In Response To A Crappy Inc Article

By : Bro. Nathan

The iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo 19:14 have a bad exegesis of the scriptures. they ignore the whole image of the bible and just cherrypick a verse. Historical context and Literary context is often ignored and the verses that was used is irrelevant. In this post by a Inc member, uses this bad interpretation of the scripture against the theology of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. the content of the post will be marked in red.

Ang Jerusalem at Betlehem ; An INC'S ignorance of Historical Context and Geography

" Ano ang isa sa itinuturo ng mga Mormon tungkol kay Cristo? Ayon sa kanila, si Cristo ay ipinanganak ni Maria sa Jerusalem:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." [Masdan, siya ay ipanganganak ni Maria sa Jerusalem, na siyang lupain ng ating mga ninuno.] (Alma 7:10, Book of Mormon, p.224)

Dito pa lang ay mali na ang kanilang pagtuturo. Nakasulat sa Biblia na si Cristo ay ipinanganak sa Bethlehem ng Judea ayon kay Apostol Mateo:

"Nang ipanganak nga si Jesus sa Bet-lehem ng Judea... At pagkatipon sa lahat ng mga pangulong saserdote at mga eskriba ng bayan, ay siniyasat niya sa kanila kung saan kaya ipanganganak ang Cristo. At sinabi nila sa kaniya, sa Bet-lehem ng Judea." (Mat. 2:1,4-5)

May limang milya ang layo ng Bethlehem sa Jerusalem (Unger Bible Dictionary, p.165). Ang Jerusalem ang kabisera ng Israel."

Another example ng ignorante sa literary context at historical context. if babasahin ng mabuti yung context ng Alma 7, ang nakalagay ay "land of Jerusalem" at hindi "city of Jerusalem". and take note, ang "Land of Jerusalem" sa bible was used para irepresent ang buong Southern Kingdom (Judea).

One Latter Day Saint wrote :

" One of the most popular anti-Mormon claims is that the Book of Mormon gives the wrong location for the birth of Jesus Christ. "The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ was born at Jerusalem (Alma 7:10)," says one representative anti-Mormon volume. "Of course, the Bible teaches He was born at Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1)." However, since Bethlehem is five or six miles from Jerusalem, and is a distinct town, the critics claim that "Alma 7:10 is clearly a false prophecy."

It is sometimes rather difficult to see the point of this hoary old anti-Mormon chestnut. 2 After all, no Latter-day Saint has ever interpreted the Book of Mormon as claiming that Jesus was born in Jerusalem rather than in Bethlehem. Alma 7:10 does not even mention the city of Jerusalem. Rather, the text reads: "And behold, he [Jesus] shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." The Jerusalem at which Jesus was to be born is thus quite clearly called a land, not a city. As we shall demonstrate below, this is quite consistent with both biblical and Near Eastern literary practice. Latter-day Saints are quite content to believe both Alma and the New Testament, and to see them in harmony. Happily, the evidence is overwhelmingly on our side.

General Considerations

Relativity of geographical designators. From across the ocean, the distance between Jerusalem and Bethlehem would hardly have seemed significant to a Nephite. We routinely speak, in the United States, of people who live in "the Chicago area" or in "the vicinity of Boston." When in the Middle East or Europe (or often even in Utah), one of the authors routinely answers "Los Angeles" when asked where he is originally from, although that answer is literally untrue, and the more accurate reply would be "Pasadena" (birthplace), or "San Gabriel" (residence through high school), or even "Whittier" (residence of his parents since the mid-1970s).

More to the point, the other author was temporarily assigned to duty at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. If, upon his return to the U.S., he were to state, "I lived for six months in Ramat Eshkol," how many people would know the place to which he referred? Very few. On the other hand, if he were to say, "I lived six months in Jerusalem," everyone would understand. But Ramat Eshkol is a suburb of Jerusalem, several miles to the north, and technically not part of the city itself. Thus, to those familiar with the microgeography of Jerusalem and Israel, Ramat Eshkol would be a meaningful geographical designator. To those only vaguely familiar with Israel, however, Jerusalem would be much more meaningful. Therefore, since those ignorant of Jerusalem's microgeography significantly outnumber those who know it (especially in North America), he usually says that he lived in Jerusalem. Does this somehow make him a liar? Or, more drastically, are we to assume—paralleling the methods of the critics—that, because he says he lived in Jerusalem instead of Ramat Eshkol, he never lived in Israel at all, and, indeed, that he doesn't even exist?

All this may help us understand why Alma did not give a more precise location for the birth of Jesus. It is probably because he was talking to people some five centuries removed from any direct knowledge of the geography of Judea. Bethlehem is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and its exact location would almost certainly have been unknown to the average nonscholarly Nephite. Furthermore, copies of the scriptures are unlikely to have been widely distributed among ordinary people since, without the printing press, they would simply have been too expensive. A prophetic reference to a small unfamiliar village near Jerusalem would, therefore, likely have been meaningless to Alma's audience. Jerusalem, by contrast, was well known and frequently mentioned.

The "idiot-savant" paradox. Furthermore, to suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus' baptism by John ("in Bethabara, beyond Jordan," 1 Nephi 10:9; cf. John 1:28), but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth, is inconsistent.4 It is highly improbable that the Book of Mormon's author or authors missed one of the most obvious facts about the most popular story in the Bible—something known to every child and to every singer of Christmas carols?5 Do they intend to say that a clever fraud who could write a book displaying so wide an array of subtle and authentic Near Eastern and biblical cultural and literary traits as the Book of Mormon does was nonetheless so stupid as to claim, before a Bible-reading public, that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem? As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, "every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem."6 Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was as foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions as it is to those of anti-Mormon critics. He is hardly likely to have twisted the Christmas story in so obvious a way, to have raised so noticeable a red flag, if he were trying to perpetrate a deception.

However, the Book of Mormon's prophecy that Christ would be born "at Jerusalem which is the land of our fathers" fits remarkably well with what we now know to have been ancient usage.7 Far from casting doubt upon the authenticity of the book, the statement in Alma 7:10 represents a striking bull's-eye.

