Setting the Record Straight: A Thoughtful LDS Rebuttal to Chatfield's Claims on Mary's Virginity and Jesus' Conception

Response to Glen E. Chatfield

Dear Mr. Chatfield,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment and engage with my blog post. I appreciate your passion for theological discussion and your willingness to share your perspective. However, I believe there are some misunderstandings and misrepresentations of LDS doctrine in your rebuttal that I’d like to address thoughtfully and respectfully. My aim is not to provoke contention but to clarify what Latter-day Saints actually believe, examine the reasoning behind your critique, and foster a meaningful dialogue about God’s nature as revealed in scripture.

Clarifying LDS Doctrine on God and the Virgin Birth

Your comment asserts that LDS doctrine teaches that God the Father had physical relations with Mary, His supposed spirit daughter, to conceive Jesus, implying incest and adultery since Mary was espoused to Joseph. 

It is claimed that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, and that Mary therefore was not a virgin when Jesus was born. It is also claimed that Latter-day Saints reject the "Evangelical belief" that "Christ was born of the virgin Mary, who, when the Holy Ghost came upon her, miraculously conceived the promised messiah."

Often used as evidence are a handful statements from early LDS leaders, such as Brigham Young, that directly or indirectly support this idea. However, such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. The key, official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is literally the son of God (i.e., this is not a symbolic or figurative expression), and Mary was a virgin before and after Christ's conception.

At the annunciation, Mary questioned the angel about how she could bear a child: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34; the expression "know" in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations). Nephi likewise described Mary as a virgin (1 Nephi 11:13-20), as did Alma1 (Alma 7:10).

You further claim that when you challenged LDS leadership on this, citing the Bible’s affirmation of Mary’s virginity, they responded that she was “a virgin to mortal man” but not to an immortal God. I respectfully submit that this portrayal does not align with official LDS teachings, and I’d like to clarify the actual doctrine.

• God as the Father of Spirits: Yes, Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father is the spiritual Father of all human spirits (Hebrews 12:9). This is a spiritual, not biological, relationship. Mary, like all of us, is a spirit child of God in this sense.
• The Conception of Jesus: Official LDS doctrine does not teach that God the Father had physical relations with Mary. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Ghost:  “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, 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). Similarly, 1 Nephi 11:18-20 describes Mary as “a virgin, most beautiful and fair” who bore a son “after the manner of the flesh” through divine means, not physical intercourse with God. The Bible concurs in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” LDS teachings affirm the virgin birth as a miraculous event, consistent with scripture.
• Misrepresentation and Anecdote: Your claim that “LDS teaches that their god had sex with her” appears to stem from a misunderstanding or an informal conversation rather than official doctrine. The explanation you attribute to unnamed “LDS leadership”—that Mary was a virgin to mortal men but not to an immortal God—is not found in the standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) or authoritative statements from the Church. Without specific details or verification, this anecdote lacks credibility and seems to misrepresent what the Church teaches.

In short, Latter-day Saints uphold the biblical account of the virgin birth. The notion of God physically engaging with Mary is not part of our doctrine and contradicts our scriptures. I invite you to consider these references and engage with what we actually believe, rather than a distorted version of our teachings.

Logical Fallacies in Your Rebuttal 

Your critique employs several logical fallacies that undermine its persuasiveness and fail to engage with the substance of my arguments. Let me outline these respectfully:

• Straw Man Fallacy: You attack a misrepresentation of LDS beliefs—namely, that God had physical relations with Mary—rather than addressing our actual doctrine. By setting up this exaggerated and erroneous claim, you make it easier to dismiss LDS theology without tackling the real issues, such as the nature of God in Hosea 11:9b or the incarnation of Christ. A fair discussion requires engaging with what we truly teach, as outlined above.
• Ad Hominem Fallacy: Statements like “I don’t post comments with links to false teachings,” “LDS apologetics twist scripture and revise history to support their cultic beliefs,” and “Anyone who can accept that doctrine has been totally duped and LDS apologetics just keeps them brainwashed into their cult” dismiss my arguments by attacking their source rather than their merit. Labeling LDS beliefs as “false,” “cultic,” or “brainwashing” avoids substantive debate and resorts to name-calling. This sidesteps the theological and scriptural points I raised about Christ as God manifested in the flesh.
• Appeal to Anonymous Authority: Your reference to a conversation with unnamed “LDS leadership” lacks specificity—names, dates, or context—that would lend it credibility. Without verifiable evidence, this claim cannot be evaluated and appears as an attempt to bolster your argument with untestable hearsay.
• Genetic Fallacy: By suggesting that LDS beliefs are inherently invalid because they come from “Mormonism” (e.g., “Your link showed me nothing I haven’t seen before in my 50 years studying Mormonism after leaving the LDS”), you imply that their origin discredits them, regardless of their content. This overlooks the possibility that scripture and reason might support our perspective, as I’ve sought to demonstrate.

