Differentiating between gods and angels

[GoCeltics]

On 3/26/2025 at 9:59 AM, CV75 said:

Semantics: in this case, a label (angel) does not describe a status (God), but a describes a function (individual, face-to-face, personal interactive messenger in spirit or in the flesh) within the God status.

What does being within the God status mean?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

On 3/26/2025 at 7:59 AM, CV75 said:

Semantics: in this case, a label (angel) does not describe a status (God), but a describes a function (individual, face-to-face, personal interactive messenger in spirit or in the flesh) within the God status.

What does being within the God status mean?

"Status" was your word:

On 3/26/2025 at 7:35 AM, GoCeltics said:

So a God (an exalted being) is really a person who is not acting as a messenger and when he assumes the role of messenger, he takes on an "angel" status?  Similarly, a non-exalted being takes on "angel" status when acting as a messenger?

What did you mean by "status"?

CV75 is saying that to be an "angel" is a function, which involves an individual, face-to-face, personal interactive messenger.  It's a job description.  To have that job description doesn't change the individual's nature or "status".  

This is why Jesus who is God can be called an "angel" without any change in his nature or status.

When Jesus was on earth, he was THE individual, face-to-face, personal interactive messenger of his God and Father.  Jesus made that point several times.

John 8:28 "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

John 12:49; "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."

John 14:10; "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

Mat 11:27: "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

When Jesus was performing that role it did not change his nature or status. 

Edited March 28, 2025 by InCognitus

[CV75]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

What does being within the God status mean?

Whatever makes sense to you -- can you rephrase what I wrote in a way that makes sense to you and I will amend as needed. 

The personal, interactive messenger functions of angels can be carried out by God. In this sense, He is an angel though God. Just like a man can be a ballplayer though a team owner.

ETA: I was using "status" as your word to attempt to meet your paradigm.

Edited March 28, 2025 by CV75

[theplains]

On 3/26/2025 at 9:59 AM, CV75 said:

Semantics: in this case, a label (angel) does not describe a status (God), but a describes a function (individual, face-to-face, personal interactive messenger in spirit or in the flesh) within the God status.

@GoCeltics

Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3, a revelation given to Joseph Smith, has this to say about two 
types of heavenly beings and how to discern them:

"There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having 
bodies of flesh and bones—For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are 
not resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

Revelation 12:7 says, "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the 
dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels".

Considering Joseph's definition of angels, what kind of beings are being referred to in 
Revelation 12?

Edited March 31, 2025 by theplains

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, theplains said:

@GoCeltics

Doctrine and Covenants 129:1-3, a revelation given to Joseph Smith, has this to say about two 
types of heavenly beings and how to discern them:

"There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having 
bodies of flesh and bones—For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are 
not resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

Revelation 12:7 says, "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the 
dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels".

Considering Joseph's definition of angels, what kind of beings are being referred to in 
Revelation 12?

D&C 129: 1 - 3 refers to the beings in heaven after Jesus' resurrection (angels and spirits), and Revelation 12 refers to the premortal war in heaven amongst the spirits then present. After the war, the spirits were sent to earth, a third part (cast down) without bodies and the greater part (blessed through Adam and Eve) with bodies.

[theplains]

On 3/31/2025 at 11:34 AM, CV75 said:

D&C 129: 1 - 3 refers to the beings in heaven after Jesus' resurrection (angels and spirits), and Revelation 12 refers to the premortal war in heaven amongst the spirits then present. After the war, the spirits were sent to earth, a third part (cast down) without bodies and the greater part (blessed through Adam and Eve) with bodies.

Verses 1-3 say, "There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected 
personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a 
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, 
they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

Gospel Principles says this about spirits:

What Is the Nature of Our Spirits?

Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect 
form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism 
toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that 
they had when they lived on earth. All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their 
mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children
(see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32).

I assume they are spirit babies when they are born to heavenly parents and then they grow to 
mature, adult form and then come to earth.

Based on the two types of beings in heaven now (after the resurrection of Christ as you said), 
they are neither resurrected beings or the spirits of just men made perfect.

Or do you believe spirit children were perfected in heaven before being allowed to come to earth
in mortal bodies?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Verses 1-3 say, "There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected 
personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a 
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, 
they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

Gospel Principles says this about spirits:

What Is the Nature of Our Spirits?

Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect 
form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism 
toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that 
they had when they lived on earth. All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their 
mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children
(see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32).

I assume they are spirit babies when they are born to heavenly parents and then they grow to 
mature, adult form and then come to earth.

Based on the two types of beings in heaven now (after the resurrection of Christ as you said), 
they are neither resurrected beings or the spirits of just men made perfect.

Or do you believe spirit children were perfected in heaven before being allowed to come to earth
in mortal bodies?

They are spirit children of Heavenly Parents at various stages of premortal development. You and Elder Smith appear to use a human development model in your assumptions for working purposes and that is fine with me. They are neither resurrected beings or the spirits of just men made perfect.

The revelation is not about the types of beings in the first estate or premortal heaven, though there are other scriptures about that and the spirits who had bodies at that point from our frame of reference (i.e., our Heavenly Parents), those spirits who were Their spirit children and given bodies, and those spirit children who were not given bodies. By “perfect” I assume you mean sufficiently prepared for their mortal probation with every expectation for exaltation through the atonement of Jesus Christ which was prepared from before the foundation of the world.

[theplains]

On 4/21/2025 at 6:33 PM, CV75 said:

They are neither resurrected beings or the spirits of just men made perfect.

That's what Doctrine and Covenants 129:1,3 says.

"There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having 
bodies of flesh and bones— ... Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not 
resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

 

On 4/21/2025 at 6:33 PM, CV75 said:

The revelation is not about the types of beings in the first estate or premortal heaven

Back on 01/16/2025, you said, D&C 129: 1 - 3 refers to the beings in heaven after Jesus' resurrection 
(angels and spirits), and Revelation 12 refers to the premortal war in heaven amongst the spirits 
then present.

Which is it?

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, theplains said:

That's what Doctrine and Covenants 129:1,3 says.

"There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having 
bodies of flesh and bones— ... Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not 
resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

 

Back on 01/16/2025, you said, D&C 129: 1 - 3 refers to the beings in heaven after Jesus' resurrection 
(angels and spirits), and Revelation 12 refers to the premortal war in heaven amongst the spirits 
then present.

Which is it?

That is what D&C 129:1, 3 says about the beings in heaven after the resurrection of Christ, not before. Revelation 12 refers to the premortal war in heaven amongst the spirits then present (which took place before the resurrection of Christ), which spirits were neither resurrected personages nor the spirits of just men made perfect during the war in heaven and before coming to earth.

In D&C 129, “just men” are those who have passed through their mortal probation and are justified in Christ. They are spirits and not yet resurrected personages.

RE: "Which is it?" -- D&C 129 says one thing, Revelation 12 says another thing.

[OGHoosier]

D&C 129 and Revelation 12 are only in conflict if you presume that those authors used the word "angel" (Greek angelos, "messenger", Hebrew malach, "messenger") in a synonymous way. Joseph Smith was applying familiar labels to a new taxonomy, there's no need for John to use the word the same way. 

[theplains]

On 4/24/2025 at 4:19 PM, CV75 said:

That is what D&C 129:1, 3 says about the beings in heaven after the resurrection of Christ, not before. Revelation 12 refers to the premortal war in heaven amongst the spirits then present (which took place before the resurrection of Christ), which spirits were neither resurrected personages nor the spirits of just men made perfect during the war in heaven and before coming to earth.

In D&C 129, “just men” are those who have passed through their mortal probation and are justified in Christ. They are spirits and not yet resurrected personages.

RE: "Which is it?" -- D&C 129 says one thing, Revelation 12 says another thing.

What about those spirits in heaven, after the resurrection of Christ that you say, that have not
yet come to Earth or other worlds in mortal bodies?  What kind of beings are they if they are
not angels (resurrected personages) or "the spirits of just men made perfect"?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

What about those spirits in heaven, after the resurrection of Christ that you say, that have not
yet come to Earth or other worlds in mortal bodies?  What kind of beings are they if they are
not angels (resurrected personages) or "the spirits of just men made perfect"?

Those are not spirits in post-mortal heaven, but pre-mortal heaven. They are premortal spirits, not yet "the spirits of just men made perfect" by the standard of having a mortal body (using verse 2, for the post-mortal reference point). At the same time, the other verses allow that spirits can manifest themselves as either angels or devils. Devils do not receive bodies of flesh (and they are not in heaven anyway), and those spirits that do receive bodies might conceivably be considered "just men made perfect" by a premortal standard (see Alma 13, Abraham 3); we know that Christ was perfect as a premortal spirit. But our reference point (at last for me) is Christ as a resurrected Person.

