Comments on: Angels, What Good Are They?

By: GreenEggz

GreenEggz — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 07:06:45 +0000

Bucay Ecuador, 1984. My missionary companion and I walked past a bench on which were sitting two elderly men with whom we had never spoken before. One nudged the other, pointed to us, and said in a squeaky frail voice, “Those men are angels!”

We turned around to take a look, and my companion made a dismissive hand gesture and said “Crazy ol’ coot.” I replied “But he’s right.”

We walked back to him and arranged to meet him later.

We baptized him.

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:30:36 +0000

Don and Kurt,
Not that the Savior wouldn’t count but that I’ve always thought of Him as different/special then a run of the mill angelic appearence

By: Ronan

Ronan — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:21:11 +0000

David,
You are one funny bloke. Keep ‘em coming. That image of you chasing a spirit around the room had me in stitches.

By: David J

David J — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:36:24 +0000

And the ol’ ask them to shake hands deal. If they are demonic they will try to convince you otherwise, if angelic but disembodied they will tell you they can’t because they don’t have a body, or they will.

It seems like we’re missing something there though. As if a deceiving spirit would honestly reach out his/her hand for you to shake only to feel nothing, or as if a deceiving spirit would jump out of the way each time you tried to touch him/her. I can imagine chasing one around the room with my arm extended: “I’m gonna getcha!” “No you won’t!” “Yes I am!” “No you won’t!”

I’ve heard it interpreted that the shaking hands ordeal is pointing to the tokens, but again that doesn’t solve what for me is still an issue of touching. And it’s sort of a circular argument to say that a deceiving spirit can’t use a token; they’re deceiving spirits, so wouldn’t it be natural for them to use a token deceptively? Or are the tokens blessed with some sort of untouchable spell like the garment? Or maybe, and this is what I’m thinking all along, symbolism is something that the modern mind has difficulty understanding… thoughts?

Maybe Joseph thought that lying/deceiving spirits had bodies? I’ve often thought about MMPs (multiple mortal probations) myself, and that would explain how “unborn” personages “do” things in the physical world. But these are just musings…

…or are they?

By: just passing

just passing — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:57:24 +0000

I was told in by my teachers quorumn advisor once that if I believed I was in the presence of angelic (or demonic) personages, that I would know it, because they would, well, look like it. And the ol’ ask them to shake hands deal. If they are demonic they will try to convince you otherwise, if angelic but disembodied they will tell you they can’t because they don’t have a body, or they will. They don’t lie about it. It seems to me that it is pretty bona fide. Maybe the Holy Ghost delivers messages to those that can’t handle it and leaves them the option of dismissing it, but if an angel delivers there is business to be done, or a person is ready for it. It seems to me that if we are seeing angels we had better be ready for it…more light, more condemnation.

By: David J

David J — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:13:47 +0000

(with a thick southern drawl)–Bona-fide! That’s just my point, Frank Nanor! Angelic ministry is bona-fide; it ain’t no cryptic, ethereal sublimination of the mind, but rather an actual empirical ocurrence. Epistemologically speakin’, one who got the angels, knows he got the angels through the senses; there ain’t no questions about it.

As we say down here in Kentucky: Git ‘er dun fer God!

By: Frank the fish n'chip man

Frank the fish n'chip man — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:01:49 +0000

Beware of drawn swords tonight, David, my boy. I thought you were bona fide.

By: David J

David J — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:01:10 +0000

“Angelic messages can be delivered by a voice or merely by thoughts or feelings communicated to the mind…Most angelic communications are felt or heard rather than seen”

I hate it when people do this. It seems like he’s trying to impugn upon regular jello-eating Mormons the idea that they receive angelic ministry all the time. Hogwash, I say! The scriptures, for the most part (probably very few exceptions) use the term “angel” as someone who is seen, and heard, and maybe even “felt” (I’m thinking of Jacob’s subsequent hip surgery after the pile-driver given him by an angel — or was it Yahweh himself??? Hmmmm…). I don’t know what Oaks was thinking (he’s usually the only thinker of the group), but I don’t like it. Yeah, you heard me. I also have issues with Elder Bednar’s “Seed of Abraham” doctrine. You heard that too.

I just don’t like it when that which is both lofty and holy is made low for the common member (or anyone, really) to achieve. We do a lot of that in church, so that it seems like we’re doing okay, when in reality, we’re not.

I say: If you’ve had the presence of an angel, you’d KNOW you had the presence of an angel. No whispers, no feelings, no subjective tools of interpretation or non-existentialist jargon like this. No doubts about it.

By: don

don — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:18:29 +0000

Geoff, you’re right again, Oak’s quote says messages not messengers and that does subtly change the meaning somewhat. Thanks for your insight…again.

By: don

don — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:16:43 +0000

Meems and Rusty, you’re right, I’m wrong, I read Bret’s question as a pre-mortal, meaning a spirit visiting rather than meaning pre-mortal. Yes, Gabriel is / was Noah, I humbly stand corrected…again! But Geoff’s point about Christ as an example is certainly valid.