In Response To Cathy Inego On Mormonism

 

By : Bro. Nathan

A bro sent me a link ng isang op from a group that haves a faulty interpretation of what mormonism is, and has a crappy writing and everything you can imagine with a faulty op. beside sa immature na style like weird na fonts at overuse ng emojis, it have problems regarding sources and interpretation of certain doctrines, so lets dive in. (words from the op will be marked in red).

First, alamin natin muna yung problem sa protestant dogma ng sola scriptura (scripture alone). the dogma itself is not found in scripture itself at was not practiced by the apostles. because sa doctrine na ito, nililimit ng nila ang wisdom ng Dios sa iisang book lang. nililimit nila ang truth sa iisang book lang even though yung book mismo ay fallible hindi gaya ng buhay na Dios na infallible at omniscient o all knowing (Job 28:4; 37:16; Ps. 139:4; 147:5; 1 Sam. 2:3; Is. 46:9; 55:9; Mt. 10:30; Heb. 4:13; 1 Jn. 3:19-20). truth is not limited to only one book. some protestants even limit yung human reason at history dahil dito, which is clearly wrong. sola scriptura itself is a logical fallacy like saying "the bible is true because the bible says it is true" is circular reasoning.

Now moving on the main topic, let's start with no. 1 and no. 3 :

"#1 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯'𝘴 𝘋𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘯𝘢 𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘸𝘢 𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘥 𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 (𝘓𝘋𝘚) 𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘨 1958 𝘯𝘪 𝘉𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘙. 𝘔𝘤𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘦, 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦 322. 𝘔𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘰:

“𝘍𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 “𝘢 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵,…𝘐𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘏𝘈𝘋 𝘈 𝘍𝘈𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘙."

𝘈𝘯𝘰 𝘥𝘢𝘸??? 𝘔𝘢𝘺 𝘍𝘈𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘙 𝘥𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 ! 𝘚𝘰, 𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘓𝘰𝘭𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪 𝘏𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘺 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘰𝘯 !

𝘛𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘨: 𝘚𝘢𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘺 "𝘈𝘔𝘈" 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘺 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘈𝘓𝘈 𝘱𝘰 !

#3 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕𝘚 𝘋𝘖𝘊𝘛𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘌 𝘯𝘪 𝘉𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘙. 𝘔𝘤𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘦, 𝘱. 321 𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘎𝘒𝘈𝘛𝘈𝘞𝘈𝘕𝘎-𝘛𝘈𝘖 𝘋𝘈𝘞 𝘈𝘕𝘎 𝘋𝘐𝘠𝘖𝘚 𝘈𝘔𝘈 𝘈𝘛 𝘕𝘈𝘕𝘐𝘙𝘈𝘏𝘈𝘕 𝘚𝘈 𝘓𝘜𝘗𝘈 𝘒𝘈𝘎𝘈𝘠𝘈 𝘕𝘐 𝘑𝘌𝘚𝘜𝘚;

"...𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘏𝘌 𝘞𝘈𝘚 𝘖𝘕𝘊𝘌 𝘈 𝘔𝘈𝘕 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘶𝘴; 𝘺𝘦𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘎𝘖𝘋 𝘏𝘐𝘔𝘚𝘌𝘓𝘍, 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘍𝘈𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘙 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘋𝘞𝘌𝘓𝘛 𝘖𝘕 𝘈𝘕 𝘌𝘈𝘙𝘛𝘏, 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘚𝘈𝘔𝘌 𝘈𝘚 𝘑𝘌𝘚𝘜𝘚 𝘊𝘏𝘙𝘐𝘚𝘛 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘥; 𝘈𝘕𝘋 𝘐 𝘞𝘐𝘓𝘓 𝘚𝘏𝘖𝘞 𝘐𝘛 𝘍𝘙𝘖𝘔 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘉𝘐𝘉𝘓𝘌…

First, its "Mormon Doctrine" and not "Mormon's Doctrine". sa pagiidentify palang ng name ng book ay faulty na. dito pumapasok yung tinatawag natin na "God once a man theory" that was found also sa ibang writings ng Latter Day Saint prophets at apostles.

Let us first compare it sa person ni Jesus Christ. we know na si Jesus Christ ay ang God incarnate, na siya ay God before siya pinanganak and was sent and came to this world and became a man (Jn. 1:1-18; Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 1:1-3; 2:7-9; 1 Jn. 4:2; 2 Jn. 1:7). He came to this world to fulfill His mission; He lived, died, and resurrected and bridged the gap between God and man. let us consider yung sinabi ni Jesus Christ that He will do nothing unless that what He sees the Father do :

" Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner." (Jn. 5:19) NKJV

The answer is pretty obvious. and Latter Day Saints don't believe na naincarnate dati si Heavenly Father dito sa earth but from an another world. this is clearly a hasty generelization.

Robert Boylan, responding to a confused calvinist, wrote on his blog :

" Christologically, if one follows the New Testament, one is in the same "problem." We know from Phil 2:5-11, for instance, that Jesus emptied Himself of divine attributes (kenosis) to become truly human; that this is the case can be seen in Mark 12:32 (cf. Matt 24:36; see also Luke 2:52) where Jesus did not know when the parousia (his coming in glory/"second coming") would be. I know some Trinitarians (e.g. James White; Sam Shamoun) argue that this was the "human will/nature" of Jesus speaking or that Jesus "veiled," for a mysterious reason, his own omnipotence this one moment, but to claim such, and divorce such from the person of Jesus is actually counter to Trinitarian understandings of the hypostatic union and/or to make Jesus deceptive; furthermore, it results in Nestorianism, where the humanity and divinity of Jesus are, for all intents and purposes, two people, not one, again, antithetical to Trinitarian (as well as Latter-day Saint) Christologies. The temptation scenes in the gospels (esp. Matt 4:1-11, the fuller version of this scene in Jesus' life) portrays Jesus as truly suffering and being truly tempted by the tempter; if one holds to traditional Christologies, Jesus was not truly tempted, as there was no real chance of him sinning, which, however way one cuts it, is docetic (i.e., Christ appearing to be human; but in reality [at least with respect to being tempted] was not)--again, such runs in the claims of Heb 2:17-18, which necessitates Jesus' temptations to be real, but ones that he overcame sinlessly. Interestingly, in Phil 2:5-11 [cf. D&C 93:1-20 in the LDS canon], after the ascension, Jesus is exalted and given a name above all other names (Yahweh [Phil 2:9]). However, if Trinitarian Christology is true, this is nonsensical, as Jesus was "fully divine" a la the Trinitarian understanding of this concept, merely "veiled" his divine attributes during mortality while still retaining them, and "unveiled" them post-ascension." http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/04/email-exchange-with-confused-calvinist.html

#2 𝘈𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘖𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘵 𝘚𝘳., 𝘐𝘴𝘢 𝘴𝘢 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘢 "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘦𝘳" ,𝘱.159, 172 : " ... 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..."

𝘐𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘰 𝘯𝘨 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘰 𝘯𝘢 𝘪𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘒𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘦 𝘯𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘥𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘢 𝘢𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘴𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘬𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘬 ! (𝘗𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘖𝘓𝘠𝘎𝘈𝘔𝘠

𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘺 ! ) 𝘛𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘰, 𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘦 𝘱𝘢, 𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘺-𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘬 𝘱𝘢 ! 𝘒𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢 𝘣𝘢 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘑𝘶𝘢𝘯 2:1-11? 𝘒𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘸𝘢 𝘱𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘰 𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘕𝘢 𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘯 !

Ito yung problem sa mga anti-mormon on the sources na ginagamit nila. ang book ni Orson Pratt na "The Seer" is not an official publication of the church at ito and was condemmed dahil sa doctrinal errors. the church had no offical stand regarding sa marital state ni Jesus Christ. this is more like a theory rather than isang official doctrine. many other leaders and theologians theorizes na maaring married si Jesus Christ. Dale Bills, isang spokesman ng church stated :

" 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." -Dale Bills (May 16, 2006)

#4 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕𝘚 𝘋𝘖𝘊𝘛𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘌; 𝘉𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘙. 𝘔𝘤𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘦, 𝘱. 278 𝘈𝘕𝘎 𝘋𝘐𝘠𝘖𝘚 𝘈𝘔𝘈 𝘋𝘈𝘞 𝘈𝘠 may 𝘓𝘈𝘔𝘈𝘕 𝘈𝘛 𝘉𝘜𝘛𝘖.

"𝘎𝘖𝘋 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘍𝘈𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘙 𝘐𝘕 𝘏𝘌𝘈𝘝𝘌𝘕, 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘓𝘖𝘙𝘐𝘍𝘐𝘌𝘋 𝘗𝘌𝘙𝘚𝘖𝘕𝘈𝘎𝘌 𝘏𝘈𝘝𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘛𝘈𝘕𝘎𝘐𝘉𝘓𝘌 𝘉𝘖𝘋𝘠 𝘖𝘍 𝘍𝘓𝘌𝘚𝘏 𝘈𝘕𝘋 𝘉𝘖𝘕𝘌𝘚."

𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘴𝘢𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘰 𝘶𝘭𝘪 𝘶𝘭𝘪 𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘺𝘢𝘯?

First, let us review muna yung mali-maling exegesis ng mga protestants and other groups about sa "God is Spirit" sa John 4:24. first, ang greek ng verse ay :

πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν. (Jn. 4:24)

Ang phrase sa context na πνεῦμα ὁ θεός (pneuma o Theos), sa greek, grammatically, ay isang qualitive nominative predicate na hindi tumutukoy sa physical composition but someones qualities. if babasahin nila yung main theme ng context, Jesus here teaches how men should worship God. prinesent ni Jesus ito sa isang Samaritan woman kasi naging problem between sa Jews at Samaritans yung place of worship nila. ang Samaritans ay nakaprivelege sa Mount Gezirim samantalang ang Jews naman ay sa Temple sa Jerusalem (v.20) then Jesus then tells the woman na huwag na siyang magaalala dahil ang Dios can be worshipped anywhere dahil hindi Siya nakakulong sa iisang lugar lang (v. 21-24) He is omnipresent through his spiritual influence. ang worship kay God must be done spirit to Spirit (cf. Phil. 3:3)

Ang teaching na may physical body si Heavenly Father at Jesus Christ is found throughout the Bible. consider the following passages mula sa Bible :

" Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:26-27) NKJV

The hebrew reads :

יֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַֽעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעֹוף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם בְּצַלְמֹו בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתֹו זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָֽם׃

Ang hebraism sa verse na ito as the hebrew word dito for image denotes na ang man have the same "image" and likeness to God, and says na ang physical likeness ng tao is the same lang sa Dios (cf. Gen. 6:9; Eph. 4:24; Jm. 2:9) thus saying that Heavenly Father has a physical body. one scholar commented :

[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as well as prophet at a time not too long before P, and whose theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek. 1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut, ‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical totality.

The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature, referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years. Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).