I would say that the pre-mortal spirits awaiting birth and post-mortal spirits live in different "sectors" of heaven by virtue of the veil. The non-mortal spirits who were cast out and down to earth are not in heaven, and verses 1 - 3 do not refer to them. Which by extrapolation allows that they do not refer to pre-mortal spirits awaiting birth. 

[theplains]

On 4/28/2025 at 6:03 PM, CV75 said:

Those are not spirits in post-mortal heaven, but pre-mortal heaven. They are premortal spirits, not yet "the spirits of just men made perfect" by the standard of having a mortal body (using verse 2, for the post-mortal reference point). At the same time, the other verses allow that spirits can manifest themselves as either angels or devils. Devils do not receive bodies of flesh (and they are not in heaven anyway), and those spirits that do receive bodies might conceivably be considered "just men made perfect" by a premortal standard (see Alma 13, Abraham 3); we know that Christ was perfect as a premortal spirit. But our reference point (at last for me) is Christ as a resurrected Person.

I would say that the pre-mortal spirits awaiting birth and post-mortal spirits live in different "sectors" of heaven by virtue of the veil. The non-mortal spirits who were cast out and down to earth are not in heaven, and verses 1 - 3 do not refer to them. Which by extrapolation allows that they do not refer to pre-mortal spirits awaiting birth. 

Sounds like there are 3 kinds of beings in heaven, each divided into different sectors.

Maybe they are separated from each other, only allowing the Godhead to interact with your third 
type (pre-mortal spirits awaiting birth).

[teddyaware]

On 4/21/2025 at 4:52 PM, theplains said:

Verses 1-3 say, "There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected 
personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a 
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, 
they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

Gospel Principles says this about spirits:

What Is the Nature of Our Spirits?

Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect 
form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism 
toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that 
they had when they lived on earth. All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their 
mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children
(see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32).

I assume they are spirit babies when they are born to heavenly parents and then they grow to 
mature, adult form and then come to earth.

Based on the two types of beings in heaven now (after the resurrection of Christ as you said), 
they are neither resurrected beings or the spirits of just men made perfect.

Or do you believe spirit children were perfected in heaven before being allowed to come to earth
in mortal bodies?

You’re overcomplicating things. The answer is simple: The ‘spirits of just men made perfect” are those who have experienced the mortal probation on earth and succeeded in overcoming the world through their faith in Christ. Just as the pre-mortal spirit children of God live in heaven with God prior to obtaining their bodies of flesh on the earth, in a similar manner so do the spirits of those just men made perfect are who awaiting their resurrection. Due to their extraordinary faith and valor in the cause of truth, these vessels of righteous are permitted to leave the precincts of the spirit world paradise to enter heaven where they are blessed to freely mingle with the resurrected men and women who dwell in that holy place. Eventually these spirits of just men made perfect will experience their own resurrection unto eternal glory, at which time the earth itself will be reborn and exalted to become heavenly home for all those who have fully overcome the fallen nature on this earth.

In the following Latter-Day Saint hymn, it’s plainly inferred that the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is one of the spirits of just men perfect because he’s been granted the privilege of being able to mingle freely with the exalted personages in heaven prior to his resurrection.

Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!

Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.

Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;

Death cannot conquer the hero again. (Praise to the Man)

 

Edited May 9, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

On 3/28/2025 at 12:38 PM, GoCeltics said:

What does being within the God status mean?

You got enough xp to level up beyond mortality.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

Sounds like there are 3 kinds of beings in heaven, each divided into different sectors.

Maybe they are separated from each other, only allowing the Godhead to interact with your third 
type (pre-mortal spirits awaiting birth).

It depends on how one wishes to view it for any given purpose.  A focus on the specified verses in D&C 129 render two. How one conceptualizes heaven in context of this and with other scriptures, personal logic and experiential reference points renders more than one.

From my perspective, the premortal world is no longer heaven for me. I left it and look forward to a spirit paradise and resurrected world through Christ. This is the only heaven in which I am interested (in a practical sense), and the only kinds of heavenly beings with whom I am interested in communing while in my mortal tabernacle of clay.

