I wonder if perhaps we should move this to a private email exchange, as we’ve done before, and focus on one issue at a time. I’d even be open to a Skype or Gmail chat.

1 That if God the Father does have a body of flesh and bones it does not really make a difference.

2 That Jesus was a god before He came to earth but was much more exalted after what He did as the saviour.

3 That the Prophets in the Book of Mormon did not know about Gods nature in the book of Mormon hence the statements made.

I will go through these to a limited degree one by one and lay a foundation of further discussion on this, and see where we go.

1 Ok I will lay aside for the sake of discussion here that I do not believe He has a body of flesh and bones, I wont even quote the verses I feel support the case that He does not, however I will look at the implications of if God the Father has a body of flesh and bone, and what that would mean.

So Firstly it would have to mean He was once a man, a finite man who gained this body while going through His mortal probation, some debates I have heard between an atheist and a Christian have raised a question in my mind recently that I kind of know you wont have the answer to, and I am not worried about the direct answer as such but here we go.

Was there a first God who started it all? Or is there an infinite ongoing amount of Gods? I appreciate if there is a first you might not know anything about that god, but what are your views on the matter?

This question is further fuelled by these quotes

“If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever
did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?
And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?” (Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373.)

“Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:47.

Secondly the LDS defined implications of God the Father having a body are here.

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

“GOD IS INCREASING IN KNOWLEDGE. If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflect-ing mind. God Himself is increasing and progressing in knowl-edge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p. 3).

God the Father is brought down from the omnipresent, all knowing, all powerful being that He is to an elevated human, these quotes very much support this idea, I appreciate the woodruff one is probably not accepted today however as far as I know the others still hold water.

Biblically, God is everywhere and can do anything.

Jeremiah 23:23-24
23Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?

24Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

He is everywhere, the notion of Him having a body places a restriction on Him which is not biblical, as well as the notion of Him having this body in the first place not being biblical.

Ok point 2, Jesus being promoted despite His already divine qualities.

I can see where you draw support from on this one, as I think in Hebrews it talks about Jesus being elevated by the Father, here it is

Hebrews 1:8-12

English Standard Version (ESV)

8But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

I don’t think this is the only verse that says something like this so I think your view combined with Mormon thinking is understandable here, however this is missing the greater context for two reasons.

1, We see Here that Jesus throne is forever and ever, that tells us He had it before He came to earth, as I showed before in Philippians 2. We see that Jesus emptied Himself of His position, I would see this verse as a restoration of what was already there.

2, John 17:5 clears this up And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus talks about the glory He already had, not any new glory which comes as an exaltation for the good things He did. Jesus is as glorious now as He has ever been, however our recognition and love for Him as humanity is greater since He came no doubt, however His status as God remains unchanged.

Point 3.

Ok you said this:

So what do we do with Moroni 8:18, and similar passages in LDS scriptures? I believe them. I believe that God is unchangeable. However, as has been addressed already, God is unchangeable only in certain aspects. I can fully agree with you that it is in regard to God’s nature as a sinless, perfect, loving, and all-powerful person. Those attributes of God have never changed, nor will they ever change.

I don’t believe that the Book of Mormon prophets knew anything about God’s past as a mortal. I believe that that teaching was basically taught (at least openly) for the first time on Earth by Joseph Smith. So I don’t think Moroni or Mormon have this in mind at all. They are not addressing this issue. When they speak of God being “unchanging” they have nothing in mind about God progressing from being incorporeal to corporeal. Without that context, they simply are not addressing that at all. When they describe God as being “unchanging” they have in mind only his character and his love. They are not addressing 19th century Mormonism and trying to tell us that God was never a mortal who underwent change. It is gross presentism to assume as much.

Ok you are kind of playing it both ways here, you agree with the verse but you don’t, its right but its wrong and also giving a reason for it being wrong despite you saying you think its right.

I think in reality we both know that you do not believe this verse in the sense that the bible teaches it, and I would say in the sense that the book of Mormon teaches it.