Ang Mga Geographical Terminologies sa 

Book Of Mormon

First, para maintindihan natin kung bakit nga ba ginamit yung phrase na yun sa Book Of Mormon, we must first tingnan yung context, both literary at historical. 

The phrase "land of [city-name]" in the Book of Mormon. It emerges from an examination of the data that the Book of Mormon routinely refers to "lands" that both surround and bear the names of their chief cities. We read, for instance, of the lands and cities of Ammonihah, Gideon, Helam, Jashon, Lehi, Lehi-Nephi, Manti, Morianton, Moroni, Mulek, Nehor, Nephihah, Noah, Shem, and Shilom.8 The cities and lands of Bountiful and Desolation play a central role in Nephite history. So, too, do the city and land of Nephi.Thus, Amalickiah "marched with his armies . . . to the land of Nephi, to the city of Nephi, which was the chief city" (Alma 47:20). Notice, incidentally, that Alma had to specify that his prophecy in Alma 7:10 referred to "Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers," since the Old World city and land were mirrored in a New World land and city of Jerusalem (Alma 21:1—2; 24:1) that were much more directly familiar to his audience.

Far and away the most important example of the situation under discussion here is Zarahemla. Indeed, it was probably the most important of all Nephite cities (Alma 60:1). But it is also the name of a land.Thus, the king of the rebels against Pahoran entered into an alliance with the Lamanites "to maintain the city of Zarahemla, which maintenance he supposeth will enable the Lamanites to conquer the remainder of the land" (Alma 61:8). And when Moroni and Pahoran counterattacked, they "went down with their armies into the land of Zarahemla, and went forth against the city" (Alma 62:7). Later, the Lamanites again came "into the center of the land" and took "the capital city which was the city of Zarahemla" (Hel. 1:27). Thus from the Book of Mormon perspective, every major city was surrounded by its land.

The phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Book of Mormon. Several instances make it clear that Old World Jerusalem was regarded in precisely the same way by the Nephites as were their own cities and lands. Sometimes the phrase "land of Jerusalem" seems to have referred to the area immediately around the city, or perhaps to the region of Judea. Jesus told the Nephites, for example, of "other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister" (3 Ne. 16:1). Lehi's party and the Mulekites are said to have departed from "the land of Jerusalem."12 And Lehi dwelt "at Jerusalem" (1 Ne. 1:4, 7), but evidently outside the city proper (1 Ne. 3:16, 23—24). On other occasions, by contrast, the phrase seems to denote Judea and Galilee and perhaps all of Palestine. Thus, the Nephites were informed that Christ would "show himself" in "the land of Jerusalem" (Hel. 16:19). Thus, too, the Book of Mormon says that Christ chose his disciples in "the land of Jerusalem" (Morm. 3:18—19)—although the New Testament specifies that at least several of the apostles were called in Galilee. In Nephite usage, "the land of Jerusalem" is the land of the Jews' eschatological inheritance, or at least the area to which they would return following their Babylonian exile. Thus, the phrase clearly refers to an area considerably larger than the urban area of Jerusalem proper

What do we learn from the use of this phrase during the biblical period? Anti- Mormons claim, correctly, that the precise phrase "land of Jerusalem" never occurs in the Bible. However, this is almost certainly not as important a fact as they believe it to be.

Jerusalem played a central administrative and political role from the reign of King David in the tenth century B.C. down to the period of the Babylonian exile—i.e., to roughly, hanggang sa time ng departure ni Lehi at ng mga Mulekites. King Solomon divided his kingdom into 12 districts, largely para sa purposes of taxation, with each one governed from an administrative center. One of those districts included both Bethlehem and Jerusalem, with the latter serving as district capital. During the reign of Hezekiah, between 716 and 687 B.C., Solomon's twelve districts were consolidated into four, with Jerusalem doing "double duty as the royal and district capital." (Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel, 259.)"

Lehi's contemporary, the prophet Jeremiah, describing the siege of Jerusalem, says that Nebuchadnezzar's armies fought "against Jerusalem and all its surrounding towns" (Jer. 34:1 NIV) by which na maaring nagrerefer siya sa ibang mga cities (Jer. 34:7). In this, Jeremiah was entirely consistent with common biblical usage, according to which ang pangalang Jerusalem ay kadalasang ginagamit para itukoy ang buong soutern Kingdom, Judea (2 Kgs. 21:13; Is. 10:10—11; Ezek. 23:4; Micah 1:1, 5). Ang iba pang mga lungsod, mayroon ding mga nakapalibot na lupain, that was entitled in the same way.let us take for example, ang Samaria ay madalas na ginagamit to represnet the northern Kingdom (Israel),even though isa lang itong name ng city na tinatag ni King Omri noong 9 B.C. (1 Kgs.16:24). makikita natin sa Bible na may "cities of Samaria." (1 Kgs. 13: 13; 2 Kgs. 17: 23, 26; 23:19; Ez. 4:16). Sa gayon, kapag nabasa natin ang tungkol kay "Achab na hari ng Samaria," dapat nating maunawaan siya bilang isang monarchy ng Northern Kingdom as a whole, hindi lamang bilang pinarangalan na alkalde ng center ng city. Sinasabi din ng  Jeremiah 31: 5 na "mountains of Samaria."

Similarly, Ephraim possessed the city of "Tappuah," pero nakuha din ng Manasseh ang teritory din na yun (Johs. 17:8)—which the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible quite correctly terms "the land of Tappuah."(George Arthur Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [hereafter IDB], 4 vols. and supplement (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962—1976), 4:517; cf. Paul J. Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary [hereafter HBD] (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1017.) The town of "Tob" was surrounded, biblically, by "the land of Tob" (Jdg. 11:3).33 There was a city Mizpah (or Mizpeh) as well as the "land of Mizpah" (Josh. 11:3).