I am no longer in the presence of the Father, and will never return to that estate, so that heaven is no longer useful to my present or future. From an academic or doctrinal standpoint, my knowledge of the first (premortal) estate frames the purpose of the heaven I seek (my immortality and eternal life, arising from the foundational atonement of Christ and all that followed in the Grand Council and Creation, and all that followed and is yet to follow that).

Will I be in the presence of the Father in the same way I was before? I do not see it that way, even if I am surrounded by His other premortal spirit children. Who knows what they have as a clue concerning me and others who have returned to the Father's presence and become part of the Church of the Firstborn. Very different heavens, perhaps not a function of temporal and spatial sectors but a function of who we are.

I guess the bottom line is, the instructions in D&C 129 are not applicable to pre-mortal spirits.

[manol]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am no longer in the presence of the Father...

We no longer perceive ourselves as being in the presence of God, but our perception is apparently inaccurate: 

"... he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever."  D&C 88:41 (emphasis manol's)

Edited May 10, 2025 by manol

[CV75]

3 hours ago, manol said:

We no longer perceive ourselves as being in the presence of God, but our perception is apparently inaccurate: 

"... he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever."  D&C 88:41 (emphasis manol's)

I mean in a shaking-of-the hands sense (D&C 129) in context of the conversation I was having.

[manol]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I mean in a shaking-of-the hands sense (D&C 129) in context of the conversation I was having.

Yes, I kinda figured I could get away with that with you, as it seems to me that yours is a very expansive viewpoint.

It seems (to my untrained eye) that there are TWO outwardly-differing concepts of God within LDS teachings.  The one which gets emphasized is "The Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's", perhaps because this distinguishes Mormonism from other thought systems.  But the teachings of D&C 88:41 are in the mix as well, even if they don't get mentioned as much.  Not that I'm smart enough to adequately reconcile the two, but I figure Joseph Smith had it figured out even if he didn't lay out all the details for us (as far as I know). 

[InCognitus]

On 5/9/2025 at 12:30 PM, theplains said:

Sounds like there are 3 kinds of beings in heaven, each divided into different sectors.

Maybe they are separated from each other, only allowing the Godhead to interact with your third 
type (pre-mortal spirits awaiting birth).

You're trying to make something out of Doctrine and Covenants Section 129 that it was never intended to depict.  

In the first place, the section heading makes it clear that this text was NOT given as a revelation, it was "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".  

I make this point not to downplay what was said in the section, but to emphasize that there is a big difference between how these things were recorded. Revelations were carefully dictated by the prophet, and during dictation a scribe carefully wrote down what Joseph Smith was saying, and often times the text was reviewed afterwards to make sure the revelation was recorded accurately. 

But the source of section 129 is much different. Joseph Smith was in a room with a few men and he gave "instructions" to them, and what was said in those instructions was written down later on in the journals of Willard Richards and William Clayton.  So the text of what is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants Section 129 depends on those two sources (and not from a carefully dictated revelation), and it is incomplete.

But what is important is the context. William Clayton recorded in his journal the following introduction in the notes he made later: "Joseph related some of his history and gave us a key whereby we might know whether any administration was from God."

So, the whole point and context of section 129 is not to explain the full scope of every type of heavenly being that is now in heaven or has ever been in heaven, but to give instructions about the types of heavenly beings that administer to people on earth in our day.  

Obviously premortal spirits would be completely out of the scope of those "instructions", so it's silly to try to grind that idea into this set of instructions.

The types of beings that administer on the earth now are different than the types of beings that administered on the earth prior to the resurrection of Jesus.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on "Angels" has this to say about the various types of beings that may be angels:

Quote

There are several types and kinds of beings, in various stages of progression, whom the Lord has used as angels in varying circumstances. One kind is a spirit child of the Eternal Father who has not yet been born on the earth but is intended for earthly mortality. Such is probably the type of angel who appeared to Adam (Moses 5:6-8).

In the early days of the mortal world, many righteous persons were taken from the earth, or translated (see Translated Beings). Enoch and his people (Moses 7:18-21, 31, 63, 69; Heb. 11:5), Moses (Alma 45:19), and Elijah (2 Kgs. 2:11-12) were all translated. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that translated beings "are designed for future missions" (TPJS, p. 191), and hence can be angelic ministrants.