These fallacies weaken your rebuttal by shifting focus from reasoned analysis to misrepresentation and dismissal. I encourage a discussion grounded in scripture and logic, where we can explore our differences constructively.

Hosea 11:9b in Context and the Incarnation of Christ

Your original post cites Hosea 11:9b— “For I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst”—to argue that God was never a man, challenging the LDS belief that God the Father was once mortal and is now exalted. My comment asked how you reconcile this with New Testament passages stating that Christ, who is God, became a man (e.g., John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16). Let’s examine this exegetically and address the apparent tension.

• Context of Hosea 11:9b: Hosea 11 portrays God’s love for Israel despite their rebellion, culminating in a promise of mercy: “I will not execute my burning anger… for I am God and not a man” (Hosea 11:9, ESV). Here, God contrasts His divine attributes—steadfast mercy, holiness, and power—with human tendencies toward fickleness and wrath. The phrase “not a man” emphasizes His current divine nature, not a categorical denial that God could ever take on human form or have a mortal experience. It’s about God’s transcendence over human limitations in this moment of compassion.
• Christ as God Manifested in the Flesh: The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is divine and became human:  John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”  
• 1 Timothy 3:16: “He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit… taken up in glory.”  
• Colossians 2:9: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” In traditional Christianity, the incarnation—God the Son taking on humanity—coexists with His divine nature via the hypostatic union. If Christ is God and became a man, your assertion that “God is not, nor ever was, a man” seems to conflict with this reality unless qualified.
• Traditional Reconciliation: You might argue, as in your initial reply, that the Trinity resolves this: God the Father remains a spirit, while God the Son became incarnate without altering the divine essence. Hosea 11:9b, then, applies to God’s immutable nature, not precluding the Son’s unique human experience. This hinges on Trinitarian distinctions, which I respect as your framework.
• LDS Reconciliation: From an LDS perspective, Hosea 11:9b highlights God’s exalted state, not a denial of past mortality. We believe God the Father may have been mortal in the distant past, progressing to divinity, much as Christ did (see Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse). Christ, divine as Jehovah, became mortal to redeem us, then resumed His glorified state (Doctrine and Covenants 93:11-17). Hosea’s declaration reflects God’s current transcendence— “not a man” in frailty—without negating a prior mortal phase. The incarnation of Christ supports this: if God the Son could become man, it’s plausible the Father followed a similar path eons ago.
• Bridging the Gap: Both views affirm Christ’s divinity and humanity but differ on God’s broader nature. Your interpretation sees Hosea as proof of eternal immutability; mine sees it as a statement of present divinity within eternal progression. The New Testament’s witness of Christ as God in the flesh challenges an absolute “never was a man” stance unless contextualized, which both our theologies attempt in distinct ways.

Additional Fallacies and a Call to Dialogue

Beyond the fallacies noted, your rebuttal oversimplifies complex theological issues. For instance, dismissing LDS apologetics as “twisting scripture” assumes malicious intent without evidence, ignoring how all traditions interpret scripture through their lenses. Your focus on a sensationalized claim (God and Mary) diverts attention from my core question about Christ’s incarnation, a tactic resembling a red herring.

I invite you to reconsider my actual arguments:  

• The contextual meaning of Hosea 11:9b as God’s mercy, not a denial of mortality.  
• The New Testament’s affirmation that Christ, as God, became man.  
• The LDS view of eternal progression as consistent with Christ’s example.

Rather than dismissing these as “false teachings,” let’s explore them scripturally. I’m open to a respectful exchange that honors our shared love for God and His word, focusing on reason over rhetoric. What are your thoughts on John 1:14 in light of Hosea 11:9b? How do you see Christ’s humanity fitting with your claim? I look forward to your insights.

