Responding to Eli Soriano on Latter Day Saint Theology

We know Eli Soriano sa kanyang criticism to churches at sa kanyang TV program na “Ang Dating Daan” na isang Q and A show on Eli Soriano’s church doctrine na he says “nasa bible” (when it’s not) and here it also includes ang kanyang iba’t ibang accusations against other churches and that includes ang restored Church that he makes statements that does not get things right at hindi nagiging honest at we see also na inconsistent. with his false statements against sa church at dishonesty, we see him also sa kanyang mataas na tingin sa kanyang sarili at sa mataas na tingin sa kanya ng kanyang mga miyembro na kahit anumang sabihin niya ay papaniwalaan nila without even looking at what he said for themselves. As an audience ng kanyang show years back then ay I am amazed but those are the times that I am not informed on these things. examining carefully ang kanyang paggamit sa Bible at sa kanyang ways sa kanyang research on particular subject, I don’t think Eli Soriano is being truthful. Sa kanyang mataas na view sa kanyang sarili and in his flawed interpretation of Biblical text and other's beliefs, is he really that great? He even thinks that he is smarter than biblical scholars calling Roman Catholic scholars mga “bobo”, when the truth is, he does not know any basic textual criticism. He does not know how to read the languages of the Bible. he can't even read υιός correctly. Eli Soriano thinks that he understand Latter Day Saint Theology better than Latter Day Saints themselves na even official statements ng church leaders ay kanyang irereject at parang siya lang ang magsasabi kung ano ang fact or not despite his lack of data on a subject. at sa kanyang napakasamang flow ng arguments that does not follow up any conclusion and shows na ang kanyang mga arguments are not well constructed and missed the point all the time. in this ay Eli Soriano wrote the following in his blog on Latter Day Saint beliefs that he entitled "The Jesus Christ of Mormons is Fake!" which is two part and I will be responding to both in this article that I wrote. Ang title seems deceiving that it is about the Jesus of “Mormons” when ang content nito however does not even address Latter Day Saint Christology which shows other so called beliefs that are actually irrelevant in the topic of Christology. is Eli Soriano even consistent? bakit ganito yung title ng article mo kapag mas nakafocus ka sa teachings about kay Adam rather than of Christ? I don’t think he is being consistent and his content would tell. ang sources na ginamit ni Eli Soriano is decontextualized and there are also works that are notorious kung sinasabi ba nito what Latter Day Saints believe. in his series of articles, Eli Soriano offered lousy arguments against Latter Day Saint Theology and shows lack of actual understanding of Latter Day Saint Theology. Here are the following with my responses to his arguments:

Key:

Eli. S - Eli Soriano

Re. - Response by Br. Nika0604 [R.D, B.L.D.S]

Eli. S: ".......ADAM CAME INTO THE GARDEN OF EDEN WITH A CELESTIAL BODY This doctrine is inane, insane! In the Bible the body of Adam was taken out of the dust of the ground, it was never a celestial body! *quotes Gen. 2:7; 3:19; 1Cor. 15:45-47
The body of the Lord from heaven – that of the Lord Jesus Christ – in coming to earth, was prepared by the Father here on earth, not in heaven! The body was conceived by Mary and was mortal. *quotes Heb. 10:5; Jn. 6:38; Heb. 2:14; 10:10, 12; Phil. 3:20-21; Rev. 1:18

Re. : With Latter Day Saint Theology out of context and bible verse out of context, Eli Soriano makes a start to attack Latter Day Saints with inconsistencies. it makes me ask the question, ano ba ang "Celestial body" in Latter Day Saint Theology? in the use of this ay may pinapakita dito na contrast between ang isang mortal body at isang Celestial body, which is understood here as isang body na hindi mamamatay (1Cor. 15:40-50; Rev. 1:18). and you here, Mr. Soriano, took the Theology of of context. if you read your Bible up to the book of Genesis and the narratives on Adam and Eve, death came when Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. dahil sa fall ni Adam and Eve ay we could die physically. as recalled sa sinabi ng Diyos kay Adam and Eve na if they will eat the forbidden fruit, "......thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2:17). before the fall ay ang earth is in a spiritual state (2Ne. 2:22; Moses 3:5-7). after eating the forbidden fruit, their bodies were turned into bodies that were subject to pain and death (1Cor. 15:21-22; Alma 12:22-24; Moses 6:48). they will experience pain and will experience death; but we should take note na ang Plan ni Heavenly Father includes ang physical death (2Ne. 9:6; Alma 42:6-8). it is a plan of it and we came here also on earth for us to have physical bodies that we might have a perfected body as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have. without ang death, we cannot be resurrected and have our bodies changed to a body that will never experience pain and death again (1Cor. 15:35-38; Phil. 3:20-21). ang corruption ng body, ang mortality ng body, came to dahil sa Fall ni Adam and Eve and anong logical na conclusion natin ngayon, Mr. Soriano, dahil ang corruption ng human body at mortality came dahil sa fall? before the fall, ang bodies nina Adam and Eve ay mga Celestial bodies!

On the physical body being take out of the ground (which will I note that is figurative), ginamit ito ni Eli Soriano to say na hindi ito celestial body but the question is what makes the body live? what makes the body animate? ang spirit right? ang isang mortal body is dependent on the blood to live that's why blood is often called in the Bible as "the life" of the body (Gen. 9:6). now can you tell me, Mr. Soriano, kung nasaan nanggaling ang spirit? did God breathed onto their bodies? Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into man’s nostrils and became a living soul. when the Psalmist praises God as the mighty creator, he said :

“ My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.” (Ps. 139:15, Authorized Version)

With it, the depths of the earth is where man’s life force was taken from. as the Hebrew word for earth used in Ps. 139:15 אֶרֶץ (erets) as in reference to its deepest part, the Hebrew word אֲדָמָה (adamah) is often used in the Bible as in reference to Sheol, the realm of the dead. e.g Abel’s spirit cries from אֲדָמָה (Gen. 4:10) and that Korah and his properties were swallowed by the אֲדָמָה (Num. 16:30-32; 26:10); and that the sleeping dead will rise up from אֲדָמָה (Dan. 12:2). it is the place it is man’s body that God created and that God breathed into man’s nostrils for man to have life. man being as “mortal beings” does not follow up his conclusion that we did not pre-exist prior to the time of creation. may pre-existence and this is taught throughout scripture!

Eli. S: "....ADAM BROUGHT WITH HIM EVE, ONE OF HIS MANY WIVES, WHEN HE CAME TO EDEN."

And this is something na hindi tinuro ng Simbahan Mr. Soriano! show me any documents mula sa prophets, apostles, or any church leader that teaches this doctrine. ang itong pinagkuhanan as your blogpost shows ay from J. Oswald Sanders and I challenge him also the same to show any evidence from Latter Day Saint writings. this simply came from thin air at you refuted nothing in Latter Day Saint Theology on this, Mr. Eli Soriano.

Eli S. : ".....Is Adam the Archangel?
According to the Bible, all angels are ministering spirits being sent by God for the benefit of those who will be heirs to salvation." *quoting Hebrews 1:13-14
"How can Adam, who according to the Bible is earthy, be an angel or an archangel when angels are spirits?" *quoting 1 Corinthians 15:45-47
" Adam according to the true God of the Bible was a transgressor." *quoting Romans 5:14

