Talk:Angel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Angel

(Follow up from brief comments on edit page)

Absolutely correct, but this is an encyclopedia; important information must be stated explicitly, it's absence cannot be justified due to it being logically implicit. I won't revert it back just yet, if you still have an issue please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying the same thing over and over, merely using slightly different words, is not conveying "important information", it is merely being redundant. And the correct forum for discussing Angel is Talk:Angel. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Spritual being" and "mythological" are can in no way be considered "slightly different words". If you read the article in spiritural beings (which btw, does not once use the word "mythological" in explaining what they are) you will find almost no similarities whatsoever. The issue here I think, is you interpret "spiritual beings" in a strange way, a way which is rather uncommon and unfortunately not correct.

Furthermore, I was curious as to your use of the phrase "over and over". In it's current form, the point is not made ones that Angel's are mythological...when we consider the fact that you erroneously consider "angel" and "spiritual being" to be completely synonmous, then placing mythological would mean that point is only said twice. "over and over" however, suggests a plethora of repeated information. I'd kindly ask then for you to direct me to these additional instances of repeat...and perhaps I can then recognise or challenge them and we shall be able to resolve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Angels are absolutely not mythological! Even if youre able to convince Hrafn to allow that change, youd need to come up with a serious source for us to include that word. We'd have to place it in context to make it clear its a fringe point of view. Probably best to leave things as they are. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Angels are absolutely mythological. How are they not? Auntie E. 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this debate will probably get circular pretty fast. The use of the words myth/mythological etc. has been a big waste of time debate on many other pages, and has mostly resulted ONLY in increased blood pressure and suffering for all involved, e.g. see teh talk page on Good Friday. In that case, the word myth was avoided after all participants has overdosed on pain killers. I suggest just avoiding that debate, for it will most probably end up the same place, for most Wikipedia articles on religion and spirituality are written as "myth free" for if the limit is pushed the word myth will have to be inserted in most paragraphs on spirituality, e.g. whenever God is mentioned. My suggestion: Let it be as is, or get your personal pain killer bottles ready, and allocate large amounts of time to be wasted. History2007 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But that completely goes against reason and uniformity. You make a strong argument for not including any phrase relating to "myth", but not an encyclopedic one. If you look at any articles relating to Aztec religous beliefs for example, you'll find an abundance of litterings of "myth", "mythological", "legendary". I'm familiar with this because it is a subject that interests me. Based purely upon this page, and the one you suggested to check-out...I'm going to assume that such words evoke a huge backlash on pages dealing with religious beliefs in the Abrahamic tradition (no doubt connected to the fact that the vast majority of the world identify as christian/muslim).

I'm sure many of these people are offended by "mythological", as to them it might seem to suggest their beliefs are fanciful tales, but regardless of belief...it need not. Something being mythological doesn't necessarily mean it is untrue.

Regardless though, the above is all a moot point. Wikipedia exists to convey factual knowledge, not to present an image everybody can be happy with. Regardless of how it may make many people feel, the facts need to be presented- and Angels fall rather squarely into the realm of mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly your opinion. Does God fall in that category in your opinion? How about that page? History2007 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't my opinion. It is a fact. Here is the definition of "Myth":

"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"

In what way then, do angels not fit within this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way does God not fit in this? History2007 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question- and though yours is not relevant here, God does fit into that category. Barring no valid opposing points come to light, I'll be correcting the article soon. I must thank you for furthering the debate, by prevailing over invalid arguments we can be more sure of truth we have arrived at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. If God does not say myth Angel can not either. Wikipedia articles in general avoid myth in religion. Period. History2007 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Angels are only "mythological" to the extent that all "spiritual beings found in [some] religious traditions" can be considered to be mythological. Therefore the addition of the word would appear to be superfluous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is incorrect. I would again direct you to the articles on Aztec religious beliefs, or ancient pagan religions across Europe (Greece/Rome for example). Furthermore, just because one article is not up to scratch- doesn't mean this one shouldn't be. Wikipedia cannot use itself, articles are created independantly accroding to Wikipedia's encyclopedic guidelines.