Another kind of angel may be an individual who completed his mortal existence but whose labors continue in the spirit world while he awaits the resurrection of the body. Such are referred to as "the spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb. 12:22-23; D&C 76:69; TPJS, p. 325). "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb. 1:13-14).

Since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, some angels have been "resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones" (D&C 129:1). The Prophet Joseph Smith indicated that resurrected angels have advanced further in light and glory than spirits (TPJS, p. 325). Such are the beings who have been instrumental in the restoration of the gospel in the dispensation of the fulness of times. It was of this type of angel that John wrote, "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (Rev. 14:6). Elias, Moses, Elijah, Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, and James are examples of resurrected angels who ministered to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

So the four types of beings that have been angels mentioned above are:

1. Pre-mortal spirits (non corporeal beings)
2. Translated beings (corporeal beings)
3. The spirits of just men made perfect (non corporeal beings)
4. Resurrected beings (corporeal beings)

I would also add that mortal men have also been referred to as "angels" in scripture.

For the purposes of Doctrine and Covenants 129, only #3 and #4 apply, because there is no longer a reason for pre-mortal beings to fulfill that calling and the fact that Jesus brought about the resurrection from the dead opens the way for resurrected beings to fulfill that calling when corporeal beings are required.

So again, you are trying to apply a purpose to Doctrine and Covenants section 129 that it doesn't claim to be making.  It's simply instructions given by Joseph Smith about the types of beings that administer to the earth in our day and time.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, manol said:

Yes, I kinda figured I could get away with that with you, as it seems to me that yours is a very expansive viewpoint.

It seems (to my untrained eye) that there are TWO outwardly-differing concepts of God within LDS teachings.  The one which gets emphasized is "The Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's", perhaps because this distinguishes Mormonism from other thought systems.  But the teachings of D&C 88:41 are in the mix as well, even if they don't get mentioned as much.  Not that I'm smart enough to adequately reconcile the two, but I figure Joseph Smith had it figured out even if he didn't lay out all the details for us (as far as I know). 

I think this expanse (the idea of degrees of fulness) is demonstrated in many of our teachings. For example, The kingdoms of the resurrected world have varying degrees of ministering. D&C 76: 62, 76-77, 86-94. God is in them all; the degrees (and the potential pity) are in our willingness to receive all this light according to our agency. I find that God, in view of the agency He gave us, allows us to do very bad / mediocre things with this light; or less good than is otherwise possible; or at worst, any of these despite or in rebellion against this light. Thank Goodness for Our Savior!

If the question is more about the physics or metaphysics of a Being with a tangible body also existing in and through all things, I tend to see it as akin to putting ourselves into everything we perceive, do and make (or finding or seeing ourselves in everything we perceive, do and make, the subjective, experiencing beings that we are), and in that way we are in and through all things within our tiny sector of the universe.

[Pyreaux]

Look, @theplains you are applying a rigid, literalist lens to a system that uses some terms contextually and functionally. Clearly LDS scripture and theology is often using the same word, like “angel” in multiple senses depending on well explained situations. A status (non-exalted resurrected person, D&C 132), a role (messenger, D&C 129), a temporary assignment (translated being [Elijah], spirit [Samuel], etc.).

Equivocation Fallacy: Using the same word used in multiple senses without acknowledging the shift in meaning.

You treat the word “angel” as if it must always mean the same ontological category. But clearly LDS scripture uses “angel” in different senses.

By not accounting for this semantic flexibility, you are trying to argue there's a contradiction when there may only be ambiguity or contextual difference.

False Dichotomy: Presenting only two exclusive options when more exist.

You seem to argue that "angel" must mean either (a) a specific kind of being (like a resurrected non-exalted person), or (b) something else entirely and that LDS doctrine is contradictory for allowing multiple definitions.

In LDS theology, "angel" can refer to different kinds of beings performing the same function (messenger). So, it's not either/or - it's both/and, depending on context.

Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent's position and then attacks it.

You seem to be misrepresenting the LDS position by oversimplifying how the Church uses the term "angel," making it easier to attack. To force a contradiction where LDS doctrine allows layered or functional meanings.