Re. : That Adam is Michael is revealed truth from God and revealed truth is something that Eli Soriano does not have and will reject revealed truth and will find ways around revealed truth. Eli Soriano's definition of angels lacks examples of contextual usages of the term. inaaakala niya na ang "angel" will be limited to spiritual beings alone at hindi also to humans to say that Michael the Archangel cannot come to earth as the first man Adam. Adam is a spirit before! does that meet yung requirements niya? yes. Adam is the archangel Michael prior to his mortality and this is something that Eli Soriano keep missing out throughout his articles! Michael the Archangel is Adam in the pre-existence i.e before mortality, vis-avis. Adam is a spirit as Michael the Archangel before he came to earth and before he took flesh when God created him and became Adam (Gen. 1:26-27). now did Latter Day Saints claim Adam as a spirit before? Yes, and you, Mr. Soriano—did not define Latter Day Saint Theology rightfully. You kept missing this out. and now, to Eli Soriano's doctrinal inconsistency, Eli Soriano missed the point of the verse that he used which is Hebrews 1:13-14. In defining also what an angel is, Eli Soriano defines it in a way that does not cover up everything that the word uses and this is flawed. the Greek word used in Hebrews 1:13-14 is ἄγγελος (angelos) and the Hebrew equivalent in the Old Testament is מֲלְאָךְ‎ (malak) which means "sent one" at ito ay commonly rendered both as "angel" or "messenger" and is used in Hebrews 1:14 at ang use of these Greek word throughout the Bible, particulary those outside of Hebrews 1:14 ay hindi limited to simply spirit beings. we do agree that there are angels that are spiritual beings pero nakulangan si Eli Soriano sa definition! ang Greek word na ἄγγελος also always applies to someone who is sent. ἄγγελος can be applied to human messengers like prophets. check these instances sa Greek New Testament where it is applied to mortals, at maging sa Greek Septuagint, at sa Hebrew Bible. si Jesus Christ ay nagpadala ng ἄγγελος who went to a Samaritan village (Lk. 9:52); si John the Baptist ay may mga ἄγγελος (Lk. 7:24); Joshua sent ἄγγελος to the city of Jericho (James 2:25; cf. Josh. 7:22); Haggai is an ἄγγελος/מֲלְאָךְ‎ of God (Hag. 1:13, MT, LXX); and John the Baptist is an ἄγγελος also and is the forerunner of Jesus Christ (Mt. 11:10; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 7:27). the words ἄγγελος and מֲלְאָךְ‎ can also be applied to transcendental beings who serve God which is Gabriel and Michael for example. For the use of the Greek word ἄγγελος in the Greek New Testament, the scholarly Lexicon "The Vocabulary of the New Testament" gives following definition of the word for everyone to check:

ἄγγελος
ἄγγελος / ἄγγος

In Syll 512.71, a dialect inscr. of ii/B.C. from Calymna, ἄγγελοι are envoys whose names are given. The word is used in the sense of “intermediary” (cf. Gal 3:19) in Syll 122.25 (iv/B.C.) ὀμόσαι δ]ι᾽ ἀγγέλων. For the presumably Christian “angel” inscriptions from Thera see Deissmann LAE, p. 279 with accompanying facsimile, and the paper “It is his Angel” (J. H. M.) in JTS 1902, p. 519 f. Add (from Crönert) IG XII. iii. 933. In Archiv iii. p. 445, No. 67, is published a Greek inscription from Assouan of the time of M. Aurelius, which beginsΜεγάλῃ τύχῃ τοῦ [θε]ο̣[ῦ . . . τ]ῶν ἀνγέλων τῆς [ἱ]ε̣ρεί[ας] : cf. also p. 451 No. 94 (time of Diocletian), Ὑπὲρ εὐχῆς τῶν ἀνγέλων Ἐμεσηνοὶ ἀνέθηκαν κτλ. Οἱ ἄγγελοι θεοῦ, as in 1Ti 5:21, occurs in the extremely interesting Jewish inscription Syll 816.10 κύριε ὁ πάντα ἐ[φ]ορῶν καὶ οἱ ἄνγελοι θεοῦ. Dittenberger assigns it to i/A.D. and yet apparently prefers to regard it as Christian : there does not, however, seem to be anything distinctive of Christianityit is a Jewish prayer for vengeance upon unknown murderers : see Deissmann LAE, p. 423 ff. It is interesting to observe that the special meaning “angel” is apparently a reversion to the oldest signification, for in Homer the ἄγγελος is often a messenger of the gods. The two branches of the Aryan language-group diverge here. In Vedic Indian the An̄girasaḥ̯are “higher beings intermediate between gods and men,” as Macdonell rather tentatively concludes (Vedic Mythology, 143). In Persian angara (?see on ἀγγαρεύω) is a human messenger. Perhaps both meanings coexisted in the corner of the Indo-Germanic area to which the word is restricted. See also Hatzidakis on ἄγγελος in Sitz. Ber. d. Wien. Akad. 1913, 2.

Cognate: G2465, G32, G743

Furthermore, the Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament (TDNT) gives the following definition of the Greek word ἄγγελος in its application to human messengers:

“ 1. The meaning of human messenger plays only a very small role in the NT. The scouts sent out by Joshua to Jericho in Jm. 2:25, the men sent by John to Jesus in Lk. 7:24 and by Jesus to the Samaritan village in Lk. 9:52, are the only cases in which men sent by other men are called ἄγγελοι in the NT.

Jesus in Mt. 11:10 par. (cf. Mk. 1:2), applying the OT promise,58 interprets John the Baptist to be the messenger of the covenant preceding the day of the Lord. Originally the expectation may have been focused on either a human messenger or a heavenly angel, but it is now linked with the concrete person of the Baptist as the messenger of God. The passage shows how the different meanings may merge into one another. The possibility has also to be considered that the application of the promise to the Baptist is conditioned by the various influences on the conception of message discussed in the earlier article on the root ἀγγελ-. This ἄγγελος is a predecessor to prepare the way, bearing the proclamation of Christ (→ 57 f.).

If there are no other instances in which the term is used of human messengers, this is not accidental. It simply derives from the fact that ἄγγελος is now mostly used for angels. In many cases messengers are now denoted by such simple alternatives as πεμφθείς in Lk. 7:10 or ἀπεσταλμένος in Lk. 19:32. Those sent are in many cases identical with men elsewhere described as ἀπόστολοι and μαθηταί (Mt. 10:5, 16; 11:2; Mk. 6:7 etc.).” (Gerhard Kittell and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [10 vols.: trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1967])

Eli S. : "Adam died; he is mortal. In contrast, God the eternal, is immortal.
I TIMOTHY 6:16
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen."

Re. : So here is a problem kay Eli Soriano. ang flow ng arguments ay wala sa ayos at weak ang construction. so what are you trying to point here, Mr. Soriano? what are you trying to point out? that Adam is not an angel where you make a comparison between angels and men or Angels and deity? at ang stand ng Latter Day Saints is not presented rightfully in here. ang claim ay na sa pre-existence, Adam is the archangel Michael. we see here na ang basic belief of Latter Day Saints that mankind pre-existed together with God is not yet covered up. so what you end up with ay inconsistent na mga arguments. "mortal si Adam" yes but in what state? in his pre-mortal state or in his incarnated state? kasi here, Eli Soriano is using Adam's mortality to disprove the fact that Adam is the archangel Michael, when ang pagka-Archangel ni Adam is when he does not have any body at all at walang mortality! Eli Soriano badly missed the point of Latter Day Saint beliefs and shows inconsistencies and absurdities sa kanyang mga methodologies. furthermore, ang reality ng pre-existence can be seen in the Bible as I wrote in response to a Catholic apologist on the same topic:

Gen. 2:7 says that God breathed into man’s nostrils and became a living soul. when the Psalmist parises God as the mighty creator, he said :

“ My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.” (Ps. 139:15) KJV

With it, the depths of the earth is where man’s life force was taken from. as the Hebrew word for earth used in Ps. 139:15 אֶרֶץ (erets) as in reference to its deepest part, the Hebrew word אֲדָמָה (adamah) is often used in the Bible as in reference to Sheol, the realm of the dead. e.g Abel’s spirit cries from אֲדָמָה (Gen. 4:10) and that Korah and his properties were swallowed by the אֲדָמָה (Num. 16:30-32; 26:10); and that the sleeping dead will rise up from אֲדָמָה (Dan. 12:2). it is the place it is man’s body that God created and that God breathed into man’s nostrils for man to have life. man being as “mortal beings” does not follow up his conclusion that we did not pre-exist prior to the time of creation. Kevin Barney on his paper provides the following on the word “spirit” in the Hebrew language (רוּחַ - ruach) and pre-existence on how these two have distinct existences just like the way in the afterlife does, he writes :

