Divine Apprentice

A Mormon recently responded to David’s video and I am going to look at his response:

Just watched the video. Though he says he only has one question, I think it would be fair to separate it into two:
1. How do you resolve the seeming contradiction between the doctrines of God once being a man and of God’s unchanging nature?
2. Why does it seem that our modern prophets teach one thing and the Book of Mormon teaches another?
I’ll address the second question first. The answer to why the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that God was once a man is simply that not every doctrine is taught within every book. Pick any book from the New or Old Testament and I could probably name at least a dozen mainstream Christian beliefs that cannot be found within that single book. However, he seems to gloss over the fact that modern prophets have also taught that God is unchanging. We aren’t blind to those scriptures. We read them and they’re quoted in sermons and general conference talks.
So how do we reconcile these two ideas? While the video is correct in stating that it is our doctrine that God was once a man, there’s two important questions it neglected to ask. First, why do we believe God was a man, and secondly in what way do we believe God was once a man? I’ll get back to this in just a second.

First, let me ask mainstream Christians a question, since you believe God is unchanging as well. Did Jesus change when He was born as a mortal? Do you think of that as God changing? Of course not. Yes, Jesus physically changed, but not in the way those verses are saying. God is unchanging is His moral nature.

Christ changed numerous times throughout his life. Christians have maintained that Christ was born with two natures. A human-created nature that changes and develops over time. He also possesses a divine-uncreated nature that doesn’t change and isn’t subject to time. This is called the Hypostatic Union. Furthermore, if statements about God being unchanging are limited to his moral character, then it still seems to rule out being human. That is because humans are mutable by nature and morally capable of evil. Especially, if they have Libertarian Freewill. It seems like at any moment the character of a person can change.

With that in mind, let’s ask the question of why Latter-day Saints believe God was once a man. John 5:19 says:

“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.”

To summarize, we believe that the Father was once a man because we know the Son was once a man, and this verse clearly states that anything the Son does is something He’s seen the Father do. Granted, I’m not saying that if Jesus ate eggs for breakfast, then He must have seen the Father eat eggs for breakfast. But the major points of Jesus’s ministry? This would mean the Father had once lived a life similar to Jesus’s. This, along with a few other verses and modern revelation, is where we get the idea that the Father was once a man. I’d like to point out here that just because we say the Father was once a man doesn’t mean He was once a sinful man. The argument from John 5:19 doesn’t work unless the Father lived a sinless life like Christ did.

Is the crucifixion an important part of Christ’s ministry? Where or when was the Father crucified for the sins of mankind? How many divine beings does it cost to get rid of sin? I don’t take this to be Christ stating that he has seen the Father do these same actions of daily human life and is simply copying his life. I take this to be him taking the human relationship of a Father and Son to state that he isn’t disobeying or acting in a way that undermines his Father, just as a good human Son. Often Father/Son relations can be thought of as Apprentice/Heir relationships. Fathers often passed their trade to their children. This emphasis is reflected in the Father and Son’s relationship.

 

 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/see-conquering-hero-comes.html?m=1

In fact, it seems that the very deeds that are being mentioned are divine acts that don’t require being human (love, raising the dead, and eternal judgment). We also can’t ignore the rest of what this Gospel has already set up. It already had the Word (Christ) create everything that isn’t God. It doesn’t leave room for a Mormon cosmology.

Getting back to the idea of immutability, yes the Father did change in the physical sense. So did Jesus, and that poses no theological problems. The Father’s moral nature, however, is unchanging, which is what those verses are talking about
Anyway, I’d love to hear what you and your friend think. I hope this answer was helpful

I appreciate the response.

One thought on “Divine Apprentice

Leave a comment