Update: Glenn E. Chatfield's Recent Response

Rebuttal to Glenn E. Chatfield’s Comment

What follows is the flow of discussion at Glenn E. Chatfield's The Anti-Mormon blogger post titled: God is NOT, nor ever was, A Man. My response to him (which he does not want to publish to his blogger post - and thus may cause confusion among those who may happen upon his content and seeing the discussion) addresses the typical attitude and behavior most critics of the LDS Faith (specifically, those who are apostates) engage in when their claims and assertions are scrutinized and challenged. They tend to become defensive, condescending, almost ridiculing and mocking. Shutting down any actual discussion. Also, the reader will see the screenshot of the actual discussion at the blog post and notice the missing commentary from this writer (which is included in this blog post). 

Is it considerate to say that you are not interested in the truth and possibility of being wrong? I posted my response to your rebuttal and address it. I am not afraid of the truth. In fact, if it is adequately shown through sound and reasonable understanding and sufficient evidence, I am willing to admit I am wrong. Are you capable of saying the same thing?

It seems there appears to be an attitude and behavior that is more ego driven and prideful that is more arrogant than one of humility and willingness. It seems you come off as lacking any sense of humility.

I've shown respect in responding to you, attempting to correct and point out possible flaws in your arguments, and yet, it is consistently met with words of harshness, arrogance, and condescending attitude.

Additionally, it seems to do your readers a disservice of providing a response to my comment without your readers actually seeing my comments you are responding to. Almost as if you are attempting to gloat pridefully a way of showing how critics engage in typical ranting behaviors when challenged.

You are more than welcomed to come and discuss these issues. I won't delete your comments, nor will I use condescending loaded language and arguments that are riddled with logical fallacies.

Regardless - you do not have any real authority and understanding on the subject matter since you lack proper communication and respectful engagement.

His response to this: 

Glenn E. Chatfield

It is YOU who is not interested in the truth about the LDS. I have not shown you disrespect, gave you no words of harshness or a condescending attitude. I just don't want to waste time with someone who denies the LDS is nothing but a cult built on a false prophet and doctrines built on lies. Your rebuttal was just claiming logic fallacies but if what I stated was true then there is no fallacy.

I never post comments which included false teaching or links to false teachings.

Again, I have studied the LDS for 50+ years and have seen all the LDS apologetics arguments. I KNOW I am not wrong about LDS teachings. Refusing to debate you is not about ego or pride, it's about not wasting time with someone who just wants to defend the LDS cult.

Mr. Chatfield,  

Your recent comment— 

“Mr. Berman, I am not going to have a dialogue with you because you are not interested in the truth of Mormonism. I have plenty of proof about the LDS god having sex with Mary. Just look on my index on the right side and see the link to articles on the topic. Take your LDS defense elsewhere—I’ve heard it all”

—reflects a stance that, while rooted in conviction, raises concerns about logical consistency, openness to discussion, and the strength of your authority on this topic. I offer the following response with respect and a desire for constructive dialogue, addressing three key aspects of your comment.

1. Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Your assertion that “I have plenty of proof” followed by a directive to “look on my index… to articles on the topic” suggests an appeal to authority—a logical fallacy where the validity of a claim is assumed based solely on the authority of external sources, without engaging directly with the evidence or counterarguments. While these articles may contain compelling points, deferring to them without discussion does not inherently validate your position. Truth in religious matters, such as the claim about the LDS god and Mary, often hinges on interpretation and context, both of which can vary across sources. By refusing to elaborate or address potential challenges, you leave your argument vulnerable to the critique that it relies on unexamined authority rather than reasoned analysis. A stronger approach would involve presenting your evidence directly and engaging with opposing views to demonstrate its robustness.

2. Observable Attitude and Behavior: Dismissiveness and Prejudgment

Your statement, “I am not going to have a dialogue with you because you are not interested in the truth of Mormonism,” coupled with “Take your LDS defense elsewhere—I’ve heard it all,” reveals a dismissive and confrontational attitude. This response prejudges my intentions, assuming a lack of interest in truth without evidence, and shuts down discussion before it can begin. The phrase “I’ve heard it all” further implies that any defense or alternative perspective is unworthy of consideration simply because it is familiar to you. Such behavior suggests a reluctance to have your views scrutinized, which comes across as arbitrarily dismissive. Openness to dialogue—even with those who disagree—signals confidence in one’s position, whereas this approach risks appearing defensive and closed-off, limiting the potential for mutual understanding.

