Don’t you, as a Christian (I assume), believe something similar? An “unchanging” God who “changed” from being solely “nonmaterial” to “partially material” with God the Son assuming materiality 2000 years ago?
As I wrote in my book:
[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Volume 1. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 1998 Edward K. Watson.) pp. 117-120. MORMONISM: Section 1, Chapter 12. All rights reserved.]
CHAPTER 12
Is God Unchanging? Did He Create Everything?
A) Is God unchanging?
Despite the misrepresentations of our opponents, the Latter-day Scriptures teach God is immutable. He’s unchangeable from eternity to eternity and is the same yesterday, today and forever (1 Ne 10:18; 2 Ne 2:4; 26:12; Alma 11:38-39,44; 3 Ne 24:6; Morm 9:9-10,19; Moro 7:22; 8:18; D&C 20:12,17,28; 35:1-2; 76:4; 78:16; Mos 1:3) which is identical to what the Bible says (Deut 33:27; Ps 90:2; 93:2; 102:24-27; Hab 1:12; Mal 3:6; Heb 1:12; 6:17-18; Jas 1:17). Wouldn’t it be foolish for Joseph Smith to teach a doctrine that would contradict what God taught numerous times in the Bible and the Latter-day Scriptures? God doesn’t change. He’s consistent, always reliable and trustworthy. He keeps his side of the covenant even if man doesn’t.
On the surface it appears that our belief that Heavenly Father was once a man like ourselves who developed into the God he currently is seems contradicted by our other doctrine that he is unchanging. Let us examine this doctrine in depth.
The Traditional Christian view of God understands him as possessing three persons but being one essence. God is immutable, he doesn’t change according to the Bible but at the same time describes a changing God!
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Is Jesus, “God”? We say yes. Is he the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? We say yes (also see Moro 10:19). But, did he change? Yes! He was an incorporeal (not nonmaterial) spirit being for billions of years before being born to Mary 2,000 years ago. Jesus (God) changed from being completely nonhuman to human! He changed from an embryo to a fetus, to an infant, to a child, to an adolescent, to an adult. He changed! Since Jesus is God, and Jesus changed, it means God changed! God changed physically and in essence (purely nonhuman to part-human).
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Did Jesus increase in wisdom? Did he change? Isn’t an “increase” a “change”?
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
What did Jesus do? Did he do what Heavenly Father did before him? If God the Son changed and replicated what God the Father did before him, did God the Father change? If not, Jesus is a liar.
Our opponents claim to be the true followers of Christ but they don’t believe what Jesus said about his emulation of the Father, the significance of the humanity of Jesus or the implications of his incarnation. Neither do they seem to understand how God can be unchanging and changing at the same time. Their argument in reality isn’t with us Mormons, it’s with Jesus and the NT. We are merely believing what is clearly espoused in the Bible.
This needs to be clarified. The immutability of God is in reference to his nature. His nature as God doesn’t change,1 in relation to the universe. Jesus was always “God” despite changing from being purely incorporeal to having a physical body.
If the Christian anti-Mormons truly believe God’s `unchangeness’ excludes a mortal incarnation and development; they have no other choice but to abandon Jesus as being God and member of the Godhead! They must abandon the NT since it clearly refers to Jesus as God and at the same time describes a “changing” (evolving) Jesus. (He did get circumcised and “grew” a beard didn’t he?) Their only options are to convert to either Judaism or Islam.
The real problem lies in the origin of God. How did God come into existence? From the Scriptures it can be gathered that the universe was created by God therefore he had to precede this universe. As I understand it, the church teaches that Heavenly Father was once a man like us and resided on a world similar to ours. He eventually attained Godhood, and then created this universe and everything within. Such an idea drives anti-Mormons to rage. “How dare you Mormons say that God was once a man! Blasphemy!” The thing is, why be on the defensive? We should put the ball back in their corner and ask them, “What did God do before he created this universe?” If they’re trained in philosophy, they’ll say there never was a period before the creation and God was a hypostasis present. (See Chapter 14 and MORMONISM: Section 4). Usually, they won’t be able to answer. “You don’t know? How can you then say that the Mormon concept is wrong when you don’t have an alternate idea?”
In order for an individual to say that this idea (God was once a mortal humanoid in another universe) is wrong, he or she must be able to prove why it’s false. Since we teach that this occurred before the universe was created in an ancestral universe, they must be able to show that he was always [a] God before the universe was made. Can they do it? Absolutely not, since there isn’t a single verse in the Bible that says what God was doing before he created the universe. All we have is when he created this heaven (universe? sky?) and earth.
The Mormon belief of God’s mortal origin is based upon what is now known as the “multiverse cosmology” which resolves the unchanging God passages with the changing God described by the incarnation. It shows the “unchangeable God” passages are about God’s status, not about a mortal evolution. He was God before creating time and the universe. he will still be God after time and the universe cease to exist.
[ENDNOTES]:
1.NIBD. Immutability.
***************************
Did Joseph Smith copy SOME of the Book of Mormon from the Bible, most especially the Beatitudes? Most definitely! A comparative analysis shows a gradual convergence of the texts, with the greatest differences at the beginning.
Does this prove the Book of Mormon false? Of course not since EVERY NT WRITER, most especially PAUL, copied OT passages into their writings, often without credit.
(I have a chapter with a side-by-side comparison of fifty specific NT instances).