Ito ay supported ng mga pericopes na nagpapakita sa verses 21-25:

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. And God blessed the, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (לְמִינָהּ), cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:21-25) KJV

According to this pericope dito sa context, bawat klase ng mga nilalang ay ginawa "after its kind" (alternate translation can be species - מִין)." Subsequently, ay binigyan sila ng duty na humayo at magpakarami at punuin ang mundo. yung aso di magiging kamukha ng kabayo, yung daga, di magiging magiging kamukha ng ibon, vice-versa etc., dahils sila ay ginawa after their own kind. may kanya kanya silang species. This is important as plays an important exegetical role vis-a-vis the relationship between God at ang physical nature ng tao sa mga susunod na verses sa context na sinundan din ng pericope in the previous verses in the context :

And God said, Let us make man in our image (צֶלֶם), after our likeness (דְּמוּת): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image (צֶלֶם), in the image (צֶלֶם) of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:26-28) KJV

Sinabi ng isang scholar :

" By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam's representative, but as Adam's son he did resemble his father. The terminology "in his likeness" serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase "after its kind" which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance.

- Meredith G. Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit” Westminister Theological Journal, 39 [1976/77]: note 34)

Kline, on this theme, also comments that "the traditional avoidance of the visible corporeal aspect of man in formulating the imago Dei doctrine (in deference to the noncorporeal, invisible nature of God) has not reckoned adequately with the fact of theophanic revelation and in particular has missed the theophanic referent of the image in the Genesis 1 context" and that "the theophanic Glory was present at the creation and was the specific divine model or referent in view in the creating of man in the image of God."

Interestingly, Kline (correctly) rejects the idea that Gen 1:26 is evidence of a plurality of persons within the "one God", On Gen 1:26 in the same article, he wrote:

In Genesis 1:26 it is the plural form of the creative fiat that links the creation of man in the image of God to the Spirit-Glory of Genesis 1:2. The Glory-cloud curtains the heavenly enthronement of God in the midst of the judicial council of his celestial hosts. Here is the explanation of the “let us” and the “our image” in the Creator’s decree to make man. He was addressing himself to the angelic council of elders, taking them into his deliberative counsel.

This understanding of the first-person-plural fiat is supported by the fact that consistently where this usage occurs in divine speech it is in the context of the heavenly councilor at least of heavenly beings. Especially pertinent for Genesis 1:26 is the nearby instance in Genesis 3:22, a declaration concerned again with man’s image-likeness to God: “Man has become like one of us to know good and evil.” The cherubim mentioned in verse 24 were evidently being addressed. In the cases where God determines to descend and enter into judgment with a city like Babel or Sodom, and a plural form (like “Let us go down”) alternates with a singular, [30] the explanation of the plural is at hand in the angelic figures who accompany the Angel of the Lord on his judicial mission. [31] When, in Isaiah’s call experience, the Lord, enthroned in the Glory-cloud of his temple, asks, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8), the plural is again readily accounted for by the seraphim attendants at the throne or (if the seraphim are to be distinguished from the heavenly elders, as are the winged creatures of the throne in Revelation 4) by the divine council, which in any case belongs to the scene. (A similar use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the assembly of the gods as described in Canaanite texts of the Mosaic age.)

Note the following about the ANE background to "image" and "likeness" from two Old Testament scholars:

The idea fundamentally laid down in Gen 1:26f., that humans—and only humans, in contradistinction to the animals—are in the image of God must go back to Egyptian influence where especially the ruler appears as the “image of god.” The throne names and epithets of Egyptian kings perpetuate their “image of god-ness.” Tutankhamun (twt-‘nḫ-Ymn) means ‘living likeness of Amun’. New Kingdom seal amulets (scarabs) have been found in Palestine/Israel as well; on them, the name of Thutmoses III and other pharaohs are provided with the annotation tyt R’, tyt Ymn, or tyt Tmn R’ ‘image of Amun/Re’. But being in the image of God could also refer to human creatures in general. According to the Instruction of Merikare, which says of humanity that “They are his images, who came from his body” (snnw.f pw prn m ḥ’w.f), the relationship rests on the fact that humanity came from the body of the god. The connection is clear, and it is clearly suggested in the Egyptian language. The Egyptian numeral snw ‘two’ (Heb. šanah, šenim) is at the core of a broad semantic field to which among others, the following concepts belong: snwy ‘the two’ (dual); šnnw ‘second, companion, associate, colleague’; šn ‘brother’, šnt ‘sister’; šny ‘resemble, copy, imitate’, šnn ‘statue, image, icon’, šnnt ‘similarity’. “Similarity” is accordingly based on physical relationship and actually refers to a sort of “second edition” or “duplicate.”

Additional background for “being in the likeness of God” in Gen 1:26f. is the belief, throughout the Orient, in the potent corporealization that an image repreents. The statue or stela of an Egyptian, Assyrian, or Babylonian king, set up in a distant province of the empire, represents the king’s power on the spot. The image of the god in the temple represents the presence of the god. The Hebrew word ‘image’ (ṣelem) points linguistically to the Mesopotamian cultural area. It can designate sculptures, statues, or reliefs, but primarily emphasizes their representative function. The Akkadian word ṣalmu has a similar semantic spectrum. Like the Egyptian rulers, the Assyrian kings of the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. were often designated “image” (ṣalmu) of a god: it is clear that the notion of “being in the image of God” clearly developed from the conception of a representative image and was then probably abstracted. The word “likeness/form” (demut), which supplements ṣelem in 1:26f., designates the similar connection of the copy with the model. It alludes to the content of the image, and inner similarity in nature between human and God. (Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East [trans. Peter D. Daniels; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015], 142-43)

Such conclusions are strongly consistent with Latter-day Saint theology ng physical body ni Heavenly Father at Jesus Christ.

Sa isa pang passage sa Acts 7:55-56, we read na nakita ni Stephen si Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ when he gazed up to Heaven :

" But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55-56) NKJV

At sa letter ni Apostle Paul sa mga Hebrews, when nagsasalita si Paul about sa greatness ni Jesus Christ, doon banda sa proluoge ay ganito ang mababasa :

" who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high," (Heb. 1:3) NKJV

(cf. Jn. 12:45; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15)

Latter Day Saint apologist D. Charles Pyle commented 

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.

Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.

Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα aapaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.

Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.

Supporting the claim that απαυγασμα is passive in Heb 1:3, note the following non-LDS sources:

The meaning of απαυγασμα in Heb 1:3 is disputed. Actively, the word can denote radiance or effulgence (Phil, Spec. Leg. iv.123), or passively, reflection or the light that is reflected (Wis 7:26; Philo Op. 146; Plant. 50). The sentence structure in Heb 1:3 favors understanding απαυγασμα and → χαραχτηρ as synonyms and, therefore, interpreting απαυγασμα as pass.: Christ “reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.” Both predicates characterize the Son as the perfect image of God and thus correspond to the expression → εικων του θεου (Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4). (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 1, eds Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990], 118)

3a. The divine Son’s relation to the Father is expressed as a ‘reflection’ (apaugasma) of the Father’s glory and a ‘stamp’ or ‘imprint’ (charaktēr) of his nature. Apaugasma has been variously interpreted in an active sense (‘radiation, emanation’ of light) and in a passive sense (‘reflection’ of a luminary’s light on another surface). The active sense was the one commonly accepted in early exegesis, with conclusions at times orthodox, at times pantheistic or gnostic, but the parallel with charaktēr indicates that it is the passive sense which is intended by our author. Charaktēr is the imprint of a seal, the mark of one thing found in something else. ‘Glory’ is the form of God’s manifestation (Ex 24:16; 33:18; 40:34;cf Jn 1:14), and in late Judaism often meant God himself. Hypostasis is essence, substance, nature; to try to make the clear-cut metaphysical or speculative distinctions of a later theology is out of place; the word is chosen on the basis of theological imagery and metaphor. Without pressing these images further than the author intends, we may say that ‘reflection of his glory’ denotes the Son’s divine origin and perfect similarity to the Father, and ‘stamp of his nature’ that similarity qualified by his distinction from the Father. ‘Upholding the universe by his word of power’: pherōn has the double sense of maintaining the existence of creation and of governing, directing the course of history. The ‘word’ here is the dynamic OT ‘word’ which produces the physical or historical effects, and ‘word of power’, of course, is a Semitism for ‘powerful word’. (Dom Aelred Cody, “Hebrews” in Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969], 1224, emphasis in bold added)

#5 𝘔𝘈𝘠 𝘛𝘈𝘛𝘓𝘖𝘕𝘎 𝘋𝘐𝘠𝘖𝘚 𝘋𝘈𝘞 𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘢 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕𝘚 𝘋𝘖𝘊𝘛𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘌; 𝘉𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘙. 𝘔𝘤𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘦, 𝘱. 317:

“𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘙𝘌 𝘈𝘙𝘌 𝘛𝘏𝘙𝘌𝘌 𝘎𝘖𝘋𝘚 – 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘍𝘈𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘙, 𝘚𝘖𝘕, 𝘈𝘕𝘋 𝘏𝘖𝘓𝘠 𝘎𝘏𝘖𝘚𝘛 – 𝘸𝘩𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.”

𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘨 𝘱𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘨 𝘋𝘪𝘺𝘰𝘴 𝘯𝘢 𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘢

Yung nagpost clearly misunderstood the Latter Day Saint concept ng Godhead (hindi ko lang alam kung trinitarian ba ito or unitarian). sinasabi actually ng Bible na there are three persons that are God in nature, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. these three are separate and distinct persons. inignore ng nagpost yung sinasabi sa following statements ni Bruce R. McConkie sa unity ng Godhead, that they were "united in purpose, in plan, and all the attributes of perfection." (cf. Jn. 17:11-21) the bible tells us about Three persons (Mt. 12:28; 28:19; Lk. 3:22; Jn. 14:26; 15:26; Acts 2:33; Eph. 1:17; Titus 3:5-6) and each of them ay identified as God :

The Father is God - Isa. 64:8; Mt. 11:27; Jn. 5:30; 8:28-29; 14:6-11; 17:25-26; 1 Cor. 8:5-6

The Son is God - Jn. 1:1-3; 5:18-23; 14:10; 17:5; 20:28-31; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-17; 2:9-10; Jude 1:27

The Holy Spirit is God - Lk. 4:1; Jn. 14:15-17; Acts 5:3-5; Rom. 5:5; 15:13; 2 Cor. 3:16-18; 12:13

Ang tatlong ito ay united in action at in purpose as shown :

Sa Creation - Gen. 1; Dt. 32:6; Ps. 104:30; Isa. 45:18; 64:8; Jn. 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:1-3

Sa Incarnation/Condensation - Mk. 10:40; Lk. 1:35; 2:27; 4:14; Jn. 1:14; 7:18-28; Rom. 8:11; Phil. 2:5-11

Sa Redemption - Jn. 3:1-6; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:14

Since ang tatlo na ito ay separate at distinct individuals, there are three essences at hindi iisang essence at hindi sila one in substance (homoussion). if iaapply natin ang logic ay ganito :

A. There are at least three divine persons.

B. Every divine person is God

C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's

D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.