Also Hrafn, you have not addressed my point and are instead paraphasing yourself. You also contradict yourself, if ALL spiritual beings in SOME religions are mythological- then it is really quite necessary to include the word.

Aside from this point however, this is an enyclopedia. Encyclopedia's present information explicitly, information is not to implied and left to be logically induced from a statement elsewhere. I'd direct you to the good article on horse for example. The very first line explains the horse is a "mammal" and the article then goes on to explain the horse belongs to the family "Equidae". All Equidae's are mammals, so is it obsolete to state the horse is a mammal?

No, because this is an encyclopedia- not an elitist document in which important information can be left out, because some people have some prior knowledge of the subject already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn. History2007 (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you and Hrafn aren't in agreement. You want the same end result, but for completely different reasons. You don't believe Angels are mythological, and wish the article to reflect this as part of a religous agenda. Hrafn on the otherhand, believes Angels are mythological, and (misguidingly) believes this is already reflected in the article, which it could be argued that it is- but not in an encyclopedically acceptable way.

Also, from a practical perspective- you can't really agree with Hrafn because he doesn't have an argument. He has so far presented an argument, which I have demonstrated to be flawed- and has subsequently repeated that argument in paraphase. I'm currently awaiting a valid counter-argument from Hrafn (or any other) before I reinstate the improvement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. History2007 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"You also contradict yourself, if ALL spiritual beings in SOME religions are mythological- then it is really quite necessary to include the word." -- WP:Complete bollocks. Just because an adjective is inherent, does not mean that it is worthy of mention. All mares are female, that does not mean that we have to say "female mare" instead of "mare" to be clear as to what we are saying. "mythological spiritual beings…" does not tell the reader any more than "spiritual beings…" would. To do otherwise would logically mean the article would have to include all applicable adjectives, and simply devolve into a long list of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have completely failed to understand. You are consistently making the flawed assumption (despite yourself making a statement AGAINST that rigidly held-belief), that "mythological" and "spiritual being" are synonmous. Look at their respective definitions. You've even confused my argument, despite clearly stated. You are absolutely right that just because an adjective is inherent that it is not worthy of mention, though that is completely irrelevant.

In this case, the adjective is not inherent- but you can't possibly say that it is not a critically important aspect of angels that they are apart of Abrahamic mythology. The most important point in the history of the topic is that they stem from this Abrahamic mythological tradition.

It seems your entire argument hinges on the fact that "spiritual beings" imply mythological. I strongly suggest, for a third and final time, to review the definitions of those words. I've demonstrated this is not the case, but you are ignoring reason in favour of personal obstinance. From your valiant attempts to create a valid argument (which is indeed impressive, as one doesn't exist) I can see you are atleast somewhat above average intelligence, and are probably therefore not used to having to back away from a defeated argument in the face of a superior intellect- but I implore you, as a philisopher (I checked your use-page) to accept reason and swallow your pride.

Now, I'd like to give you a final chance to craft a valid point- essentially, attempt to demonstrate "spiritual beings" and "mythological" are, as you put it "slightly different words" and are not (as they unfortunately are), completely distinct in meaning- and we can move on and improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

More WP:Complete bollocks. You have in no way demonstrated that "mythological spiritual beings found in many religious traditions" provides any more information than "spiritual beings found in many religious traditions". "Mythological" beings are supernatural (an adjective that encompasses "spiritual") beings that are contained in a culture or religion's traditional stories (which encompasses "religious traditions" about such beings). Please provide an example of a 'spiritual being found in a religious tradition' that is unambiguously not mythological. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot. I'm sure some exist, observable animals that some culture has ascribed a spiritual significance to at some point or other- though I cannot think of any of the top of my head. However, that's not particulary important- you ask what extra information it provides? Simple- the word itself, it states they are mythological (most importantly, it does so EXPLICITLY). You argue that "spiritual being" achieves that already, and I agree with you to an extent (though many would not)- but it does not do so adaquately, and certainly not in a fashion fit for an encyclopedia.