At ang gayong paggamit ay umabot nang lampas sa mga hangganan ng pag-areglo ng mga Hebreo. Ang isang Syrian city ng Damasco, ay tila nagmamay-ari ng isang "ilang" (1 Kgs. 19:15). Gayundin, ang Canaanite city ng Hazor ay tila napapaligiran ng isang lupain in the same name (Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 68.) Sa Arabia, is both land and city (Isa. 21:14), tulad ng, tila, ay "Ur of the Chaldees." sa panahon ni Lehi, ginamit ni Jeremiah ang "land of Babylon" (Jer. 50:28; 51:29), in the same way ay ginamit para sa pinagmulan ng land ng Babylon. At nang si Abraham ay "nanirahan sa Gerar" (Gen. 20: 1),one scholar said na  "malinaw na sa teritoryo na napangalan, hindi ang pader na lunsod mismo."

Ang Sodom at Gomorra, ang "mga lungsod ng kapatagan" and the Savior might refer sa "land of Sodom and Gomorra" (Mt. 10:15; cf. 11:24). Ang Hamath ay isang valued na bayan sa river ng Orontes sa Syria. Si Riblah ay isang sinaunang bayan ng Syrian din. Gayunpaman, sa maraming mga punto sa Hebrew Bible nabasa natin ang "Riblah sa lupain ng Hamath" - iyon ay, isang lungsod na nasa "lupain ng" ibang lungsod. (2 Kgs. 23:33; 25:21; Jer. 39: 5; 52: 9, 27) Ang paggamit na ito ay tiyak na tumutugma sa mga pagtatalo ng mga Huling Araw na ang lungsod ng Bethlehem ay maaaring inilarawan sa terminolohiya ng salitang Hebreo na nasa "lupain ng" Jerusalem.in fact meron tayong parallel na  "lupain ng kanilang mga lungsod" (Heb. eretz sha'aray-u) in the context ng 1 Kgs. 8:37, implies na sa Hebrew, ay ginagamit ito bilang isang generic grammatical form. ang Hebrew ng passage is read as follows : 

רעב כי־יהיה בארץ דבר כי־יהיה שׁדפון ירקון ארבה חסיל כי יהיה כי יצר־לו איבו בארץ שׁעריו כל־נגע כל־מחלה׃ (1 Kgs. 8:37)

Thus, although the specific phrase "land of Jerusalem" is not itself found in the Bible, it is perfectly acceptable biblical usage for the region around a major city, including smaller towns, to be referred to as "the land of" that city.

The city-state Jerusalem and its "land" in the early sixth century B.C. At the time of the beginning of Book of Mormon history (597 B.C.), Jerusalem could best be considered as nothing more than a city-state. The former kingdom of Judah had been completely conquered by the Babylonians on 16 March 597 B.C., after which time Zedekiah (Mattaniah) was placed on the throne as a Babylonian puppet. Thus, the "first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Ne. 1:4), when the story of Lehi opens, was precisely the year of the collapse of the kingdom of Judah, and its reduction to a vassal city state under Babylonian domination. Although technically still called the "kingdom of Judah," the area of Zedekiah's rule had in fact been reduced to the region directly surrounding Jerusalem, which could well be called the "land of Jerusalem." As John Bright describes it, "Certain of [Judah's] chief cities, such as Lachish and Debir, had been taken by storm and severely damaged. Her territory was probably restricted by the removal of the Negeb from her control, her economy crippled and her population drastically reduced."Contemporary Babylonian texts describe Jerusalem as "the city" of Judah: "In the month of Kislimu, the King of Akkad called up his army, marched against the city of Judah [Jerusalem] and seized the town." Assyrian provincial terminology generally used the name of the capital of a province to designate that province as a whole, and such usage appears to have continued among the Babylonians. This practice would have therefore been familiar to Lehi.

Ang naming ng isang lupain or teritorry after sa leading city or capital nito ay present sa Near East. 

Jeff Lindsay gives historical and literary evidence for these statements including yung isang discovered na record, the dead sea scrolls at ang Amarna letter which uses the same phrase na "the land of Jerusalem :

Revisiting the Land of Jerusalem

via the Dead Sea Scrolls

For over 160 years, beginning at least with the 1833 publication of Alexander Campbell's Delusions, countless critics have claimed that the Book of Mormon's use of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" was a major error and proof that the Book of Mormon was false. They especially criticized the use of this phrase in reference to the place where Christ would be born. That phrase was not used in the Bible nor in the Apocrypha. Therefore, the critics concluded, it was an example of Joseph Smith's ignorance and evidence that he had tried to perpetrate a fraud. (For a thorough overview of this argument, see the essay by Daniel Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:62-78.)

For anyone honestly concerned with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, there was little to argue about after Hugh Nibley showed in 1957 that one of the Amarna letters, written in the 13th century B.C. and discovered in 1887, recounted the capture of "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib" (CWHN 6:101 [Note from J.L.: CWHN = The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. Volume 6 is An Approach to the Book of Mormon]). Predictably, this evidence, along with further evidence of the general usage of this type of terminology in the Old World (see John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 170-72) has been ignored by critics of the Book of Mormon.

Now from the Dead Sea Scrolls comes an even more specific occurrence of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" that gives insight into its usage and meaning - in a text that indirectly links the phrase to the Jerusalem of Lehi's time.

Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named "Pseudo-Jeremiah" (scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:

...Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord

[...w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2] (p. 58).

In their discussion of this text, Eisenmann and Wise elaborate on the significance of the phrase "land of Jerusalem," which they see as an equivalent for Judah (Yehud):

"Another interesting reference is to the 'land of Jerusalem' in Line 2 of Fragment 1. This greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs." (p. 57)

Based on the evidence from Qumran, and in the words of Eisenmann and Wise, we can conclude that consistent usage of such language among a people of Israel who fled Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah also "greatly enhances the sense of historicity" of the Book of Mormon.

Critics of the Book of Mormon will not likely give up this argument, despite the evidence. This is not surprising, after all, because the part of their argument that the phrase was not known in Joseph Smith's day was correct. Virtually all opponents of the Book of Mormon have to assume, a priori, that the text is a purely human 19th-century document in order to justify their rejection of the text. In the case of "land of Jerusalem," since the phrase could not be explained as being part of Joseph's learning environment and since it was not known in biblical literature, they incorrectly concluded that Joseph must have been wrong. Trying to prove a negative, they argued from silence and puffed this supposed error into what they believed was one of their highest polemical mountains of evidence against the Book of Mormon.

