Who Gets To Be Ministering Angels In The Celestial Kingdom?

[Duncan]

I don't have my scriptures handy but as I understand it unmarried folk who make it to the Celestial Kingdom get to be ministering angels or something to those who are. I was wondering if this is correct and also how does someone get to be a ministering angel. Is it people who don't want to get married but were worthy of the celestial kingdom? Thoughts?

Edited October 12, 2012 by Duncan

[CV75]

I don't have my scriptures handy but as I understand it unmarried folk who make it to the Celestial Kingdom get to be ministering angels or something to those who are. I was wondering if this is correct and also how does someone get to be a ministering angel. Is it people who don't want to get married but were worthy of the celestial kingdom? Thoughts?

Compare D&C 131: 1-4 and 132:16:

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

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.

As you indicated, the station seems to be reserved for those who qualify and for one reason or another refuse or are refused eternal marriage.

[DH]

I don't take the whole degrees of glory thing too literally, or like it's all set in stone. Maybe Joseph Smith's point was that there's a place for everyone in God's kingdom, and he'll give them as much glory as they'll take or want. Maybe some people won't want to be gods and goddesses, but would prefer a different place in the kingdom. And who knows, maybe one or two billion years down they road, they'll change their mind. Eternity is a long, long time to be completely determined by our actions within the few decades we spend in this mortal phase of our existence.

[changed]

prophets that have attained the highest degrees of glory have also filled the role of ministering angel, so it is about more than just who has been married etc. etc.

President Joseph F. Smith gave us some insight about angels who minister to those on the earth:

“When messengers are sent to minister to the inhabitants of this earth, they are not strangers, but from the ranks of our kindred, friends, and fellow-beings and fellow-servants. The ancient prophets who died were those who came to visit their fellow creatures upon the earth. They came to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; it was such beings—holy beings if you please—who waited upon the Savior and administered to him on the Mount. The angel that visited John, when an exile, and unfolded to his vision future events in the history of man upon the earth, was one who had been here, who had toiled and suffered in common with the people of God. … In like manner our fathers and mothers, brothers, sisters and friends who have passed away from this earth, having been faithful, and worthy to enjoy these rights and privileges, may have a mission given them to visit their relatives and friends upon the earth again, bringing from the divine Presence messages of love, of warning, or reproof and instruction, to those whom they had learned to love in the flesh.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1970, pp. 435–36.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/03/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=departed+relatives+ministering+angels

Edited October 12, 2012 by changed

[Rob Osborn]

I don't have my scriptures handy but as I understand it unmarried folk who make it to the Celestial Kingdom get to be ministering angels or something to those who are. I was wondering if this is correct and also how does someone get to be a ministering angel. Is it people who don't want to get married but were worthy of the celestial kingdom? Thoughts?

Much yet to be revealed but I personally believe no one will be single in heaven. All will be coupled together at some point with a partner.

[MiserereNobis]

Much yet to be revealed but I personally believe no one will be single in heaven. All will be coupled together at some point with a partner.

A celestial shotgun wedding

[blackstrap]

Rev. Sun Moon had one idea.

[cinepro]

Much yet to be revealed but I personally believe no one will be single in heaven. All will be coupled together at some point with a partner.

How do you reconcile that idea with the very clear scriptural definition of "ministering angel"?

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

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.

D&C 132

I know we have a very strong belief in the idea of "everyone gets a chance to be married in the eternities...no one will be limited just because they aren't sealed...etc.", but I'm not sure that idea is scriptural.

Edited October 15, 2012 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

How do you reconcile that idea with the very clear scriptural definition of "ministering angel"?

I know we have a very strong belief in the idea of "everyone gets a chance to be married in the eternities...no one will be limited just because they aren't sealed...etc.", but I'm not sure that idea is scriptural.

Line upon line precept upon precept. A careful reading of that section makes clear that this is a case of line upon line,etc. According to this section, proxy marriage is not possible and yet we do it all the time in the temple. That section states tgat if they did not enter into eternal marriage by death then you single state was sealed for all eternity. We have since found out that marriage can and does happen after death by proxy work done in temples. A simple case of learning line upon line...

[BCSpace]

According to this section, proxy marriage is not possible and yet we do it all the time in the temple

The context is after the resurrection since that is when degree of glory is assigned. Therefore, proxy work like baptism and sealing are possible between death and the resurrection when one inhabits the spirit world.

[Rob Osborn]

The context is after the resurrection since that is when degree of glory is assigned. Therefore, proxy work like baptism and sealing are possible between death and the resurrection when one inhabits the spirit world.

The context of section 132 is that it must be done before one dies because after that your fate is sealed. This revelation came at a time when proxy work for the dead was not revealed yet. Until proxy sealings were revealed in the temple, it was understood that one had to be sealed before they passed into the spirit world or it would be too late.

[David T]

The context of section 132 is that it must be done before one dies because after that your fate is sealed. This revelation came at a time when proxy work for the dead was not revealed yet. Until proxy sealings were revealed in the temple, it was understood that one had to be sealed before they passed into the spirit world or it would be too late.