I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea as enunciated in the article (rather poorly)--however, Trinitarianism also states:

Jesus = God

Father = God

Spirit = God

Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son

Numerically, there is only one God

God = Father, Son, and Spirit

To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):

Jesus = x

Father = x

Spirit = x

Numerically, there is only one x

God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x)

And consider yung words ni Origen, isang early church Father, having a discussion with Heraclides :

“Origen : ‘Was He God distinct from this God in whose form He was?’

“Heraclides : ‘Obviously distinct from the other and, while being in the form of the other, distinct from the Creator of all.’

“Origen : ‘Is it not true, then, that there was a God, the Son of God and only begotten of God, the first born of all creation (Col. 1.15), and that we do not hesitate to speak in one sense of two Gods, and in another sense of one God?’

“Heraclides : ‘What you say is evident. But we too say that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end, who encompasses all and is encompassed by nothing, and this Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the Spirit, and man from being born of Mary.’

“Origen: ‘You don't seem to have answered my question. Explain what you mean, for perhaps I didn't follow you. The Father is God?’

“Heraclides : ‘Of course.’

“Origen : ‘The Son is distinct from the Father?’

“Heraclides : ‘Of course, for how could He be son if He were also father?’

“Origen : ‘And while being distinct from the Father, the Son is Himself also God?’

“Heraclides : ‘He is Himself also God.’

“Origen : ‘And the two Gods become a unity?’

“Heraclides : ‘Yes.’

“Origen : ‘We profess two Gods?’

“Heraclides : ‘Yes, [but] the power is one.’ . . .

“What, then, is the meaning of such sacred texts as: Before me no other god was formed, nor shall there be any other after me (Isa. 43.10), and the text: I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me (Dt. 32.39)? In these texts, one is not to think that the unity refers to the God of the universe in his purity (as the heretics would say) apart from Christ, nor that it refers to Christ apart from God; but we say that it is just as Jesus expresses it: I and the Father are one (Jn. 10.30).’” (Origen, ca. 246, Dialogue with Heraclides 1-4, in Ancient Christian Writers 54.58-60)

#6 𝘛𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘱𝘱. 345-347- 𝘛𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘰 𝘥𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘺 𝘔𝘈𝘈𝘈𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘔𝘈𝘎𝘐𝘎𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘋𝘐𝘠𝘖𝘚 !

𝘈𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘶𝘣𝘰𝘴 𝘯𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘨𝘢𝘱 𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘨 1880.

𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘢 𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘢. 45:5

First, Isaiah 45:5 reads :

" I am the Lord, and there is no other;

There is no God besides Me.

I will gird you, though you have not known Me," (Isa. 45:5) NKJV

We have similar passages nito found in Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:21-22; 46:9-10. but if babasahin natin ang context ng verses na ito, isa itong rant ni Jehovah/Yahweh against sa idolatry and that sa kanya lamang ibibigay ang sumpremacy. worship is for Jehovah/Yahweh alone. ang interpretation ng nagpost at ng ibang anti-mormons na no other form ng deity daw should exist besides Jehovah/Yahweh at included na daw ang mga exalted na human beings, which is incorrect if read in context. for example, dinedepict ng Isaiah 47:8-10 ang Babylon as the following :

“Therefore hear this now, you who are given to pleasures,

Who dwell securely,

Who say in your heart, ‘I am, and there is no one else besides me;

I shall not sit as a widow,

Nor shall I know the loss of children’;

But these two things shall come to you

In a moment, in one day:

The loss of children, and widowhood.

They shall come upon you in their fullness

Because of the multitude of your sorceries,

For the great abundance of your enchantments.

“For you have trusted in your wickedness;

You have said, ‘No one sees me’;

Your wisdom and your knowledge have warped you;

And you have said in your heart,

‘I am, and there is no one else besides me." (Isa. 47:8-10) NKJV

Ang paggamit ng the same phrase na " there is no one else besides me" sa Isaiah 44 and 45, ay hidni ineexclude yung existence ng ibang cities beside sa city of Babylon. it would be a contradiction (if we used that faulty interpretation) sa pagdepict ni Zephaniah sa Nineveh for Zephaniah depicts Nineveh in the same manner :

" This is the rejoicing city

That dwelt securely,

That said in her heart,

“I am it, and there is none besides me.”

How has she beco T me a desolation,

A place for beasts to lie down!

Everyone who passes by her

Shall hiss and shake his fist." (Zeph. 2:15) NKJV

Using these parallels shows us na hindi naeexclude ang ibang cities. the Lord does not exclude yung ibang deities sa pagsasabi niya na " no one else beside me", instead, again, ay isa itong rant sa idolatry.

We have something called sa Judaism at early Christianity na Monolatry, which is the worship of one God without denying the existence of other lower deities. other term para dito ay Kingship Monotheism. si Jehovah/Yahweh ay binibigyan ng supremacy over other gods. He is one of the many gods but He is the greatest among them all. as stated sa Psalms compared with other bible versions :

" And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? aor to thy faithfulness round about thee?" (Ps. 89:5-8) KJV

" The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [fn. Lit "sons of god(s)]? In the council of holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you." (Ps. 89:5-8) NIV.

" Among all the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." (Ps. 86:8) KJV

" God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment." (Ps. 82:1) ESV

" God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps. 82:1) KJV

Daniel Mcclellan commented :

Other Gods in the Hebrew

Bible

This topic has come up a number of times in the past, but it is enlightening every time it comes up. The question is whether the authors of the Bible, in general, acknowledged or denied the existence of other gods. By gods I mean ontological deities. I do not mean humans metaphorically called gods, I mean real divine beings. I also am not concerned with whether or not there are other gods that are as powerful or more powerful than God, or that “are gods in the same sense that God is God.” I’m only concerned with whether or not the Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods. I contend that it does, and I give my argument in following. I will first point to many places where the gods are explicitly acknowledged. I will then address the scriptures that are always brought forth in an effort to establish a rubric that precludes the possibility of reading the former texts to indicate the other gods were thought to exist. I will show that a sound and thorough analysis of their grammatical and literary contexts actually shows the texts are not at all intended to deny the existence of the other gods. I will also explain the fallacious presupposition that inevitably forms the basis of all efforts to contradict these readings.

One of the first indications that multiple gods are acknowledged in the Bible is the cohortative “let us make man in our image” from Gen 1:26. God is clearly talking to someone else. Some have come up with different creative ways to explain this away, such as suggesting he is referring to another member of the Trinity, but this usage is far too rare and the context is far from supportive of such a reading. There’s also no actual reference to another member of the Trinity anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Every one of the few instances where another member of the Trinity is suggested as the object are instances where we are simply not given any indication whatsoever of whom is being addressed. When the serpent later tempts Eve (Gen 3:5), he states that if they eat the fruit they will be “as gods, knowing good and evil.” This phrase is a merism, meaning it is intended to indicate everything between the two poles represented by “good” and “evil.” In other words, they will have all knowledge. Gods are those who know all. People often insist that Satan here is lying, but Gen 3:22 makes it clear his assertion was, according to the narrative, true. In that verse, God states that “the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.” In Satan’s phrasing the participle “knowing” is in the plural, so it means “gods” and manifestly not “God.”

In the beginning of Genesis 6 a story is told of the “sons of God” (בני*אלהים) taking wives of the “daughters of Adam/man” and siring children which would become the “mighty men of old.” There are two possible understandings of “sons of God.” It may mean a member of the divine taxonomy, in the same way the “sons of Israel” refer to Israelites (Deut 10:6) and the “sons of the prophets” refers to the prophets (1 Kgs 20:35). According to that reading, we should translate just “gods.” On the other hand, it may refer to a specific category of second tier deities that were thought of as the actual offspring of El and his consort (Asherah). In the Ugaritic and other Syro-Palestinian literature the phrase is bn ilm, which is directly cognate to בני*אלים in Ps 29:1 and 89:7. בני*אלהים is a secondary formulation of that construction, derived from the overwhelming preference for אלהים over אלי in the Hebrew Bible. Since the “sons of God” are represented throughout the Hebrew Bible in roles and functions analogous to those of the bn elim of the Ugaritic literature (see Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8–9; Job 1:6; 2:1), the latter interpretation (the offspring of El) is preferred, and the translation should be “sons of God.”

Although Israel and others are occasionally referred to metaphorically as God’s son (Exod 4:24; Deut 32:6; Jer 31:9; Hos 1:10), the associated vernacular is markedly distinct from the consistent usage of bny elohim/elim, and the latter is never found in the same context of the former. The “sons of God” are not humans. They were not around to shout for joy at the creation of the earth (Job 38:7), and Gen 6:2 paints a clear contrast between the sons of God and the daughters of man. In Deut 32:8–9 we read that when the Most High divided up the sons of man, he divided the nations according to the number of the sons of God. The version with which most people are familiar today says “sons of Israel,” but this is a late change (that manuscript dates to around 1000 CE). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint (both around 200–100 BCE) show that the text originally read “sons of God.” Genesis’ table of nations held that the nations of the earth numbered 70. Traditions from the Hellenistic period and after also pointed to 70 nations of the earth. This would mean the sons of God numbered 70. This fits perfectly with our understanding of “sons of God” as cognate with the Syro-Palestinian concept of the “sons of God,” since in that literature they also number 70. In this instance, the gods of the nations are said to have been set up over their respective nations by God himself. In other words, they were given responsibilities as gods by the God of Israel. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, Israel’s sin regarding the other gods is described as their worship of gods that were not allotted to them (Deut 29:25). The notion that those other gods do not actually exist is not a part of that rhetoric (cf. Deut 4:19; 17:3, were the gods are astralized under Assyrian influence).

Psalm 82 is another place where a variation on this “sons of God” theme occurs (they are found in Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). There they are called “sons of Elyon,” or “the Most High.” In v. 1 Yahweh is said to judge among the gods, who are neglecting their stewardships over the nations. In v. 6 God says to the gods, “I have said, you are gods, and every one of you sons of Elyon; however, you shall die as do men, and fall as any prince.” The beginnings of vv. 6 and 7 contain a construction (the combination of amarti and aken) that points to an unexpected contrast. In this case the contrast is between the divine nature of the gods and their loss of immortality. Their deaths are entirely unexpected, but God decrees it as a result of their negligence. The gods of v. 6 cannot be humans, as that would completely undo the tension of the contrast. Some people have pointed to Exodus 21 and 22 to insist that the word elohim can refer to human beings, like judges. This reading first arose in the rabbinic period, however, and has nothing to do with the original context of the verses. As numerous authors have shown since the beginning of the twentieth century, elohim does not mean judges, and Exod 21 and 22 refer either to the practice of bringing the accused before domestic images of the deities (or teraphim) to swear an oath, or the practice of bringing the accused before the main deity in the temple to do the same. The verses should be translated with “gods” or “God.” Judges is simply not supported by anything. I discuss this issue further here.