“ It should be obvious enough that a concept of preexistence can only flourish where there is a belief in a soul or spirit that is able to have an existence apart from one’s physical body. And here we run into our first difficulty, because most scholars perceive the ancient Hebrews as believing that the soul (nephesh, often simply meaning “person”) or spirit (ruach, “breath”; the invisible, life-giving force) and the body did not have separate existences, but existed together only as a psychosomatic whole. According to this view, the common dualistic understanding of a body and a spirit capable of existence apart from the body derived largely from Persian and Greek influence. To the extent that this is true, it is a wrench for positing a very early belief in preexistence. We should note, however, that it would also be an issue for Evangelicals, for although they see the soul as being created by God while the fetus is in utero, they surely believe (as do Mormons) that the spirit will have an existence apart from the body upon death. Now, whether the scholars are correct in this monistic (i.e., that the body and soul are one and inseparable) understanding9 of early Old Testament views of the soul is a question largely beyond the scope of this paper.10

4 For purposes of this paper I will simply point out that, from great antiquity, persons were indeed believed to have a continued existence apart from the body after death. We see this reflected in a handful of Hebrew references to the rephaim, the “shades” who dwell in Sheol, the abode of the dead, after they die, a concrete example of which is the deceased Samuel, whom the Witch of Endor consulted on behalf of Saul (1 Samuel 28). In second millennium B.C. Ugaritic texts the counterpart of the rephaim are dead but divinized kings and heroes. The word is used in Biblical Hebrew in two seemingly very different senses. In the first sense, it alludes to the dead dwelling in Sheol, in an existence reminiscent of the shades we encounter in the 10th book of Homer’s Odyssey. In the Bible the word is not limited to the elite, but apparently encompasses all the dead. We see this usage in Psalm 88:10, where rephaim is used in parallelism with the dead (metim). The same parallelism appears in Isaiah 26:14 and 19. Additional scriptural allusions to the rephaim are Proverbs 2:18, Job 26:5, and possibly 2 Chronicles 16:12, reading rephaim for ropheim “physicians.” A fifth-century B.C. Phoenician inscription attests that the rephaim are those whom the living join in dying, and a Punic-Latin bilingual text renders “the divine Rephaim” with the Latin for “the sacred shades,” that is, the (divinized) dead. Intriguingly, Isaiah 14:9 seems to retain something of the original Ugaritic usage attested at Ras Shamra, putting rephaim in parallel with kings: Sheol beneath is stirred up To meet you when you come, It rouses the Rephaim to greet you, It raises from their thrones All the kings of the nations. The word rephaim was more commonly used in the Hebrew Bible in the second sense, to refer to the (living) giants and mighty men. Apparently, the original concept of the rephaim as the deceased, divinized kings and heroes was lost over time, and the meaning of the word was bifurcated. As deceased heroes and monarchs, the rephaim were preserved in the understanding of rephaim as living giants and warriors, and as a description of the dead elites the word rephaim was broadened to include the dead in general.11 Now, the rephaim seem to be somewhat less than what would ultimately become thought of as immortal human souls, and there no doubt was development in the concept over time. But the basic idea of a continuity of existence apart from the body is present from even the earliest periods of biblical history.12 Bracketing for the time being the biblical evidence, which we shall consider below, the first unambiguous references to preexistence of the soul in Judaeo-Christian sources (such as the Apocrypha, Josephus, Philo, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Rabbinic literature, Gnostic Christian texts and Patristic literature) appear beginning in the Second Temple period. A sampling of some of the more important examples follows:

1. Wisdom of Solomon. This first century B.C. text, which exhibits platonic influence (as Holding notes), portrays Solomon as offering the following prayer: “As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.” (8:19-20)13

2. Josephus on the Essenes. Josephus (first century A.D.), in a passage possibly reflecting Greek influences, reports that the Essenes, who denigrated the body, believed that “the soul is immortal and imperishable. Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of natural spell.” (Jewish War, 2.8.11)14

3. Philo of Alexandria. Philo (first century A.D.), who interpreted the Bible allegorically, saw in the three Hebrew terms ruach, nephesh and neshamah a confirmation of Plato’s tripartite view of the soul (the rational, the spiritual and the seat of desire). The rational part is preexistent and immortal. (De Opificiis Mundi 1:648) As a divine being, the soul aspires to be freed from its bodily fetters and to return to the heavenly spheres whence it came. Presumably Philo believed that the spirit is condemned to be imprisoned for a certain time in the body in expiation of some sin committed in its former state.15

4. Jubilees. This second century B.C. work portrays God as creating everything during the six days of creation, including “all of the spirits of his creatures which are in heaven and on earth.”16

5. First Enoch. Enoch speaks of an assembly of the holy and righteous ones in heaven under the wings of the Lord of the spirits, with the Elect (the Messiah) in their midst. (39:4-7; 40:5; 41:12).17 (First Enoch is a conglomeration of texts ranging from pre-Maccabean times to just before the Christian era; this section is perhaps early first century B.C.).

6. Second Enoch. This text (perhaps first century A.D.) reflecting Jewish ideas states that “all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.” (23:5)18

7. Third Enoch. The whole of Chapter 43 presumes the preexistence of souls.19 (This work contains old traditions going back to the Maccabean era, but the work itself dates to perhaps the fifth or sixth centuries A.D.)

8. Testament (Assumption) of Moses. In this first century A.D. text Moses says: “But he did design and devise me, who (was) prepared from the beginning of the world, to be the mediator of his covenant.” (1:14)20

9. Testament of Abraham. In this work (about A.D. 100), Michael, the Lord’s commander-in-chief, tells Abraham at the end of his life that “the day has drawn near on which you are to depart from the body and once again go to the Lord.” (Rec. A 15:7)21

10. Prayer of Joseph. Origen quotes this fragment from a first century A.D. pseudepigraphal work in his Commentary on John (2:25) to support his view that John the Baptist was an angel who became incarnate to bear witness to Jesus: “I, Jacob, who is speaking to you, am also Israel, an angel of God and a ruling spirit. Abraham and Isaac were created before any work. But, I, Jacob, who men call Jacob but whose name is Israel am he who God called Israel which means, a man seeing God, because I am the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life.”22

11. 4 Ezra. Preexistence is assumed throughout this work (about A.D. 100), as in 4:33-42, a section stating that the souls who yearn for their reward must wait until all souls come to earth.23

12. Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. This early second century A.D. text states “And it will happen at that time that those treasuries will be opened in which the number of the souls of the righteous were kept, and they will go out and the multitudes of the souls will appear together, in one assemblage, of one mind. And the first ones will enjoy themselves and the last ones will not be sad.” (30:2-3)24

13. Bereshith Rabba, 8, represents God as taking counsel with the souls of the righteous before he created the earth.25

14. Tanhuma, 3, states that all souls which were to enter human bodies were formed during the six days of creation and were in the Garden of Eden.

15. Hagigah, 12b, has it that before their descent to earth the souls are kept in the seventh heaven (but Sifre 143b says in the storehouse).

16. Abodah Zarah, 5a, says that the Messiah will come when all the souls in the guph [i.e., the superterrestrial abode of spirits] have passed through the earthly life.

17. Sanhedrin, 90a, indicates it is not settled whether the soul comes to earth at the time of conception or after the embryo has taken form.

18. Gospel of Thomas, Saying 4, dating to perhaps the early second century A.D.: “Jesus said: The man old in his days will not hesitate to ask an infant of seven days concerning the place of life, and he will live.”26 The idea is that an uncircumcised baby has retained an impression of the “place of life.”

