Moroni

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think he means that since the BofM says the Nephites were descended from Manasseh, Moroni would be counted among those 12,000.

I am saying he is among the 12,000 of Manasseh foreordained as prophets, yes.

[snowflake]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you asking how a man who died after Christ's resurrection, appears to be an angel with a  resurrected body?

Correct, that is my question. Thank you.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Saying he is a resurrected being before the next general resurrection seems like a much bigger assumption imho.

Of course you don't see any of the prophets named in that section of Revelation. That does not mean they are not among the 12,000 of their respective tribes. Moroni definitely is.

Ok...

Smac provided references from church publications that say Moroni was a resurrected being.

Please provide references that support your position that Moroni was translated.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Ok...

Smac provided references from church publications that say Moroni was a resurrected being.

Please provide references that support your position that Moroni was translated.

I suppose church publications are more "authoritative" than anything I can muster - after all I only have scripture on my side. Believe what you wish. You will note that I rarely if ever cite church magazines pertaining to what I teach...

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I suppose church publications are more "authoritative" than anything I can muster - after all I only have scripture on my side. Believe what you wish. You will note that I rarely if ever cite church magazines pertaining to what I teach...

Site the scriptures then.

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Site the scriptures then.

I have. There are no scriptures supporting resurrection since the time of Yahoshua til that of Daniel 12 and Matt 25. I believe Moroni was translated. We don't teach Moses appeared to Jesus as a resurrected being, nor do we teach John appeared to JS as a resurrected being, so I see no reason to believe Moroni was resurrected - but I guess that is just me...

[RevTestament]

54 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Correct, that is my question. Thank you.

Snowflake, you are a smart person so I gather you can understand my position. I believe Moroni was not resurrected, but translated, so would fall into the category of a just man made perfect in heaven per D n C. Yahoshua told some of His disciples they would not taste death if you will recall. This is being translated.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Snowflake, you are a smart person so I gather you can understand my position. I believe Moroni was not resurrected, but translated, so would fall into the category of a just man made perfect in heaven per D n C. Yahoshua told some of His disciples they would not taste death if you will recall. This is being translated.

Perhaps I misunderstand "translated". I've always understood it to mean that a person was perfected prior to "tasting Death" in the twinkling of an eye. Resurrection would be the perfection of body for anyone who experienced death. It doesn't really make a difference though, whether God "translated" or "resurrected" Moroni outside the normal resurrection schedule. God can kind of do what he wants.

But the OP asks a good question because I don't recall seeing this addressed which means we simply make assumptions. When the church lays out the order of things regarding angels, resurrection etc, and then doesn't seem to follow that order, it creates questions.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps I misunderstand "translated". I've always understood it to mean that a person was perfected prior to "tasting Death" in the twinkling of an eye. Resurrection would be the perfection of body for anyone who experienced death. It doesn't really make a difference though, whether God "translated" or "resurrected" Moroni outside the normal resurrection schedule. God can kind of do what he wants.

But the OP asks a good question because I don't recall seeing this addressed which means we simply make assumptions. When the church lays out the order of things regarding angels, resurrection etc, and then doesn't seem to follow that order, it creates questions.

Some will be translated in this next resurrection. As far as we know to date only foreordained prophets have been translated such as Moses, Elijah, John, etc. The difference between translated and resurrected is that the former skip a stay in paradise or spirit prison, and no, they do not die, but their bodies become more perfected or perhaps immortal. Whatever the case it seems translation is reserved only for the righteous.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Quote

      1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you asking how a man who died after Christ's resurrection, appears to be an angel with a  resurrected body?

Correct, that is my question. Thank you.

Still unsure why this is a question.

Many people have been resurrected already.  Christ was the first.  Why not Moroni 400 years later?

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

The resurrection has already begun.  Christ was first.  Moroni came after.  The resurrection is not a future only event.

[snowflake]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Still unsure why this is a question.

Many people have been resurrected already.  Christ was the first.  Why not Moroni 400 years later?

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

The resurrection has already begun.  Christ was first.  Moroni came after.  The resurrection is not a future only event.

Angels are the same "species" as humans, but they have resurrected bodies and are elevated in status? I'm just trying to understand the LDS take on how a man became an angel. The scripture you quote above has nothing to do with becoming an angel.

[jkwilliams]

54 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Angels are the same "species" as humans, but they have resurrected bodies and are elevated in status? I'm just trying to understand the LDS take on how a man became an angel. The scripture you quote above has nothing to do with becoming an angel.

