Female angels?

[askandanswer]

My scripture reading this morning led me to think about angels and I realised that I couldn't think of any female angels in the scriptures. Are there any female angels referred to in the scriptures that I have forgotten about? If there aren't any, or if there is only a very small percentage of female angels compared to male angels, what are some conclusions that the absence of female angels might provide support for? For example, perhaps just one possible conclusion that this might provide some support for is the possibility that God has a preference for using males when it comes to sending angels. I suspect there may be other conclusions in addition to this. And I'm not looking for definitive proof, I'm just looking for possible conclusions that this particular set of facts - a preponderance of male angels over female angels being sent from God on divine missions - might support.

I realize that there are many angelic visits not recorded in the scriptures, but I think that category of angelic visits is a separate question. 

[Vort]

By definition, angels are messengers from God. Angelic visitations recorded in scripture are almost always to prophets and devout believers (with Paul, Alma, and the sons of Mosiah standing out as stark exceptions). These visitations seem to me to have the quality of a Priesthood assignment, which might therefore be considered a Priesthood responsibility. This would explain why the angels we read of in these visitations are male.

[zil2]

@Vort's explanation is the only one I can think of.

[Grunt]

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

By definition, angels are messengers from God. Angelic visitations recorded in scripture are almost always to prophets and devout believers (with Paul, Alma, and the sons of Mosiah standing out as stark exceptions). These visitations seem to me to have the quality of a Priesthood assignment, which might therefore be considered a Priesthood responsibility. This would explain why the angels we read of in these visitations are male.

That was my feeling, but I didn't dare post it.

[askandanswer]

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

By definition, angels are messengers from God. Angelic visitations recorded in scripture are almost always to prophets and devout believers (with Paul, Alma, and the sons of Mosiah standing out as stark exceptions). These visitations seem to me to have the quality of a Priesthood assignment, which might therefore be considered a Priesthood responsibility. This would explain why the angels we read of in these visitations are male.

 

28 minutes ago, zil2 said:

@Vort's explanation is the only one I can think of.

This is a possibility I thought about, and when thinking about it further, I started to wonder¹ if the manner in which angelic assignments are assigned and delivered opens up the possibility of gaining insights into how the Priesthood is jointly held and exercised by a couple after this life. The idea that the Priesthood is something that will be jointly held between a couple after this life is something that we occasionally hear about but apart from this observation about the giving and doing of angelic assignments, I can't think of many other ways in which we can see how the Priesthood might be used and shared between couples. 

 

1. I first wrote wander and then I stopped and checked my messages. 

 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I started to wonder¹ if the manner in which angelic assignments are assigned and delivered opens up the possibility of gaining insights into how the Priesthood is jointly held and exercised by a couple after this life.

I don't believe the Priesthood is "jointly held", any more than e.g. motherhood is "jointly held". Men have parental responsibilities, just as women do. But "motherhood" is not synonymous with "parenthood". Just so, I believe that "Priesthood" is not synonymous with "acting in God's name and with his authority". As has often been pointed out, women act under Priesthood assignment and in God's name, but that is not the same as holding the Priesthood.

I think it's worth noting that the highest (known?) "order" of the Priesthood, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, requires both a man and a woman. Without the woman, that order does not even exist. But again, holding the Priesthood seems different to me from being a member of its highest order. I am not even sure exactly what it actually means to "hold the Priesthood", but I feel confident that it does mean something. Whatever it means, it seems to apply only to worthy men.

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't believe the Priesthood is "jointly held", any more than e.g. motherhood is "jointly held". Men have parental responsibilities, just as women do. But "motherhood" is not synonymous with "parenthood". Just so, I believe that "Priesthood" is not synonymous with "acting in God's name and with his authority". As has often been pointed out, women act under Priesthood assignment and in God's name, but that is not the same as holding the Priesthood.

I think it's worth noting that the highest (known?) "order" of the Priesthood, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, requires both a man and a woman. Without the woman, that order does not even exist. But again, holding the Priesthood seems different to me from being a member of its highest order. I am not even sure exactly what it actually means to "hold the Priesthood", but I feel confident that it does mean something. Whatever it means, it seems to apply only to worthy men.