Elsewhere the gods are referred to in a manner which presupposes their existence with the simple plural elohim or the more rare elim (for instance, Exod 15:11; 18:11; Deut 10:17; 32:43 [DSS, LXX]; 33:2; Josh 22:22; Ps 86:8; 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9; 135:5; 136:2; Job 41:17 [English v. 25]; 1 Chr 16:25; 2 Chr 2:5; Dan 11:36). In these cases, the rhetoric would be meaningless if the other gods were considered non-existent. It’s really not impressive to say your God is better than all those non-existent entities. It’s much more impressive to say your God is the ruler over all the gods of the other nations, and that’s unquestionably the sense in the texts above.

In earlier literature, however, Yahweh was only seen as the ruler of Israel. He was not operative outside of Israel. This is made clear in texts like 1 Sam 26:19, where David is being driven out of Israel and interprets this to mean he will not be able to worship Yahweh, since he will be outside of Yahweh’s inheritance. He must worship other gods. The same is true of 2 Kgs 5:15–18 where Naaman explains that there is no god in all the earth but in Israel and then asks for cartloads of dirt to take back to his hometown so he can worship Israel’s God. The rhetoric is meant to insist that Israel’s god is the only important god, not that no other gods exist. After all, to say that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel is to say that Yahweh does not exist outside of Israel. The only place where a god exists is within the nation of Israel. This is why he must take Israelite soil home with him. In his mind, he must be on Israelite soil in order to worship Israel’s god. This doesn’t mean the gods of the nations don’t exist, but just that they’re not worthy of worship like Yahweh is. Besides, why would he reach the conclusion just from his successful healing that no other gods exist? No such notion is attested anywhere in antiquity, and it certainly isn't a requirement anywhere of conversion or anything like that in the first millennium BCE. Naaman's comments are very clearly rhetoric meant to extol Yahweh's prowess over that of the puny gods of the nations, and not to deny the existence of the other gods.

Now on to the texts which appear to argue that no other gods exist. The most common are those that say “I am/he is God and there is no other” (Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Sam 2:2; 7:22; 1 Kgs 8:60; Isa 45:5, 6, 14, 21, 22; 46:9; 1 Chr 17:20). The question is whether these texts legitimately deny the existence of other gods, or just rhetorically deny their efficacy or relevance. I find a few other text that use the same rhetoric in other contexts, and they definitely support the latter interpretation. For instance, Isa 47:8, 10 has the personified Babylon imagine in her heart, “I am and there is no other.” This hardly can be understood to mean Babylon believes herself to be the only city that exists, but that she believes herself to be the most important city, puffing herself up as a deity. She is all that matters for her constituents. Similarly, in Judg 7:14 the Midianite soldier tells his companion, “there is no other than the sword of Gideon.” Again, it doesn’t mean Gideon is the only person with a sword in all the universe, but only that he is the only one that matters. His sword is the only one they need to worry about.

This is likely the proper reading of the texts I cited above. For instance, it fits perfectly with the Shema (Deut 6:4). The statement that “Yahweh is one” doesn’t have anything to do with the existence of other gods. It simply asserts that he is all that matters for those making the proclamation. The closest analogous verse in the Hebrew Bible is Song of Songs 6:9, wherein the author claims that his dove, his undefiled, “is one; and the only one of her mother.” This does not mean that the author’s beloved is the only beloved that exists, but the only one that matters for the author. She is also the only daughter that matters for her mother. In every use of the phrase, it refers to the exclusivity of the relationship between the subject and the object, not any ontological exclusivity.

Other rhetoric is aimed at marginalizing the gods of the nations. For instance, 1 Chr 16:26 and Ps 96:5 state that the gods of the nations are elilim. This is usually translated “idols,” but it fundamentally means “worthless things” (cf. the adjective in Job 13:4; Zech 11:17). These two texts are not saying that the gods are actually just pieces of wood and stone, they’re saying that the gods are insignificant and worthless. This is comparable to numerous other texts that say that the nations and people who fight against Israel are “nothing,” “less than nothing,” and “vanity” (Isa 40:17, 23; 41:11, 12; 44:9). Compare these to Isa 41:21, which is addressed to the gods: “you are nothing, and your works less than nothing.” The rhetoric is identical. It’s not meant to deny their existence, but their relevance and potency.

Another statements from Deutero-Isaiah also merits mention, namely Isa 43:10. There the author has Yahweh say, “before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Readers almost always read too quickly over this verse and don’t realize that if we understand it literally then it only speaks of the situation before and after Yahweh’s reign. It makes no statement about the creation or existence of gods during Yahweh’s reign. This fits easily into rhetoric elsewhere that insists Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods (Neh 9:6, for instance, says Yahweh created the hosts of the heavens, another epithet of the gods).

As has been shown, a thorough and objective analysis of the literary contexts of the rhetoric aimed at the gods of the nations shows their existence is never denied. Rather, their relevance and potency is marginalized in exilic and post-exilic literature using hyperbolic rhetoric. That rhetoric is also used in reference to other entities, like the nations or people who craft idols. The sense is not at all that they don’t actually exist, but only that they’re irrelevant and impotent. The numerous places where the gods are acknowledged further support this reading. There is nothing in the Bible that substantiates the notion that no other gods exist. Any religious tradition that accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc., accepts the existence of numerous gods. The notion that they’re not “gods” in the same sense that God is God actually supports my point. That would mean there are other gods, they’re just not on the same level as God, and that completely and totally contradicts the notion of monotheism (it’s more akin to monarchism or monolatry). It is equivocation to insist that there are gods and there is God, and never the twain shall meet. These are just two different ways to spell in English the exact same Hebrew word (and that word means absolutely the exact same thing, whether the god of Israel is the referent or any other god).

Finally, these are all the verses that use the word "god" and mention deities other than Yhwh:

Quote

Gen 3:5; 22; 6:2, 4; 31:3, 32; 35:2, 4; Exod 12:12; 15:11; 18:11; 20:3, 23; 22:20; 23:13, 24, 32, 33; 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31; 34:14, 15, 16, 17; Lev 19:4; Num 25:2; 33:4; Deut 3:24; 4:7, 28; 5:7; 6:14; 7:4, 16, 25; 8:19; 10:17; 11:16, 28; 12:2, 3, 30, 31; 13:2, 6, 7, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 20:18; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:18, 26; 31:16, 18, 20; 32:12, 17, 21, 37, 39; Josh 23:7, 16; 24:2, 14, 15, 16, 2, 23; Judg 2:3, 12, 17, 19; 3:6; 5:8; 6:10, 31; 9:27; 10:6, 13, 14, 16; 11:24; 16:23, 24; 17:5; 18:24;1 Sam 4:8; 5:7; 6:5; 7:3; 8:8; 17:43; 26:19; 28:13; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Kgs 9:6, 9; 10:24; 11:2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 33; 12:28; 14:19; 18:24, 25, 27; 19:2; 20:10, 23, 28; 2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16; 17:7, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38; 18:33, 34, 35; 19:12, 18, 19, 37; Isa 9:6; 14:13; 21:9; 31:3; 36:18, 19, 20; 37:12, 19, 38; 41:23; 42:17; 43:10, 12; 44:10, 15, 17; 45:20; 46:6; Jer 2:11, 28; 5:7, 19; 7:6, 9; 10:11; 11:10, 12, 13; 13:10; 16:11, 13, 20; 22:9; 25:6; 35:15; 43:12, 13; 46:25; 48:35; Ezek28:2, 9; Hos 3:1; 13:4; 14:3; Amos 5:26; 8:14; Jonah 1:5; Mic 4:5; 7:18; Zeph 2:11; Nah 1:14; Hab 1:11; Mal 2:11, 15; Ps 29:1; 44:20; 77:13; 81:9; 82:1, 6; 86:8; 89:6, 7; 95:3; 96:4, 5; 97:7, 9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; Ruth 1:15; Dan 1:2; 2:11, 47; 3:12, 14, 15, 18, 25, 28, 29; 4:8, 9, 18; 5:4, 11, 14, 23; 6:7, 12; 11:8, 36, 37, 38, 39; Ezra 1:7; 1 Chr 5:25; 10:10; 14:12; 16:25, 26; 2 Chr 2:5; 7:19, 22; 25:14, 15, 20; 28:23, 25; 32:13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21; 33:15

The Bible says na tayo ay ang mga literal na mga anak ng Dios (Jn. 20:17; Acts 17:29; Heb. 12:9) and as mga anak niya ay may potential tayo na maging kagaya niya. This is not new in the scriptures. itinuturo ng scriptures explicitly ang doctrine ng Deafication. Unang-una, sinasabi ng Banal na Kasulatan na ang tao ay may potensyal na maging kagaya ng Dios. sinasabi ng Biblia na tayo ay magpakasakdal at magpakabanal gaya ng Dios (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; Mt. 5:48; 1 Ped. 1:15-16;). At maging mismo, ang Dios ng Israel ay itinuro sa atin ang potential ng tao na ,maging katulad niya. sinabi ng Panginoon sa Awit 82:6 na :

"I said, “You are gods,

And all of you are children of the Most High." (Ps. 82:6) NKJV

This is cited by Jesus when qinestion ng mga Jews ang kanyang deity at authority, then He commented :

“Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (Jn. 34:34-36) NKJV

Sinabi ni Apostle Peter sa kanyang general epistle taht we can be partakers of the divine nature :

" Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Pt. 1:2-4) NKJV

And other apostles gaya ni Apostle Paul, sinabi niya na tayo as "mga anak ng Dios" ay puwede tayo na maging "mga tagapagmana sa Dios" at na tayo ay "joint heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:14-15; Gal. 4:7; cf Acts 17:29; Heb. 12:9). ang mamanahin natin ay ang "lahat ng mga bagay" (Rev. 21:7). Sinabi din ni Juan na tayo ay ang "mga anak ng Dios," na "na kung siya'y mahayag, tayo'y magiging katulad niya: sapagka't siya'y ating makikitang gaya ng kaniyang sarili." at na "sinomang mayroon ng pagasang ito sa kaniya ay naglilinis sa kaniyang sarili, gaya naman niyang malinis." (1 Jn. 3:1-3). but in that relationship, though the exalted Christian will be joint heirs with Christ, Sasabihin ng Tagapagligtas na "ako'y magiging Diyos niya at siya'y magiging anak ko." (cf. 1 Cor. 3:21-23.) . sa state na yun, tutulungan natin siya na pamalahan ang lahat ng mga bagay (Lk. 12:43-44; Rev. 3:21), magiging isa sa Dios at sa Tagapagligtas (Jn. 17:20-23); magkakaroon ng naluwalhating katawan gaya ng sa Dios (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21; 1 Jn. 3:2) at makakatanggap ng kaluwalhatian mula sa Dios (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 3:18). This very same doctrine that was taught in the scriptures ay itinuro din ng mga Early Christian Church Fathers.