The phrase was not current in Joseph's day, but, unknown to him, it was an accurate usage for the day in which he claimed the book was written. Thus, despite the critics' best efforts, Joseph's supposed "error" becomes one more evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

Based on research by Gordon C. Thomasson.

2010 Update: More from the Amarna Letters

In addition to the passage Hugh Nibley noticed in the Amarna Papers, mentioned in the excerpt from FARMS given above, a more interesting passagee in the ancient Amrana Papers was recently pointed out to me by Ronnie Bray in the U.K. (see his his YorkshireTales.com site, especially the All About Mormonism section). You can see this in The Holy Land: an Oxford archaeological guide from earliest times to 1700 by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, p. 290. This letter from Jerusalem declares that "now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, has gone over to the people of Keila." (Amarna Letter No. 290, translated by W.F. Albright). So there you have it: the land of Jerusalem included a rebellious little town known as Bit-Lahmi, as in Bethlehem. Bingo. This excerpt from Google Books is shown below:

Feb. 2001 Update:

More Evidence from the Dead Sea ScrollsTwo non-LDS scholars, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, discuss an example of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Dead Sea Scrolls in a passage discussing the time of the prophet Jeremiah. They write that the use of this term "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs" (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1992, p. 57, referring to a passage translated on p. 58). Jeremiah's time overlapped with Lehi's time, and in that time, what was latter called Judah or the land of Judah could appropriately be called "the land of Jerusalem," a term that "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole" when used in a document linked to Jeremiah's time. Should not the same be said of the Book of Mormon?

Lehi and his people left "the land of Jerusalem" in Jeremiah's day. With the Dead Sea Scrolls before us, we now know it would be perfectly logical for them to refer to the place where Christ would be born as "the land of Jerusalem." Use of that term was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the Book of Mormon over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered.

Further notes from Jeff LindsayMy computer search of the Book of Mormon reveals 40 cases where the exact phrase "land of Jerusalem" occurs in reference to the Old World (there was also a Lamanite place in the New World named for Jerusalem), plus several other places where the Old World Jerusalem is referred to as a "land" (most notably, Alma 7:10). This usage is found in multiple books of the Book of Mormon, from Nephi in the 6th century B.C. (who used the phrase most frequently) to Mormon near 400 A.D.

The following verses use the phrase "land of Jerusalem":

1 Ne. 2:11; 3:9-10; 5:6; 7:2 - 7; 16:35; 17:14 - 22; 18:24; 2 Ne. 1:1-30; 25:11; Jac. 2:25-32; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:11; 2:4; 7:20; 10:12; Alma 3:11; 9:22; 10:3; 22:9; 36:29; Hel. 5:6; 7:7; 8:21; 16:19; 3 Ne. 1:2; 5:20; 16:1; 20:29; Morm. 3:18-19; Eth. 13:7

J.L.'s note: The "offending" passage is Alma 7:10, where the prophet Alma predicts the birth of Christ, saying,

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel..."In Alma's time, 500 years after Nephi arrived in the New World, details of the geography of Israel were long forgotten. We should not be surprised to see that the land of Jerusalem is referred to as the place of Christ's birth - an entirely accurate and useful description, given the meaning of the phrase - rather than the nearby village of Bethlehem, a virtual suburb of the city of Jerusalem, roughly 5 miles away.

On this point, critics have long argued that the Book of Mormon is false because "everybody knows that Christ was born in Bethlehem." Certainly Joseph Smith knew that - he was familiar with much of the Bible and had heard the story of Christ's birth numerous times. If he were making the Book of Mormon up, why on earth would he make such a terrible blunder, placing Christ's birth in Jerusalem? How could he make such a thoughtless and stupid blunder in the midst of an otherwise enormously clever fraud? The "blunder" makes no sense if Joseph Smith were the author - but it is not a blunder at all and makes perfect sense if he were only translating an authentic ancient document. The use of the term "land of Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10 and many other locations can now be viewed as powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, based on recent discoveries about the use of that term in the ancient world. Joseph Smith could not possibly have made that up.

[top]

More information from John Tvedtnes:Here is an e-mail from John Tvedtnes sent to a group in Aug. 1999:

Since virtually everyone--children and adults--in Joseph Smith's day knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, how could the prophet possibly have erred? The name Jerusalem has to be deliberate. It is, in fact, significant that in this passage Alma did not claim that Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but "at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers." While it is not found in the Bible even once, the term "land of Jerusalem" occurs over 40 times in the Book of Mormon, while other passages also refer to Jerusalem as a "land" (Alma 7:10; 21:1; 3 Nephi 20:33, 46).

Lehi and Nephi seem to have known the designation of Jerusalem as both a city and the land it governed. The term "land of Jerusalem" is found in 1 Nephi 3:9-10; 7:2. In the Book of Mormon, we read that Lehi dwelt "at Jerusalem in all his days" (1 Ne. 1:4). But he clearly did not live in the city of Jerusalem. After coming to Jerusalem, where Laman visited Laban in his house (1 Ne. 3:11, 23), Lehi's sons, thinking to bribe Laban, "went down to the land of [their] inheritance" (1 Ne. 3:22) to gather up their wealth. They then "went up again" to Jerusalem (1 Ne. 3:23) and offered to buy the plates from Laban. He chased them away and, after a time, they returned to "the walls of Jerusalem" (1 Ne. 4:4), and Nephi "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban." >From this, it is evident that the "Jerusalem" where Lehi lived had to be other than the city, and therefore somewhere nearby, in the "land of Jerusalem."

Throughout the Book of Mormon, the terms "city" and "land" seem to be interchangeable. There is a city of Nephi and a land of Nephi, a city of Zarahemla and a land of Zarahemla, and so forth. Evidently, each city controlled a certain territory or land that was denominated from the name of the city. This is especially clear in Alma 50:14, where we read of the construction of a new site: "They called the name of the city, or the land, Nephihah." The pattern followed by the Nephites (and by the Lamanites when they became sedentary) was evidently brought from the Old World. In ancient Israel, the "fenced" or walled cities were places of refuge for farmers in surrounding villages (Lev. 25:31; 1 Sam. 6:18; Ezek. 38:11. In time of war, the peasants could flee to the protection of the city walls, where arms were stored for defense. This is precisely what we find described in Mosiah 9:14-16.