3. Impact on Credibility and Authority: Diminished by Arbitrary Dismissiveness

The combination of refusing dialogue and relying on external sources without engagement continues to erode your credibility and authority on this subject. Credibility rests not just on what you know, but on your willingness to defend it through reasoned exchange. By dismissing discussion with an air of finality, you appear evasive, which may lead others to question the strength or depth of your understanding. Authority is bolstered by demonstrating a capacity to address challenges head-on, yet your arbitrary dismissiveness— “Take your LDS defense elsewhere”—suggests a lack of confidence in confronting counterarguments directly. This approach alienates those who might otherwise engage with your perspective, reducing its persuasive impact and casting doubt on your ability to represent the topic with nuance or fairness.

4. An Invitation to Constructive Engagement

I respectfully encourage you to reconsider this stance. Dialogue does not demand agreement, but it does offer an opportunity to refine and strengthen your position through scrutiny. If you believe strongly in your proof regarding the LDS god and Mary, presenting it openly and addressing counterpoints would only enhance your credibility. Arbitrary dismissiveness serves neither your argument nor the pursuit of truth; it deepens divisions rather than bridges them. I invite you to share your perspective directly—perhaps by summarizing the key evidence from your articles—and engage with any questions or challenges that arise. Such an approach would reflect both intellectual rigor and a genuine commitment to understanding, qualities that elevate authority far more than a reliance on external references alone.

In closing, while I respect your conviction, I urge you to reflect on how this dismissive tone and avoidance of discussion may weaken your influence. Truth, to resonate, must stand up to inquiry, not sidestep it. I remain open to a thoughtful exchange, should you choose to pursue one.

Was God Ever a Man? A Mindful LDS Apologetic Response to Glen E. Chatfield’s “God Is NOT, Nor Ever Was, A Man"

Introduction: Framing the Discussion

In his recent blog post titled "God is NOT, Nor Ever Was, A Man" Glen E. Chatfield presents a concise yet firm assertion rooted in Hosea 11:9b; "For I am God and not man, the Holy One among you." He uses this scripture to challenge the Latter-day Saint (LDS) belief that God was once a man who progressed to become an exalted being. Chatfield's post concludes with a pointed remark: "The LDS Says God was once a man and is now an exalted man. I guess they never read Hosea." This statement sets the stage for a theological discussion that bridges traditional Christian doctrine and the unique perspectives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

I decided to offer a comment and question for Chatfield to answer. In the comment section, I posed the following question: "I am curious: What do you do with the numerous New Testament passages where it clearly states that Christ is God manifested in the flesh? 

Chatfield's response to this question follows: 

I'm sure you've heard of the doctrine of the Trinity. God the father is a spirit, God the Son was a spirit before being incarnate as a human when Mary conceived Him, the Holy Spirit, which indwells real Christians, is the third part of the Trinity.

While Chatfield's reply references a foundational Christian doctrine, it leaves room for further exploration, particularly regarding whether or not it fully addressed the tension between his claim and the New Testament's portrayal of Christ as God incarnate. 

Here, I offer up a mindful and thoughtful LDS Apologetic response to Chatfield's post. My aim here is this: 

1. Clarify - the context and meaning of Hosea 11:9b from both traditional Christian and LDS Christian perspectives. 
2. Explore - the doctrine of the Trinity and its implications for the incarnation.
3. Present - the Latter-day Saint Christian understanding of God's nature as Christ's divinity.
4. Analyze - key New Testament passages about Christ as God in the Flesh.
5. Evaluate - whether Chatfield's response adequately reconciles his position with the incarnation. 
6. Engage - respectfully with differing viewpoints while highlighting the Latter-day Saint perspective and proper exegetical commentary and understanding of Hosea 11:9

This discussion is not about proving one side right or wrong. It is about fostering understanding between varying theological traditions and beliefs. By utilizing a more exegetical interpretation, contextual analysis, and utilizing sound and reasonable logic - one may appreciate the richness of what Latter-day Saints actually believe compared to what critics, like Glen E. Chatfield, attempt to deceive individuals believing what they (the critics) assume we believe. 

Section 1: Understanding Hosea 11:9b in Context

The Historical and Theological Context of Hosea 11

First, we need to consider the context of Hosea 11 as a means to engage in a meaningful response to how Glen E. Chatfield attempts to interpret it. 

Hosea is among the minor prophets within the Old Testament Canon of scripture. It is estimated to have been written in the 8th century BCE and records the prophetic ministry of the prophet Hosea in the northern Kingdom of Israel. It was during a time of moral decline and idolatry. God's message through Hosea oscillates between judgment for Israel's unfaithfulness and tender promises of restoration, often using the metaphor of a marriage between God and His people. 