I really struggle with the concept of Priesthood, holding Priesthood, exercising Priesthood, Priesthood office, etc.   Just when I think I have a grasp, I read something that makes the edges blurry.  Maybe they're supposed to be blurry, I don't know.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Maybe they're supposed to be blurry,

I think that is the case sometimes.

I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think that is the case sometimes.

I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

Yeah.  I can't see God wanting something to be blurry, but I can see us just not being able to comprehend it in this state.   Like eternity.  I understand it, but I can't comprehend it.

[mikbone]

Zechariah 5:9 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

D&C 138:39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.

https://bhroberts.org/records/jFuxrc-9SdpGb/zebedee_coltrin_recalls_an_account_of_joseph_smith_seeing_father_adam_and_mother_eve_in_a_vision

 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

 I can't see God wanting something to be blurry,

Why not? 

[Grunt]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why not? 

He seems to me to be a God of order.  I can't think of many blurry examples, except those blurred by man or lack of understanding.

[The Folk Prophet]

29 minutes ago, Grunt said:

He seems to me to be a God of order.  I can't think of many blurry examples, except those blurred by man or lack of understanding.

Why can't blurriness be a part of order?

Clearly God wants things blurry for us. That's the entire point of the veil. That's the entire idea behind living by faith. That's the whole concept behind the "mysteries of God". That's the very reason Jesus explained why he spoke in parables. Etc., etc., etc.

Obviously it's lack of understanding. That's synonymous with "blurry". But it seems pretty clear to me that man's lack of understanding in mortality is God's intent and part of His plan. Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.

[askandanswer]

11 hours ago, Grunt said:

Yeah.  I can't see God wanting something to be blurry, but I can see us just not being able to comprehend it in this state.   Like eternity.  I understand it, but I can't comprehend it.

I Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a ^aglass, ^bdarkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

[mikbone]

14 hours ago, askandanswer said:

My scripture reading this morning led me to think about angels and I realised that I couldn't think of any female angels in the scriptures. Are there any female angels referred to in the scriptures that I have forgotten about? If there aren't any, or if there is only a very small percentage of female angels compared to male angels, what are some conclusions that the absence of female angels might provide support for? For example, perhaps just one possible conclusion that this might provide some support for is the possibility that God has a preference for using males when it comes to sending angels. I suspect there may be other conclusions in addition to this. And I'm not looking for definitive proof, I'm just looking for possible conclusions that this particular set of facts - a preponderance of male angels over female angels being sent from God on divine missions - might support.

I realize that there are many angelic visits not recorded in the scriptures, but I think that category of angelic visits is a separate question. 

 

[mikbone]

Priesthood is likely something we need as fallen humans to tap into the raw power that God wields by virtue of his knowledge, technology, honor, faith, experience, etc.

Heavenly Mother and her daughters have access to the same.

An ant hill probably can’t distinguish if the jet pilot that dropped a bomb on it was a male or female pilot.

The priesthood as we know it is likely broken.

The separation into Aaronic and Melchizedek was done due to the limitations of man not God.  

Then you have the Patriarchal and Levitical Priesthood, Priesthood keys, ordinances, etc.

Likely Heavenly Father does not have to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in order to use his powers.

If God’s power is priesthood.  We don’t understand it.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.

I think it's more a case of, God would like for things to be as clear for man as they are for him, but before we are ready for that clarity, it would destroy us.  So to prepare us to receive the clarity, he gives us parables and "blurry" versions ("through a glass, darkly") and as we choose to be led into the light, we see more and more clearly.  Etc.

(So, not so much that God wants things blurry as that in his mercy, he leaves things blurry, lest we be destroyed by the clarity.)

[The Folk Prophet]

54 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I think it's more a case of, God would like for things to be as clear for man as they are for him,

I don't believe this is the case for mortality. Obviously it's the case for the eternities.

Anyone who thinks they can see things as clearly as God in mortality is gonna get themselves in pretty big trouble pretty quickly.

We are meant to live by faith. We are meant to trust. We are meant to obey.