However you saying that these guys got it wrong as they said something about God that they did not really know about surely makes the book of Mormon unreliable as scripture? In which case 2 Timothy 3:16 in your eyes surely could not apply here if they were saying something unreliable?

If you are not saying this then I still look forward to you addressing the other book of Mormon verses I have quoted showing God to be unchangeable in His nature and glory.

Bobby said,

Whatever Jesus went through in His incarnation was by His choice and through the power of God, What the LDS church teaches is that God the Father was once a mortal finite man and had to strive and earn his way to godhood.

And Mike said,

The God of the Bible is unchangeable in the sense that he is unchangeable in his character – “God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19), and in his nature (he is now, always has been and always will be God – contrary to the teachings of Joseph Smith in his infamous King Follett Discourse and generations of Mormons.

Sort of. Joseph Smith did teach something like that, but we must be careful in interpreting exactly what we mean when we say that God had to “earn” his way to godhood. Many LDS, perhaps most, believe that God the Father dwelt on an Earth as a mortal in the same way that Christ did. They believe that God the Father never sinned, and that he was already “God” before his mortality, during his mortality, and after his mortality.

Consider this. I believe that Jesus Christ was already “God” long before coming to Earth. And yet, through his mortal experience, he still underwent changes that caused him to increase in glory and power. He acquired a glorious and immortal body of flesh and bones. He redeemed mankind. He avoided sin and temptation. In essence, he became a greater “god” than he was before his mortal sojourn. So in this case I think we have more than one definition of God being tossed around which is leading to confusion:

(A) God = the creator, father, teacher, and redeemer of mankind.

(B) God = a person who has experienced mortality, death, resurrection, and received more glory because of it.

So while I believe that Jesus Christ was already God before coming to Earth (definition “A”), I also believe that there is another sense in which he became God as a result of his mortal experience (definition “B”). The challenge here is the varying meanings of the word “God”.

I believe that this is what Joseph Smith is teaching when he compares Christ’s mortal experience to the Father’s mortal experience:

What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before.

Christ was already “God” in one sense before his mortality (A”), and yet he still worked out his kingdom. Joseph Smith apparently believed that this is analogous to what God the Father did. There is no conflict in believing that God was always God, and yet that he also became God, so long as we keep straight what we mean by the word “God”.

Mike said the following:

He is not a man, exalted or otherwise, nor was he ever a man, or less than God. In all these senses he is unchangeable.

I once asked a group of Christians in the CARM chatroom what the theological implications would be if God the Father had an immortal body of flesh and bones just like Christ now does. While they adamantly denied that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones, they couldn’t think of any serious issues it would cause to their theology if God did. God would still be just as powerful, just as glorious, and just as loving. God would still be able to create and redeem mankind. There is nothing at stake here in the fact that God has a physical body of flesh and bones (a “man”) except for our preferred reading of the scriptures. Latter-day Saints don’t believe that becoming a man lessens God, just as it did not lessen Christ. Man and God are not incompatible. Rather, a “God” is a type of man. Godhood is the full maturity of manhood. We are but gods in embryo.

So what do we do with Moroni 8:18, and similar passages in LDS scriptures? I believe them. I believe that God is unchangeable. However, as has been addressed already, God is unchangeable only in certain aspects. I can fully agree with you that it is in regard to God’s nature as a sinless, perfect, loving, and all-powerful person. Those attributes of God have never changed, nor will they ever change.

I don’t believe that the Book of Mormon prophets knew anything about God’s past as a mortal. I believe that that teaching was basically taught (at least openly) for the first time on Earth by Joseph Smith. So I don’t think Moroni or Mormon have this in mind at all. They are not addressing this issue. When they speak of God being “unchanging” they have nothing in mind about God progressing from being incorporeal to corporeal. Without that context, they simply are not addressing that at all. When they describe God as being “unchanging” they have in mind only his character and his love. They are not addressing 19th century Mormonism and trying to tell us that God was never a mortal who underwent change. It is gross presentism to assume as much.