Hosea 11 becomes a significant chapter where God reflects his affection for Israel, likening this affection to a parent nurturing a child: 

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. (Hosea 11:1-3, ESV). 

Despite Israel's spiritual rebellion, God's compassion prevails. In verses 5-7, He warns of impending judgment and then declares: 

How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? ... My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath." (Hosea 11:8-9, ESV). 

Here, we see the phrase - I am God and not a man - being the crux of Chatfield's argument in criticizing the Latter-day Saint belief regarding God. Here, however, we see that God contrasts His divine nature with human nature, emphasizing His steadfast mercy over impulsive retribution. 

Traditional Christian Interpretation

According to how Chatfield appears to interpret Hosea 11;9 b, Hosea appears to underscore God's transcendence and immutability - attributes that distinguish Him from Humanity. God is eternal, unchanging, and not subject to the limitations or frailties of mortals. Take for example, theologians like Augustine and Aquinas where they have long argued that God's essence is pure actuality, without potentiality or change (known as the principle of Divine Simplicity). This view seemingly aligns with other scriptures, such as Malachi 3:6 and Numbers 23:19. 

For Chatfield, Hosea 11:9b appears to be a clear refutation of any notion that God was ever a man. It asserts God's holiness and divine nature as being fundamentally distinct from human nature, precluding the possibility that He could have once been mortal. 

A Latter-day Saint Christian Perspective on Hosea 11:9b

From a Latter-day Saint Christian perspective and approach, this verse offers a different understanding - one based on modern revelation and a belief in eternal progression. In Latter-day Saint theology, God the Father is an exalted being with a glorified, physical body, who may have at one time been a Savior in the distant past. Much in the same manner as Christ is our Savior and Redeemer. This is evident in the King Follet Discourse Joseph Smith preached on (and one many critics often misused to attack Latter-day Saint beliefs). 

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God, who holds this world in its orbit, and upholds all things by his power; if you were to see him to-day, you would see him in all the person, image and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God; Adam received instruction, walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talkes and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God, for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I had the trump of an arch angel, I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever; what did Jesus say? (mark it elder [Sidney] Rigdon;) Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? why what the Father did, that answer is obvious; in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again.

Jesus what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again.— If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible; the scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it. Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power; and I want you to know that God in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me; it is the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourner, when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know, that although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved, that they shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

In this transcript of the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith jr. is referring to the passage of John 5;19-30. This passage, Christ is speaking to the religious leaders, as well as the disciples, and all who are gathered. And it is here that we come to understand what is known as the Eternal Now Principle regarding the nature and person of who God is. What Christ presently sees the Father doing is coming by way of revelation to Christ from the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. 

There are significant and profound implications of John 5;19-30 as it relates to our discussion. This profound teaching from Christ relates His relationship with the Father and His role in God's plan for humanity. Key points highlight the following: 

• Unity with the Father: Jesus declares, "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing" (v. 19, ESV). 
• Authority Over Life and Judgment: Jesus is given authority to grant eternal life and to judge (vv. 21-22). Belief in who He says he is leads toward salvation; "Whoever hears my word and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life (v. 24). 
• Resurrection of All; Verses 28-29 describe an eschatological event where "all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." 

What we discover is how this passage ties together themes of divine revelation, redemption, and the ultimate destiny of humanity, which we'll explore through Eternal Now Principle. 

What is the Eternal Now Principle?

The eternal now principle posits that God, the Father, exists outside of time, perceiving all moments - past, present, and future - as a simultaneous, eternal present. For God, events like Jesus' ministry, the cross, and the resurrection of humanity are not sequential but part of a unified timeless reality. 

• Implications for Christ: as the Son, Jesus operates within human history, yet His actions reflect the very eternal purpose and will of the Father. His declaration that He does only what He sees the Father doing suggests a timeless communion, where the Father's purposes are eternally known to Him alone. 
• Beyond Temporal Limits: The redemption of humanity and the dual resurrections, though experienced linearly by us, are eternally present in God's perspective. This shapes how we understand Christ's role as savior and redeemer for humanity, and the revelations He receives. 

And as we read in consistent pattern of Christ's declarations and statements - there is this idea that Christ distinguishes himself from that of the Father. This is summed up in his statement that He testifies of being "Sent by my Father". Referencing a divine relationship where Christ is separate and distinct from the Father. 