Biblical cities, like those of the Book of Mormon, controlled nearby land. Hence, we read of "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Josh. 8:1) and of the city of Hebron, its suburbs, fields and villages (1 Chr. 6:55-56). In the Bible, cities are sometimes called by the term "land." Tappuah is called a "land" in Joshua 17:8, but a "city" in Joshua 16:8. Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would become "a land not inhabited" (Jer. 6:8; cf. 15:5-7). The Mesha or Moabite stela of the ninth century B.C. provides contemporary archaeological evidence for the interchange of "city" and "land." The text, reporting the rebellion of Mesha, king of Moab, against Israel, lists a number of "lands" which are known from the Bible to be cities. Internal evidence also implies that they are cities, since Mesha noted that he had "built" these lands. The reason that lands were named after their principal cities was that some cities controlled other nearby sites. In the account of the assignment of lands to the tribes under Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (Josh. 13:23, 28; 15:32, 36, 41, 44, 46-47, 51, 54, 57, 59-60, 62; 16:9; 18:24, 28; 19:6-8, 15-16, 22, 30-31, 38-39, 48; 21:12). Sometimes the word "daughters" was used in the Hebrew text to mean "villages," in the sense of satellites (Ex. 21:25, 32; 2 Chr. 28:18; Neh. 11:25, 27, 30-31). In some cases, a known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshbon and all her cities" (Josh. 13:17), "Ekron, with her towns and her villages" (Josh. 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Josh. 17:11), and "Ashdod, with her towns and her villages" (Josh. 15:47). Jeremiah 34:1 speaks of "Jerusalem and . . . all the cities thereof." The use of the name Jerusalem to denote both a city and a land is followed, in the Bible, by references to Samaria, the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel. Old Testament scriptures frequently extend the term Samaria to include surrounding regions or "the cities of Samaria" under the political control of the state (1 Kgs. 13:32; 2 Kgs. 17:24, 26; 23:19).

Clay tablets written in the fourteenth century B.C. and found in 1887 at el-Amarna in Egypt use the term "land" for Canaanite sites known to have been ancient cities. For example, one text (EA 289)speaks of the "town of Rubutu," while another mentions the "land of Rubutu" (EA 290). The first of these also speaks of "land of Shechem," and "the land of the town of Gath-carmel" (both ancient cities) and says of Jerusalem, "this land belongs to the king." A third text mentions the lands of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem (EA 287).

But there is evidence that, even in the Old World, Bethlehem was considered to be part of the "land of Jerusalem." One of the Amarna texts (EA 290) speaks of "a town in the land of Jerusalem" named Bît-Lahmi, which is the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name rendered Beth-lehem in English Bibles.

We conclude that Lehi's descendants in the New World followed authentic Old World custom in denominating each land by the principal city in the land. This kind of detail lends evidence to the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon text.

About the Adam God Theory And Mary's relationship 

with God the Father. How INC's took it so badly

" Si Brigham Young, kinikilalang propeta ng mga Mormons, ay nagturo na si Jesus ay nilalang ni Adan na "Diyos." Nagkaroon daw ng kaugnayan si Adan kay Maria at ang naging bunga raw ay si Cristo-Jesus. Ayon kay Ravi Zacharias, ganito ang nasusulat sa Journal of Discourses, vol. 1,p.50-51:

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten Him in His own like. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. ... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner, When our Father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his wives with him. He helped to make and organized this world...he is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

[Nang ipagdalangtao ng Birheng Maria ang batang si Jesus, nilalang Siya ng Ama sa Kaniyang wangis. Hindi Siya lalang ng Espiritu Santo. At sino naman ang Ama? Siya ang kaunaunahan sa pamilya ng tao.... Si Jesus, na ating nakatatandang kapatid, ay nilalang na nasa laman ng gayon ding katauhan ng nasa halamanan ng Eden na siyang ating Ama sa Langit.

[Pakinggan ninyo ngayon, o mga nananahan sa lupa, Judio at Gentil, banal at makasalanan. Nang ang ating Amang si Adan ay napasa halamanan ng Eden, naparoon siya na may makalangit na katawan, at isinama si Eba na isa sa kaniyang mga asawa. Tumulong siya sa paglikha at pagsasaayos nitong mundo.... siya ang ating Ama at ating Diyos, at siya ang nag-iisang Diyos kung kanino tayo may kaugnayan. (Investigating the Claims of Mormonism, pp.24-25)

Taliwas sa itinuturo ng Mormon Church, walang sinasabi ang Biblia na si Cristo ay nilalang sa pamamagitan ng pagsasama ni (ang diumano'y "Diyos") at ni Maria.

Si Cristo ay nilalang hindi sa pamamagitan ng pag-aasawa kundi sa pamamagitan ng Espiritu Santo:

"Ang pagkapanganak nga kay Jesucristo ay ganito: Nang si Maria na kaniyang ina ay magaasawa kay Jose, bago sila magsama ay nasumpungang siya'y nagdadalang-tao sa pamamagitan ng Espiritu Santo." (Mat. 1:18)

Salungat din sa aral ng Diyos na nakasulat sa Biblia na si Cristo ay tawaging anak ni Adan, na diumano'y ang Diyos. Si Adan na kinikilalang Diyos ng mga Mormons ay matagal nang patay nang isilang si Jesus. Itinuturo ng Biblia na si Cristo ay anak ng Diyos na buhay:

" At sumagot si Simon Pedro at sinabi, Ikaw ang Cristo, Ang anak ng Dios na buhay." (Mat. 16:16)

Ipinangaral din ng mga tagapagturong Mormons na si Jesucristo ay nag-asawa sa Cana ng Galilea. Siya raw ang lalaking ikinasal kay Maria, kay Marta na kapatid ni Lazaro, at kay Maria Magdalena. Ganito ang pahayag sa mga sinipi ni Ravi Zacharias sa kaniyang aklat.

"Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee (Orson Pratt, The "Seer", p.159).... If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women (Mary,Martha, and Mary Magdalene) were his wives." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.82) [Si Jesus ang lalaking ikinasal sa kasalan sa Cana ng Galilea.... Kung ang lahat ng mga ginawa ni Cristo ay isinulat, aalang pag - aanlinlangan nating malalamanna ang mga minamahal na mga babaing ito (Maria, Martha, at Maria Magdalena) ay kaniyang mga asawa.](Investigating the Claims of Mormonism, p.26)

Salungat sa itinuturo ng Biblia ang mga aral na ito ng mga Mormon. Hindi totoong asawa ni Maria si Cristo, ni Martha na kapatid ni Lazaro, at ni Maria Magdalena. Hindi rin ang Panginoong Jesucristo ang ikinasal sa Cana ng Galilea. Si Cristo at ang Kaniyang mga alagad ay inanyayahan lamang na dumalo sa kasalang iyon. (Juan 2:1-11)"

Ito ang hirap kung ang source mo din ay isang anti-mormon. parang tinanong mo lang sa Mcdo kung masarap ba ang Jollibee. first, they took out the context ng Journal Of Discourses ni Brigham Young by saying na si Adam 'daw' ang tinutukoy na our God sa JOD, butv reading it carefully, it refers to God the Father and not to Adam. to say na si Adam ay ang God the Father is considered as an heresy by Church authorities. this what happens kung gamit nang gamit ang isang bigot ng scriptural railsplit at quote mining.

" We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our Chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." (See Ensign, November 1976 p. 77)

Elden Watson wrote

I phoned B. R. McConkie on Friday afternoon, April 29th 1966, at his home in regard to his commentary of Luke 3:38 in his new text on the New Testament.

He answered that he had purposely left the door opened on that Point. He said it was a true doctrine that God the Father, Eloheim, a divine resurrected being came down to this earth after its creation, with a wife and produced in the natural way of sexual intercourse, a child who grew up and became known as ADAM. They did the same and brought forth a girl who grew up and became EVE. They had bodies of flesh and bone etc., but were not mortal (not till they fell). They (Adam and Eve) were not resurrected and not translated beings. God really did create their bodies on this earth. They were not transported here (only their spirits).

He then said that his father-in-law told him that was a true doctrine; that it had been taught a great deal by President J. F. Smith (6th president). He also added that President Joseph Fielding Smith said it was too deep now for most saints--that's the reason for saying about the creation of Adam and Eve in the temple, "It's only figurative ..."

Reed C. Durham, Jr.

According to this account, President Joseph F. Smith, President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie all understood that Adam and Eve were born on this earth,, to our Heavenly Father, and our Heavenly Mother, and then placed in the garden of Eden. This is one of the reasons that these three brethren were always opposed to the theory of the organic evolution of man. They, and many others who believe as they did, believe that man did not evolve from any lower order of creation, but that man devolved from the highest order of creation--from God himself.

Many were so open about teaching this principle that the doctrine cannot be considered secret, or even hidden. It was merely not emphasized. The following example is from a response by John A. Widtsoe to a question about Brigham Young's Adam-God sermon. The article is one of a series which was entitled "Evidences and Reconciliations." The series was published monthly in the Improvement Era. This article was first published in the December 1943 issue of the Era, and was later republished in volume 1 of a three volume set which was a collection of the "Evidences and Reconciliations" articles. It appeared again in a one volume reprint of the three volume set published in 1960.

Brigham Young's much-discussed sermon says that "Jesus was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven. Enemies of the Church, or stupid people, reading also that Adam is "our father and our God." have heralded far and wide that the Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was begotten of Adam. Yet, the rational reading of the whole sermon reveals the falsity of such a doctrine. It is explained that God the Father was in the Garden of Eden, before Adam, that he was the Father of Adam, and that this same personage, God the Father, who was in the Garden of Eden before Adam, was the Father of Jesus Christ, when the Son took upon himself a mortal body. That is, the same personage was the Father of Adam and of Jesus Christ. In the numerous published sermons of Brigham Young, this is the doctrine that appears, none other. The assertion is repeatedly made that Jesus Christ was begotten by God, the Father, distinct by any stretch of imagination from Adam. This is a well established Latter-day Saint doctrine. [John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations pp 56-57; also Improvement Era 46:769]

One question which frequently arises is how Adam can be a son of God, when Jesus Christ is described in scripture as the Only Begotten Son. This question is answered in another widely referenced and readily available book, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie under "Son Of God."

2. Father Adam, the first man, is also a son of God (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22, 59), a fact that does not change the great truth that Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh, for Adam's entrance into this world was in immortality. He came here before death had its beginning, with its consequent mortal or flesh-status of existence. Mormon Doctrine, p 742]

Another question frequently asked is, if resurrected beings have spirit children, then how can resurrected beings produce physical children? Apparently the type of body produced by an exalted being depends upon what type of materials are available to the body of the mother as she forms the child within her. If only spirit matter is available, then a spirit body will be produced, but if they plant a garden on an earth, and live in and partake of the physical fruits of that garden until their bodies are charged with the physical particles of that earth, then the body formed will be a physical body, and the particles constituting the body thus formed will belong to that earth.

Second, ang sexual relationship ni Mary at ng God the Father ay isang theory and nothing official statements were made about it. Orson Hyde's book "The Seer" was not an official doxument of the church and was considered by the church as false doctrine.

Robert Boylan wrote :

A few early Latter-day Saints postulated that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; Orson Hyde, for instance, believed that John 2 was the wedding of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (something that is exegetically untenable):

In a sermon from 6 October 1854, he states at:

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. (Journal of Discourses [JOD] 2:82)

Later in a sermon from 18 Marc 1855, Hyde would associate this as being the marriage between Jesus and Mary (JOD 2:210). However, such statements and sentiments were never accepted or ratified as official doctrine of the Church, so they are not binding on Latter-day Saints; for Buzzard to claim that this represents “Mormon” belief reflects a poor understanding of the scope and formation of Latter-day Saint doctrine.

