Differentiating between gods and angels

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

In Ezekiel 28:14-16, Satan is referred to as an "anointed cherub" rather than an 
"anointed angel."

Satan isn't mentioned at all in Ezekiel 28.  Remember to take verses in context.  Go back to verse 12, where it says the person who is being addressed:  "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus".

And in case you think the references in Ezekiel 28 to the king of Tyrus being called "the anointed cherub that covereth" or that he was in "Eden" imply that this is talking about Satan, keep in mind that the word "Eden" appears in the book of Ezekiel seven times, and none of the references refer to the same Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve lived (Ezekiel 27:23, 28:13, 31:9, 31:16, 31:18 (twice), 36:35).  Look them up.

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

Additionally, Ezekiel 1:5-11 portrays these beings with multiple 
faces and wings (+ Exodus 25:20; Ezekiel 10:20-21).

Ezekiel 1:5-11 is talking about a vision in which Ezekiel sees "the likeness of four living creatures".  Those creatures are never called angels.  The same thing with the cherubim of Exodus 25:20 and Ezekiel 10:20-22.  

Watch the video I posted above.  It explains how those creatures are never called angels in the Bible.  People calling those creatures "angels" came in post-biblical times and became part of tradition.  

[InCognitus]

31 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Satan can be referred to as an angel.  Guide to the Scriptures (Angels), “There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated". 

The Guide to the Scriptures doesn't say anything about Satan either.  It's talking about angels in general.  

Besides, I was talking about what the Bible says about Lucifer, not LDS doctrines.  I have no problem with the idea that Lucifer could have served in the position as a messenger at some point in time.  But the Bible doesn't teach that.

Edited March 2, 2025 by InCognitus

[GoCeltics]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I don't see the Bible as referring to Lucifer as an angel at all, do you?

The association of Lucifer with being an angel comes primarily from an interpretation of Isaiah 14:12-15. Some Christians interpret this as Satan (Lucifer).

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon 
the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit”. 

The Mormon canon, in Doctrine and Covenants 76:25-27, makes this connection too.

“And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and 
the Son, And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him--he was Lucifer, a son of the morning. And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!”

The following indicate that Jesus, by nature, is not an angel.

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

“But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?”

Do you have a scripture indicating Lucifer is a child of a father and mother?

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not aware of any verses in the Bible that teach anything about God creating angels (as beings).  He organized people into the job description of "angels" (messengers), but it doesn't say he created them.

So “angel” is a role and not a type of being?

God created you, me, and the angels.  Do you doubt that?

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

With faith, anything is possible:  "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matthew 17:20)  And for an angel of God, acting as an agent of God, anything is possible.

Regarding Guide to the Scriptures (Angels), angels have a few classifications.

- spirits that never had a mortal body. They only have a spirit body now.
- spirits that had a mortal body, died, and now have a resurrected body of flesh and bone.
- spirits who came to earth in a mortal body, died, and are awaiting resurrection.
- spirits who came to earth in a mortal body but did not die. They were translated instead.

Which angel appeared in Luke 1:13,30 and flew in Revelation 14:6?   Which of the above four classifications match them?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

The association of Lucifer with being an angel comes primarily from an interpretation of Isaiah 14:12-15. Some Christians interpret this as Satan (Lucifer).

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon 
the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit”. 

The Mormon canon, in Doctrine and Covenants 76:25-27, makes this connection too.

“And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and 
the Son, And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him--he was Lucifer, a son of the morning. And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!”

I see that you are pointing out that the Bible does not indicate that Lucifer or Satan was ever called an "angel".  Thank you.

And as I said above in my last post, I have no problem with the idea that Lucifer once held the position of a messenger (angel), and I know that latter-day scripture points this out.  My point was simply that the Bible never says Satan or Lucifer was ever an "angel".  So since you seem to believe that Satan is an angel you apparently believe LDS doctrine on this point?

Furthermore, the Bible teaches us that an "angel" is simply a job description, not a separate type of being.  The video I posted says the same thing.  That is simply how the word Hebrew mal'ak and the Greek word aggelos are used in scripture.  

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

The following indicate that Jesus, by nature, is not an angel.

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

“But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?”

What exactly does it mean to be an "angel" by nature?  What is the "nature of angels"?   I'm about to ask you this same question in our other discussion.