If "spiritual being" and "mythological" were truly synonmous, as you earlier attempted to argue but have fortunately backed away from- then you would be correct. But they are not, they have some degree of overlap (not particulary strong, if you look at the definitions for both- which for a final time I'd STRONGLY suggest you do, please stop ignoring that request and stop fearing contradictory evidence). This minor degree of overlap is not nearly strong enough to warrant calling them synonmous- and if spiritual being is not synonmous with mythological, then you are plainly dead wrong when you make attempts to claim including mythological would amount to the article repeating itself.

I agree, that many readers (chiefly those belonging to European-influenced western culture) will equate spiritual being to mythological, but a sizable minority won't. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a source of information directed at those with cognitive processes matching those of one editor- all information must be presented precisely in no uncertain terms (NOT IMPLIED).

This article cannot, and willnot, be flawed in such a respect. It is not acceptable for an encyclopedia to merely imply important information (if you return to arguing that it is not important that angels are mythological, that's another debate- one that will end rather quickly), even if that implied information can be converted into the fact that should have been clearly expressed. I've seen your userpage, you value precision- let's strive to create a more precise article, one that expresses clearly important facts rather than leaves them obscured through a wishy-washy subjective implication.

It's not encyclopedic, it's not acceptable- and intelligent editors must not tolerate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Did someone say something about cyclic debates? History2007 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did- but that's no excuse to abandon a debate and tolerate flawed articles. Though I wouldn't consider this cyclical anyway, that would entail a valid reason to return to a discredited argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1. Animals are corporeal, spiritual beings are non-corporeal, so animals cannot be spiritual beings.
2. Stating that they were synonymous was not wrong so much as imprecise -- therefore I have refined my language.
3. You have provided no substantiation that "a sizable minority won't".
4. Further, you have not articulated, let alone substantiated, what information "mythological spiritual beings found in many religious traditions" conveys beyond "spiritual beings found in many religious traditions"
5. "It's not encyclopedic, it's not acceptable- and intelligent editors must not tolerate it." Bare assertion. 'It is encyclopedic, it is acceptable- and intelligent editors must tolerate it.' See? I can assert the obverse just as easily.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I feel this is perhaps where you are going wrong. Only one aspect of spiritual means non-corporeal, check the definition. You'll find others, "pertaining to God or a Church; sacred" for example, which would be my primary association.
2. Good, progress.
3. I could do, but doing some would both be tiresome and pointless considering my next statement. I still stand by my point that many (especially those outside Western-culture, or children perhaps) would not understand the implication- but even if 100% did understand fully, it's still not acceptable for an enyclopedia as information must be stated explicitly. I'd direct you to the Good Article on horse again, it's described as a mammal even though this is implied through it being a member of equidae. In that case, it's even less useful than it is here- as nobody contests all equidae are mammals.
4. I'll be brief, as this is similair to the point above. Though many might imply mythological from "spiritual being" (ignoring for now my contestion that a sizable minority wouldn't), implication is not an acceptable way for an encyclopedia to disclose informationn. I won't argue that it conveys extra information, as my subjective point of view is that it does not (though some would argue, History2007 and FeydHuxtable for example), but it does express the information in a much more encyclopedically appropriate way (for the nth time, explicitly rather than a wishy-washy implication).
5. This was merely rhetoric.

I think this can be resolved fairly quickly. Please give a concise answer to the next two questions I intend to ask:

"Is their presence in Abrahamic mythology an important aspect of "Angels"- either (or both) in terms of their origin or identity?"

"Does describing something as "spiritual being" EXPLICITLY express that said object is mythological?"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you say: "I think this can be resolved fairly quickly.".... I think that is a purely mythological belief.... Welcome to Wikipedia unending debates.... History2007 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please desist with unhelpful comments. You also don't seem to understand what mythological means. Please either contribute to the discussion, or remain silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not repeat the same sentences again and again. I think that was what this section started saying.... History2007 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in a childish war with you. Some repetition has existed yes, but it's been in good-faith to try and resolve an argument. You're recent contributions have neither been in good-faith or to further an argument. Please, if you do not intend to further the discussion then do not attempt to be a part of it. I'm afraid I won't be responding to anymore irrelevant contributions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.252.200 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe we are getting close to the beginning of the end of the cycles of the debate. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