Orthodox Christianity considers angels a different kind of creation from humans. Mormonism does not. So, in Mormonism, an angel is simply a premortal or postmortal human who is a messenger from God. 

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Angels are the same "species" as humans, but they have resurrected bodies and are elevated in status? I'm just trying to understand the LDS take on how a man became an angel. The scripture you quote above has nothing to do with becoming an angel.

I've already shown that to be an angel is just to be a messenger.  And this scripture shows that Moroni could have been resurrected at the time.  What other characteristics did he need to become an angel?

[snowflake]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Orthodox Christianity considers angels a different kind of creation from humans. Mormonism does not. So, in Mormonism, an angel is simply a premortal or postmortal human who is a messenger from God. 

Thank you JKW, got it. Great explanation. 

[snowflake]

18 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

And there's this:

Section 129

Instructions given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, February 9, 1843, making known three grand keys by which the correct nature of ministering angels and spirits may be distinguished.

1–3, There are both resurrected and spirit bodies in heaven; 4–9, Keys are given whereby messengers from beyond the veil may be identified.

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely:Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

 2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

 4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

 5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

 6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

 7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

 8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will notfeel anything; you may therefore detect him.

 9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

Is there any evidence that Joseph gave Moroni this test when he encountered him?

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Angels are the same "species" as humans, but they have resurrected bodies and are elevated in status? I'm just trying to understand the LDS take on how a man became an angel. The scripture you quote above has nothing to do with becoming an angel.

When Moses and Elijah appeared to Peter, James and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah (indisputably human beings) acted in the capacity of messengers sent from God. or in other words, angels. Do you think it's merely a coincidence that so many angels in the Bible look just like men? And is it not also true that Jesus Christ, the ultimate Messenger of God, is also a man? And did you ever notice that the angel who appeared to John in the Book of Revelation looked so much like the MAN Jesus  Christ that John -- someone who would seemingly have known better -- mistakenly bowed down TWICE to worship the angel? You know they say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck? Well if a being looks like a man, thinks and acts like a man, and talks like a man, what's makes it so hard to believe he is a man? False tradition? And is it not obvious angels are of the same nature as men, capable of being tempted by sin and capable of committing sin? The proof of this is found in the fact that 1/3 of the angels in heaven chose to rebel against God's holy laws and follow Lucifer into perdition. So if angels look like men, think and act like men, and are even capable of committing sin like men, what exactly makes them different from mem?

Edited July 19, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

When Moses and Elijah appeared to Peter, James and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah (indisputably human beings) acted in the capacity of messengers sent from God. or in other words, angels. Do you think it's merely a coincidence that so many angels in the Bible look just like men? And is it not also true that Jesus Christ, the ultimate Messenger of God, is also a man? And did you ever notice that the angel who appeared to John in the Book of Revelation looked so much like the MAN Jesus  Christ that John -- someone who would seemingly have known better -- mistakenly bowed down TWICE to worship the angel? You know they say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck? Well if a being looks like a man, thinks and acts like a man, and talks like a man, what's makes it so hard to believe he is a man? False tradition? And is it not obvious angels are of the same nature as men, capable of being tempted by sin and capable of committing sin? The proof of this is found in the fact that 1/3 of the angels in heaven chose to rebel against God's holy laws and follow Lucifer into perdition. So if angels look like men, think and act like men, and are even capable of committing sin like men, what exactly makes them different from mem?

What part of "I'm just trying to understand" did you miss? There is absolutely no need to be so argumentative when someone asks a simple question.

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, snowflake said:

Is the process that Moroni underwent part of exhaultation or progression toward godhood?  In other words, is becoming an angel something that all faithful LDS will go through on their way to becoming gods?

Seems so.

Compare this:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

And this:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/5254/4904

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What part of "I'm just trying to understand" did you miss? There is absolutely no need to be so argumentative when someone asks a simple question.

It's my style to answer questions (especially those from critics of the LDS Church) in a cogent manner. Read my contributions to the present 'Cosmology' thread on the social forum and you'll observe I like to get to the heart of each matter in a straight-forward, no-nonsense way (folks often tell me I should have been a lawyer). In the case of the original poster on the 'Cosmology' thread, she rejoiced in my style and methodology of dialogue.