The verses you quoted from Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13 are comparing Jesus to the other angels [messengers of God] and they are pointing out how Jesus was singled out as chosen for a special purpose, to be the only begotten Son of the Father in the flesh.  So neither of the verses really say that Jesus is not the same nature as those who have the job description of "angels".

And remember, Jesus is called the "Angel of the LORD" in scripture.  Does that mean Jesus really does have the same nature as angels?  (See the Got Questions website article, Who is the angel of the Lord?)

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Do you have a scripture indicating Lucifer is a child of a father and mother?

No, not directly, but he is shown to be among the "sons of God" in scripture (Job 1:6, 2:1).

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

17 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not aware of any verses in the Bible that teach anything about God creating angels (as beings).  He organized people into the job description of "angels" (messengers), but it doesn't say he created them.

So “angel” is a role and not a type of being?

God created you, me, and the angels.  Do you doubt that?

Right, to be an "angel" (a messenger) is a role, a job description, and not a type of being.  Scripture never says otherwise.

God created our bodies, but our spirits are co-eternal with God and in the beginning God organized the spirits and from among them he chose some to fulfill the role of his messengers (angels).  He also chose some to fulfill special roles here on earth (like calling Jeremiah to be a prophet). 

God created the job description of "angels". 

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Regarding Guide to the Scriptures (Angels), angels have a few classifications.

[1]- spirits that never had a mortal body. They only have a spirit body now.
[2]- spirits that had a mortal body, died, and now have a resurrected body of flesh and bone.
[3]- spirits who came to earth in a mortal body, died, and are awaiting resurrection.
[4]- spirits who came to earth in a mortal body but did not die. They were translated instead.

Which angel appeared in Luke 1:13,30 and flew in Revelation 14:6?   Which of the above four classifications match them?

I added numbered points to your quote above to make this easier.

As for your question, it could be any of the above for any given situation.  But for situations where physical contact is required (such as when Jacob wrestled with the angel) it would definitely be #4 prior to the resurrection of Jesus (since Jesus was the firstfruits of the resurrection, the first to be resurrected from the dead), or #2 for similar situations after the resurrection of Jesus.

In addition, the Guide to the Scriptures is focusing on the common association of the word "angel" as an angel of God and doesn't deal with the use of the phrase in Hebrew and Greek in reference to mortal human beings.  

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Satan isn't mentioned at all in Ezekiel 28.  Remember to take verses in context.  Go back to verse 12, where it says the person who is being addressed:  "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus".

How do verses verses 14&15 apply to the king of Tyre as the anointed cherub?

"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon
the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of 
fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity 
was found in thee".

 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

How do verses verses 14&15 apply to the king of Tyre as the anointed cherub?

"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon
the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of 
fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity 
was found in thee".

 

Matthew Henry Commentary, Ezekiel 28:

"(3.) He looked like an incarnate angel (v. 14): Thou art the anointed cherub that covers or protects; that is, he looked upon himself as a guardian angel to his people, so bright, so strong, so faithful, appointed to this office and qualified for it. Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power; and, when they are such, God will own them. Their advancement was from him: I have set thee so. Some think, because mention was made of Eden, that it refers to the cherub set on the east of Eden to cover it, Gen. 3:24. He thought himself as able to guard his city from all invaders as that angel was for his charge. Or it may refer to the cherubim in the most holy place, whose wings covered the ark; he thought himself as bright as one of them. (4.) He appeared in as much splendour as the high priest when he was clothed with his garments for glory and beauty: 'Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God, as president of the temple built on that holy mountain; thou didst look as great, and with as much majesty and authority, as ever the high priest did when he walked in the temple, which was garnished with precious stones (2 Chr. 3:6), and had his habit on, which had precious stones both in the breast and on the shoulders; in that he seemed to walk in the midst of the stones of fire.’ Thus glorious is the king of Tyre; at least he thinks himself so."

[Injeun]

I have enough to do. Eternity can manage itself. I defer to the savior.

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." (Jesus)

[theplains]

On 2/26/2025 at 10:35 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But, what Lehi teaches is that true agency (the ability to act and not be acted upon) requires a knowledge of good and evil, and that knowledge comes only through mortality.

