrestials being referred to as "angels".  I've asked you for such a reference and you keep repeating yourself.  So, until you've provided new references, you're going to keep getting the same answer.

It may behoove you to read the actual context of a passage before coming to conclusions about it.

If people who don't inherit the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms are not mentioned in those verses then
it appears that the people who are appointed angels in service to the gods are those in the celestial
kingdom who did not get exalted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, romans8 said:

If people who don't inherit the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms are not mentioned in those verses then
it appears that the people who are appointed angels in service to the gods are those in the celestial
kingdom who did not get exalted.

You seem to be interpreting “angel” as (for lack of a better word) a “rank” or a “degree” or a “state of being”.  That definition doesn’t really work in Mormonism.  “Angel”, in our theology, is just a generic term for a being that happens to be engaged in a certain sort of work.  

I work in a law office.  There are attorneys and paralegals and legal secretaries.  Every now and then we have to run documents or evidence over to other law offices.  Whoever happens to be doing that job is a “messenger”, regardless of our professional certification or pay grade or hierarchal status  

Similarly, “angel” is just a generic term for a being who is doing an errand on God’s behalf (and especially, in scripture, the sort of errand that entails leaving an unseen realm in order to commune with mortal humans).  From scripture and/or uncanonized experiences of Church leaders (notably Joseph Smith) we can infer that sometimes they are resurrected, celestialized beings; and sometimes they are beings who have not yet been resurrected.  I’m not aware of any hard-and-fast statement in LDS discourse that says resurrected terrestrial or telestial beings can’t function as “angels”; we simply don’t know of any precedent for their doing so.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2021 at 1:39 PM, askandanswer said:

 

16  Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17  For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

 (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:16 - 17)

 

Do the following conclusions flow from the above verses, and how firm or tenuous is the support for these conclusions?

1. You can be disobedient to God’s law and still be an angel living in heaven in a saved, but not exalted condition.

2. If the type of angels referred to in these verses did live with God, that would be inconsistent with the two well supported ideas that to disobey God’s law results in a form of uncleanness, and that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. If those two ideas are both true, then we can conclude that this particular type of angel does not live with God.

3. There is a place referred to as heaven, where these angels are said to be appointed to, but God does not dwell there.

I don’t know that this passage was intended as something from which we should be able to extrapolate something about the relationship between law and obedience and salvation.

What separates the exalted from the others in the Celestial Kingdom, is eternal increase.  That’s not a punishment, it’s just a difference in status—like the difference in a ward between the parents and the nonparents.  The nonparents’ childlessness is not a form of punishment; it’s just (usually) the natural result of their not having done the things it would take to become parents.

There are, of course, statements by GAs with regard to the opportunities in the hereafter for people who sought a celestial marriage in this life and through no fault of their own, couldn’t have one.  But for those those who opted out of marriage and child-rearing and then sashay into the eternities expecting to be honored as a king and a priest:  where, exactly, do they think their thrones and kingdoms and principalities and powers and dominions are going to come from?

Brigham Young has the answer:

We understand that we are to be made Kings and Priests unto God; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family, and if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, and their sons will have sons, and so on, from generation to generation, and, in this way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings. This will constitute every man a prince, king, lord, or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.

In this way we can become King of kings, and Lord of lords, or Father of fathers, or Prince of princes, and this is the only course, for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you.

If I did not feel disposed, in my poverty, to enlarge my family and to build up the kingdom, I could not be acquainted with the difficulties thereof, neither should I be counted worthy to enjoy the blessings conferred upon those who are faithful.
 

Being “celestialized but not exalted” is not really a matter of being affirmatively punished for some sort of wickedness; it’s simply a result of having chosen not to make the covenants and do the things it would have taken to establish the sort of dominions that characterize an exalted being’s glory.  Christ can atone for our sins and change our hearts and save us from destruction, but He can’t (or, perhaps, won’t) create posterity for us to rule ex nihilo.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We understand that we are to be made Kings and Priests unto God; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family, and if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, and their sons will have sons, and so on, from generation to generation, and, in this way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings. This will constitute every man a prince, king, lord, or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.

In this way we can become King of kings, and Lord of lords, or Father of fathers, or Prince of princes, and this is the only course, for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you.

My comment here will be a bit of a diversion from the main discussion but this is just what occured to me as I read the above. If it is a good thing to become a King and a Priest unto God and a king of kings and lord of Lords, and I believe that it is, and if this benefit is achieved primarily through one's posterity, then it seems as if those who have had greater opportunities to have more posterity, specifically, those who engaged in plural marriage, will have some advantages over those who have not engaged in plural marriage. I've often thought that one's situation in the celestial kingdom and opportunities for advancement there will have more to do with one's overall righteousness and obedience in this life rather than the number of one's posterity. 