19. Gospel of the Egyptians, 50:12-14

, portrays Adam as a premortal great one who associated with the “holy men of the great light,” “men of the Father.”27

20. Second Treatise of the Great Seth, 50:1-24, portrays the heavenly Seth as having proposed the gathering of a council of premortal souls, then spelling out a plan “to the whole multitude of the multitudinous assembly” which was received with rejoicing by “the whole house of the Father of Truth.”28

21. Origen. Among the early Church Fathers, the most notable proponent of the preexistence of souls was Origen (A.D. 182-251). Origen taught that the souls of man had a separate, conscious, personal existence in a previous state, and are sent to this world on account of sin, condemned to be born in a material body.29 The justice of God demands that “all rational creatures [be] of one nature, and it is only on this ground that the justice of God in all his dealings with them can be defended, namely, when each contains within himself the reasons why he has been placed in this or in that rank of life.” (De Principiis 3.5.4)

Notes for the above :

7 “Soul” is sometimes used in Mormon discourse to mean the whole man, both spirit and body (based on D&C 88:15). In this paper I use the words “soul” and “spirit” synonymously. 8 R. Moore, “Pre-existence,” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919), 10:236. 9 Interestingly, this monistic understanding of the body would appear to be similar to the position held by modern Jehovah’s Witnesses that there is no eternal soul apart from the body. 10 For further information, see Ellis R. Brotzman, “Man and the Meaning of [Nephesh],” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (October-December 1988): 400-9; E. W. Marter, “The Hebrew Concept of ‘Soul’ in Pre-Exilic Writings,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 2 (1964): 97-108; Daniel Lys, “The Israelite Soul According to the LXX,” Vetus

Testamentum 16 (April 1966): 181-228; W. David Stacey, “Paul and the ‘Soul,’” Expository Times 66 (June 1955): 274-77. 11 The information in this paragraph derives from Mark S. Smith, “Rephaim,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:676-78. 12 See further Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 2002). Holding offers a brief but positive review of this book at http://www.tektonics.org/shades.html.

13 The translation is from the Revised Standard Version (RSV). 14 S. Kent Brown, “Souls, Preexistence of,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:161. 15 Kaufman Kohler, Isaac Broyde and Ludwig Blau, “Soul” in JewishEncyclopedia.com (for the url, see the bibliography). Note that against Philo the Rabbis held that the body is not the prison of the soul but, on the contrary, its medium of development and improvement. 16 O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 2:55. 17 E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:30-31 18 F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:140. 19 P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:293-94. 20 J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:927. 21 E. P. Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:891. 22 J. Z. Smith, “Prayer of Joseph,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:713. 23 B. M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:531. 24 A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:631. 25 The representative sampling given here of rabbinic statements derives from Moore, “Pre-existence,” 234. These texts date from the Amoraic period (A.D. 220-500)

Jews also have beliefs in Pre-existence, as Hayyim Schauss reviews various Jewish beliefs on this doctrine, he said :

“ Belief in Prenatal Existence . . . In Talmudic times (the first centuries of the Common Era) the belief was current among Jews that man’s soul was independent of his body, existing eternally in the past and in the future. Only for a short, limited time is it placed in the body of a certain human being. All the souls of the world preexist in heaven in a kind of a spiritual reservoir, and at first have no desire to enter the human bodies on earth. They do it only by force. God decrees that a certain soul shall enter a certain body, and God also decrees the moment when the sol shall leave the body.

In this realm of belief, the vanishing mortal body plays an insignificant role in comparison with the pure and eternal soul. Accordingly, man attains the highest stage in his spiritual life not after the full growth of his body, but before he is projected in the form of a human being into the light of the world. In his prenatal existence in his mother’s womb, a light burns over his head, and he sees from one end of the world to the other. He sees there much more than a human being is capable of seeing during the course of his entire life.

According to this belief, a special angel is appointed to supervise the souls. He receives an order from God to place a certain soul in a certain child at the time of its conception. At first the pure soul recoils from entering the foul body. It yields only to the force of God’s decree. The angel brings the soul into the womb and joins it with the embryo. He places it under the good care of two angels who place the burning light over his head.

The next morning the supervising angel pays a visit to the soul and takes it for a promenade through Paradise. There he shows it the saints in their fully glory seated on golden thrones with crowns on their heads. He asks it: “Do you know to whom that soul belonged? The soul answers, “No,” and the angel says, “The saint whom you see in such glory was also created, like you, in his mother’s womb. This is true of all the other saints whom you see here. They were pious and kept the commandments of God. If you will do the same, after your death you will share in this great glory. Otherwise, after death, you will descend to a place which I shall show you later.”

In the evening, the angel takes the soul for a visit into the Gehenna to show it how the angels of destruction torment the wicked souls and flog them with whips of fire. The wicked ones groan and cry, “Ah!” and “Woe! But no one sympathizes with them. The angel says to the soul: “Do you know that these were created like you, in their mothers’ wombs, and came forth afterwards into the world? But they did not observe God’s commandments. Therefore this terrible shame has come upon them. And now you should know, my son, that you are also destined to come forth into the world and to die afterward. Be not wicked, therefore, but righteous and you will have a share in the world to come.”

Thus the prenatal man goes about under the guardianship and tutelage of the angel. In the morning he visits Paradise, in the evening, Gehenna, and in between, the angel shows him every nook and corner that his foot will tread, every place where he will dwell, the place where he will die, and the place where he will be buried. In the evening he brings him back into his mother’s womb.

When the moment arrives for the child to leave the mother’s womb, the same angel comes and tells him: “The time has arrived for you to emerge.” But the child is not willing to go out into the world. He does it under compulsion, and starts to cry. In the moment of coming forth from the womb, the angel strikes the child on the upper lip just under the nose, making a dent on that spot. Thereby the angel extinguishes the light and causes the child to forget all that he has seen and learned in the womb of his mother. That which the child learns thereafter is merely a recollection of the knowledge acquired during his prenatal life.

Some scholars think that this Jewish belief is an echo of the platonic idea of man’s soul knowing everything before birth. Others assume that both the Jewish belief and the platonic ideas of the preexistence of man’s soul are derived from another common course—the mythology of ancient Egypt. Another group thinks that the common source of the belief in the preexistence of the souls is to be found in the religion of the ancient Persians. (Hayyim Schauss, The Lifetime of a Jew: Throughout the Ages of Jewish History [New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1950], 63-65)

For Eli Soriano to deny his ignorance of Latter Day Saint Theology and History, he makes the following excuses using statements from church leaders regarding non-canonical doctrine:

Eli S. : "............Some authorities of the Mormon Church now deny this doctrine; maybe because they have realized the foolishness of their former leaders, but something is worth looking into! They impress that what Brigham Young had allegedly said (Implying it was just said), they can set aside because it is just a theory. Here is what Spencer W. Kimball wrote –
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. (Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, November 1976, 77).

Re. : Can we apply the same to the early Christians, Mr. Soriano? because some of them denied the eternality of the Son like Tertullian and also had disputations on their views on the Godhead and other matters. can we apply the same standard if your standard is true? ang ilang so called doctrines ay hindi mga canonized doctrine. notice yung use ng term dito na canonized. is it taught throughout the Church? Is it official? is it in accord in light of basic Latter Day Saint beliefs? Do all church leaders agree on this? Mr. Soriano, huwag mong ipilit na ang mga ito ay canonized doctrine. pinapalabas mo kasi na parang ganun eh. may statements na ang church leaders regarding statements made by church leaders in the past that is not sanctioned by church councils and how Anti-mormons misuses them. pinipilit mo parin ang isang unofficial statement. you want to force the information to agree to you, Mr. Soriano? it is just absurd. The Journal of Discourses have this in the volume concerning ang mga doctrines being contained in it and I bet na hindi ito binasa ni Eli Soriano. he did not even checked the document itself kundi mula sa Anti-mormon websites! It reads:

" In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice-the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Seventies may decide upon the same principle. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true." (Journal of Discourses, 9:91-92 [Brigham Young])

Concerning ang Adam-God Theory, here are the following statements ng early church leaders that explicitly differentiates God and Adam:

" And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca County, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And the voice of Michael, the arch-angel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam, down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their Priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little—giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope." (Wilford Woodruff, Collected Discourses Vol. 4, p.70)