And the process of learning (experiencing) evil isn't something that can really occur in the context of a pre-existence in the Celestial Kingdom (or perhaps even a post-mortal existence in the Celestial Kingdom) in the presence of God.

I don't come to the same conclusions as yourself when I read the following church
teachings.

Gospel Principles teaches moral agency was possessed in the premortal life and it 
was the key to allow spirits to progress while there.

"The right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency.
In our premortal life we had moral agency" (chapter 4).

Having a right to choose between good and evil in their pre-mortal, celestial home
implies the existence of evil there and them having some knowledge of it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-4-freedom-to-choose?lang=eng

"Point out that even as spirits we had agency and that agency was the key to progress 
in the premortal life just as it is here" (chapter 11).

There aren't categories of "true" and "false" agency mentioned therein.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-11?lang=eng

"Our Heavenly Father knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left 
Him for a time" (chapter 2).

"The right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency.
In our premortal life we had moral agency" (chapter 4).

"We began to make choices as spirit children in our Heavenly Father’s presence. Our 
choices there made us worthy to come to earth" (ibid).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-4-freedom-to-choose?lang=eng

The 1997 version of Gospel Principles adds a few other details that were removed
from the current edition:

"Our heavenly parents provided us with a celestial home more glorious and beautiful 
than any place on earth. We were happy there. Yet they knew we could not progress 
beyond a certain point unless we left them for a time".

"Since we could not progress further in heaven, our Heavenly Father called a Grand 
Council to present his plan for our progression".

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel%20Principles%201997.pdf
@GoCeltics

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Having a right to choose between good and evil in their pre-mortal, celestial home implies the existence of evil there and them having some knowledge of it.

This is interesting because of this statement found here in the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

I am not arguing that agency can't exist in some form or another in a pre-existent state. I am arguing that absolute agency cannot exist in a pre-existent state (or in mortality for that matter). No one would argue, for example, that Adam and Eve make a choice before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But, in LDS belief, the eating of that fruit isn't itself a sinful action. So, from Chapter 8 -

Quote

“I’m very, very grateful that in the Book of Mormon, and I think elsewhere in our scriptures, the fall of Adam has not been called a sin. It wasn’t a sin. … What did Adam do? The very thing the Lord wanted him to do; and I hate to hear anybody call it a sin, for it wasn’t a sin. Did Adam sin when he partook of the forbidden fruit? I say to you, no, he did not!

And this brings up a really interesting question - what could Adam and Eve have done that would in fact have been a sin in this understanding? At any rate, we still have this challenge in that the notion of pre-existence isn't particularly well understood or developed in LDS scriptures. By moving this issue of choice back into the pre-existence (as I have suggested), we 1) allow everyone to participate in that choice and 2) we remove that pesky problem of having to differentiate between what God wants, and what God commands (and of course, all of a sudden we find ourselves right back with Abraham and Isaac). But in any case, we are still reminded of what Genesis 3:22 teaches: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." Lehi interprets this in part in 2 Nephi 2:5. So, if we sin in God's presence (in the pre-existence for example) without being able to access the atonement through death and resurrection, we end up in misery forever. And, of course, this is how Lehi understands the place of the devil in 2 Nephi 2:18 - "And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever."

So there's my take on it.

And it is just my take.

[GoCeltics]

On 3/2/2025 at 4:42 PM, InCognitus said:

What is the "nature of angels"?

I don’t know exactly but I would say it is higher than the nature of humans.  Christ was made a little lower than the angels as explained in Hebrews 2:7.

God has a nature, humans another, angels another, insects another, plants another, animals another.

 

On 3/2/2025 at 4:42 PM, InCognitus said:

And remember, Jesus is called the "Angel of the LORD" in scripture.  Does that mean Jesus really does have the same nature as angels?  (See the Got Questions website article, Who is the angel of the Lord?)

I view it as “representative of the Lord” or “messenger of the Lord” instead of a being with the same nature of an angel.

When the demons were permitted to enter the swine, they did not possess the nature of swine. They maintain their original nature as demon spirits.  When the donkey spoke Balaam, he typifies a “messenger” but he is not of the same nature as angel.
 