Why then do I still believe the New Testament is Scripture?
As I said in an article I wrote (Tanner Worship and Real Scholarship; FAIR journal):
“In my opinion, there isn’t any question Joseph Smith used the text from his AV Bible in writing parts of the Book of Mormon. A textual comparison of 3 Nephi 12-14 with Matthew 5-7 shows a gradual convergence of the texts with the greatest deviation existing at the very beginning of 3 Nephi 12. This gradual dovetailing reveals Joseph Smith “cheated”; not in the sense of committing fraud, but in shying away from the painstaking and difficult translation process of examining each engraved character, trying to discern what it meant by relying upon God’s inspiration, and then verbalizing the revealed impression. When he realized he was quoting the Beatitudes, he “popped open his Bible”; continued the slow translation but eventually acquiesced to a wholesale importation of the remainder of the Beatitudes after deducing minimal difference between the two accounts.
“This also explains the similarities of the Isaiah and Malachi quotations from what’s found in the AV and why some Book of Mormon passages that parallel those found in the Bible contain the same textual errors found in the AV. Does this mean the Book of Mormon is false? Of course not. Why should a later prophet’s unacknowledged usage of the writing of an earlier prophet be grounds for invalidating his own writings? Don’t the anti-Mormons know biblical writers frequently copied or paraphrased from earlier writers without acknowledging their “plagiarism”? [e.g., Heb 8:8-12 cf. Jer 31:31-34; Matt 13:13/Mark 4:12 cf. Isa 6:9-10; Heb 3:7-11 cf. Ps 95:7-11; Matt 10:35-36 cf. Micah 7:6; Luke 19:40 cf. Hab 2:11; Acts 13:41 cf. Hab 1:5; 1 Cor 4:13 cf. Lam 3:45; Jas 2:9 cf. Prov 28:21; 1 Pet 3:10-12 cf. Ps 34:12-16; Rev 1:15 cf. Ezek 43:2; 2 Kng 18-20 is actually copied from Isa 36-39 and Mic 4:1-3 is copied from Isa 2:2-4; etc.
**************************
As for “man become God” - I’m too tired to enter another discussion on it (need to go back to sleep) so just read my book on the matter at http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id33.htm
******************
Lastly, I’m also the father of five (boys)!
~”When he realized he was quoting the Beatitudes, he “popped open his Bible”; continued the slow translation but eventually acquiesced to a wholesale importation of the remainder of the Beatitudes after deducing minimal difference between the two accounts.”~
I do not agree with this interpretation. I am no scholar on the topic; but I see nothing wrong with the idea that Christ quoted Himself verbatim where appropriate. Is it shocking that He would teach the same principles to two different groups of His followers? To me, it’s a testament to the Book of Mormon’s veracity; if Smith were “making it up,” would he not have preferred a version of the beatitudes that supported the principles that he wanted to espouse?
My lack of a response over the next few days is that I’m traveling to a wedding and will be without a computer. But I will respond.
Congratulations on the five boys - I managed to get one girl along the way.
Not at all. First, Moroni and Mormon refer to god the father as unchanging from eternity to eternity. Scripture tells us that the Son did change, when he became man. This is a mystery, but it is consistent throughout scripture. God the Father changing is not consistent with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.
An “unchanging” God who “changed” from being solely “nonmaterial” to “partially material” with God the Son assuming materiality 2000 years ago?
Your argument doesn’t make any sense. Your logic is wrong.
It’s like saying,
Bill is a man.
Bob is a man.
Therefore, Bill is Bob.
You can’t interchange God the Father and Jesus. Jesus is not God the Father, and you cannot substitute Jesus for the Father when reading Scripture and see the word God, as you are doing.
What did Jesus do? Did he do what Heavenly Father did before him? If God the Son changed and replicated what God the Father did before him, did God the Father change? If not, Jesus is a liar.
By your logic, the Father did everything Jesus did. Unless they are the same person, this can’t be correct. It doesn’t make Jesus a liar.
Keep reading John 5:19 to get the proper context:
19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
This is in no way implying that God the father became man, turned water into wine, or died on the cross. You are implying that the son cannot do anything the father didn’t do. Just not rational, and a gross distortion of scripture, logic and reason.
Wouldn’t it be foolish for Joseph Smith to teach a doctrine that would contradict what God taught numerous times in the Bible and the Latter-day Scriptures? God doesn’t change. He’s consistent, always reliable and trustworthy. He keeps his side of the covenant even if man doesn’t.
Yes it is foolish. This is why I don’t trust Romney as a candidate. He can look at the clear language in the Bible, at the clear language in the BOM, and believe something that is clearly wrong.
On the surface it appears that our belief that Heavenly Father was once a man like ourselves who developed into the God he currently is seems contradicted by our other doctrine that he is unchanging.
On the surface, and as deep as you can go. Stick with the clear and obvious reading of Scripture and the BOM and you see your belief is flawed.
However, there is one part of the Bible where man aspires to be god:
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Gen 3:4-5
The real problem lies in the origin of God.
This is only a problem for Mormons. Moroni and Mormon affirm that God the Father is unchanging from eternity to eternity - He never changes. That is hard to accept, but it is what Scripture reveals about God. It is only the Mormon ‘man to god’ thingy that creates the ‘problem.’ But Gen 3:4-5 shows where this man to god belief comes from.