There are approximately 39 instances where Christ uses this type of phraseology in the Gospels. 34 in the Gospel of John and 5 in the Synoptic Gospels. 

Instances in the Synoptic Gospels

Let's consider the five instances in the Synoptic Gospels. There appears to be one instance in the Gospel of Matthew, one in the Gospel of Mark, and three in the Gospel of Luke: 

• Matthew 10:40 - "Whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me." The context is referencing Jesus' mission from the Father, cf. Matthew 10:32-33 - mentioning, "my Father". And the very context this is where Christ clearly distinguishes himself as separate and distinct from the Father when he says that those who deny Him - He will deny them "before the Father."
• Mark 9:37 - "Whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me" Again, we see Christ making a similar statement that appears to differentiate himself from the Father. 
• Luke 4:18 - "He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives..." Here, Christ is quoting Isaiah 61:1-3, referring to God as understood as the Father.
• Luke 9:48 - "Whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me." Again, reiterating what Matthew and Mark had recorded regarding how Christ claimed he was sent from and by the Father. 
• Luke 10:16 - "Whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" Another statement where Christ says that when we accept and receive Him, we are accepting and receiving the Father - and those who reject Christ are also rejecting the Father - signaling the divine relationship of Christ being sent from and by the Father. 

Count in Synoptics: As we see, there are five instances whereby there is an imply distinction, as Jesus positions himself as the one sent by another (the Father), reinforcing the nature of Christ having a distinct and separate identity for that of the Father. 

Instances in the Gospel of John

The Gospel of John contains the most frequent references to Jesus being sent by the Father, often emphasizing his divine mission and relationship with the Father. 

Below is a list of verses where Jesus states he was sent, with explicit mentions of "the Father" or contextual clarity that "him who sent me" refers to the Father:

• John 4:34: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work." (Context: Jesus speaks of his purpose, distinct from the Father's will.)

• John 5:23: "Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."

• John 5:24: "Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

• John 5:30: "I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me."

• John 5:36: "The works that the Father has given me to complete… testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me."

• John 5:37: "And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf."

• John 6:38: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me."

• John 6:39: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me."

• John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me."

• John 6:57: "Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father…"

• John 7:16: "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me."

• John 7:18: "… seeks the glory of him who sent him."

• John 7:28: "I have not come on my own. But he who sent me is true."

• John 7:29: "I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me."

• John 7:33: "I am going to him who sent me."

• John 8:16: "I am not alone but I and the Father who sent me."

• John 8:18: "The Father who sent me testifies on my behalf."

• John 8:26: "He who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him."

• John 8:29: "He who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone."

• John 8:42: "I came from God… he sent me."

• John 9:4: "We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day."

• John 11:42: "So that they may believe that you sent me."

• John 12:44: "Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me."

• John 12:45: "And whoever sees me sees him who sent me."

• John 12:49: "The Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment."

• John 13:20: "Whoever receives one whom I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives him who sent me."

• John 14:24: "The word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me."

• John 15:21: "They do not know him who sent me."

• John 16:5: "I am going to him who sent me."

• John 17:3: "And Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

• John 17:18: "As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world."

• John 17:21: "That the world may believe that you sent me."

• John 17:23: "That the world may know that you sent me."

• John 17:25: "These know that you sent me."

• John 20:21: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

Count in John: 34 instances. In each case, Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father by emphasizing that he was sent, implying a sender-sent relationship that underscores their separateness as distinct entities, even within their unity in purpose.

Contextual Verification

Regarding each instance where it conveys Jesus' role as sent by the Father, implying a distinction:

Phrases like "the Father who sent me" explicitly separate the sender (the Father) from the sent (Jesus - the Son). 

Phrases like "Him who sent me" consistently refers to the Father in context (e.g. John 5;23-24 links the Father and Him who sent me where it reinforces their distinct identities. 

The stated variations of Christ, "I have been sent by my Father", identifies himself as separate and distinct from the Father through this idea of the sender-sent relationship. 

What is interesting to also note here is that, while Latter-day Saints hold to this idea of God having been a savior like being in the distant path, the idea of God becoming mortal is quite specific to the Early Christian belief. This is where we look at the Lorenzo Snow Couplet: "as man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become." 