" We believe that there are gods, as the Savior quoted. He repeated what was written in the law, and He did not say it was wrong, but used it as an argument against them. While, however, we believe, as the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us where is but one God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth. We worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. In the revelation contained in Section 106 of the Book of D&C the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, "the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet." In the 107th section, the Lord speaks of Adam as "Michael, the Prince, the Archangel," and says that he shall be a prince over the nations for ever. We may with perfect propriety call him prince, the ancient of days, or even God in the meaning of the words of Christ, which I have Just quoted; but we do not worship him, we worship the same God that he worshipped. When our missionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts from sermons, we say to them that anything that is a tenet of our religion must come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they need not do battle for anything outside of the works that have been accepted by the Church as a body. When men come with extracts from sermons, let them bring the whole sermon, so that the context can be taken to see what was the meaning of the preacher, and not bring a few isolated passages whose meaning can be twisted and distorted to something opposite to what was trio tended. Our brethren have a right to ask for this. They can defend the principles they teach by the revelations of God as contained in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Book of D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, the standard works of the Church; outside of these they need not go. Many of our Elders, when they go out into the world, have never heard of the things that are brought up against us, because they are not doctrines believed or taught here. In regard to the young man who lately committed a fearful deed, in New York, and the charge that the teachings of Mormonism had caused him to do it, I am safe in saying that the young man never heard at home in Zion a single thing taught by the people here in regard to the horrible doctrine attributed to us by the world, called "Blood atonement," for nothing is taught either in private or in public that would lead to such a dreadful crime. It is only out in the world where we are accused of holding such views. I have alluded to the arguments brought against us and the works considered by us as standards in order that our missionaries may not feel at a loss what to do. They know the works which have been accepted by the Church; they can read the word of God unto His people, both ancient and modern, and let them plant themselves firmly thereon. God bless you all. Amen." (Anthon H. Lund, Conference Report, October 1902, p.82)

" Their belief reminds me that brother Joseph B. Nobles once told a Methodist priest, after hearing him describe his god, that the god they worshipped was the "Mormons'" Devil—a being without a body, whereas our God has a body, parts, and passions. The Devil was cursed and sent down from heaven. He has no body of his own; therefore he is constantly endeavouring to obtain possession of the tabernacles belonging to others. Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam, what a humiliating circumstance it would be! Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;" and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to year present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass;" then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam. But those are ideas which do not concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible —"This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p.331-32)

" We have been taught that our Father and God, from whom we sprang, " called and appointed his servants to go and organize an earth, and, among the rest, be said to Adam, "You go along also and help all you can; you are going to inhabit it when it is organized, therefore go and assist in the good work." It reads in the Scriptures that the Lord did it, but the true rendering is, that the Almighty sent Jehovah and Michael to do the work. They were also instructed to plant every kind of vegetable, likewise the forest and the fruit trees, and they actually brought from heaven every variety of fruit, of the seeds of vegetables, the seeds of flowers, and planted them in this earth on which we dwell. And I will say more, the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth." (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol. 10, p.235)

" We are here as Jesus was here, not to do our own will, but the will of our Father who sent us. He has placed us here; we have a work to do in our day and generation; and there is nothing of importance connected with any of us only as we are associated with God! and His work, whether it be the President of the Church, the Twelve Apostles, the Presidents of Stakes, the Bishops, or anybody else, and we can only thus be of any service by placing ourselves in a position to act as God dictates us; as He regulates and manipulates the affairs of His Church in the interests of humanity, in behalf of the living and of the dead, in behalf of the world in which we live, and in behalf of those who, have lived before us, and who will live after us. We can none of us do anything only as we are assisted, guided and directed by the Lord. No man ever lived that could. Adam could not. Noah could not. Even Jesus could not. Nor could the Apostles. They were all of them dependent upon the God of Israel to sustain them in all of their acts. And in regard to Adam himself, as we are, so was he very ignorant of many principles until they were revealed to him. And if they were revealed to him they did not originate with him; and so it was with others. We find that Adam was directed of the Lord to do a certain thing—that is, to offer up sacrifices—and when the angel of the Lord came to him and said: "Adam why do you offer up sacrifices?" Adam replied, "I do not know; but the Lord commanded me to do it, and therefore I do it." He did not know what those sacrifices were for until the Lord revealed unto him the doctrine of the atonement and the necessity of the tall of man, and pointed out to him the way and manner to obtain an exaltation. Then he and Eve his wife rejoiced exceedingly at the mercy and kindness of the Almighty, and realized that even in their fall they were placed in a position to obtain a higher glory, and a greater exaltation than they could have done without it. Now, who revealed this to them? The Lord, through the ministering of an holy angel; and in relation to the dealings of God with all of the human family it has been precisely the same. We are told, for instance, that when Adam had lived to a great age—that three years before his death he called together his family—that is, some of the leading branches thereof who held the Holy Priesthood, mentioning the names of many of the more prominent that had received certain peculiar blessings from the hand of God—and there was manifested to him all things that should transpire to his posterity throughout all the future generations of time, and he prophesied of these things; and also upon those who were with him, rested the spirit of prophecy, and he blessed them, and they turned around and blessed him and called him Michael the Archangel, the Prince of Peace, etc. By what spirit then did Adam prophesy, and under what influence was he operating at that time? We are told in Scripture that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, and he in common with his sons who were then associated with him were in possession of that spirit which enlightened their minds, unfolded unto them the principles of truth, and revealed unto them the things that would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time. Who manifested these things? The Lord. Who organized the world? The Lord. Who made man upon it? The Lord. Who placed upon it the fowls of the air, the beasts of the field, and the fish of the sea? The Lord. Who sustains all things by his power? The Lord. Who controls the affairs of the world? The Lord. To whom are we indebted for life, for health, and for every blessing that we enjoy? To the Lord. He is the God of the earth, and the giver of every good and perfect gift which we enjoy, and He desires to gather together a people that will observe His laws, that will keep His commandments, that will render obedience to His will, that will submit to His authority, and for this purpose, in different ages of the world, He has introduced the Gospel and has placed man in possession thereof." (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses Vol. 26, pp.128-29)

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

Elden Watson wrote:

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

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

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

Reed C. Durham, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eli. S: "......It is also an anomaly and not part of their doctrine as explained by a Prof. Stephen E. Robinson of the Brigham Young University – *quotes Stephen E. Robinson
But this is a blatant lie! It was not just said but a part of the doctrine of Mormonism.
According to the book, Doctrine and Covenants of the Mormon Church, Verse 54 of Chapter 107, Adam was called Michael, the Prince, the Archangel. This is not just a confusing doctrine but misleading and an invented fallacy.

Re. : Again, gusto ni Eli Soriano na iforce ang Information to agree with him which is absurdity. ayaw niya na umalis sa kanyang bias and to make any meaningful research on this subject. any official statements will he deny and won't accept confirmations for the Canonicity of the theory. here is what Stephen E. Robinson that he have just quoted:

" Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch…. A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called “Adam-God theory.” During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don’t; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly."
—Stephen E. Robinson

And you cannot use the term "fallacy" without even knowing what it means. it is you that uses a fallacy here and you can't call something a fallacy sa terms lamang na nagdidisagree ka lamang dito at hindi mo sinusubukan na intindihan. hindi ka pwede na gumawa ng conclusions without even understanding how it works. you cannot conclude that it is inconsistent without even checking for consistencies and inconsistencies. in fact, personal incredulity, strawman arguments, and many other is what Eli Soriano uses throughout his arguments and I can call that a fallacy. and again, Eli Soriano rejects official statements on the theory and Latter Day Saint leaders throughout the history of the church condemned this and did not taught it as canonized doctrine. if ang isang doctrine ay canonized, church leaders should agree on this as one at dapat consistent to Latter Day Saint scripture. this should circulate throughout the church also. ang Adam God theory does not meet this and is not therefore canonized doctrine. ang Adam God theory is something that is take out of context, misunderstood, regarded kaagad and doctrine and others. remember also na ang nilalaman ng Journal of Discourses ay records ng sermons of church leaders and there are instances also na si Brigham Young ay nagsasalita in impromptu. the 1976 issue of Ensign states the following:

" 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)

Matthew Brown sa kanyang 2009 FAIR Conference presentation
states the following:

" 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.” In the second quote Brigham Young says that he “did not receive [revelations] through the Urim and Thummim as Joseph [Smith] did.” (Matthew B. Brown : "Brigham Young’s Teachings on Adam," 2009 FAIR Conference [August 2009]).

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:

" For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael (D&C 27:11; D&C 29:26), archangel (D&C 88:112), and Ancient of Days (D&C 138:38)." (Arthur A. Bailey, "Adam", Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edit. Daniel H. Ludlow, [New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992], 1:15–16.)