While many Latter-day Saints (myself included) are at least open to Jesus being married in his lifetime (on this debate, see Phipps, Was Jesus Married and the response to Phipps by J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol 1: Rethinking the Historical Jesus). However, the Bible is silent on the issue, and the debate would ultimately go down to historical speculation. However, there are some valid reasons for being open to Jesus being married:

(1) The earliest sources explicitly claiming that Jesus was single date to the end of the second century, at which point his marital status is denied because it is suggested that this would be inconsistent with his mission (on theological grounds). Prior to that part of the 2nd century, there is no discussion of his marital status.

(2) In general, marriages in Jewish society at the time (at least in the case of first marriages) were generally contracted by the parents of the child (something we see in the Protoevangelium of James with Mary, the mother of Jesus). That Jesus was not married or had not been arranged to be married would suggest that his parents had been derelict in this obligation. This arranged marriage would have occurred quite early (perhaps before he became a teenager).

(3) Jesus is called, "rabbi," a title which generally (not always) required being married under Jewish tradition.

(4) Various sects within the broad Christian spectrum (Gnostic and so forth) taught that Jesus was married (usually to Mary Magdalene). Of course, one has to be careful in using such literature, as a lot of it is ahistorical.

(5) In John 11, Mary may be engaged in shiva.

(6) The anointing of Jesus' feet by a woman is not so shocking if the woman is his wife per Jewish custom (Luke 7:38, 44).

For more on the history of the concept of Jesus being married, see Anthony Le Donne, The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals.

God currently has several wives

Again, no source is provided to support this claim. While some Fundamentalist groups hold to such a belief as a doctrine, Latter-day Saints do not. Now, it is true that there is a muted belief in a Mother in Heaven; however, all Church documents discussing this always speak of a single Mother in Heaven, not plural Mothers in heaven—for instance see this recent paper released by the Church under the authority of the First Presidency itself that speaks of a single Mother in Heaven, not a plural; notice the opening paragraph:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women.1 The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.2

Notes for the Above:

1. Gen. 1:26–27; Moses 3:4–7; Rom. 8:16–17; Ps. 82:6; D&C 132:19–20.

2. See “Becoming Like God”; see also Elaine Anderson Cannon, “Mother in Heaven,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 5 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:961. For an extensive survey of these teachings, see David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven,” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 70–97.

Examples of Latter-day Saint arguments that Jesus was married include the following:

(a) Orson Hyde, who speculated that Jesus was married on the evidence of the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-11) and the reference in Isaiah 53:10 to the Servant’s “seed” (in Journal of Discourses, 2:82). However, Jesus attended the wedding as a guest, not a groom (Jn. 2:2), and the Book of Mormon interprets Christ’s “seed” as prophets who have taught of Christ and those who have believed in them (Mosiah 15:11-15). See fairmormon.org/answers/Jesus_Christ/Was_Jesus_married.

(b) The claim that since Judaism held marriage and childbearing in high regard and rabbis were usually married, it would have been scandalous for Jesus not to have been married. For an example of this argument, see D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner, Verse by Verse: The Four Gospels (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 109-9. This argument, however, oversimplifies the Judaism of the first century, which included groups of people who practiced sexual renunciation in pursuit of a holy way of life . . .John the Baptist may have been unmarried.

(c) The claim that since Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4 teaches that marriage is required for the highest degree of heavenly reward. Christ must have been married; see a variation of this in Ogden and Skinner, Verse by Verse, 108-9. Though theoretically possible, this reasoning fails to consider the utterly unique character of Christ’s mortal mission and the possibility that it might have required a single-minded devotion including a celibate life (see Mt. 19:12; Lk. 12:50). Examples of Church spokespersons who have clarified that it is not a Church doctrine that Jesus was married include Charles W. Penrose, “Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered,” Improvement Era, September 1912, 1042, “We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being married. The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject”; Dales Bills, quoted in “LDS do not endorse claims in ‘Da Vinci,’” Deseret News, May 17, 2006, “The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine.” (p. 552 n. 51)

A crappy view of Latter Day Saint Theology

Ayon sa mga tagapagturong Mormon, ang terminong "Ama" ay tumutukoy sa Diyos, ang Ama at kung magka minsan daw ay ipinatutungkol kay Jesus:

"....in the scripture the term Father sometimes refers to God the Father and sometimes refers to Jesus." [..... sa kasulatan ang salitang Ama kung misan ay ipinatutungkol sa Diyos, ang Ama kung minsan naman, ay ipinatutungkol kay Jesus.] (He That Receiveth My Servant Receiveth Me - Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1979-80, p.16)

Maling ipatungkol kay Cristo ang salitang "Ama." Hindi kailanman inangkin ni Cristo na Siya ang Ama. Si Cristo ay anak ng Diyos (Luk. 1:35). Itinuro ng mga propeta na iisa ang Ama, ang iisang Diyos (Mal. 2:10). Ipinangaral din ng mga Apostol na iisa lamang ang Diyos - ang Ama (Efe. 4:6). Ipinakilala ng Panginoong Jesucristo na ang Ama lamang ang dapat makilala na iisang tunay na Diyos (Juan 17:1, 3).

Sa kabilang dako, ipinangangaral ng mga tagapagturong Mormon na si Jesucristo ang Lumalang. Siya raw ang tinatawag na walang hanggang Ama ng langit at lupa:

"Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called Father of heaven and earth... and since his creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called Eternal Father of heaven and earth. [Si Jesucristo, bilang Lumalang, ay tinatawag na Ama ng langit at lupa sa lahat ng pagkakataon... at dahil ang kaniyang mga nilalang ay may katangiang pangwalang hanggan, Siya ay nararapat na tawaging walang hanggang Ama ng langit at lupa.] (He That Receiveth My Servant Receiveth Me - Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1979-80, p.94)

Labag sa aral ng Biblia na si Cristo ay tawaging walang hanggang Ama ng langit at lupa. Ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay hindi maaring maging Diyos na Lumalang sapagkat kabilang Siya sa mga nilalang. Ito ay pinatutunayan ng Biblia:

"Na siya ang larawan ng Dios na di nakikita, ang panganay ng lahat ng mga nilalang;" (Col. 1:15)

Itinuturo ng Biblia na ang Diyos ang mag-isang lumikha ng lahat ng bagay:

"ipaliwanag sa lahat kung paano isasagawa ang lihim na panukala ng Diyos. Ito'y matagal na panahong inilihim ng Diyos na lumikha ng lahat ng bagay," (Efe. 3:9 MB)

Ang Diyos na Lumalang na lumikha ng lahat ng bagay ay ang Diyos na kinikilala ni Cristo - ang Ama:

" At ito ang buhay na walang hanggan, na ikaw ay makilala nila na iisang Dios na tunay...