Irenaeus (ca. AD 115 - 202) 

Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:

"While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord."

"there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption." " We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods."....

Also:...." How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God."

And:....." Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” And:...." But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."

".....For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh," to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father."

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

Sinabi ni Clement of Alexandria na isa sa mga purpose ng incarnation ni Jesus Christ ay para matulungan tayo na matuto kung papaano ma-deify, na kung papaano tayo magiging kagaya ni God at maging god :

"yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."...And.."...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men." "Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior. "

Augustine (AD 354-430) 

Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

" but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (Jn. 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods"

and many more christian fathers and theologians believe in the doctrine of deafication. as said, the deafication of man will never replace God or Jesus. God will always be our God, Jesus will always be our Savior.

#7 𝘚𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘢 𝘗𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘢 𝘑𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘴, 2: 171, 𝘴𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘪 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘮 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘨 1855, 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘢 𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘱𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘋𝘪𝘺𝘰𝘴 𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩: "𝘓𝘖𝘙𝘋 𝘋𝘐𝘋 𝘕𝘖𝘛 𝘊𝘖𝘔𝘌 𝘛𝘖 𝘑𝘖𝘚𝘌𝘗𝘏 𝘚𝘔𝘐𝘛𝘏, 𝘉𝘜𝘛 𝘚𝘌𝘕𝘛 𝘏𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘕𝘎𝘌𝘓…𝘛𝘖 𝘐𝘕𝘍𝘖𝘙𝘔 𝘏𝘐𝘔 𝘛𝘏𝘈𝘛 𝘏𝘌 𝘚𝘏𝘖𝘜𝘓𝘋 𝘕𝘖𝘛 𝘑𝘖𝘐𝘕 𝘈𝘕𝘠 𝘙𝘌𝘓𝘐𝘎𝘐𝘖𝘜𝘚 𝘚𝘌𝘊𝘛 𝘖𝘍 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘋𝘈𝘠, 𝘍𝘖𝘙 𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘠 𝘞𝘌𝘙𝘌 𝘈𝘓𝘓 𝘞𝘙𝘖𝘕𝘎…” (𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯

)

Magkape muna tayo....

This is one example ng tinatawag natin na "quote mining". hindi lang tinakeout ng writer yung context ng scriptures but maging yung context ng writings ng apostles. sa phrase palang sa op na "sa kanilang aklat na Pearl of Great Price sa Journal of Discourses" is already a faulty statement making false equivalences. here is what actually said sa Journal Of Discourses :

“The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven ... but He did send his angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong.” (Brigham Young, (1855) JOD. 2:171.)

One great example of someone guilty of quote mining.

#8 𝘖𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘵’𝘴 (𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦) 𝘴𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘢 𝘋𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯”: 𝘓𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘭, 1851, 𝘱𝘱. 1, 2 𝘚𝘐𝘕𝘈𝘉𝘐 𝘕𝘐𝘠𝘈 𝘕𝘈 𝘞𝘈𝘓𝘈𝘕𝘎 𝘒𝘈𝘛𝘐𝘠𝘈𝘒𝘈𝘕 𝘒𝘜𝘕𝘎 𝘛𝘈𝘔𝘈 𝘖 𝘔𝘈𝘓𝘐 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘖𝘖𝘒 𝘖𝘍 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕𝘚)

The writer did not presented any quotations from the actual book. maybe sabihin natin na walang katiyakan yung writer kung credible nga ba yung sources na pinagpupuntahan niya.

#9 𝘓𝘋𝘚 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘳 𝘋𝘦𝘦 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯, 𝘪𝘯 𝘋𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦, 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 1969, 𝘱𝘱. 74-78, 𝘈𝘕𝘎 𝘉𝘖𝘖𝘒 𝘖𝘍 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕 𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘴𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘓𝘈𝘔𝘈𝘛 ! 𝘎𝘢𝘺𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘪 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘍𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳, 𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘰𝘥 𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘔𝘖, 𝘴𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘢𝘮𝘨 𝘢𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘢 "𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘥" 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘯𝘪𝘺𝘢:

“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴, 𝘣𝘺 1970, 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦."

First, John Green argues that the concept of "Book of Mormon archaeology" is inadequate, and that a broader anthropological perspective is necessary. Dee F. Green wrote the following in 1969:

I am not impressed with allegations that Book of Mormon archaeology converts people to the Church. My personal preference in Church members still runs to those who have a faith-inspired commitment to Jesus Christ, and if their testimonies need bolstering by "scientific proof" of the Book of Mormon (or anything else for that matter), I am prone to suggest that the basis of the testimony could stand some re-examination. Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten years functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology, I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology materially affects my religious commitment one way or the other, and I do not see that the archaeological myths so common in our proselytizing program enhance the process of true conversion….

What then, ought to be our approach to the Book of Mormon? In the first place it is a highly complex record demanding knowledge of a wide variety of anthropological skills from archaeology through ethnology to linguistics and culture change, with perhaps a little physical anthropology thrown in for good measure. No one man outside the Church, much less anyone inside, has command of the necessary information. Furthermore, it isn't just the accumulation of knowledge and skill which is important; the framework in which it is applied must fit. Such a framework can be found only by viewing the Book of Mormon against a picture of New World culture history drawn by the entire discipline of anthropology. Singling out archaeology, a sub-discipline of anthropology, to carry the burden, especially in the naive manner employed by our "Book of Mormon Archaeologists," has resulted in a lopsided promulgation of archaeological myth.

We have never looked at the Book of Mormon in a cultural context. We have mined its pages for doctrine, counsel, and historical events but failed to treat it as a cultural document which can teach something about the inclusive life patterns of a people. And if we are ever to show a relationship between the Book of Mormon and the New World, this step will have to be taken. It is the coincidence of the cultural history of the Book of Mormon with the cultural history of the New World that will tip the scales in our favor....

Several years ago John Sorenson drew an analogy with the Bible which bears repeating:

Playing "the long shots," looking for inscriptions of a particular city, would be like placing the family bankroll on the gambling tables in Las Vegas. We might be lucky, but experience tells us not to plan on it. After lo, these many years of expensive research in Bible lands, there is still not final, incontrovertible proof of a single Biblical event from archaeology alone. The great value of all that effort has been in the broad demonstration that the Bible account fits the context time after time so exactly that no reasonable person can suppose other than that it is genuinely historic. Twenty years or less of systematic "painting the scenery" can yield the same sort of convincing background for the Book of Mormon, I believe. For too long Mormons have sought to "prove" the Book of Mormon authentic by what is really the-- most difficult kind of evidence--historical particulars. In the light of logic and the experience of Biblical archaeology it appears far safer to proceed on the middle ground of seeking general contextual confirmation, even though the results may not be so spectacular as many wish. In any case such a procedure-- the slow building up of a picture and a case--will leave us with a body of new knowledge and increased understanding of the times, manner, and circumstances when Book of Mormon events took place which seems to some of us likely to have more enduring value than “proof.”

For further reading see : https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Dee_F._Green_say_that_there_is_no_such_thing_as_Book_of_Mormon_archaeology%3F

On the issue of Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Jeff Lindsay wrote :

This is a popular but rather misleading claim of anti-Mormons. Here is an example from Kurt Van Gorden, Mormonism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, p. 9, note 9):

"Recent attempts to authenticate the Book of Mormon through archaeology have failed miserably. Most notable is the work of Thomas Steward Ferguson, founder of the Archaeology Department at Brigham Young University. His revealing manuscript at the close of his career shows that no coins, cities, people, plants, animals, or languages of the Book of Mormon have ever been discovered."

Daniel C. Peterson has responded to this charge in his review of Mormonism (1995) by Kurt Van GordenMormonism" in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1996, pp. 96-97:

It is revealing that Mr. Van Gorden chooses the late Thomas Stewart Ferguson as his star archaeological witness against the Book of Mormon. And, furthermore, that he inflates Mr. Ferguson's credentials in the process. (Mr. Ferguson was a lawyer, not an archaeologist. He never taught at Brigham Young University, let alone founded the University's department of archaeology.) [See Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 4 (1992): 117-119.] Why does Mr. Van Gorden [like many other anti-Mormons] focus on him? Why does he avert his gaze from, say, Professor John L. Sorenson's work on the geography and archaeology of the Book of Mormon? Isn't his behavior a bit reminiscent of the wolf, seizing the stragglers of the flock, taking on the weakest Latter-day Saint arguments while avoiding the strongest ones?

And, by the way, for the umpteenth time, the Book of Mormon never claims that there were "coins" in the ancient New World.... The reference to "Nephite coinage" in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text and is mistaken. Alma 11 is almost certainly talking about standardized weights of metal....

Ferguson engaged in some expeditions with unrealistic and simplistic expectations (see John Gee, "The Hagiography of Doubting Thomas," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1998, pp. 158-183). He thought he should find Book of Mormon artifacts just by picking a "reasonable" place and digging. But even when trained archaeologists manage to pick the right place, they often fail to find what they expect, if they find anything at all. (Ferguson's approach was naive, but not as bad, certainly, as those who say we should readily find massive ancient steel mills were the few Book of Mormon references to metal working to be taken seriously.) He was disappointed - as most researchers and explorers - especially amateurs - will be in the early, ignorance-rich stages of their work. His frustrations as an amateur and apparent loss of his testimony have little bearing on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and merit little attention. His impact on LDS scholarship was negligible and he remains largely unknown among Latter-day Saints. Those wishing to understand the state of scholarship in the Book of Mormon should look at actual scholarship, not Mr. Ferguson's misinformed complaints. There is abundant evidence supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

A related but even more misleading claim is that B.H. Roberts, an LDS General Authority and prolific writer, lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon for similar reasons. B.H. Roberts never lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon and remained strong in his faith. For details, see the B.H. Roberts question on my page, Questions about Apparent Book of Mormon Problems.

2018 Update: The illustrious journal, Science, has just published an article digging up the Thomas Ferguson story again. It's an interesting and even thoughtful article, but is missing some key information. The reference is Lizzie Wade, "How a Mormon Lawyer Transformed Mesoamerican Archaeology--and Ended Up Losing His Faith," Science, vol. 359, issue 6373 (19 Jan 2018): 264-268 (DOI: 10.1126/science.359.6373.264). My response at Mormanity is, "Science: 'How a Mormon Lawyer Transformed Mesoamerican Archaeology--and Ended Up Losing His Faith,'" Jan. 19, 2018. The Science publication appears to rely at least in part on Stan Larson's agenda-driven biography of Ferguson, which, unfortunately, has some serious errors.

Related resources:

John Gee, "The Hagiography of Doubting Thomas," FARMS Review of Books 10/2 (1998).