Eli. S: "The Biblical facts are:
Adam is earthy and from the earth. (1 Cor. 15:45-47)
All angels are spirit beings. (Heb. 1:13-14). Adam was not spirit….God will not call Adam Michael because he was previously called by God Adam with his wife Eve.
GENESIS 5:2….Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created…." The name Adam refers to both Adam and Eve given on the day that they were created. The name Eve was given by Adam to his wife later." *quotes Gen. 3:20

Re. : And this does not touch Latter Day Saint Theology either and these so called "facts" (strawman) that missed the point of Latter Day Saint Theology with misused na bible verses does not work at all. in Genesis 5:2, if you look at the Hebrew in this verse, the creation of human beings are being recalled and you again, Mr. Soriano, used a translation without looking if it's translated correctly or not through looking at the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. "Adam" (אָדָם) in Hebrew is the common noun used to refer to simply a human being (Gen. 1:26; 2:5-8; 9:5; Lev. 5:4; 13:2-9; Dt. 4:32; 1Chr. 17:17; Prov. 6:12; see. BDB, HALOT) and in recalling the creation of man, God called them simply as "man" (אָדָם) to identify what they are. the Greek Septuagint further gives the difference when the proper name "Adam" was used in the text where it simply uses the Greek transliteration mula sa Hebrew na Αδάμ (Adam) which is a genitive singular masculine and predicates it to one person in the text. hindi dalawa! as singular and masculine in form, the proper name used in the Greek Septuagint cannot refer to both Adam and Eve. this is one instance na kung saan ay may mistranslation sa King James Version. with a proper rendering of the Hebrew ng Gen. 5:2, bible versions like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) at ng New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders it as the following:

"Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created." (Gen. 5:2, New Revised Standard Version)

"He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created." (Gen. 5:2, New American Standard Bible 1995)

Eli. S: "...God is not a God of confusion. *quotes 1Cor. 14:33….The confusing doctrines of Mormons prove that this organization is not of God!"

Re. : A logical fallacy is being shown here which is personal incredulity. In personal incredulity, because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. gumawa ka ng conclusions nang dahil lang hindi mo maintindihan, and now sabihin mo Mr. Eli Soriano, sino ba yung may mga fallacies? kami o ikaw? kasi gumawa ka ng conclusions just because hindi maintindihan. and ano ba ang cause ng confusion mo in the first place? your rejection ng official na statements ng church leaders regarding this doctrine at namimilit ka na isa itong canonized doctrine.

Eli. S "....Even though later leaders of the Mormon Church deny their doctrine that Adam is God and God is Adam, their declaration that Adam is the Ancient of Days mentioned in the book of Daniel will inevitably end to the conclusion that Adam is their God because nobody existed, except God, before the commencement of days.*quotes Gen. 1:3-5 A spirit is without flesh and bone. *quotes Lk. 24:39 Adam had flesh and bones. *quotes Gen. 2:23
Michael, the Archangel, is a spirit! Therefore, Adam is not Michael; Michael is not Adam; and Adam was never God, the Ancient of Days!"

And you need to know first how the title "Ancient of Days" were used in Latter Day Saint scriptures. you should see the association of divine titles with "Adam" in the scriptures including the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:45 refer to Christ as the "second Adam" to show his role as the man who gave eternal life to the children of God in contrast to Adam, the first human. ang mga ito does not mean na si Adam at ang Diyos ay iisang divine being and also this should also shed light upon the doctrine of Deification that is also taught throughout the Bible and early Christianity.N.T Wright wrote on the following on the "Ancient of Days" in Daniel 7 and the Greek Septuagint:

" In the Septuagint version of Daniel 7:13 the translator has interpreted ‘he came to the Ancient of Days’ as ‘he came as the Ancient of Days’. Thus, according to this Septuagint interpretation, the Son of Man is in fact the embodiment of the person of the Ancient of Days. In other words the original scene in Daniel 7, where two figures exist alongside each other in heaven, is changed so that the vice-regent, the Son of Man, takes upon himself the form and character of God himself." (N.T. Wright : Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 2 [Fortress Press, SPCK: London, 1996], kindle location 12747.)

Ang identity ng Ancient of Days ay madaming views and this needs further research at hindi basta-bastang pagbabasa lang. biblical scholars conducted studies on this including Latter Day Saint biblical scholars. a friend in the field of biblical scholarship and Theology, Robert Boylan of Scriptural Mormonism, shared the following information on the identity of the "Ancient of Days" in the Bible.

Andrew Chester in his book, Messiah and Exaltation, wrote the following:

Testament of Abraham

The whole of chapters 11-13 of the Testament of Abraham constitute an important text for the present discussion. The following passages are especially notable:

11.8-9: Then Abraham asked the Prince, 'My Lord Prince, who is the most wondrous man, who is adorned with such great glory . . .?' The incorporeal one said, 'This is the first-formed Adam, who is in such great glory . . . '.
12.4-5, 11: Between the two gates there stood an awesome throne, flashing like fire. And on it sat a wondrous man, bright as the sun, like a son of God . . . And the wondrous man who sat on the throne was the one who was giving judgment and sentencing the souls . . .
13.1-3: And Abraham said, 'My Lord Prince, who is this all-wondrous judge, and who are these recording angels? And who is the angel like the sun, who holds the scales, and who is the fiery angel who holds the fire' And the Prince said, 'All-pious Abraham, do you see the terrifying man who is seated on the throne? This is the son of the first-formed Adam, who is called Abel, and he was killed by the wicked Cain. He sits here to judge every creature . . . '.

This quite extraordinary succession of texts does not describe a process of transformation, such as we have seen thus far, but it does clearly portray both Adam and Abel as having transformed appearance. Thus Abel is surrounded by the most exalted angels, who appear in altogether brilliant mode, yet his own appearance clearly exceeds theirs in its awesome and majestic nature; the same is clearly implied for Adam as well.

It may indeed be possible to find still further significance in Testament of Abraham 11-13. This is according to the view that the Testament of Abraham in these chapters has used Dan. 7.9-27 at its primary point of reference, and interprets the four designations or 'figures' there is a radically distinctive way as four separate and independent beings. So the Ancient of Days is interpreted as Adam, the One like a Son of Man as Abel (the 'wondrous man'), the Holy Ones as the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and the Most High as the Master God. The way that Abel appears to be identified as the angelic Son of Man (a designation itself easily obtained for him as 'Son of Adam'!) is quite remarkable, as is the way that he is set specifically on a throne, as judge of all humankind (and all this has clear similarities with the way that the Son of Man is identified in 1 Enoch 69, 71, and with Jesus in the New Testament).

The most extraordinary aspect of the interpretation here is the Testament of Abraham, however, is the identification of the Ancient of Days with Adam; but in fact Dan. 7.21-22 and 7.25 allow this figure to be distinguished from the Most High, and there are indeed other traditions (Rev. 1.13-14 and Apocalypse of Abraham 10.4) where it is used of a figure other than God. In any case, Adam is given an extraordinary high status here: he is specifically enthroned in the presence of the angels, described as a 'terrifying being' who looks like the 'Master' (clearly referring to God), and adorned in glory. Thus his appearance is like God's, he is enthroned, implicitly has all-encompassing knowledge, and takes part in the process of judgment. (Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 71-72)

John H. Walton on Daniel 7 and the Grammatical Distinction between the "Ancient of Days" and the "Most High":


In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days has always been an intriguing yet obscure figure, though there is little doubt that in Daniel he can represent none other than Yahweh. He is seated on the throne of dominion (v. 9), grants authority (vv. 13-14), and passes judgment (v. 22). The only mitigation of this identification is that there is grammatical cause to draw a distinction in v. 22 between the "Ancient of Days" and the "Most High" (an epithet generally used for Yahweh). Since the Most High, (עֶלְיוֹנִ֑ין) does not occur until after the introduction of the "Son of Man," it is alternatively possible that as a result of the Son of Man being granted authority (v. 14), he thereby qualifies for the epithet "Most High." This creates the expected correspondence between the kingdom being given to the son of man in v. 14 and to the Most High and his holy ones in v. 27.

Regardless of what name we attach to the Ancient of Days and of what connections can be drawn between the description of him and descriptions in other biblical or extra-biblical texts, what is important for our study is the role that he plays. The Ancient of Days is the one who is responsible for responding to the threat. He shows no anger, distress, turmoil or confusion, but convenes the assembly (of which he is the head) to address the problem. In this he is most comparable to Anshar in Ee and Anu in Anzu.