Concerning Hosea 11:9b, the idea of God becoming a man may seem to contradict the view that Chatfield is attempting to present. However, Latter-day Saints interpret this verse as an emphasis on God's current divine state rather than denying a past mortal experience. In this particular context, "I am God and not a man" seems to highlight God's perfect nature - His holiness, mercy, and power - which far surpasses human capabilities. The phrase does not necessarily preclude the idea that God, in a premortal existence, experienced mortality before achieving exaltation. 

Point of fact: The Pesachim 54:11 and the Bereshit Rahab both reason that one of the phenomena of creation is the very Throne of Glory prior to the creation of this Earth. This idea seems to mirror the hints we find through Christ himself in answering the mother of the two sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20 where he says that the Father prepares a place for those who will receive such honor - a throne of Glory (Matthew 20:20-23; Mark 10:35-45). 

The Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Sanctuary” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written in the chapter discussing the Messiah: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. This baraita states that Gehenna was created before the world was created and not during twilight before the first Shabbat.

And from Bereshit Rahab 1;

In the beginning, God created” – six items preceded the creation of the world; some of them were [actually] created, and some of them God contemplated creating, [though He did not actually do so]. The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created. Torah, from where is it derived? As it is stated: “The Lord made me at the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). The Throne of Glory, from where is it derived? “Your throne stands firm from earliest time, [You are from eternity]” (Psalms 93:2). 

Here, the question is begged - if God is without beginning or end, and unchanging - then how come these Jewish commentaries that are authoritative give the notion that the Throne of Glory was created? Does this not imply that prior to their creation - such a throne had not existed? Furthermore, does it bring up another question - If the Father of Christ, and the father of us all, is preparing (creating) thrones of glory - one of which Christ will receive through divine inheritance - what does that say in relation to us as we are heirs and joint heirs with through Christ? (Romans 8:17).

Throne of God - His Throne of Glory

In Jewish tradition, several prophets, including Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, were granted extraordinary visions of God seated on a throne, referred to in Hebrew as "kisse." These visions highlight the majesty and supreme authority of God over creation. The Jewish Virtual Library provides a detailed entry on this theme:

The vision of God sitting on a throne (kisse) is described by several prophets, among them Micaiah (I Kings 22:19), Isaiah (Isa. 6), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1), and Daniel (Dan. 7:9). Talmudic and midrashic sources developed this theme further, and it entered into religious poetry, liturgy, and mystical heikhalot tracts of the early centuries C.E., which speak of the throne as the merkavah, or "chariot" (see *Merkabah Mysticism). Among Jewish philosophers, Saadiah and Maimonides, who objected to all anthropomorphic descriptions of God, attempted to explain the visions of the throne allegorically, in contrast to Judah Halevi who accepted a more literal interpretation of the chariot vision (Kuzari, 3:65) and who used the image of the throne in his religious poems.

This diversity of interpretation reflects the richness of Jewish thought. Philosophers like Saadiah and Maimonides sought to distance these visions from physical depictions of God, favoring symbolic meanings, while Judah Halevi embraced a more tangible understanding, weaving the throne imagery into his poetic expressions of faith. Regardless of approach, these visions underscore the Throne of Glory as a powerful symbol of divine rule.

Among these prophetic accounts, Ezekiel’s vision stands out for its vividness and depth, offering a striking portrayal of God’s divine glory enthroned. Recorded in Ezekiel 1:1-28 and 3:12, this inaugural vision and commission bring Ezekiel as close as possible to perceiving God directly. He witnesses God’s throne, hears its movement, and is overwhelmed by the divine Presence. This passage serves as the haftarah reading for Exodus 19:1-20:23, recited on the first day of Shavuot, the festival commemorating the Torah’s revelation at Mount Sinai.

Rabbinic tradition calls this narrative "the episode of the chariot" due to its use of imagery linked to the Ark of the Covenant, which 1 Chronicles 28:18 describes as God’s chariot (see also Psalms 68:18; 18:11). The Ark, often depicted as the place where the "Lord of Hosts is enthroned on the cherubim" (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 13:6), connects Ezekiel’s vision to the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This linkage aligns with Pesachim 54:11, which states that the Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before all else, uniting God’s heavenly throne with His earthly sanctuary.

Given the profound and sensitive nature of this material, the Mishnah stipulates that it should only be expounded by a "sage that understands his own knowledge"—a scholar fully versed in Jewish tradition. This restriction underscores the need for careful interpretation to avoid misrepresentation of God’s nature.