1. (i) Your "aspect[s] of spiritual" appear to have no relevance to my original question of whether "an example of a 'spiritual being found in a religious tradition' that is unambiguously not mythological" exists." (ii) Ghosts would generally be considered a 'spiritual being', but are not generally considered to be "pertaining to God or a Church; sacred", so your argument, on this irrelevant point, would appear flawed.
2. If you aren't going to substantiate it, then as far as I'm concerned it has no value and you have nothing to "stand by". I see far to many unsubstantiated assertions to waste my time on them. I will continue to 'ignore' this one.
3. You have offered no compelling evidence that addition of a single word will make the sentence magically 'much more encyclopedical', so I will ignore this assertion.
4. That your bombastic claims were substance-free rhetoric was exactly my point.
5. "Is their presence in Abrahamic mythology an important aspect of 'Angels'- either (or both) in terms of their origin or identity?" This question is not answerable without a clear and authoritative definition of 'Abrahamic mythology'. If it is the common story threads between the sacred books of the Abrahamic religions (i.e. between the Old Testament & the Koran), then I'd state an unambiguous 'no'. If it means the sum of these sacred books, then the answer is ambiguous. It is only when the total sum of the "religious traditions" (including post-Biblical speculation, that is a large bulk of the information on angels) is considered that the answer becomes an unambiguous 'yes'. Does this mean that '(Abrahamic) mythology' adds any more clarity beyond 'religious traditions (of the religions under discussion)'. No it does not.
6. "Does describing something as 'spiritual being' EXPLICITLY express that said object is mythological?" No, but that is not the question at hand. "spiritual beings found in many religious traditions" contains the very strong implication that the beings in question are "mythological". It also contains the very strong implication that the beings in question are 'supernatural', 'otherwordly', 'ethereal', and who knows what else. (i) "Angels are supernatural otherwordly ethereal mythological spiritual beings found in many religious traditions" appears to be overkill. (ii) But there is no indication that 'mythological' adds any more information (i.e. acts in a way dissimilar to a close synonym in this context) or magically makes the sentence 'much more encyclopedical' than any of these other, equally superfluous, alternatives.

Your questions do not resolve anything. You have not presented any compelling arguments (merely unsubstantiated, even when challenged, assertions). You have not garnered a WP:CONSENSUS for your change. I would suggest that enough time has been wasted arguing this single, superfluous, word -- and that it is time to move on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. History2007 (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

However, let us prepare for the inevitable situation that N months from now IP user ABC...XYZ will suggest the same thing again.... My next appointment is on the page for Good Friday in March or April 2010 when the same type of thing is probably scheduled to happen, as in the past 2 years, but with different players every year.... History2007 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express my concern over the state of the first line of the Angel page since I find the presence of Caps lock sentences as well as changes which are clearly subjective and not objective not appropriate.--Octapusxft (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A review of the history shows that someone was vandalising the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a similar cycle with the scriptural accounts of man's origin in the Book of Genesis and in other religious traditions. The question was whether to call these accounts myths or what?

See:

• Creation myth, redirect from
  1. Creation story
  2. Creation account
• Myth of origins

IIRC, the dispute was between those who said academics use the term myth in scholarly sense that imputes no connotation of validity or invalidity; and those who said that "myth" implies outdated or erroneous beliefs.

The point for this article is that contemporary religious believers consider angels to be real spiritual beings. If this is an article about religion, then we contributors don't have to say whether the beliefs are true or false; we need only report what is believed by whom. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary belief in angels

This section refers almost entirely to views in the USA - which which I suspect are quite untypical. Are there any surveys in parts of the world other than north America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are many thousands of such surveys and you're right, the US is untypical in a number of ways.