I'm also a little puzzled by the idea that becoming the father of many fathers who will have sons of their own from generation to generation will somehow add to my glory because no matter how many sons I have, I will continue  to be someone else's son and therefore have the same status/relationship towards my father as my sons will have towards me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

[1]My comment here will be a bit of a diversion from the main discussion but this is just what occured to me as I read the above. If it is a good thing to become a King and a Priest unto God and a king of kings and lord of Lords, and I believe that it is, and if this benefit is achieved primarily through one's posterity, then it seems as if those who have had greater opportunities to have more posterity, specifically, those who engaged in plural marriage, will have some advantages over those who have not engaged in plural marriage. I've often thought that one's situation in the celestial kingdom and opportunities for advancement there will have more to do with one's overall righteousness and obedience in this life rather than the number of one's posterity. 

[2]I'm also a little puzzled by the idea that becoming the father of many fathers who will have sons of their own from generation to generation will somehow add to my glory because no matter how many sons I have, I will continue  to be someone else's son and therefore have the same status/relationship towards my father as my sons will have towards me. 

1.  Certainly more kids—and plural marriage, if it enables you to have more kids—would be an “advantage”, if there were some sort of competition between exalted beings.   But of course, there isn’t.     ;)   They exist in perfect harmony and righteousness; and whatever state of progression any exalted being is currently at, all the others are sure to get there—eventually, at their own pace, but they’ll get there.  

And yeah, I definitely see the Celestial Kingdom as a place of advancing in knowledge and personal qualities.  But at some point one is just plain perfect and omniscient; and I think at that point the primary opportunity for progression is through human relationships—both qualitatively and quantitatively.

2.  Yes, and that’s the thing I love about the patriarchal order:  it runs both ways, backwards and forwards through time and eternity.  Kingship isn’t just a function of the power and authority you wield, but of the venerable legacies to which you are a lawful heir.

As a son and grandson and so on, I rejoice in the legacies and goodness and accomplishments of my parents, and their parents before them, and on back through eternity as I get to know that line more perfectly.  As a father and grandfather and so on, I glory as I have opportunities to mentor and see the accomplishments of those who come after me and reflect upon my own role in maintaining and continuing that chain of righteousness and watch the sheer number of my posterity increase on into infinity.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 8:43 AM, romans8 said:

If people who don't inherit the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms are not mentioned in those verses then
it appears that the people who are appointed angels in service to the gods are those in the celestial
kingdom who did not get exalted.

Does not, sectarian Christianity state that being saved in the Kingdom of God is to "live in his house, and be blessed with all that he has, but be his servant and not the master of the house"?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 4:11 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:

Here are a few things I have learned about the degrees of glory that await the children of God in the next life:

The celestial kingdom has three degrees inside of it.  Nothing has been revealed about the second degree inside the celestial kingdom.

Nothing has been revealed about any different degrees inside the terrestrial kingdom.  In my own opinion there are different degrees inside the second heaven as there are different degrees inside both of the other kingdoms of glory.  (Reading Abraham chapter 3 verse 19 may open up some other thoughts:  "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." )

The telestial kingdom has many degrees of glory in it according to my understanding of the scriptures.  ". . . as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world."  -- Doc. & Cov. 76:98

In the pre-existence we learn that a third part of heaven followed Lucifer (Satan).  The ancients did not understand fraction - what this means that there were in essence 3 degrees of heaven in the pre-existence.   The Book of Abraham tells us that one of these 3 degrees were known as the "Noble and Great".  In Alma chapter 13 we are told that this highest degree exercised great faith.  At the end of the flood of Noah scriptures tells us that the 3 sons of Noah divided the societies of men into 3 "degrees" of mortal glory.  We know these mortal degrees as 1. The Children of G-d (Israel, Zion) these are those with whom G-d establishes his covenant (Shem and his descendants).  2. The Gentiles (Japheth and his descendants)  3. Infidels or those that rebel against the covenant or Laws of G-d (Ham and his descendants).  Finely we learn from scripture, that there are 3 degrees of glory in the resurrection.

It seems reasonable that individual establish by their "Agency" who they will follow and by discipline (disciple) become like unto.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 8:53 PM, Carborendum said:

Does not, sectarian Christianity state that being saved in the Kingdom of God is to "live in his house, and be blessed with all that he has, but be his servant and not the master of the house"?

I believe all saved people with reside with Christ in his kingdom.  I do not think our saved family
and friends will be separated from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, romans8 said:

I believe all saved people with reside with Christ in his kingdom.  I do not think our saved family
and friends will be separated from each other.

The Protestant view of Heaven is much akin to the LDS Telestrial Kingdom: folks there celebrating Christ as single and servants. Yes, your spouse is there but you aren’t married anyone, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 10:02 AM, romans8 said:

I believe all saved people with reside with Christ in his kingdom.  I do not think our saved family
and friends will be separated from each other.

We believe the same.  So that should help you interpret what is there.

To interpret properly, first assume that you already believe in all this belief system.  Then look at what is written against that background and derive what you can.

As it is now, all you see is "what is different from what I believe?". That is fine if you are looking for a true compare contrast.  But you're not. You're using this method to put us on trial and make us convince you that you're wrong and we're right.