When 132 was recorded (July 1843), proxy work - at least proxy baptisms - had been known and occurring for a few years (see D&C 124, from 1841) - I believe the first reference to it by Joseph Smith was sometime in 1840, at a funeral sermon.

When it came to proxy sealings under Joseph Smith, they were occurring concurrently with live sealings (Parley Pratt was sealed to his dead wife before he was sealed to his living wife, if I recall correctly).

Edited October 15, 2012 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

When 132 was recorded (July 1843), proxy work - at least proxy baptisms - had been known and occurring for a few years (see D&C 124, from 1841) - I believe the first reference to it by Joseph Smith was sometime in 1840, at a funeral sermon.

If the section were revealed or re-written in our day it would include the knowledge about the proxy work and that it "is" still possible to be sealed to ones spouse after death even if they rejected that ordinance in mortality....line upon line...

[theplains]

Maybe some people won't want to be gods and goddesses,

These people are rebelling against God's purpose as stated in Gospel Principles - "All good things come from God.

Everything that he does is to help his children become like him--a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and

my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

Regards,

Jim

[cinepro]

If the section were revealed or re-written in our day it would include the knowledge about the proxy work and that it "is" still possible to be sealed to ones spouse after death even if they rejected that ordinance in mortality....line upon line...

Just so I'm totally clear...you're suggesting that the principle of proxy sealings was too advanced to be revealed in a private 66-verse revelation on celestial marriage and polygamy, so the Lord said the opposite and specifically taught that there wouldn't be post-mortal sealings?

This being the same principle that by 1986 was taught to all prospective converts in the fourth missionary discussion?

Mysterious ways indeed!

Edited October 15, 2012 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

Just so I'm totally clear...you're suggesting that the principle of proxy sealings was too advanced to be revealed in a private 66-verse revelation on celestial marriage and polygamy, so the Lord said the opposite and specifically taught that there wouldn't be post-mortal sealings?

This being the same principle that by 1986 was taught to all prospective converts in the fourth missionary discussion?

Mysterious ways indeed!

So why do you think section 138 was revealed if it appears to trump earlier doctrine?

I am just saying that sometimes man puts his own opinions in scripture which may not be true. Such is the case with book of mormon doctrine concerning no chance for repentance after death. Section 138 is clear that repentance is possible after death.

[ed2276]

A celestial shotgun wedding

I don't think God would do that to you. So, you might as well get a head start tuning your harp and preening your wings. lol.

[Calm]

These people are rebelling against God's purpose as stated in Gospel Principles - "All good things come from God.

Everything that he does is to help his children become like him--a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and

my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

Regards,

Jim

It is also taught that "men are that they might have joy" and not all have joy in the same things. A loving God would take such into effect, offering all to all but understanding not all will want to partake of the all, not in rebellion, but simply due to their personal eternal nature. There are ways not to accept every blessing without being in rebellion, if one is grateful for the opportunity, but declines it while still being obedient to the law which allows the blessing to fully operate, I don't see that as rebellion.

[theplains]

There are ways not to accept every blessing without being in rebellion, if one is grateful for the opportunity, but declines it while still being obedient to the law which allows the blessing to fully operate, I don't see that as rebellion.

They prefer to choose their own work and their own glory instead of the Father's work and glory (which is to make

one a Deity).

Would this explain why some Latter-day Saints view the Fall as a sin (rebellion against God) whereas other LDS

do not? (as they chose to follow Satan's path for them instead of what God had in mind - unless you believe

Satan actually led them to do what God really wanted them to do but didn't realize it because it was hidden from

his mind).

Thanks,

Jim

[Tacenda]

It is also taught that "men are that they might have joy" and not all have joy in the same things. A loving God would take such into effect, offering all to all but understanding not all will want to partake of the all, not in rebellion, but simply due to their personal eternal nature. There are ways not to accept every blessing without being in rebellion, if one is grateful for the opportunity, but declines it while still being obedient to the law which allows the blessing to fully operate, I don't see that as rebellion.

I really appreciate your comments.

[Damien the Leper]

These people are rebelling against God's purpose as stated in Gospel Principles - "All good things come from God.

Everything that he does is to help his children become like him--a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and

my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

Regards,

Jim

They prefer to choose their own work and their own glory instead of the Father's work and glory (which is to make

one a Deity).

Would this explain why some Latter-day Saints view the Fall as a sin (rebellion against God) whereas other LDS

do not? (as they chose to follow Satan's path for them instead of what God had in mind - unless you believe

Satan actually led them to do what God really wanted them to do but didn't realize it because it was hidden from

his mind).

Thanks,

Jim

Your conclusions seem to be far too reductive. Does Moses 1:38 mention anything within the context of theosis? I don't believe so unless there is something implied but to suggest an implication is to assume.

It is important to understand that theologically believers differ greatly along the faith spectrum. Rejection and acceptance of a gift is far too simplistic of a mindset. It discounts the very sacred gray area to which many belong. From what I witnessed as a member of the LDS church was that nothing was black or white or simple. To suggest such would be to insult the magnitude of the spiritual calling to which the church is commissioned and responds.

Calmoriah, you are correct.