No other country has anything like the quality of data on Angel beliefs as the US. In Europe for example, belief in Angels isnt even addressed in our most rigorous poll of social beliefs ( Eurobarometer ). For the US we can gauge the % of believers with a margin of error of less than 10%, we can track how belief has varied over time, and we can be quite specific about the sort of the belief we're taling about - i.e. belief that Angels are actually active in the world, not just a existential belief in their existence on another plane. Another interesting difference is in the US belief in Angels seems to have been steadily rising year on year for the past few decades, even as mainstream Christianity has slightly declined. In most advanced countries the change of belief in Angels seems to correlate with the change in fortunes of organised religion. (though its important to note a great many non religious people belief in Angels, some sources say the proportion is over 50% )

Probably you're thinking the proportion of belief in the US in untypically high, and you'd be right, though only for the advanced economies.

In North and Central Europe, belief in Angels averages at about 35%. Its seems to have been stable recently in Scandinavia, and has possibly began rising slightly in the core countries -England, France , Netherlands & Germany - though with a few exceptions like Scotland and especially Ireland where belief is sadly falling (though from a higher starting point, it was over 75% in Ireland until very recently)

In Southern Europe, belief is close to 70%, but is generally falling, especially in Spain.

In Australia & New Zeland, its around 50% , has been falling over the past few decades, but possibly is beginning to stabilise.

In South America, belief in most countries exceeds 80% and is fairly stable.

In India, there are millions of Christians and Muslims who believe in Angels. Hindus dont specifically believe in Angels, but they belief in a whole family ethereal beings that play a similar role. If we include Hindus, the proportion of believers is probably above 80%. (there are some Hindus who dont believe in ethereal beings, theres a lot of variety in that religion.).

Its hard to find polls for China and Japan, but from speaking to folk from these countries Id guess belief levels are about 40% (as with India this assumes we include believe in similar ethereal beings.) Belief levels seem to have fell drastically in the mid to late 20th century, but seem to have stablised in the 21st, and may now be slightly rising .

For rest of Asia, belief tends to be somewhere between Indian and Chinese levels.

In African countries, belief often exceeds 80%.

Margin of error for these figures: 15% for most, except 20% for Africa and 30% for China and Japan. You might find wildly different figures from individual polls, but as noted most non US polls on belief in Angels are not particular rigorous.

Please dont ask me to integrate this into the article. There far too many militant atheists on Wikipedia for it to reliable in reflecting the very pleasing trends in supernatural belief and the gradual world wide return of organised religion in public life. They seem to sincerely consider belief in the supernatural and organised religion to be net negatives, and they have at least a basic understanding of Constructivist theory and the power of popularity. So they try to downplay these topics on Wikipedia. Whenever accurate articles are created, they swarm all over them and either try to edit them to reflect a sceptical view or to have them deleted with cries of "Synth" and “ringe. Happily, despite the power of Wikipedia, global beliefs are generally moving in the opposite direction. There are hundreds of papers and books to research if your interested in this. God is Back by the editor in chief of The Economist is perhaps the best book to show the global trend. A good single article (though only about religion, not belief in the supernatural) is Religion's Flame Burns Brighter Than Ever , it was previously published in Foreign Affairs magazine and is now hosted over at Harvard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Angel

Who created angels? Their origin is not written, they are depicted as humans but it is not written how they came into being verse Adam, put as the first human not developed from animal kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.108.236 (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Angels <-> Deceased humans

I believe that the pop-theological idea that when good people die they become angels is extremely widespread. AFAIK, this popular notion is completely at odds with the formal theological understanding of angels. Nevertheless, because it is so very common, I believe that some mention of this should be made in the article. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I may or may not bestir myself to search for reliable sources for this myself, but I continue to maintain that this notion is extremely widespread. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First approximation per Google (most of these are not reliable sources, but mention that the notion is widespread; i.e. that it's worth looking for reliable sources.):

- "The most common misconception about angelic beings is that we become one when we die." - http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/angels.html

- "Many people cherish the belief that angels are the souls of deceased humans, although few religions officially endorse the notion. The media has popularized this concept in movies and television series about dead people who ‘earn their wings’ as angels by helping and protecting the living." - http://www.watchtower.org/e/200608b/article_01.htm - This site claims to be "Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site", i.e. is probably a reliable source.