Not all angels are the same "type" of being ontologically. LDS thought can accommodate both usages without contradiction, so long as even just one allows for semantic flexibility. You are trying to press LDS doctrine into a strict, mutually exclusive framework. Our position here distinguishes between function (angel/messenger) and eternal status (god vs angel in the eternal world). So, you’re overlooking this contextual nuance, perhaps on purpose, because you don't want to understand, you may just want an excuse to disregard it.

Edited May 11, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Look, @theplains you are applying a rigid, literalist lens to a system that uses some terms contextually and functionally. Clearly LDS scripture and theology is often using the same word, like “angel” in multiple senses depending on well explained situations. A status (non-exalted resurrected person, D&C 132), a role (messenger, D&C 129), a temporary assignment (translated being [Elijah], spirit [Samuel], etc.).

And...

6 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

You treat the word “angel” as if it must always mean the same ontological category. But clearly LDS scripture uses “angel” in different senses.

"LDS scripture", which of course includes the Bible. And the Bible never defines the "nature" of angels, never says they are in a particular ontological category, but in fact it uses the word in the same sense as you described above for LDS theology.

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"LDS scripture", which of course includes the Bible. And the Bible never defines the "nature" of angels, never says they are in a particular ontological category, but in fact it uses the word in the same sense as you described above for LDS theology.

Excellent point - you're absolutely right: the Bible itself uses the word "angel" often ambiguously, and not strictly as a taxonomic category. If theplains is assuming a rigid "biblical" definition, then pointing out the Bible’s own flexibility undermines that assumption.

A biblical "angel" (angelos and mal’akh) will refer to function, not nature.

Sometimes are heavenly beings (e.g., Gabriel – Luke 1:19). Sometimes human messengers (e.g., a human prophet - Malachi 3:1). Then any being - human or divine, resurrected or not - can be called an angel. This undermines any rigid definition.

If biblical angels aren’t a fixed “species," then LDS scripture using the word flexibly is consistent with the Bible.

Jesus says in Luke 20:36 that the resurrected "are equal unto the angels." Elsewhere, in Revelation 22:8-9, the resurrected "Angel"-Jesus calls himself "your fellow servant".

The Bible doesn’t draw a hard line between "resurrected beings" and "angels." So, LDS teachings that exalted vs. non-exalted resurrected beings have different eternal statuses, one of which is called "angel," is not unbiblical.

So, if theplain has a problem with LDS Scripture using "angel" as a flexible term, sometimes referring to any messenger from God, sometimes to a resurrected non-exalted person, it's actually in harmony with the biblical pattern. The assumption that “angel” must refer to a fixed category or being type doesn’t seem to hold up biblically.

Edited May 12, 2025 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Look, @theplains you are applying a rigid, literalist lens to a system that uses some terms contextually and functionally. Clearly LDS scripture and theology is often using the same word, like “angel” in multiple senses depending on well explained situations. A status (non-exalted resurrected person, D&C 132), a role (messenger, D&C 129), a temporary assignment (translated being [Elijah], spirit [Samuel], etc.).

Equivocation Fallacy: Using the same word used in multiple senses without acknowledging the shift in meaning.

You treat the word “angel” as if it must always mean the same ontological category. But clearly LDS scripture uses “angel” in different senses.

By not accounting for this semantic flexibility, you are trying to argue there's a contradiction when there may only be ambiguity or contextual difference.

False Dichotomy: Presenting only two exclusive options when more exist.

You seem to argue that "angel" must mean either (a) a specific kind of being (like a resurrected non-exalted person), or (b) something else entirely and that LDS doctrine is contradictory for allowing multiple definitions.

In LDS theology, "angel" can refer to different kinds of beings performing the same function (messenger). So, it's not either/or - it's both/and, depending on context.

Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent's position and then attacks it.

You seem to be misrepresenting the LDS position by oversimplifying how the Church uses the term "angel," making it easier to attack. To force a contradiction where LDS doctrine allows layered or functional meanings.

Not all angels are the same "type" of being ontologically. LDS thought can accommodate both usages without contradiction, so long as even just one allows for semantic flexibility. You are trying to press LDS doctrine into a strict, mutually exclusive framework. Our position here distinguishes between function (angel/messenger) and eternal status (god vs angel in the eternal world). So, you’re overlooking this contextual nuance, perhaps on purpose, because you don't want to understand, you may just want an excuse to disregard it.

The same with "heaven" and "presence".