We are granted understanding and insight in small portions to help us with that, sure.

But the condition set forth for our exaltation is not understanding. It is faith and obedience. As far as understanding helps us with faith and obedience it's a good thing. But even the dumbest person alive has the same opportunities for salvation as the most brilliant.

I think setting up understanding as key to anything gets people into trouble pretty quickly. Obviously writing off understanding as meaningless would be wrong too. But it's so often the case that people set up understanding, knowledge, logic, and intelligence as the bases for their gospel journey.

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

as we choose to be led into the light, we see more and more clearly.

I generally agree, but...

I'm not sure I can even accept that if someone became perfect in this life that they would/could then develop a perfect understanding of the eternities. But even accepting that as right...it's a non-starter because we can't be and won't be perfect in this life. God knew that. He set it up that way. He provided the Savior for us because he knew that.

I guess I agree with you "theoretically". It's just practically speaking...that's not the plan of salvation as I understand it. The plan was that we're going to fail and fail and fail and will we or will we not accept the Savior's atonement by way of obedience, repentance and faith. And as much as we improve in our understanding through faith, we're still going to be pretty blind overall and dependent on faith and obedience.

I mean I have no doubt that President Nelson understands the Priesthood better than me. I also have no doubt that there's a lot about the Priesthood that President Nelson doesn't understand and that he'd be the first to admit it.

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

he leaves things blurry, lest we be destroyed by the clarity

I accept this is a part of it. I know it is in the case with parables, because Christ said as much. But I don't think it's the entirety of it. I think it's multifaceted.

Of course it also still fits quite nicely into the idea that God wants things blurry. It only adds a "why" (among what I assume are many whys).

But I guess what I'm really trying to get across is that we ought to be comfortable with the fact that there are going to be an awful lot of things that we may never understand in this life, and that failure to understand them shouldn't really throw us.

[Grunt]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why can't blurriness be a part of order?

Clearly God wants things blurry for us. That's the entire point of the veil. That's the entire idea behind living by faith. That's the whole concept behind the "mysteries of God". That's the very reason Jesus explained why he spoke in parables. Etc., etc., etc.

Obviously it's lack of understanding. That's synonymous with "blurry". But it seems pretty clear to me that man's lack of understanding in mortality is God's intent and part of His plan. Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.

I don't view them as synonymous.  One is something that will be intentionally forever muddled, the other is something you can clarify with knowledge.  I believe it will be clarified with total knowledge.

 

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a ^aglass, ^bdarkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Edited January 6 by Grunt

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

He seems to me to be a God of order.  I can't think of many blurry examples, except those blurred by man or lack of understanding.

I agree that God is a God of order. Nevertheless, remember Paul lamenting how "now we see through a glass, darkly". Many divine things are hidden from us in this state. The doctrine of the veil of forgetfulness illustrates that God actively keeps things from us until his own due time has arrived to accomplish his purposes.

A&A stole my Pauline thunder. I guess I should have read further. Not a single point I made above was not made earlier, and probably better, than my effort. Story of my life. 

Edited January 6 by Vort

[CV75]

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

He seems to me to be a God of order.  I can't think of many blurry examples, except those blurred by man or lack of understanding.

I do not think that the things of G-d are blurry to those that are one with him.  If I can ever get my act together I will let every know for sure.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Lol! That’s awesome. 

[mikbone]

The Rescue, Heather Theurer (LDS artist)  

https://www.ldsliving.com/how-one-lds-artists-inspired-work-is-helping-others-discover-god/s/80396

And I see this type of art throughout Deseret Books.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kershisnik

 

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I agree that God is a God of order. Nevertheless, remember Paul lamenting how "now we see through a glass, darkly". Many divine things are hidden from us in this state. The doctrine of the veil of forgetfulness illustrates that God actively keeps things from us until his own due time has arrived to accomplish his purposes.

A&A stole my Pauline thunder. I guess I should have read further. Not a single point I made above was not made earlier, and probably better, than my effort. Story of my life. 

I'm not talking about this state.  I was speaking of The Kingdoms.