That's not our job.  Only the Holy Ghost will teach you what is true.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We believe the same.  So that should help you interpret what is there.

To interpret properly, first assume that you already believe in all this belief system.  Then look at what is written against that background and derive what you can.

As it is now, all you see is "what is different from what I believe?". That is fine if you are looking for a true compare contrast.  But you're not. You're using this method to put us on trial and make us convince you that you're wrong and we're right.

That's not our job.  Only the Holy Ghost will teach you what is true.

It's a matter of honesty. I much prefer straightforward evangelizing to a fake pretense of seeking to understand. Of course, the straightforward evangelizer might be told that his efforts are inappropriate for this forum, while the person merely pretending to seek understanding can fly under the radar for some period of time.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 4:06 PM, Jane_Doe said:

The Protestant view of Heaven is much akin to the LDS Telestrial Kingdom: folks there celebrating Christ as single and servants. 

Servants to whom? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 2:58 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Divinity.  

To God or to the gods mentioned in that section?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romans8 said:

To God or to the gods mentioned in that section?

Your questions here are straight up trolling, giving lots of evidence that you’re not interested in truth and Christianity. I’m sorry, but my patience for it is gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, romans8 said:

To God or to the gods mentioned in that section?

It appears that you're not familiar with something we tend to hold in high esteem.  They're called the 10 Commandments.  Let me teach you the first one:

Quote

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I guess they don't teach those to you where you're from.  We teach them all the time and abide by them.  So we would never WORSHIP any other gods.  We do not SERVE any other gods.  But apparently, you're open to it.  I wonder who would have taught you such a notion.  It certainly isn't an LDS teaching.

Another one you may be unfamiliar with is:

Quote

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

You know, being forthright and honest in all your dealings with your fellow men.  It's definitely something I'd recommend to anyone.  It makes for much better communication and helps in the learning process.

And of course all these things are also covered in the Savior's two great commandments:

Love the Lord; Love your fellow men.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 6:41 PM, Carborendum said:

So we would never WORSHIP any other gods.  We do not SERVE any other gods.  But apparently, you're open to it.  I wonder who would have taught you such a notion.  It certainly isn't an LDS teaching.

You know, being forthright and honest in all your dealings with your fellow men.  It's definitely something I'd recommend to anyone.  It makes for much better communication and helps in the learning process.

I do not mean to sound like a troll like @Jane_Doe says or not sounding honest or forthright like you 
said.  

Maybe I am misunderstanding verses 15-17 then. I read that relevant section in one of the manuals
on the church's website but it did not explain it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017?lang=eng

Verse 15 refers to those whose marriage covenant does not extend past the resurrection. Verse 16
seems to insinuate that all these are appointed angels and that these angels become ministering
servants. 

Does the phrase "ministering servants" refer to a group of people who serve?  If yes, who are they? Are 
they members of the telestial, terrestrial, or celestials kingdoms, or a combination of all 3?  And who 
are they rendering service to? (those whom are described as worthy of a far more, and an exceeding,
and an eternal weight of glory).

Matteo

Edited by romans8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romans8 said:

I do not mean to sound like a troll like @Jane_Doe says or not sounding honest or forthright like you 
said.  

Maybe I am misunderstanding verses 15-17 then. I read that relevant section in one of the manuals
on the church's website but it did not explain it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017?lang=eng

Verse 15 refers to those whose marriage covenant does not extend past the resurrection. Verse 16
seems to insinuate that all these are appointed angels and that these angels become ministering
servants. 

Does the phrase "ministering servants" refer to a group of people who serve?  If yes, who are they? Are 
they members of the telestial, terrestrial, or celestials kingdoms, or a combination of all 3?  And who 
are they rendering service to? (those whom are described as worthy of a far more, and an exceeding,
and an eternal weight of glory).

Matteo

Brother, you are perseverating on “status” in a way that frankly seems unhealthy and suggests that your main goal is earning the highest reward possible, rather than simply loving and serving Jesus for His own sake.

There is a temptation outside the Church (and concededly, also within the Church to some degree) to envision Mormon eschatology as an environment where the work of “lower beings” is primarily to ensure the comfort and enable the leisure of “higher beings”.  This is vulgar, pernicious—and flat-out wrong.  The work and glory of God—the only thing that really matters for Him and those who share in His glory—is to save souls.  (See Moses 1:39).  

I would encourage you to re-read my post above, and substitute “ministering servant” for “angel”.  The same principle applies.  *Anyone* who ministers to/helps another is an angel and a ministering servant in the work of saving souls, regardless of what “degree of glory” they may have attained.  Yes, only those who have entered the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (a subset of the Celestial) will be serving in the particular roles defined in D&C 132:19-20–and fundamentally, either a person attains that state, or they don’t; and the latter will have their work directed by the former.  But otherwise, they are all co-laborers in a common cause.  The only “statuses” that really mean anything are Celestial/Terrestrial/Telestial—and then, primarily because it defines own individual qualitative relationship with God and His Christ; not because it gives anyone the right to somehow lord it over the ostensibly less-worthy.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now