On 3/2/2025 at 4:42 PM, InCognitus said:

Right, to be an "angel" (a messenger) is a role, a job description, and not a type of being.  Scripture never says otherwise.  

Is “god” a role or a type of being?

[telnetd]

On 3/3/2025 at 10:46 AM, InCognitus said:

Matthew Henry Commentary, Ezekiel 28:

"(3.) He looked like an incarnate angel (v. 14): Thou art the anointed cherub that covers or protects; that is, he looked upon himself as a guardian angel to his people, so bright, so strong, so faithful, appointed to this office and qualified for it. Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power; and, when they are such, God will own them. Their advancement was from him: I have set thee so. Some think, because mention was made of Eden, that it refers to the cherub set on the east of Eden to cover it, Gen. 3:24. He thought himself as able to guard his city from all invaders as that angel was for his charge. Or it may refer to the cherubim in the most holy place, whose wings covered the ark; he thought himself as bright as one of them. (4.) He appeared in as much splendour as the high priest when he was clothed with his garments for glory and beauty: 'Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God, as president of the temple built on that holy mountain; thou didst look as great, and with as much majesty and authority, as ever the high priest did when he walked in the temple, which was garnished with precious stones (2 Chr. 3:6), and had his habit on, which had precious stones both in the breast and on the shoulders; in that he seemed to walk in the midst of the stones of fire.’ Thus glorious is the king of Tyre; at least he thinks himself so."

Who are the cherubim of Genesis 3:24? 

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

On 3/2/2025 at 2:42 PM, InCognitus said:

What is the "nature of angels"?

I don’t know exactly but I would say it is higher than the nature of humans.  Christ was made a little lower than the angels as explained in Hebrews 2:7.

Scripture doesn't say anything about the "nature of angels" as different than God or humans. They are simply different positions of order in the heavenly ranks.  There is no difference in "nature".

For Hebrews 2:7, let's first take it at face value with the understanding that an "angel" is just a job description, a messenger (which is exactly as the Bible depicts it).  If Jesus was made a little lower than those who had the job description of God's messengers, then that's like the owner of a company going to one of his stores in disguise and assumes the job of a stock boy for a while so he can observe how his employees are functioning under the store's management.  He would be a little lower than a manager at that point.  It has nothing to do with the person's "nature", it's just a job description.

But there's more, and it's really interesting that you would pick Hebrews 2:7 as an example, because that verse and the verse it is quoting from the Old Testament (Psalm 8:5) is a perfect example of how people have reinterpreted the meaning of divine beings over time.  And the context is important (as always).

Look at how Psalm 8:4-8 reads using the Bible in Basic English translation (BBE), which preserves some of the original word meanings:

• 4 What is man, that you keep him in mind? the son of man, that you take him into account?
• 5 For you have made him only a little lower than the gods, crowning him with glory and honour.
• 6 You have made him ruler over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet;
• 7 All sheep and oxen, and all the beasts of the field;
• 8 The birds of the air and the fish of the sea, and whatever goes through the deep waters of the seas.

The Hebrew word translated as "gods" in verse 5 is elohim.  The verses are also talking about all mankind, not just Christ, although the passage applies to Christ as well since (as Hebrews 2:16-18 points out), Jesus took on himself the seed of Abraham so that he could be "made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” 

So at least according to these verses, elohim can be angels, and angels are elohim. 

Other translations render Psalm 8:5 as:

ESV:  "Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor."

NASB:  "Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!"

It varies depending on the theological sensitivities of the translators.

See also the discussion on this verse on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange:  Psalms 8:6 - Humans a little less from G-d, where one of the responses to the question is as follows:

Quote

As I am sure you know, the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים is a plural noun and literally means “gods”, but in the Old Testament it is also the name of the God of Israel. In passages like this both meanings are (from a grammatical point of view) equally possible. In the Jewish and Christian Bible translations there is definitely a tendency to play down any potentially polytheistic reading of the scripture. In this particular passage the translators did not want to say “a little lower than the gods”, as this would imply that there is more than one god, but they were evidently also uncomfortable with the idea that man is only “a little” lower than the one God. Thus they chose to interpret אֱלֹהִים as angels (LXX: βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους; Vulgata: paulo minus ab angelis, and similarly in other ancient translations.) But this is a question of exegesis and not of hermeneutics.