- "... angels are definitely not human beings - especially not dead human beings who "earn wings." This is the Hollywood image of "It’s A Wonderful Life," though the idea’s roots go back as far as the early Second Century A.D. (see "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" [1:39])." - http://archive.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=18 - from site of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA): reliable source

- http://www.truebiblecode.com/understanding190.html , http://www.truebiblecode.com/understanding50.html - Some discussion of this with scriptural references. I don't understand the theology here and don't know whether this is reliable source or not.

- "She has finally become what she always wanted to be: an angel." - http://www.whenangelsdie.com/obituary.html - Memorial page: I intend no disrespect by mentioning this page here.

- "Some mystics believe, that a soul is growing in steps from minerals, plants and animals to men. When the human body dies, a soul could become an angel." - http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Angel_-_Angels_as_a_development_step_of_the_soul/id/609124

Enough for starters, I think. To clarify, I'm not trying to argue that human beings do become angels, merely that many people think this, and that this should be mentioned in the article. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

- I've posted a note on this discussion to WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Christianity asking for the opinions of others on this. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming from the Christianity WikiProject, I have no objections whatever to seeing the material included, so long as it is reliably sourced. John Carter (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good to point out here that for most use of the term (in this vein) it would be more accurate to say (only) that deceased people (in heaven) are called angels, and not necessarly that they become angels-- just as people living in the United States are called "Americas" and not just "people living in the United States."--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in briefly pointing out that this is not AFAIK correct according to any Christian system of theology, other than LDS. Technically people in heaven are saints according to much theological usage. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The topic is worth mentioning, notwithstanding whether it is theologically correct. I believe it to be widespread, or at least not uncommon. That's my $0.02 worth. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth mentioning. I am not a JW but would accept their website as a reliable source on this point, as well as ELCA. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

LDS belief

I reinstated some edits, this time including references for the two additions:

• Pre-mortal beings = angels - see the Bible Dictionary reference where it talks about one type of angel being those who "have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone (unembodied)" as opposed to those who have lived, died, and await resurrection.
• Adam is Michael - "is now" doesn't work as the sources I've included indicate LDS belief that Adam was also known as Michael before his earth life.
• Nephite civilization in upstate NY - Some LDS would agree with this, but some would not - this variety of belief is evident from Limited geography model and Hill Cumorah#Archaeology. IMO the location is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and so being silent on the location is acceptable. Is there a reason anyone believe the location is relevant? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to the topic. It was just a way of just drawing out the concreteness of Moroni's Earthly life in the BoM.

I had already planned on dropping it, even thou it would seem Moroni "lived" in upstate NY even in the Mesoamerican limited-geography model because it requires that Moroni went there later in life to bury the golden-oldies in Palmyra, NY.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Carlaude - Maybe we're straining at gnats here, but I still don't understand you're reasoning why saying "Adam is now Michael" is superior/preferable over saying "Adam is Michael" in LDS theology. If I understand your edit summary, you're saying that "is now" is indefinite on whether he was or wasn't Pre-Eden. But since LDS Theology is explicitly definite that he was Michael Pre-Eden (and even during his mortal life - D&C 107:24), would not the more definite "Adam is Michael" be better? --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything said, can be said clearly.

"Adam is Michael" alluded to LDS theology on pre-mortalness, it did nothing to explain it. While I still like "is now" better, the text is more clear now with the bit about pre-mortalness added in the paragraph before. --Carlaude ^(talk) 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way to do this is to cite a theological textbook showing that angels are NOT dead people and/or a commentary on the passage where Jesus says the resurrected are "like the angels in heaven" to give the correct perspective. That (in a backwards way) covers the fact that there is such a belief (else there would be no need to address it).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know I am unsigned, but it should read "Adam is Michael" as Adam was Michael before his mortal life, and Michael after his mortal life. He did not die and become Michael. He always was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.19.75 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am editing the verbiage that angels are spirits (per se). In LDS historical accounts, most angels referenced have been either resurrected beings (spirits with resurrected physical bodies of flesh and bones - but no blood, since that would mean they were mortal), and "translated" beings, that is, persons who, like resurrected beings, have bodies of flesh and bones (though whether they have blood or not, is not necessarily known, since they are not yet resurrected, and yet they cannot die).