You'll also have to forgive me if I become annoyed with critics of the LDS Church who seem to have nothing better in the world to do than spend an inordinate amount of their allotted time on earth trying to score points against the doctrines and teachings of the the Church I love and know for a surety is true. I don't go to non-LDS Christian websites and constantly demean and cast doubt on their beliefs. But if non-LDS critics want to come on this board and spend many hours of their lives demeaning and casting doubts on my beliefs, they must expect that if I choose to engage with them I will do so in a take-no-prisoners style. 

 

[JAHS]

19 hours ago, snowflake said:

Is the process that Moroni underwent part of exhaultation or progression toward godhood?  In other words, is becoming an angel something that all faithful LDS will go through on their way to becoming gods?

Normally an angel is someone who is considered a messenger from God or some spirit or resurrected being that appears to someone to deliver a message. 
Everyone who has died has had a separation from their bodies and is now a spirit being existing in the spirit world, but would probably not be considered angels unless they have had some kind of interaction with the mortal world. If God has a need to send someone to perform a task that requires physical contact with a mortal, that person might be given his resurrected body to perform that task. Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John were most likely resurrected beings. 

[strappinglad]

To me, to be translated simply means a high speed resurrection, changed in the twinkling of an eye so to speak. But I am also open to the idea that translation could be a " 90% resurrection " sort of thing. I concur with others that Moroni was a fully resurrected being when he appeared to Joseph. The resurrection has been ongoing on a limited basis since Christ. Also, the ' handshake test ' may not have been revealed to Joseph at his early age when Moroni appeared . An angel is a broad category covering many purposes, kind of like a quadrilateral covers many types of 4 sided figures.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Is there any evidence that Joseph gave Moroni this test when he encountered him?

No.  This knowledge hadn't been revealed to Joseph at the time he first met Moroni.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Normally an angel is someone who is considered a messenger from God or some spirit or resurrected being that appears to someone to deliver a message. 
Everyone who has died has had a separation from their bodies and is now a spirit being existing in the spirit world, but would probably not be considered angels unless they have had some kind of interaction with the mortal world. If God has a need to send someone to perform a task that requires physical contact with a mortal, that person might be given his resurrected body to perform that task. Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John were most likely resurrected beings.

Well...not John.  

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

It's my style to answer questions (especially those from critics of the LDS Church) in a cogent manner. Read my contributions to the present 'Cosmology' thread on the social forum and you'll observe I like to get to the heart of each matter in a straight-forward, no-nonsense way (folks often tell me I should have been a lawyer). In the case of the original poster on the 'Cosmology' thread, she rejoiced in my style and methodology of dialogue.

You'll also have to forgive me if I become annoyed with critics of the LDS Church who seem to have nothing better in the world to do than spend an inordinate amount of their allotted time on earth trying to score points against the doctrines and teachings of the the Church I love and know for a surety is true. I don't go to non-LDS Christian websites and constantly demean and cast doubt on their beliefs. But if non-LDS critics want to come on this board and spend many hours of their lives demeaning and casting doubts on my beliefs, they must expect that if I choose to engage with them I will do so in a take-no-prisoners style. 

 

I would challenge your entire mentality about this.

1- is MDDB an LDS website? Or is it a discussion board where Mormon topics are discussed (usually) respectfully? I fully understand that maybe I'm wrong, but there seems to be a vast difference between the two. It is not necessary for discussion participants to agree as much as it is important for them to be thoughtful and respectful of differences

2- Raising questions and pointing out flaws in logic or evidence is not demeaning. It's part of educated discussion

3- You seem to be assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with your POV is an "LDS critic" with evil designs to destroy your faith. It's a bit of a presumptuous, inaccurate, and self-centered approach.

4- If you are attempting to defend LDS faith and tradition, you may want to reconsider the "take-no-prisoners" style you seem to glory in. I recognize that may be a natural inclination but it assumes everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy. It perpetuates the Us vs. Them mindset and puts you in an adversarial role while simultaneously trying to represent God in defending his church.

Think of it this way. Imagine you own your own business and you have an employee who takes it upon herself to review social media mentions of your business. She is a loyal employee with good intentions but you notice that this employee, while trying to defend the company, is argumentative and demeaning as they take no prisoners on YELP reviewers. The employees response causes more of a backlash to the business than the original bad review.

So which do you think is worse? A bad review or probing questions from a critic, or the employee with the take-no-prisoners style?

 

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well...not John.  

RIght.  Translated.