In Ee, the solution sequence is mediated first by Anshar, who fails to find a champion, and then by Ea, who selects Marduk to play the role of champion.

In Anzu, the solution sequence is mediated first by Anu, who fails to find a champion, but then accepts Ea' s offer to find one (I: 157-62). Ea selects Ninurta, but enlists Mami (Belet-ili) to persuade her son. Mami is not near as close a match for the "Ancient of Days" imagery as EI is in the Ugaritic material, though her status as the ancient creatrix puts her in a similar category.

In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days rolls all of these into one as the head of the assembly and the one who both mediates the solution sequence and designates a champion. (John H. Walton, "The Anzu Myth As Relevant Background for Daniel 7?" in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,I; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 1; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 1:79-80)

Klaus Koch on the Old Greek of Daniel 7 and the Son of Man Probably Denoting the Archangel Michael:

The message of the Old Greek version differs in some important respects from the Aramaic-Hebrew version . . .Whereas in the Vorlage the eschatological Son of Man probably denotes the archangel Michael who is authorized for the coming kingdom of God by the Ancient of Days (See Collins [Daniel, 304-10]), the Old Greek identifies the coming savior with the Ancient of Days himself and apparently interprets him as the Messiah, "whose origin is from old, from ancient days" (Micha 5:2). As a consequence of this, the holy ones of chapter 7, originally angels, (Collins, Daniel, 313-17) were seen as "the holy people of the Most High" on earth (7:27). (Klaus Koch, "Stages in the Canonization of the Book of Daniel," in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,II; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 2:426-27)

As Collins notes in his commentary on Daniel,

Third, a considerable number of authors have remained persuaded that the “one like a human being” is individual but understand him as a heavenly, angelic being rather than the messiah. We have seen above reason to expect that the “one like a human being” be understood as a realistic symbol, representing a being who was believed to exist, and that a human figure in a vision represent an angel or divine being. Within the Book of Daniel the individual who is singled out as the heavenly counterpart of Israel is the archangel Michael, “the great prince who stands over your people.” The view that Michael is the “one like a human being” was put forward by Nathaniel Schmidt in 1900. Schmidt was followed by several scholars, but his view gained wide support only in recent years, in the wake of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which threw new light on the prominence of angelic forces in the religion of the Hellenistic period. The identification of the “one like a human being” with Michael is greatly strengthened by the arguments below that the holy ones of the Most High are the angelic host.291 We return to the identification below, in connection with the holy ones. (John Joseph Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press, 1993], 310)

A variant of the angelic interpretation would identify the “one like a human being” with Gabriel rather than Michael. Ziony Zevit has offered the ingenious argument that Dan 9:21, “the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at first,” must refer back to the “one like a human being” in Daniel 7. It is more plausible, however, to trace this reference to 7:16, where Daniel asks “one of the attendants” for an interpretation. Gabriel serves as interpreter in 8:15 and 9:21, so he was probably identified as the interpreter in chap. 7 too. Michael, the prince of Israel, is the more appropriate recipient of the kingdom. (Ibid.)

James D.G. Dunn on the Merging of the "Son of Man" and the "Ancient of Days":

Particularly intriguing for an interest in the Danielic son of man is, of course, the combined influence of Dan 7:9 and 13 in Rev 1:13-14 - that is, the use of elements of Daniel's description of the Ancient of Days ("his head and his hair were ... as white wool, '"like a flame of fire") in Revelation's description of the "one like a son of man." This suggestion that the figures of the Ancient of pays and the "one like a son of man" were in some way merged in John's vision has stimulated considerable discussion in NT scholarship. It has also posed various issues: whether it strengthens the case that the reading of Dan 7: 13 LXX was current ("as the Ancient of Days," rather than "to the Ancient of Days"); how it correlates with the issue of angel christology that is also addressed in Revelation; and whether, as with the talk of "the lamb in the midst of the throne" (Rev 7: 17; cf. 22: 1,3), it amounts simply to a merging of symbolical descriptions, or was intended to provide something more in the nature of an ontological statement about the relationship between Christ and God. (James D.G. Dunn, "The Danielic Son of Man in the New Testament," in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, 2 vols. [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum LXXXIII,II; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature II, 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 2:537)

B.H. Roberts on Adam/Michael being the "Ancient of Days" in The Mormon Doctrine of Deity (1903)


What I want to ask in the light of these reflections is this: Is it such a wonderful thing to believe that at the last, one of God's sons shall preside over this little earth as the God-president or God of it? That our Father Adam, the "Grand Patriarch" of our race—the "Ancient of Days"—"Michael, the Archangel"—give him what title you will out of the many which are his—is it so hard to believe that he will eventually attain to the dignity of the governorship of this earth, when it is redeemed and sanctified and becomes one of the glorified spheres of God? (B.H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity: The Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1903], 42)

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven it is by Adam's authority. Daniel 7, speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given Him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. (Ibid., 244)

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days," or, in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great grand progenitor, of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, i. e., the dispensation of all the times, have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed: Ephesians, 1st chap., 9th and 10th verses—"Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." (Ibid., 246)

Eli S. : ".....Some of the teachings of the Mormons from diverse sources include the following. My conscience doesn’t allow me to call them facts:
Adam is Michael the archangel.
The Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, not of the Holy Ghost but begotten by the Father in His own likeness.
His (Jesus) body (tabernacle) was begotten by the Father after the same manner as the tabernacle of Cain, Abel, etc. (implying that Jesus’ body was through sexual intercourse)"

Re. : And my conscience does not allow me to call those facts either. We see here again here where Eli Soriano and his ignorance of Latter Day Saint Theology is in action where he can’t differentiate what is canonical and what is not. and first of all Mr. Soriano, sino ba ang Ama ni Jesus Christ? who beget Jesus Christ? It is the Father and Heavenly Father begat Jesus Christ through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. as the discussion above that Adam is Michael the Archangel, we already proved and proven na inconsistent ang mga arguments ni Eli Soriano against it and for the conception ni Eli Soriano, this shows na hindi talaga diverse yung sources mo Eli Soriano. parang nanggaling lang sa isang search engine. Did he really studied what we believe? kasi ilan diyan sa sinasabi ay hindi isang considered na canonical doctrine and not all leaders agreed on it. I wrote the following in an article a few weeks ago on the Latter Day Saint belief on the conception of Jesus Christ:

" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God." (Lk 1:35, New American Standard Bible 1995)

I hear some circulating na mga discussions among some church members on how was Jesus Christ conceived. there will be absurd claims sa kung papaano naconceive si Jesus Christ which will go against God's nature and the nature of how Jesus Christ would come to this earth. this same claims will be used by Anti-mormons to say that "you believe this" when in reality, we don't really not. ang mga ito ay magbabase on writings of some apostles and leaders taken out of context and misread and writings that do not actually declared as official doctrine but as a heresy. ang circulating claims na ito ay na si Mary conceived Jesus Christ through coitus with God the Father and this is false in all extents and goes against the true nature of how the Son of God came to this earth. firstly, to know what the church actually believes on this, here is from Pres. Harold B. Lee on his letter to a person who wants some clarification on this issue where the prophet said:

January 2, 1969

Bruce Bracken
--------x---------
Logan Utah, 84321

" Dear Brother Bracken

We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more.