For example, Moroni was a resurrected being. Besides the account of the three witnesses being shown the gold plates, etc, by (purportedly) the angel Moroni (in heavnely glory), David Whitmer gives an account of seeing him "sans glory" as a traveler walking by him, Oliver Cowdery & Joseph Smith as they rode in a horse drawn wagon in the late 1820's going from PA to NY. In that account, this 'angel' said that it was warm, and wiped his brow, indicating he physically felt the heat of the day, which, presumably, a personage of only spirit would not be able to do.

John the Baptist was apparently the first angel who appeared in glory that Oliver Cowdery himself witnessed. Oliver Cowdery said of this encounter - "On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity,....the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and....our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the 'blaze of day'; yes, more—above the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature! Then his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words, 'I am thy fellow-servant,' dispelled every fear. We listened, we gazed, we admired! 'Twas the voice of an angel from glory, 'twas a message from the Most High! And as we heard we rejoiced, while His love enkindled upon our souls,..."

Cowdery continues— "But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, 'Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority...

Oliver then added— "I shall not attempt to paint to you the feelings of this heart, nor the majestic beauty and glory which surrounded us on this occasion; but you will believe me when I say, that earth, nor men, with the eloquence of time, cannot begin to clothe language in as interesting and sublime a manner as this holy personage.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History Notes:5-7)

The physicality of this "re-headed" (via resurrection) John the Baptist, though also appearing in "great glory (or 'light')", by this account, should not be in doubt.

Indeed, that angels needed to be beings with physical beings with bodies of flesh and bones is a topic which is pointed out in great detail in LDS doctrine. Moses and Elias (Elijah) appearing to Peter, James and John in/on the 'Mount of Transfiguration' and the "keys" of previous "gospel dispensations" we are taught (in the LDS religion) that were bestowed on this apostolic "first presidency" by those beings is made quite clear. Both Elijah and even Moses, who was "buried unto the Lord" (what is taught in LDS doctrine as a euphemism that he [Moses] was 'taken up' or "translated", as John the Beloved/Revelator likewise was done centuries later, is carefully confirmed.

Peter, James and John, also appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligentdave (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Some Christians believe that angels are created beings,...

The statement, "Some Christians believe that angels are created beings,..." is odd given that there is not contrasting statement, "Other Christians...." I don't know of any Christian group that believes angels are eternal (uncreated), if that is the contrast. I suggest changing the wording to "Christians believe...," "Christianity teaches ...," or something along those lines or else at least mentioning a contrary view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.246.49 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the halo

What about the angel's halo, or is it called corrona?

Why isn't it mentioned?

Anyway I recently read about the corrona seen around your own shadow, caused by a physical phenomena, and then tried it out and it works! Pashute (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dou you mean the "nimbus", which is a coronoa-like illumination around the head (as with saints), or an aura around the body of the angel? --Ursus Maior (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Halo (religious iconography) covers that & halo is a perfectly good word for it. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Clarification about how Judaism describes Angels

Angel in Judaism are named by the task they are fulfilling, for example, an angel that was tasked to do something valorous, will be name Gabriel(from the root - Gvoora, Gabriel = גבריאל, gvoora = גבורה)

Raphael=רפאל from the root Refoo'a(רפואה)

each Angel gets his name from his mission type, and can not do anything else that they weren't sent to do' they don't have any feelings, like remorse or anger. In the Kabala they are described as the messenger of God in a way that makes them imagined as a computer program(a complex being but without free will) or a robot with a very specific designated task.

In Judaism, Man are considered to be superior to Angels because Man have the ability to choose right from wrong, which give them the rewards or punishment when they parish based on their action in this world. Angels don't have this choice and were designed just for their specific tasks.

Its is also important to know that there are many many more names, but it is not allowed to say them out loud and many of them are hidden and only few people in the world know them and what they mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.141.18 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)