"Ang mga bagay na ito ay sinalita ni Jesus; at sa pagtingala ng kaniyang mga mata sa langit, ay sinabi niya, Ama, dumating na ang oras; luwalhatiin mo ang iyong Anak, upang ikaw ay luwalhatiin ng Anak:" (Juan 17:3, 1)

Ibang-iba ang Cristo na ipinakikilala ng mga tagapagturong Mormon kaysa sa tunay na Cristong itinuturo ng Biblia. Ang ganitong maling pagkakilala kay Jesus ay ipinangamba na ni Apostol Pablo noon pa man:

" Nguni't ako'y natatakot, baka sa anomang paraan, kung paanong si Eva ay nadaya ng ahas sa kaniyang katusuhan, ang inyong walang malay at malinis na mga pagiisip na kay Cristo ay pasamain. Sapagka't kung yaong paririto ay mangaral ng ibang Jesus, na hindi namin ipinangaral, o kung kayo'y nagsisitanggap ng ibang espiritu na hindi ninyo tinanggap, o ibang evangelio na hindi ninyo tinanggap, ay mabuting pagtiisan ninyo."(II Cor. 11:3-4)

First, Latter Day Saints dont teach na ang Ama ay may the same person ng Anak. ang Statement dito about sa Fatherhood ni Jesucristo na siya ay tinatawag na Ama at hindi ang the same person ng Ama. that's Sabbellianism of the Father has the same person with the Son. Jesus is the Father by divine investure

Nandito ang statement ng First Presidency :

Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority

A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (Jn. 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (Jn. 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (Jn. 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Ex. 23:21).

The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (vv. 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

Si Jesus ay tinawag na Ama because of the following :

1. Ama bilang isang tagapaglikha (Eth. 4:7; cf. Alma 11:38–39; Mosiah 15:4; Jn. 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:1-2). God created everything through His Word (Gen. 1:2; Awit. 33:6; 147:15) at since ang Word na ito ay nanggaling sa kanya, ito rin ay Divine. may Divine characteristics (Awit. 107:20; 119:105; Is. 40:8 etc.). in the time of the apostles, widely used ang Targum or ang Aramaic Old Testament na ginagamit ng mga common na tao since Aramaic ang language ng mga common Jews noon. ang Genesis 1:1, says "In the beginning, God created" but sa Targum, ang translation nito ay "In the beginning, the Word of the Lord created". ginamit ng translators nito ang aramaic word na "memra" (Gr. λόγος) for God in old testament passages. Jews view God's Law as a revelation of His character (Lev. 20:26; cf. Ro. 7:12; Awit 19:7-8; Kaw. 16:23). in John's prolouge, tinukoy niya ang λόγος bilang isang personahe at divine since tinawag niya ito ng "he" and him" at binigyan niya ito ng characteristics gaya ng "light" and "life" (Jn. 1:4-5; cf. 8:23; 14:6) and sa verse 3 tells na na through Him ay nagawa ang lahat ng mga bagay (cf. Gen. 1:2; Awit. 33:6; 147:15)

2. Bilang isang Ama (author) ng mga sumusunod sa kanyang ebanghelyo (Heb. 5:9)

3. By Divine investure of authority. Another reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family, nirerepresent ni Jesus ang Ama para sa kanila. Jesus came to earth to reveal the Father (Jn. 1:18; 14:6-11; 16:25). Christ made the following statements concerning ang kanyang divine investure from the Father : “I and my Father are one” (Jn. 10:30; cf. 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (Jn. 5:43; cf. 10:25).

Simply Assuming the distinction of the Father and the Son won't disprove the fact that Jesus is Father by Divine investure and His Deity as God.

John 17:3, kung binabasa natin in context, verse 4 later tells us that this is a glorification of Christ for the Father, and Jesus here tells us that one of His job here on earth is to give glorification to the Father, and was now fulfilled with other works done like teaching the gospel : " I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." (Jn. 17:4) : Glorification for God is taught through the scriptures (see. Jer. 31:31–34; Hos. 4:6; Alma 22:18; D&C 132:23–24). the particular theme of the context tells us that Jesus came to testify and to reveal the Father (cf. Jn. 1:18; 14:6–17; 16:25).

Bruce R. Mckonkie told :

“It is one thing to know about God and another to know him. We know about him when we learn that he is a personal being in whose image man is created; when we learn that the Son is in the express image of his Father’s person; when we learn that both the Father and the Son possess certain specified attributes and powers. But we know them, in the sense of gaining eternal life, when we enjoy and experience the same things they do. To know God is to think what he thinks, to feel what he feels, to have the power he possesses, to comprehend the truths he understands, and to do what he does. Those who know God become like him, and have his kind of life, which is eternal life” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:762).

Verses later tells us the statement of Jesus Christ about His pre-earth glory and existence : " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (Jn. 17:5); " Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." (Jn. 17:24; cf. 1:1-18; 5:58)

And here's a list of verses abou the deity of Christ for the sake ng mga INC : Jn. 1:1-18; 17:5,22,24; 20:28; Gw. 20:28; Ro. 9:5; Heb. 1:2-10; 2:14-18; Fil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:12-22; 2:14-18 ; 2 Cor. 8:9; Tito 2:13; 2 Ped. 1:1; 1 Jn. 5:20; Apoc. 22:6,16; Is. 9:6; Mikas 5:2

-Admin Bro. Nathan