Sincerely yours,

Harold B. Lee"

Early church leaders have the following statements on the conception and birth of Jesus Christ through the virgin Mary:

Who was Jesus Christ? Why, He is called the babe of Bethlehem. He was once a babe, then? Yes. He was born of the Virgin Mary. (George Q. Cannon; Collected Discourses 1:233-34)

If ever, there was a time when there was need for the testimony of these men that are sent out, these seventies, these elders, testifying for Jesus, standing for Jesus; the miraculous Jesus, the Jesus who was begotten by His Father, the Lord God Almighty, and born of the virgin Mary--the Jesus of miraculous birth and miraculous life. (Charles W. Nibley; Conference Report, April 1911, p. 54)

The second is that he shall be without reservation a Christian, believing that Jesus Christ was in very truth the Son of God, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he lived as the scriptures declare He did. (James E. Talmage; Conference Report, April 1914, p. 95)

He was "the only begotten Son of God," born of the Virgin Mary. (Charles W. Penrose; Conference Report, April 1915, p. 37)

Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary, was literally and truly the Son of the Father, the Eternal God, not of Adam. (Charles W. Penrose; Conference Report, April 1916, p. 23)

We know that God is the Lord, and we are perfectly satisfied, I believe, in the truth of the enunciation made by our President this morning, that the Father is a personage, not a mere spiritual imaginary breath, and that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, is his only begotten Son in the flesh, and that we are made in their image, as revealed in scripture. (Charles W. Penrose; October 1916, p. 16)

In that vision it was shown unto him that Christ would come upon the earth, and be born of the Virgin Mary. (Daniel G. Miller; Conference Report, october 1916, p. 123)

Many people are growing to believe in Jesus Christ as the veritable Son of God, born of the virgin Mary and begotten of His Father. (G.E. Ellisworth; October 1916, p. 133)

Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he fulfilled his earthly mission, and that his life was concluded in the sacrifice that he offered for us and for the world. (William T. Jack; Conference Report, April 1917, p. 114)Here is also what church leaders said in addition to the letter from Pres. Harold B. Lee:

It occurs to me that this same Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and the Son of God, to whom the Father introduced the boy, was the same Jesus Christ who lived upon the earth during the meridian of time: that he was the same Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary. He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. He lived upon the earth for a short period of time, for about 33 years. He entered upon his ministry; he organized his Church with apostles, and evangelists and so on. In time he gave up his life for the sins of the world. that all the children of our Father in heaven who live today, and who lived at the time of the Savior, or who had lived upon the earth before his day, or shall live after we have passed away, might be saved through obedience to his laws. He gave up his life as a ransom for us all. My brethren and sisters, the Savior who talked with Joseph Smith the boy prophet was the identical Savior, the identical Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was crucified upon Calvary's hill, whose body was laid in the tomb, and arose from the tomb on the third day and appeared to his friends and brethren. That identical Jesus Christ who was baptized in Jordan, appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the necessary instruction for the founding of his Church in our day. (Joseph Reece, Conference Report, October 1918, p. 114)

God was manifest in the flesh, in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, and he was verily the Son of God, begotten of the Father, and his mother was the virgin Mary. There should be no dispute in regard to this matter, because it has been made so clear and full in the revelations of God to us. (Charles W. Penrose, Conference Report, April 1920, p. 30)

The elements of his body are eternal, and the elements of the spirit are eternal, without beginning; but there was a beginning to his body, when he was born of the virgin Mary, and God was his Father. His power overshadowed the virgin and, as she was told by the angel Gabriel, the offspring was the Son of God. Jesus Christ taught that doctrine to his apostles and made it very plain. (Charles W. Penrose, April 1921, p. 12)

[W]e have an abiding faith in their purport and believe with all our souls that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, and is therefore the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is also important to believe that during his lifetime he promulgated the plan of life and salvation, and taught the children of men as no one else has ever taught them the glorious principles of eternal life. It is also important that we should believe with all our souls that he gave his life as a ransom for the sins of the whole world, and that his precious blood was spilled as a means of saving mankind from the fall. It is also important that we shall believe with all our souls that on the third day he rose from the dead and overcame death and the grave, and became the first fruits of the resurrection. These are the important things: The observance of these two holy days in commemoration of our Savior's marvelous birth of the Virgin Mary, and his miraculous resurrection from. the dead, is quite general throughout all Christian lands and among the various so-called Christian churches. (Rulon S. Wells, Conference Report, April 1923, p. 124)

Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary crucified upon Calvary, and risen from the dead, is the Redeemer of the world. (Athony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1923, p. 141)

We believe that Jesus Christ was, and is the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, immaculately conceived and born of the Virgin Mary. That through the atonement wrought out by him all men are redeemed from the penalty of death, pronounced upon our father Adam, through the resurrection from the grave, which he made possible, and that by obedience to the divine principles of right living which he taught, mankind may be redeemed from personal sin, and brought back into the presence of the Father, to enjoy the fellowship and association of the Son. (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1925, p. 24)

was born of the virgin Mary, that he was crucified on the cross by his enemies who were inspired by disgruntled religious leaders of his day, that he arose the third day from a borrowed grave where he was buried, and finally that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, about whom the prophets of Israel spoke. (Alma Sonne, Conference Report, October 1965, p. 36)

It was he then who came to this earth, in the meridian of time, born of the virgin Mary. He was the literal Son of God the Father, "the Only Begotten Son." (Eldred G. Smith, Conference Report, April 1968, p. 43)

Even our great Redeemer, whose death and sufferings we are this afternoon celebrating, was born up in yonder world before he was born of the Virgin Mary. (Orson Pratt, November 12, 1876; JOD 18:290)

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Scriptures tell us; and she bare record of it, and there were many witnesses of this fact, and the record teaches us that he was begotten by the power of God, and not of man, and that she had no intercourse with mortal man in the flesh until after she gave birth to the Savior, who is called the Son of God. I will also say that Adam was called the Son of God. (Erastus Snow, March 4, 1878; JOD 19:271)

And with Latter Day Saint church leaders today:

Even yet she comprehended but in part the import of this momentous visitation. Not in the spirit of doubt such as had prompted Zacharias to ask for a sign, but through an earnest desire for information and explanation, Mary, conscious of her unmarried status and sure of her virgin condition, asked: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” The answer to her natural and simple inquiry was the announcement of a miracle such as the world had never known—not a miracle in the sense of a happening contrary to nature’s law, nevertheless a miracle through the operation of higher law, such as the human mind ordinarily fails to comprehend or regard as possible. Mary was informed that she would conceive and in time bring forth a Son, of whom no mortal man would be the father:—“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Then the angel told her of the blessed condition of her cousin Elisabeth, who had been barren; and by way of sufficient and final explanation added: “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” With gentle submissiveness and humble acceptance, the pure young virgin replied: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary’s promised Son was to be “The Only Begotten” of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman. Jesus Christ was to be born of mortal woman, but was not directly the offspring of mortal man, except so far as His mother was the daughter of both man and woman. In our Lord alone has been fulfilled the word of God spoken in relation to the fall of Adam, that the seed of the woman should have power to overcome Satan by bruising the serpent’s head. (Elder James E. Talmage: Jesus The Christ [Salt Lake City, Ut. Intellectual Reserve inc. 2006])

Nonbelievers find it hard to accept the miracles of the Old and New Testaments and the Savior’s virgin birth and Resurrection. They view these events with the same skepticism as the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith. They are not open to the possibility of a heavenly plan presided over by a supreme being. They do not have faith. (Elder Quentin L. Cook: Our Heavenly Father's Plan—Big Enough For All His Children, Liahona Apr. 2006)

"Just as Jesus is literally the Son of Mary, so he is the personal and literal offspring of God the Eternal Father. … Matthew’s statement, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost,’ properly translated should say, ‘she was found with child by the power of the Holy Ghost.’ (Matt. 1:18.) Luke’s account (Luke 1:35) accurately records what took place. Alma perfectly describes our Lord’s conception and birth by prophesying: Christ ‘shall be born of Mary, … she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.’ (Alma 7:10.) Nephi spoke similarly when he said that at the time of her conception, Mary ‘was carried away in the Spirit,’ with the result that the child born of her was ‘the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father.’ (1 Ne. 11:19–21.)” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:82–83).

Conclusion

Eli Soriano is someone na may mataas na tingin ang mga Filipinos and it's dangerous na maging dishonest siya in front of gullible people. ang kanyang lack of consistency, ang kanyang lack of meaningful research, ang kanyang lack of honesty—mislead many people, including Latter Day Saints. Eli Soriano is someone also na mataas ang tingin sa sarili that thinks he is better than anyone else but was not! mahirap na maging fan ka niya blindly without looking for yourself if these are true. stop wasting your time sa kanyang mga tinuturo at content and go to the true Jesus, who built his church and restored it through the prophet Joseph Smith, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
__________________
Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Facebook.com/ldswarriors2000
Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nika0604