This illustrates the shift of meaning over time that was discussed briefly in the video I posted earlier in the thread. 

During the Hellenistic period, men conflated the elohim (gods) and sons of God (the bene' elohim) into the angelic office.  The translators changed the "sons of God" into angels and the "gods" or elohim into angels as well.  This was done partially to distance themselves from the idea that there are many gods.  This shift over time can be seen in the manuscripts of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), where earlier manuscripts show "sons of God" and later manuscripts show that translated into "angels" instead.  

So really, Hebrews 2:7 is just saying that Jesus was made lower than those who have the job description of "angels", or a little lower than the "gods" (as it reads in the Hebrew).

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

God has a nature, humans another, angels another, insects another, plants another, animals another.

Humans have a "human nature" because of their current place in mortality, but as I have been discussing with you in the other topic thread, the apostle Paul taught us that everyone born on this planet are the very same kind of being as God (we are his génos, or offspring - Acts 17:28-29).  Our spirits are the same kind of being that God is.  We just don't have all the same attributes that God the Father has currently.

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

On 3/2/2025 at 2:42 PM, InCognitus said:

And remember, Jesus is called the "Angel of the LORD" in scripture.  Does that mean Jesus really does have the same nature as angels?  (See the Got Questions website article, Who is the angel of the Lord?)

I view it as “representative of the Lord” or “messenger of the Lord” instead of a being with the same nature of an angel.

But you see?  You're changing the meaning of how you are using "angel" to make this fit the role Jesus had as the "Angel of the LORD".  But "angel" has the same meaning whether it be applied to Jesus, heavenly messengers, or to mortal humans who are God's messengers.  To be an angel is just a job description or a role title, it's a messenger. 

And I'll just add here what I also said in the other thread about Hebrews 2:16, where the KJV translates part of that verse as "the nature of angels".  You’ll notice that the KJV has italics where it uses those words, “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”  And as I’m sure you know, the KJV translators used italics when they were adding words that they thought would clarify the text.   Compare that passage to other translations:

NKJV:  “For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.”

ESV:  “For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.”

So to be an "angel" is just a job description. There is no such thing as the "nature of an angel" in the Bible.

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Is “god” a role or a type of being?

Both.  God is an eternal being, but he is far more advanced than others who are eternal beings.  He rules over all others who are called "gods" (the elohim).

Edited March 5, 2025 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Who are the cherubim of Genesis 3:24? 

They are a type of heavenly creature, but they are never called angels in the Bible.  The video I posted earlier in the thread explains this too. 

[Pyreaux]

On 3/5/2025 at 2:17 PM, InCognitus said:

They are a type of heavenly creature, but they are never called angels in the Bible.  The video I posted earlier in the thread explains this too. 

I remember reading Margaret Barker that in the Septuagint, it was Adam who was the Cherub banished from Eden, saying Adam and Eve was the original Cherubim guardians, and they were replaced by another male and female pair (a priest and priestess and/or angels). In Hebrew its weird, it keeps flipping between male and female, like the cherub is male and female (or a pair). The garden Cherubim are depicted on the temple veils and the ark, serving as decorative flanking "mediators" of God (which is what cherub means in Akkadian). The Temple's depictions were not animal composites but mostly a male and female human with "wings" or flaps (like a robe has).

The Cherub's golden "covering" is not his skin, but referring to a tent/shelter type covering, a gold holy of holies, at the "sanctuary", in the "garden of Eden", on the "mountain of God" = a temple. The king of Tyre was "anointed" with wisdom, "wiser than Daniel", he was "created" in an Edenic ritual sense like Adam was baptized/endowed = a royal priest. Punished for corrupting his wisdom. Much of the Jewish art outside the temple depict cherubs as winged composites depicting invisible beings, wings are artistic expressions of beings associated with the "wind" (winds=spirits). Art or descriptions of cherubs uses words like "image" and "likeness", one means what it appears to be, and the other is the just the "idea" of what something looks like. In the filter of Near Eastern culture, Genesis describes Adam as an "image"/statue, not merely in his body's shape, but typically meaning he was dressed up in God's cloths to be a living image of God. The only true angelic heavenly being in Ezekiel is the celestial "prince of Tyre", distinct from the "king of Tyre", who is being punished separately for thinking himself to be God.

