If I’m understanding you correctly, then you believe that the human part of Jesus can change, but that His Godly part can’t. I’m curious how far that goes, whether there’s a limit to that or whether you believe His divine nature is completely unchanging. If so, would that include things like emotions? Is Jesus’s divine nature incapable of getting angry because it can’t change? Obviously, I’m taking this a bit far on purpose for the sake of discussion, but I am curious what you think. Regardless, I only brought up Christ in the first place to illustrate my point on your terms. It wasn’t so much an argument as an explanation, so this is kind of a side issue.

I maintain that Christ qua his human nature experienced creation. His human emotions change because that is just what human emotions do. I would say that God has emotions, but they are not caused by creation. He has these emotions in and of himself. This is a conversation surrounding the issue of God being timeless, simple, and a se:

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/10/15/a-tale-of-two-timelessness/

http://spirited-tech.com/2020/01/22/absolute-divine-simplicity/

Back on topic, you said that if these verses only referred to God’s moral nature then that would still be a problem because all humans are intrinsically mutable morally. Personally, I’d disagree with this on the basis of Christ being the counterexample. Latter-day Saints have no concept of a hypostatic union built into our theology, so we may disagree on how exactly Christ managed to be both fully human and morally perfect, but we agree that He was both those things. If it was possible for Christ, why wouldn’t it be possible for the Father?

Firstly, it seems to me that LDS has a disadvantage here. They maintain that we all are ontologically the same thing as Christ, unglorified gods. On the other hand, they try to maintain that Christ is different in nature than us for no apparent reason. Secondly, we also have a problem with the fact that LDS holds to Libertarian freedom (LFW). If Christ has LFW, then it implies that in situations he can sin. He may be sinless, but that doesn’t undermine the possibility of him sinning. Christians have this debate but I think that certain Christians have a solution to such an issue:

http://spirited-tech.com/2019/11/28/could-jesus-have-sinned/

The honest answer is that we don’t know, though I’ve read some interesting speculation on the topic. There’s a lot of questions we have when it comes to the preexistence that we haven’t been told the answers to. What we do know, however, is that God was once a morally perfected man in the same way that Christ was once a morally perfected man.

It seems to me that the Bible teaches that only Christ’s sacrifice was needed for the end of sin. This is taught through the book of Hebrews in various places.

Heb. 9:24-28
²⁴ For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

²⁵ Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

²⁶ For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

²⁷ And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

²⁸ So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Heb. 10:10-12
¹⁰ By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

¹¹ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

¹² But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Rom. 6:8-11
⁸ Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

⁹ Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

¹⁰ For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

¹¹ Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John 14:6-7

⁶ Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

⁷ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

The point is that Christ is the only way to come to the Father. This is to say that one can only be saved through Christ’s atoning death. So, it seems that this put’s your position in conflict with what the Bible has stated.

I totally respect that you disagree with my interpretation of John 5:19. That’s fine. But this is how we reconcile the issue of immutability vs. God once being a man. God’s moral nature has never changed, and there’s nothing in our scriptures or from our modern prophets that would imply otherwise.

I think the interpretation that I provided makes more sense than the LDS interpretation because it fits better with what the book has already established in its prologue.