Daniel C. Peterson and Matthew Roper, "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons," FARMS Review of Books, 16/1 (2004).

Warren Aston's book, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia, available on Kindle. See also Lehi in Arabia, at www.lehiinarabia.com/for info on the DVD, which can also be watched online for free.

Neal Rappleye, "Book of Mormon Archaeology and Agenda-Driven Narratives," Studio et Quoque Fide, 2013.

#10 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘮 𝘏𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴; 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘨𝘰𝘭 𝘯𝘨 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘰, 𝘪𝘴𝘢 𝘴𝘢 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘥𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘯𝘨 𝘓𝘋𝘚 𝘴𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘩𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘪𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮 (6) 𝘯𝘢 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘒𝘈𝘓𝘈𝘜𝘕𝘈𝘕 𝘈𝘠 𝘛𝘜𝘔𝘐𝘞𝘈𝘓𝘈𝘎 𝘚𝘈 𝘕𝘈𝘚𝘈𝘉𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘒𝘜𝘓𝘛𝘖.

𝘚𝘢 𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘸𝘢 𝘯𝘪𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘨-𝘢𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘖𝘖𝘒 𝘖𝘍 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕𝘚, 𝘴𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘢 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘱.244 𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘢, 𝘈𝘕𝘎 𝘉𝘖𝘖𝘒 𝘖𝘍 𝘔𝘖𝘙𝘔𝘖𝘕𝘚 𝘈𝘠 𝘉𝘜𝘕𝘎𝘈 𝘓𝘈𝘔𝘈𝘕𝘎 𝘕𝘎 𝘔𝘈𝘓𝘐𝘒𝘖𝘛 𝘕𝘈 𝘐𝘔𝘈𝘏𝘐𝘕𝘈𝘚𝘠𝘖𝘕 𝘕𝘐 𝘑𝘖𝘚𝘌𝘗𝘏 𝘚𝘔𝘐𝘛𝘏.

One example ng evasive ignorance. Here's one from Fairmormon :

B.H. Roberts was a believer in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, and talked of young Joseph Smith as he sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel

B.H. Roberts retained his belief that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin up until the end of his life. Yet, according to one critical website, B.H. Roberts "postulated that it was certainly possible for Joseph Smith to have come up with the Book of Mormon on his own." [1] Roberts, however, believed that Joseph had conversations with the Angel Moroni.

B.H. Roberts, in his critical study of the Book of Mormon, pointed out how future critics might make use of this.

The face of it is first established by the testimony of the mother who bore him, Lucy Smith. Speaking of the days immediately following the revelation making known the existence of the Book of Mormon to her son...Lucy Smith in her History of the Prophet Joseph Smith, recounts how in the evening of that day, the young prophet sat up late detailing to the family the wonderful conversations he had with the angel;[2]

Roberts was an able scholar, and he was not afraid to play 'devil's advocate' to strengthen the Church's defenses against its enemies

In a presentation on some potential Book of Mormon 'problems' prepared for the General Authorities, Roberts wrote a caution that subsequent critics have seen fit to ignore:

Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.[5]

Roberts felt that faith in the Book of Mormon was a given, and so did not consider any 'negative' points to be of ultimate concern

Roberts felt that faith in the Book of Mormon was a given, and so did not consider any 'negative' points to be of ultimate concern, though he did seek for better answers than he then had. The critics have often published his list of of "parallels" between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, without informing modern readers that Roberts did not consider the problems insoluable, or a true threat to faith in the Book of Mormon. They also do not generally cite the numerous other statements in which, to the end of his life, he declared the Book of Mormon to be a divine record.

Roberts' studies also made him willing to modify previous conceptions, such as when he concluded that the Book of Mormon was not a history of the only immigrants to the New World.

In 1930, he enthused about the Book of Mormon a century after the Church's organization:

Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for God hath spoken. ... The Record of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim, the Book of Mormon, has been revealed and translated by the power of God, and supplies the world with a new witness for the Christ, and the truth and the fulness of the Gospel.[6]

Other witnesses by B.H. Roberts of truth of the Church and the Gospel

The book Discourses of B.H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy, compiled by Ben R. Roberts (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company 1948) contains the last seven discourses delivered by Elder Roberts: four in Salt Lake City, one in San Francisco (on the radio), and the last two at the World Fellowship of Faith in Chicago, in August-September 1933. He died three weeks after the last discourse. Roberts had returned from a lengthy illness, which made him realize how precious life is. He determined to leave his testimony, especially for the youth of the church.

From the first of these addresses:[7]

It has always been a matter of pride with me, in my more than fifty years of ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that it was no trivial thing which called this Church of the New Dispensation into existence. It was not founded upon the idea that men differed in relation to how baptism should be administered, whether by sprinkling or pouring, or immersion; or whether it was for the remission of sins, or because sins had been forgiven. I always rejoice that it had a broader foundation than whether the form of church government and administration should be Episcopal or Congregational, or the Presbyterian form of government; or any other minor [23] difference of theologians. It went to the heart of things, and astonished the world, and at the same time, of course, aroused its opposition.

When the Prophet of the New Dispensation asked God for wisdom, and which of the many churches about him he should join, he was told to join none of them, for they were all wrong; their creeds were false; they drew near to the Lord with their lips, but their hearts were far removed from him; they had a form of godliness but denied the power thereof; that the Christian world, especially, had, in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy, transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, and had broken the everlasting covenant (Isaiah 44), of which the blood of the Christ was the blood of that everlasting covenant. He promised the incoming of a New Dispensation of the Gospel of Christ, which would link together and unite all former dispensations, from Adam down to the present time, the great stream of events speeding on towards an immense ocean of truth in which it would be united with all truth. It was a world movement. To lay the foundations of a greater faith, it brought forth the American volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon. In time the authority of God, the holy priesthood was restored, the minor phase of it, through John the Baptist; and later Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the kingdom of heaven, bestowed upon them by the Christ, appeared to the Prophet Joseph and Oliver Cowdery, and the divine and supreme authority from God was conferred upon them. By this authority and under the power of it they organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, outlined its doctrines, and established it firmly in the earth.

That is how the New Dispensation began—not whether baptism should be by immersion, or for the forgiveness of sins. The rubbish of accumulated ages was swept aside, the rocks made bare, and the foundations relaid” (22-23).

Roberts then refers to a statement in David Whitmer, To All Believers in Christ, about the translation of the Book of Mormon being interrupted due to some problems between Joseph and Emma:

He [Joseph] took up the divine instrument, the Urim and Thummim, tried to translated but utterly failed. Things remained dark to his vision. David Whitmer tells how Joseph left the translating room and [26] went to the woodslot on the Whitmer farm, and there corrected himself, brought himself into a state of humiliation and of exaltation at the same time. He went back to the house, became reconciled to Emma, his wife, came up to the translating room, and again the visions were given and the translation went on. But he could translate only as he was in a state of exaltation of mind and in accord with the Spirit of God, which leads to the source of hidden treasures of knowledge” (25-6).

Roberts then refers to the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, which was revealed shortly after the Church was organized, in June 1830:

It goes further than we have come, this knowledge by faith. After the Prophet had translated the Book of Mormon he began to receive the revelations which today make up the Book of Moses, the translation of [27] which began to be published about six months after the Book of Mormon had been translated” (26-7).

I admire the achievements of the men of science and hold them in honor…. But what am I to think of the Prophet of God, who speaking a hundred years before him, and speaking by the knowledge that comes by faith, revealed the same truth—viz., that as one earth shall pass away, so shall another come, and there is no end to God’s work? This gives to the Church of the New Dispensation the right to voice her protest against a dying universe—its death blows to the immortality of man.

Oh, ye Elders of Israel, this is our mission, to withstand this theory of a dying universe and this destruction of the idea of the immortality and eternal life of man. We have this knowledge revealed of God, and it is for us to maintain the perpetuity of the universe and the immortal life of man. Such was the mission of the Christ, such is ours” (29).

I am one of the special witnesses of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, made so by the office I hold, and I want to begin a return to my ministry in this pulpit by exercising my duty as a special witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. Here it is: Jesus Christ is the very Son of God, the incarnation of all that is divine, the revelation of God to man, the Redeemer of the world; for as in Adam all die, so shall they in Christ be brought forth alive. Also Jesus is the Savior of individual man, through him and him alone comes repentance and [30] forgiveness of sins, through which the possibility of unity with God comes. As his witness I stand before you on this occasion to proclaim these truths concerning the Christ, not from scientific knowledge or book learning, but from the knowledge that comes by faith” (29-30)

It is difficult to see these as the words of one who has lost his faith in the Church, the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith.

#15 𝘚𝘢 𝘢𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘢 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘋𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘱.34 :

"𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘓𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘳"( 𝘬𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘸 𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘒𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪 𝘓𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘳 !)

"𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘋𝘚 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘥" 𝘈𝘯𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘸?? 𝘚𝘪 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘯𝘨 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘩𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘣𝘰𝘴. 𝘚𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘪 𝘯𝘪 𝘏𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘺𝘢?

Another example ng gulity sa quote mining. the phrase actually doesn't exist sa book ni Bruce R. McConkie.

Corncerning sa relationship ni Jesus at Satan, heres one mula sa aking recent blogpost :

Si Jesus ang firstborn spiritual child ni Heavenly Father (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15).God is the literal Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9; Jn. 20:17; Acts 17:28-19). kasama sa spiritual children si Jesus. he is also a spirit being before, like us. he is also our spiritual sibling. pinaka-kuya natin kumbaga. Lucifer, a former angel was also before a spirit child of God. Jesus and Satan as siblings ay hindi sila nagshashare ng same attitude and nature. they have both distinct personalities.

" we must first understand that lucifer ( which means lightbearer in latin, in hebrew, original shining one ) was in the beginning 'a son of the morning'(Isa. 14:13-14) and was perfect in all his ways until iniquity was found in him (Ez. 28:13-15) thereafter, he aspired to exalt himself and become 'like the most high' (Isa. 14:13-14). Lucifer lust for power led to his downfall. because of his rebellion against God, he was cast out as a 'lightening' and 'became satan' (Moses 4:3-4; Lk. 10:18; Rev. 12:7-9; 2 Ne. 12:17-18; D&C 76:25-27) we should note that lucifer was not created as a evil being but became satan by his own choice. it should be ironic that satan is evil while his Christ brother was righteous but we should remember that he was among many who were spirit brother that some has a spirit of rebellion should come as no suprise. Isaiah 14:13-14 and Revelation 12:7-9 makes it clear that it was so.we find similar examples among other brothers in the scriptures : Cain and Abel, Joseph and his brothers,and Jacob and Esau.we should note that even among the apostles chosen by Christ was found Judas Iscariot; a man who was initially at least worthy of that calling." - Michael Hickiembotham ( for a much detailed explanation for this topic, pdf link here https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/hickenbotham-jesus-satan-brothers.pdf )

Latter Day Saint Theologian and apologist, Robert Boylan, in response to James White and Jeff Durbin, wrote the following about the relationship of Jesus and Satan wrote :

The Mormon Jesus as a Spiritual Brother 

Of Satan

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).

Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, leaving this on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”

In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)

In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh. Note Deut 32:7-9 from the NRSV, reflecting the Qumran reading (see this blog post reproducing what a recent scholarly commentary has to say about this important pericope):

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

While much more could be said, it should be noted that, as with so many beliefs, it is Latter-day Saint theology, not Evangelical theology, that is supported by biblical exegesis.

#11 𝘗𝘖𝘓𝘠𝘎𝘈𝘔𝘠 (𝘗𝘈𝘎𝘒𝘈𝘒𝘈𝘙𝘖𝘖𝘕 𝘕𝘎 𝘔𝘈𝘙𝘈𝘔𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘈𝘚𝘈𝘞𝘈) 𝘈𝘠 𝘕𝘈𝘕𝘈𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘐𝘓𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘗𝘈 𝘙𝘐𝘕 𝘐𝘛𝘖𝘕𝘎 𝘋𝘖𝘊𝘛𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘌 NG LDS. 𝘚𝘈 𝘋𝘖𝘊𝘛𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘌 𝘈𝘕𝘋 𝘊𝘖𝘝𝘌𝘕𝘈𝘕𝘛𝘚 𝘚𝘌𝘊𝘛𝘐𝘖𝘕 132: 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣 1:15, 2:22-27; 3:5; 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘩 11:2; 𝘌𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 10:5.

#12 𝘚𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘩𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘪 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘺𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘱 𝘴𝘢 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘐𝘓𝘈 𝘕𝘈𝘎𝘐𝘕𝘎 "𝘔𝘎𝘈 𝘈𝘚𝘖" 𝘈𝘕𝘎 𝘔𝘌𝘔𝘉𝘙𝘖 𝘕𝘐𝘛𝘖 𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘏𝘐𝘚𝘛𝘖𝘙𝘐𝘈𝘕𝘚:

𝘐𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢 𝘮𝘨𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘸𝘢...

* 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘏𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘉𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘉𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘦𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘊. 𝘒𝘪𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘉𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯 1827 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯. 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 1838 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘉𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰.

* 𝘕𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘏𝘺𝘥𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘖𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘏𝘺𝘥𝘦, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩’𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘖𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘏𝘺𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘵 𝘓𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘊𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘕𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘏𝘺𝘥𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘑𝘶𝘭𝘺 30, 1857, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩’𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩.

* 𝘡𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘋𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘢 𝘏𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣𝘴, 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘮 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘏𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘺 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 7, 1841, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦-𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘖𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳 27, 1841.

* 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘌𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘙𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘓𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘥𝘢𝘮 𝘓𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸𝘯 𝘴𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘪𝘯 1834 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦

𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦: 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺 𝘔𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘛.𝘉.𝘏. 𝘚𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘱.185-186, 𝘕𝘢𝘶𝘷𝘰𝘰 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮 𝘓𝘢𝘸, 𝘎𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘭 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮, 𝘱. 360 𝘣𝘺 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯 𝘛𝘢𝘺𝘭𝘰𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 6:41 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 617-618.

First, Joseph Smith Jr. had no sexual relations with his plural wives according to DNA evidences. the writer must have sourced nanaman sa suspicious sources at hindi credible na historians. 

Scientific researchers have carefully investigated claims of Joseph Smith’s paternity with tests on descendants of Joseph Smith’s wives, and each one has been thoroughly proven through DNA testing to not be related to Joseph Smith: “DNA analysis ultimately disproved the paternity claim.” Joseph Smith did not have children from any of them.

For years, church members felt compelled to believe stories of women who claim their children were fathered by Joseph Smith. Sylvia Sessions told her daughter that she was Joseph Smith’s child:

“Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret fro me and from others until no but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon had was out of fellowship with the Church.”

(Sylvia Sessions)

DNA testing has since proven this is false. DNA researcher Ugo. A. Perego found Sylvia Sesson’s husband Windsor Lyon, who she was married to “for time” while she was sealed to Joseph Smith “for eternity,” was Josephine’s father. While it is unclear how many–if any–of Joseph Smith’s marriages were for time and eternity, “eternity only” sealing did not involve physical relations.

Anti-Mormons claim it is just by chance that none of the women, which they number upward of 40, didn’t get pregnant. But it is not like Joseph Smith was infertile. He had five children with Emma in a short length of time. Yet none of these other women that Joseph Smith allegedly had sexual relations with had any children? Why not?

Abortions? – Anti-Mormons claim the women simply had abortions. But this theory is easily disproven. There was no opportunity for abortions, and in the early 19th century in the wild frontier of the midwest, at least some of the women would have gotten noticeably ill or died.

Contradictory Allegations About Joseph Smith

Testimony Of Plural Wives – What about first-hand testimony from the wives of sexual relationships? Let’s take a look. Three of Joseph Smith’s plural wives made direct first-hand allegations of physical relationships:

Almera W. Johnson I “lived with Joseph Smith as his wife.”

Malissa Lott “Did you ever room with Joseph Smith as his wife?” “Yes sir,”

Emily Partridge “Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?” “Yes sir,”

Second-hand witnesses also allege cohabitation:

Joseph Nobles : “Right straight across the river at my house they slept together.” (Louisa Beaman)

Benjamin F. Johnson : “occupied the Same Room & Bed” (Emily or Eliza Partridge)

Benjamin F. Johnson : “The first plural wife brought to my house with whom the Prophet stayed, was Eliza Partridge.”

Benjamin F. Johnson : “I saw one of my sisters [Almera] married to him and know that with her he occupied my house on May 16 and 17, 1843.”

Lucy Walker : (according to D. H. Morris via Vesta P. Crawford) I “married Joseph Smith as a plural wife and lived and cohabited with him as such.”

Theodocia Frances : Walker Davis Lucy Walker told her that she lived with Joseph Smith as a wife.

William Law : (bitter apostate) Lived “in an open state of adultery” with Maria Lawrence.

Lucy Walker : (according to Robert B. Neal) “I know that [Emma] gave her consent to the marriage of at least four women to her husband as plural wives, and she was well aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives.”

Other than these three, the wives either suggested they did not have sexual relations with Joseph Smith, or they dodged the question. Of the three, the only clear indication that the relationship was sexual comes from Emily Partridge in the Temple Lot court case (p.484). The others only said they lived or roomed together. They did not necessarily imply sexual interaction.

Emily Patridge’s testimony has several problems.

Coerced allegation – Her allegation came only after lengthy badgering from the examining lawyer. During the lengthy hearing, the lawyer asked her about it over a dozen times, and ridiculed her for dodging the question.

Motive to exaggerate – Emily Partridge was under pressure to prove her relationship with Joseph Smith as legitimate marriage, because a splinter sect was trying to claim ownership of temple grounds based on the claim that polygamy never actually happened. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eventually won the case on the grounds that they were the true successor to Joseph Smith, because they practiced polygamy. Emily’s testimony of legitimate polygamy in Joseph Smith’s time was key to this outcome.

Did not have children – Emily Partridge said her marriage to Joseph Smith was for time and eternity, which meant it was a physical “earth” marriage as well as a spiritual marriage for the afterlife. Therefore, the type of relationship allowed every opportunity for children. Her subsequent marriage to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith had died was only for time, a physical “earth” marriage.

Kelly : How many children did you have by Joseph Smith?

Partridge : None at all. I have told you two or three times I had none….

Kelly : You had children by Brigham Young?

Partridge : Yes sir.

Kelly : The the law of proxy–marriage by the law of proxy–will raise children, while marriage by the law of the church will not? Is that it?

Partridge : I don’t understand your question….

Kelly : Then you were sealed to Joseph Smith at the same time that you were married to Brigham Young, were you now?

Partridge : Yes sir, I was sealed to him on that day….

Kelly : For eternity?

Partridge : Yes sir.

Kelly : Well how were you married to Brigham Young? Were you sealed to him also?

Partridge : Yes sir, but I was sealed to him for time.

Kelly : You were not sealed to him then for both time and eternity?

Partridge : No sir. Of course I was not sealed to Joseph Smith then for he was dead when I married Brigham Young, but I had been sealed to him before that….

Kelly : That you were sealed to Brigham Young during your natural life that day?

Partridge Yes sir.

Kelly : And eternity you were to be the wife of Joseph Smith?

Partridge : Yes sir.

Kelly : But you never had any children by Joseph Smith?

Partridge : No sir….

Kelly : Now Mrs. Young, don’t you know that you were just simpl[y] sealed to him for eternity? Don’t you know that that was all that was done Mrs. Young–that you were simply sealed to him for eternity?

Partridge I know that I was sealed to him for time and eternity.

(Temple Lot court records)

Claims no plural wife lived with Joseph Smith – But in that testimony she went on to make a contradiction. Emily claimed the plural wives did not live with Joseph Smith. Several other plural wives said they did cohabit with Joseph Smith. Emily also went on to make the bizarre claim that she only slept with him once but could not remember how many times they had carnal intercourse:

Kelly : Did you ever live with Joseph Smith after you were married to him after that first night that you roomed together?

Partridge : No sir. Emma knew that we were married to him, but she never allowed us to live with him…

Kelly : Well do you make the declaration now that you ever roomed with him at any time.

Partridge : Yes sir.

Kelly : Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?

Partridge Yes sir.

Kelly : How many nights?

Partridge : One.

Kelly : Only one night?

Partridge : Yes sir…

Kelly : Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?

Partridge : Yes sir.

Kelly : How many nights?

Partridge : I could not tell you.

(Temple Lot court records)

There are several contradictions in Emily’s testimony:

Emily Partridge claimed that she and the other wives were not allowed to live with Joseph Smith, yet the other women claimed they lived with Joseph Smith

Emily Partridge claimed she had “carnal intercourse” and the other wives didn’t.

Emily Partridge claimed she only slept with Joseph Smith one time, yet she didn’t know to what extent she had carnal intercourse? If she slept with him once wouldn’t that be one time they had carnal intercourse? If she didn’t know because the number of times was too many, why was there no pregnancy, considering they were both very fertile?

With the shifting and the contradictions, it seems like Emily Partridge exaggerated her relationship. Yes, the marriage was for time and eternity and therefore allowed for the possibility of sexual relations, but did the “carnal” relations involve a peck on the cheek or much more? What exactly did she consider carnal intercourse?