Edited March 7, 2025 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 3/3/2025 at 5:40 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is interesting because of this statement found here in the Gospel Principles manual:

I am not arguing that agency can't exist in some form or another in a pre-existent state. I am arguing that absolute agency cannot exist in a pre-existent state (or in mortality for that matter). No one would argue, for example, that Adam and Eve make a choice before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But, in LDS belief, the eating of that fruit isn't itself a sinful action. So, from Chapter 8 -

Quote

Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

That quote is referring to their initial time on earth, not while they existed in what is referred
to as their celestial home. They could not progress to eternal life there with the agency they had.

How many different types of agency are there?   Moral agency, agency, absolute agency, true 
agency (which you mentioned previously), other agencies?
 

Quote

“I’m very, very grateful that in the Book of Mormon, and I think elsewhere in our scriptures, the fall of Adam has not been called a sin. It wasn’t a sin. … What did Adam do? The very thing the Lord wanted him to do; and I hate to hear anybody call it a sin, for it wasn’t a sin. Did Adam sin when he partook of the forbidden fruit? I say to you, no, he did not!

That teaching from Religion 430 and 431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual is last edited 
in 2010.

There is more up to date information in another seminary manual.

Religion 211-212 - New Testament Student Manual (2014).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/philippians-and-colossians/chapter-45-philippians-and-colossians?lang=eng

Paul began by stating that through the shedding of Christ’s blood, we can obtain forgiveness of 
sins. President Dallin H. Oaks pointed out:

"Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our 
Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, 
assuring resurrection and immortality for all men".

It is also taught in several LDS scriptures - when you examine Alma 42 and Moses 6.

The context of Alma 42 is the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner.  The subject 
being Adam and Eve (verses 1-9).

Then later in the same chapter:

"Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal 
as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal 
also as the life of the soul. Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin 
if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a 
punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man".

Do not eat from the forbidden tree was one law.  The punishment was death. And repentance was 
made possible.  God forgave Adam for his sin in that disobedience.

Moses 6:64 confirms it was a sin.

"Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, 
wherein the sins of the parents [Adam and Eve] cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, 
for they are whole from the foundation of the world".

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 minutes ago, theplains said:

There is more up to date information in another seminary manual.

I can, of course, play this game too - like this repetition in the 2015 Seminary manual.

I am not sure what your issue here really is. There is no question that LDS theology rejects the notion of original sin. So any of these arguments are only significant when we are looking specifically at Adam and Eve.

Mormonism clearly teaches that the fall was intended by God. This was not accidental. It did not occur because Adam messed up somehow. So whether we decide to call it a sin or not is to some extent an irrelevancy. Mormonism does teach that a knowledge of good and evil is necessary for agency (and further that it is necessary to commit sin). And Mormonism teaches that knowledge of good and evil comes with mortality - and that mortality necessitates an atonement to redeem men and women back into God's presence where they can then share that absolute agency with God.

Is there something in here that you have a problem with? Simply citing LDS sources really doesn't help me understand what your issue is or how I should be trying to answer your questions.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I can, of course, play this game too - like this repetition in the 2015 Seminary manual.

I am not sure what your issue here really is. There is no question that LDS theology rejects the notion of original sin. So any of these arguments are only significant when we are looking specifically at Adam and Eve.

Mormonism clearly teaches that the fall was intended by God. This was not accidental. It did not occur because Adam messed up somehow. So whether we decide to call it a sin or not is to some extent an irrelevancy. Mormonism does teach that a knowledge of good and evil is necessary for agency (and further that it is necessary to commit sin). And Mormonism teaches that knowledge of good and evil comes with mortality - and that mortality necessitates an atonement to redeem men and women back into God's presence where they can then share that absolute agency with God.

Is there something in here that you have a problem with? Simply citing LDS sources really doesn't help me understand what your issue is or how I should be trying to answer your questions.

I believe Mormonism also makes a distinction between agency (Moss 7:32) and moral agency (D&C 101:78) , suggesting that Adam and Eve’s decisions to eat the forbidden fruit were not influenced by such spiritual states as humility/willfulness and pride/rebellion, further suggesting the difference between a transgression (breaking a rule) and a sin (breaking a commandment). The knowledge of good and evil that comes to individuals in mortality is developmental, suggesting that Adam and Eve’s condition of moral development in which they made their decision, since it was prior to their becoming mortal, was absent.