The Book of Mormon teaches that God is unchanging in his character, love, and power. It has nothing to say about his progression through mortality.

(1) I think I can see what you mean by this but in my view you are clutching at straws. Whatever Jesus
Went through in His incarnation was by His choice and through the power of God, What the LDS church teaches is that God the Father was once a mortal finite man and had to strive and earn his way to godhood. The scenario we see with Christ is entirely different and strikes me as yet more deflection.

However for the sake of not deflecting myself I will try and state my view on it.

So the bible says that Christ before coming to earth was totally God, creator of all things and so on. However Philippians 2 shows that He did not grasp that equality with God and emptied Himself taking the form of you and me. He was still God but also became man. So I would be hard pressed to say He did not go through changes. His nature was still God but His form and knowledge at least at first were given the limitations of being human like you and me. We know this because it talks about Him growing in knowledge and stature etc.

Interestingly as a total contrast to LDS we have God being God before He is man, I find that interesting.

(2) Ok I heavily disagree but onto the next point.

(3) I am not sure if this is a point I need to respond to however I would say God in His nature and power is totally unchangeable, however when God answers our prayers it is right to say that God did something because we asked. However God knew we were going to ask that and planned before the beginning of time that He would do what He did in light of what we asked, so did we change His mind, interesting debate and something I have been thinking about lately.

(4) I get your point and it is a good one, however in making this point it is almost like you are accepting Joseph Smith made the book of Mormon up, as you are accepting the book of Mormon was his initial theology, and He got more later, as remember that is my assumption here.

Bringing this back to earth obviously you are not saying that, however your point creates a further problem in that the Book of Mormon in your view is from many different sources all presumably getting inspiration from God and they are saying different things to what was said later. Who had the inspiration from God and who did not? Or did God somehow change in between.

Regarding Peter yes you are right as He went from one covenant to another He got further revelation on Gods heart to reach gentiles, which did change. In the Old Testament gentiles were not a part of Gods people today they are, this is a change in Gods dealings with people. However what we are talking about here is Gods nature and who He is which does not change.

(5) Regarding your 2nd comment that is indeed a very fair criticism. Christian thinkers over the years have changed views, they still do and debates go on you have my total agreement with that, however Joseph Smith totally changing what He said in this regard could only be equalled by Jesus or a bible writing apostle doing the same. Christian thinkers and theologians do not have remotely the amount of authority that LDS prophets have.

Scripture is the authority and what that says has not changed, unless you would like to show me how it has, what Christians have said over the years about scripture is no where near as authoratative.

Your points about God’s changing are well made – sort of, but they duck the issue because we are not talking about God saying, “circumcision didn’t seem such a good idea, maybe I should try something else.” He doesn’t make things up on the hoof but knows the end from the beginning (Is.46:10) his counsel will stand and he will accomplish all his purposes. Contingency is not a word in God’s vocabulary. The God of the Bible is unchangeable in the sense that he is unchangeable in his character – “God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19), and in his nature (he is now, always has been and always will be God – contrary to the teachings of Joseph Smith in his infamous King Follett Discourse and generations of Mormons. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17)

He is not a man, exalted or otherwise, nor was he ever a man, or less than God. In all these senses he is unchangeable. In this sense we agree with Moroni 8:18 which clearly declares that God is unchangeable. Bobby has referred to Mormon theology developing and I think you know he means in a negative and profoundly questionable way. So we find the unchangeable God of the Bible echoed, albeit as a shadow, in this text while the changeable God came later as Joseph Smith changed his mind about a lot of things.

I suggest the eisegesis is on your part by taking the consistent teaching of the Bible that God is unchangeable, echoed in Moroni 8:18, and insisting that he is only unchangeable in regards to this or that minor, local issue. Hold that thought for a moment and compare the chnageable God of Mormonism with the consistent, eternal God of the Bible. You are being sold short and the Bible is as clear on this as on anything you can think of.