- Jeremiah R. Jones

#13 𝘚𝘢 𝘗𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘯𝘪 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩: “ 𝘈 𝘛𝘙𝘈𝘕𝘚𝘓𝘈𝘛𝘐𝘖𝘕 𝘖𝘍 𝘚𝘖𝘔𝘌 𝘈𝘕𝘊𝘐𝘌𝘕𝘛 𝘙𝘌𝘊𝘖𝘙𝘋𝘚, 𝘛𝘏𝘈𝘛 𝘏𝘈𝘝𝘌 𝘍𝘈𝘓𝘓𝘌𝘕 𝘐𝘕𝘛𝘖 𝘖𝘜𝘙 𝘏𝘈𝘕𝘋𝘚 𝘍𝘙𝘖𝘔 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘊𝘈𝘛𝘈𝘊𝘖𝘔𝘉𝘚 𝘖𝘍 𝘌𝘎𝘠𝘗𝘛 – 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘞𝘙𝘐𝘛𝘐𝘕𝘎𝘚 𝘖𝘍 𝘈𝘉𝘙𝘈𝘏𝘈𝘔 𝘞𝘏𝘐𝘓𝘌 𝘏𝘌 𝘞𝘈𝘚 𝘐𝘕 𝘌𝘎𝘠𝘗𝘛, 𝘊𝘈𝘓𝘓𝘌𝘋 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘉𝘖𝘖𝘒 𝘖𝘍 𝘈𝘉𝘙𝘈𝘏𝘈𝘔, 𝘞𝘙𝘐𝘛𝘛𝘌𝘕 𝘉𝘠 𝘏𝘐𝘚 𝘖𝘞𝘕 𝘏𝘈𝘕𝘋, 𝘜𝘗𝘖𝘕 𝘗𝘈𝘗𝘠𝘙𝘜𝘚.”

𝘚𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘪 𝘯𝘪 𝘋𝘳. 𝘚𝘪𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘉. 𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘳 𝘕𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘺𝘳𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘢 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘭𝘰 (AD). 𝘏𝘐𝘕𝘋𝘐 𝘕𝘖𝘖𝘕𝘎 𝘗𝘈𝘕𝘈𝘏𝘖𝘕 𝘕𝘐 𝘈𝘉𝘙𝘈𝘏𝘈𝘔𝘈𝘕 ! (𝘗𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘱𝘢𝘬 𝘴𝘪 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩

)

Source: 𝘈𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘙𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘛𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘺𝘳𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦”, 1938, 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦 83, 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮: 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘳 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘱. 294) (𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘌𝘨𝘺𝘱𝘵, 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬, 1969, 𝘱. 308, 𝘢𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘑𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘢 𝘛𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘱. 345)

And nandito nanaman tayos sa problems sa pagsosource from suspicious websites and publications.

Jeff Lindsay wrote :

Among anti-LDS sources, there is a widespread myth that Hugh Nibley has disavowed his writings on the Book of Abraham, having being proven wrong in 1979 by Edward Ashment. Critics thus charge that my use of quotes from Nibley is misleading because he has rejected all of his past arguments (written in 1979 and before) about the Book of Abraham - or he has at least rejected four-fifths of it. That argument is an amazing bit of deception.

In a 1979 Sunstone Theological Seminar, Nibley did respond kindly to a presentation by Edward Ashment, in spite of strong disagreement, by noting that challenging and revising hypotheses is what scholarly progress is all about. He admitted that Ashment had pointed out some errors in Nibley's old writings, but Nibley said that there will always be errors and a need to revise and update understanding, and that there was no need for him to hand his head and feel ashamed. With typical Nibleyesque humor and humility, he said that there have been "changes" in four-fifths of what he was written over the years and said that he refused to be held accountable for anything written over three years ago - not because he had reversed any major positions, but because everything in Egyptology was in a state of flux ("reappraisal"). He has made many such statements about the fallibility of scholarship and the need to move on, progress, revise, etc. - it's typical Nibley realism, not a shamefaced retreat. This is what progress is all about. As for changes due to Ashment, he says "Since hearing Brother Ashment I have to make some changes in what I have said already." This doesn't sound like a total reversal but a scholarly updating and correction of errors. After 1979, did he reject the essence of his old writings? Unfortunately, he hasn't published much since 1979 - he was old and getting weak (but was still spunky) when I was in his ward in 1984-6, has had triple bypass surgery, and is near the end now. His relative silence on all topics since 1979 is hardly admission of giving up his former defense of the Book of Abraham. Indeed, in his 1980 paper on the Facsimiles (FARMS paper N-THE), he says, "It is not the purpose of these articles to review the various assaults made on the Book of Abraham, and why none of them has proven fatal or even very effective. That story has been told elsewhere." (p. 1) This may be an affirmation of his previous apologetic work. Most of Nibley's research and writing in the past 15 years or so appears to have been focused on his final work, "One Eternal Round," which he apparently feels will be the final word (for the moment, anyway) on the Book of Abraham. Let me assure you that this book is not going to cause rejoicing in the anti-Mormon community.

Now if Nibley has retreated on the Book of Abraham, wouldn't you expect his own family to know this? But his son Tom, writing recently in Review of Book s about the Book of Mormon (Vol. 5, 1993, p. 273 ff.), quotes his father's earlier writings as having demonstrated clearly that the tiny papyrus fragments are not the documents Joseph translated. Why do anti-Mormons know where Nibley stands when his own son does not?

Many people have heard Nibley lecture since 1979, and no one that I'm aware of who has heard Nibley talk (including me) has heard any hint that he reversed his major positions on the Book of Abraham because of anything Ashment of other critics have said.

To be fair, I will note that in spite of the great respect that Nibley has among many non-LDS scholars, one non-LDS scholar whom I respect expressed his feeling to me that Nibley's defense of the Book of Abraham was a blight on his record. Certainly a number of Nibley's views on particular details and evidences have been updated or outdated since the 1960s and 1970s - which is the way of all scholarship. But now in 1998 there is more evidence than ever that the critics of the Book of Abraham have been wrong, in my opinion. Seriously, how otherwise can we explain the direct hits scored by Joseph Smith on things like the sons of Horus and the four quarters of the earth, the crocodile as the God of Pharaoh, the sacrifice of Abraham, or the name Shinehah for the sun? (See Kerry Shirts' article, "Abraham 3:13 - Shinehah - the Sun: Joseph Smith Shines Through on This One Also .")?

I have read much of Nibley, have listened to him lecture, and even had the rare and wonderful opportunity to team teach a Gospel Doctrine Sunday School class with him when I was in graduate school at Brigham Young University (he taught one Sunday, I the next, to lighten his load). He is incredibly intelligent, self-effacing, and iconoclastic. He may mangle an occasional footnote and pursue some unjustified tangents, but his work demands attention and respect, in my opinion.

#14 𝘈𝘺𝘰𝘯 𝘬𝘢𝘺 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘮 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘢 𝘑𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘴, 1: 50-51; 𝘷𝘰𝘭. 4, 𝘱. 1; 5: 331-332, 𝘚𝘐 𝘈𝘋𝘈𝘕 𝘥𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘺 𝘋𝘐𝘠𝘖𝘚

“𝘈𝘥𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰. 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 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘔𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘢𝘺𝘴! 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘯 – 𝘏𝘌 𝘐𝘚 𝘖𝘜𝘙 𝘍𝘈𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘙 𝘈𝘕𝘋 𝘖𝘜𝘙 𝘎𝘖𝘋, 𝘈𝘕𝘋 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘖𝘕𝘓𝘠 𝘎𝘖𝘋 𝘞𝘐𝘛𝘏 𝘞𝘏𝘖𝘔 𝘞𝘌 𝘏𝘈𝘝𝘌 𝘛𝘖 𝘋𝘖. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳… 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘌𝘭𝘰𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘮, 𝘠𝘢𝘩𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮, 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘺 𝘎𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵."

𝘎𝘢𝘺𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴𝘢𝘣𝘪 𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘳, 17: 195

“… 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘰𝘸, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 (𝘈𝘥𝘢𝘮) 𝘪𝘴 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘮 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘥𝘢𝘮, 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥-” 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘞𝘌 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰.”

𝘏𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪 𝘱𝘰 𝘣𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘨 𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘺𝘢𝘯?

" 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." (Ensign, November 1976 p. 77)

Here's from Fairlds :

What is the history of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory 

and why was it rejected by the Church?

Origins

Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the Journal of Discourses, the Deseret Evening News, and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. Many of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while some have engendered controversy.

He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:


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 organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.[1]

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

- Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies [Gen. 1:26-27]
- Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
- Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
- Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.[2]

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation. Though it is not understood entirely what Brigham meant by "revelation." Matthew Brown in his 2009 FairMormon Conference presentation presented evidence that complicates our picture of what Brigham meant:
We now turn to a pertinent apologetic issue. Critics enjoy pointing out that on several occasions Brigham Young claimed that his teachings on Adam came to him through revelation. Since this section of this paper is dealing with ‘perspectives’ it is only proper that President Young be allowed to provide an idea of what he thought about, and how he experienced, the revelatory process. First of all, the question will be posed: ‘How did Brother Brigham compare himself, as a revelator, with his predecessor?’ There are two quotations that are of interest here. The second President of the LDS Church said, “I wish to ask every member of this whole community if they ever heard [me] profess to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as Joseph Smith was. [I] professed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.”[3] In the second quote Brigham Young says that he “did not receive [revelations] through the Urim and Thummim as Joseph [Smith] did.”[4] Hence, it can be ascertained that, at least in one sense, Brigham Young did not receive communications from heaven in the same direct manner that Joseph Smith did. And it is relevant to mention here that Brigham Young did, in fact, own a seerstone that was once utilized by Joseph Smith.

Next, there is this lengthy quote from President Young which is well worth considering in its entirety. He rhetorically asked himself,

Well, Brother Brigham, . . . . have you had revelations?” Yes, I have them all the time. I live constantly by the principle of revelation. . . . I have never received one particle of intelligence [except] by revelation, no matter whether [my] father or mother revealed it, or my sister, or [my] neighbor. No person receives knowledge [except] upon the principle of revelation, that is, by having something revealed to them. “Do you [Brother Brigham] have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ?” I will leave that for others to judge. If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by the principle of revelation. Who reveals? Everybody around us; we learn [from] each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not. I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other.[5]

Interestingly, there is some evidence that the ‘revelation’ claims for Adam–God ideology did not originate with Brigham Young, but rather with his close friend and associate Heber C. Kimball. There is one well-documented instance where Brother Kimball claimed that some of the concepts connected with the Adam–God Theory were revealed to him.[6] There are also two other statements that need to be taken into careful consideration. The first comes from Thomas Stenhouse’s book. It reads: “Brother Heber had considerable pride in relating to his intimate friends that he was the source of Brigham’s revelation on the ‘Adam deity.’”[7]

Since Mr. Stenhouse was an apostate from Mormonism at the time he wrote this, some people might tend to discount his assertion. But the second statement seems to lend credence to it. This one comes from Elder Orson Pratt. He said that the notion of “Adam being our Father and our God . . .[was] advanced by Bro[ther] Kimball in the stand [or at the pulpit], and afterwards approved byBro[ther] Brigham.”[8][9]

On at least three occasions, Brigham claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith.[10] While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.[11])

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

Rejection of Adam-God by the 

LDS Church

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.[12]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

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.[13]

Thus this now concludes yung fauly presentation ni Cathy Inigo on Mormonism.