[GoCeltics]

On 3/5/2025 at 3:13 PM, InCognitus said:

Both.  God is an eternal being, but he is far more advanced than others who are eternal beings.  He rules over all others who are called "gods" (the elohim).

Are you an eternal “god” presently?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Are you an eternal “god” presently?

Our spirits our eternal and are the same kind of being as God, but what it means to be "god" or "God" is much more than that.

[telnetd]

On 3/3/2025 at 10:46 AM, InCognitus said:

Matthew Henry Commentary, Ezekiel 28:

"(3.) He looked like an incarnate angel (v. 14): Thou art the anointed cherub that covers or protects; that is, he looked upon himself as a guardian angel to his people, so bright, so strong, so faithful, appointed to this office and qualified for it. Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power; and, when they are such, God will own them. Their advancement was from him: I have set thee so. Some think, because mention was made of Eden, that it refers to the cherub set on the east of Eden to cover it, Gen. 3:24. He thought himself as able to guard his city from all invaders as that angel was for his charge. Or it may refer to the cherubim in the most holy place, whose wings covered the ark; he thought himself as bright as one of them. (4.) He appeared in as much splendour as the high priest when he was clothed with his garments for glory and beauty: 'Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God, as president of the temple built on that holy mountain; thou didst look as great, and with as much majesty and authority, as ever the high priest did when he walked in the temple, which was garnished with precious stones (2 Chr. 3:6), and had his habit on, which had precious stones both in the breast and on the shoulders; in that he seemed to walk in the midst of the stones of fire.’ Thus glorious is the king of Tyre; at least he thinks himself so."

He's alternating between explaining mystical vs literal aspects in some sections.

I. This is commonly understood of the prince who then reigned over Tyre, spoken to, 
v. 2. His name was Ethbaal, or Ithobalus, as Diodorus Siculus calls him that was king 
of Tyre when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it. He was, it seems, upon all external accounts 
an accomplished man, very great and famous; but his iniquity was his ruin. Many expositors 
have suggested that besides the literal sense of this lamentation there is an allegory in 
it, and that it is an allusion to the fall of the angels that sinned, who undid themselves 
by their pride. And (as is usual in texts that have a mystical meaning) some passages here 
refer primarily to the king of Tyre, as that of his merchandises, others to the angels, as 
that of being in the holy mountain of God. But, if there be any thing mystical in it (as 
perhaps there may), I shall rather refer it to the fall of Adam, which seems to be glanced 
at, v. 13. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God, and that in the day thou wast created.

"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the 
sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the 
emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was 
prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created".

He symbolizes the mountain not as an actual mountain but as a symbol of power.

(2.) What the ruin was that this iniquity brought him to. [1.] He was thrown out of his 
dignity and dislodged from his palace, which he took to be his paradise and temple (v. 16): 
I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God. His kingly power was high as a 
mountain, setting him above others; it was a mountain of God, for the powers that be are 
ordained of God.

Then his statement that men are not gods, differing from man being a "god in embryo" as 
former President Kimball taught.

Note, Men must be made to know that they are but men, Ps. 9:20. The greatest wits, the 
greatest potentates, the greatest saints, are men, and not gods. Jesus Christ was both God 
and man. The king of Tyre, though he has such a mighty influence upon all about him, and 
with the help of his riches bears a mighty sway, though he has tribute and presents brought 
to his court with as much devotion as if they were sacrifices to his altar, though he is 
flattered by his courtiers and made a god of by his poets, yet, after all, he is but a man; 
he knows it; he fears it.

[InCognitus]

38 minutes ago, telnetd said:

He's alternating between explaining mystical vs literal aspects in some sections.

I. This is commonly understood of the prince who then reigned over Tyre, spoken to, 
v. 2. His name was Ethbaal, or Ithobalus, as Diodorus Siculus calls him that was king 
of Tyre when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it. He was, it seems, upon all external accounts 
an accomplished man, very great and famous; but his iniquity was his ruin. Many expositors 
have suggested that besides the literal sense of this lamentation there is an allegory in 
it, and that it is an allusion to the fall of the angels that sinned, who undid themselves 
by their pride. And (as is usual in texts that have a mystical meaning) some passages here 
refer primarily to the king of Tyre, as that of his merchandises, others to the angels, as 
that of being in the holy mountain of God. But, if there be any thing mystical in it (as 
perhaps there may), I shall rather refer it to the fall of Adam, which seems to be glanced 
at, v. 13. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God, and that in the day thou wast created.

"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the 
sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the 
emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was 
prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created".

He symbolizes the mountain not as an actual mountain but as a symbol of power.

(2.) What the ruin was that this iniquity brought him to. [1.] He was thrown out of his 
dignity and dislodged from his palace, which he took to be his paradise and temple (v. 16): 
I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God. His kingly power was high as a 
mountain, setting him above others; it was a mountain of God, for the powers that be are 
ordained of God.

Then his statement that men are not gods, differing from man being a "god in embryo" as 
former President Kimball taught.

Note, Men must be made to know that they are but men, Ps. 9:20. The greatest wits, the 
greatest potentates, the greatest saints, are men, and not gods. Jesus Christ was both God 
and man. The king of Tyre, though he has such a mighty influence upon all about him, and 
with the help of his riches bears a mighty sway, though he has tribute and presents brought 
to his court with as much devotion as if they were sacrifices to his altar, though he is 
flattered by his courtiers and made a god of by his poets, yet, after all, he is but a man; 
he knows it; he fears it.

And what is your point exactly?  What you posted above corroborates exactly what I was saying:  Ezekiel 28:11-19 is about the king of Tyre, not Satan.

And we agree, men are not gods.  But they can become "gods" through belief in Jesus Christ and receiving all that God the Father offers them, the same as Jesus received of his Father.

[GoCeltics]

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Our spirits our eternal and are the same kind of being as God

How do you know that?
 

23 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 but what it means to be "god" or "God" is much more than that.

Would you explain.

Edited March 8, 2025 by GoCeltics

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

On 3/7/2025 at 9:03 AM, InCognitus said:

Our spirits our eternal and are the same kind of being as God

How do you know that?

Abraham 3:18–19: "18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.   19 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."

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33:  ”For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy"

"The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four 1839–42, p.158)

And the apostle Paul taught that all of us are the same kind of being as God (since we are his génos, or offspring) in Acts 17:28-29.

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

On 3/7/2025 at 9:03 AM, InCognitus said:

 but what it means to be "god" or "God" is much more than that.

Would you explain.

I explained this in the other thread.  

What does it mean to be "God"?  God is an eternal being, he is THE Elohim, but scripture also tells us there are "sons of God" (bene' elohim) who existed with God in the beginning (as in Job 38:7).  There are many elohim.

So obviously there is more to being "God" than being the same kind of being that he is.  The "God" you are thinking about is the God over all others (Ephesians 4:6), so that is one difference.  Other attributes include that he has all power, all glory, and that he is perfect.  Not all the elohim have the same power, glory, perfection, and position of authority over others.  But God provides a way that they can rule with him and sit with him in his throne in the same way Jesus was granted to sit with him in his throne.  And that is what it means to be "God".

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

So obviously there is more to being "God" than being the same kind of being that he is. 

I wrote this sentence in a hurry this morning, and it seems really awkward to use the word "being" three times with different meanings, but I still can't think of a better way to express it.

I need help with my terminology!  Or maybe I'm being too picky about being accurate about beings.   

[telnetd]

On 3/7/2025 at 3:10 PM, InCognitus said:

And what is your point exactly?  What you posted above corroborates exactly what I was saying:  Ezekiel 28:11-19 is about the king of Tyre, not Satan.

Back on Mar 3,2025 you referenced some commentary by Matthew Henry, where he said
"Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim" and mentioned the garden
of God.

Scripture says he is the anointed cherub, not that he acts like a cherub.  Do you view kings
David and Jesus as anointed cherubs?

On 3/7/2025 at 3:10 PM, InCognitus said:

And we agree, men are not gods.  But they can become "gods" through belief in Jesus Christ and receiving all that God the Father offers them, the same as Jesus received of his Father.

Yes.  I am familiar with the church's teaching on exaltation ... men can be formed into Gods
like the Father.