The Jewish Study Bible’s commentary on Ezekiel 1:4-28a (p. 1045) notes that this vision of God’s Throne Chariot draws heavily on the imagery of the Holy of Holies, reinforcing the connection to the Temple’s preeminent creation. In verses 26-28 (p. 1048), Ezekiel offers a detailed description of the divine Presence:

(26) Sapphire (possibly lapis lazuli), see Exodus 24:10, which employs the imagery of blue sapphire or lapis to depict the pavement under God’s feet, which humans see as the sky. (27) Gleam as of amber and fire convey the power and incorporeality of the divine Presence. (28) The rainbow symbolizes God’s covenant with creation (see Genesis 9:8-17). The Presence of the Lord, a priestly term for God’s glory (Exodus 16:6-7; 40:34-38). The voice of someone speaking: Cf. 1 Kings 19:12, which portrays the Divine Presence as "a still small voice" or "a soft murmuring sound." Ezekiel, in a sign of reverence and fear, lies prostrate before the Ark in the Holy of Holies of the Temple (1 Kings 8:54; Psalm 5:8; 99:5; 132:7; 138:2; 1 Chronicles 16:29; 2 Chronicles 20:5-18).

Ezekiel sees a figure on the throne resembling a man, with a lower part like fire and an upper part gleaming like amber, symbolizing God’s power and transcendence. The rainbow encircling the throne recalls God’s covenant with humanity (Genesis 9:8-17), while the "voice of someone speaking" evokes the "still small voice" of 1 Kings 19:12. In awe and reverence, Ezekiel falls prostrate, mirroring the posture of worship before the Ark in the Temple’s innermost sanctuary.

The Throne of Glory thus embodies God’s divine sovereignty, majesty, and authority over all creation. This concept extends into Christian theology, where the throne signifies the preeminence of Christ, described as the Creator of all things in Colossians 1:16. Furthermore, Revelation 3:21 promises that those who overcome, as Christ has, will sit with Him on His throne, just as He sits with the Father. This foreshadows a future where believers share in Christ’s glory and authority, fulfilling the divine plan initiated before creation.

In both Jewish and Christian traditions, the Throne of Glory represents God’s ultimate governance. Ezekiel’s vision, with its rich imagery and theological depth, bridges the heavenly and earthly realms, while Christ’s role as Creator and the promise of shared glory expands its significance, offering a vision of divine sovereignty that transcends time and creation itself.

Key Elements

Joseph Smith’s Teachings on God’s Mortal Past: In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was once a mortal being who progressed to become God. He stated:“God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves… God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

This suggests that God the Father experienced mortality, possibly as a Savior, and achieved exaltation, mirroring Christ’s own path. The oft-quoted Lorenzo Snow couplet encapsulates this: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.” This doctrine of eternal progression implies that humans can ascend to godhood, following the pattern set by the Father and the Son.

The Eternal Now Principle: The eternal now principle posits that God exists outside of time, perceiving all moments—past, present, and future—as a simultaneous, eternal present. This is reflected in John 5:19-30, where Christ says:“ The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19, ESV).

Christ’s actions align perfectly with the Father’s will because He has access to this timeless perspective. This communion allows Him to fulfill the Father’s eternal purposes within human history, such as granting eternal life and judgment (vv. 21-22, 24).

Christ’s Relationship with the Father: In John 5:19-30, Christ emphasizes His unity with the Father while maintaining a distinct identity. He frequently declares Himself “sent by my Father” (e.g., John 5:23, 6:38, 20:21), a phrase appearing 34 times in John and 5 times in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16). This sender-sent relationship underscores their separate roles within a unified purpose, with Christ acting as the Father’s agent in mortality.

Hosea 11:9b: “I am God and not a man”: This verse highlights God’s divine nature and distinction from humanity. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, it emphasizes God’s current exalted state—His holiness, mercy, and power—rather than denying a past mortal experience. It aligns with the belief that God, now glorified, transcends human limitations, yet does not preclude His having once been mortal, as Christ was.

Christ as God Becoming Mortal: Christ, being God, became mortal to serve as Savior and Redeemer. This is evident in His own words: “To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again” (King Follett Discourse, referencing John 5:26-27). If Christ, a divine being, could take on mortality, it supports the possibility that the Father followed a similar path in the distant past. 

Correlation and Analysis: God’s Mortal Past and Christ’s ExampleJoseph Smith’s teaching that the Father was once mortal aligns with Christ’s incarnation. In the King Follett Discourse, Smith draws from John 5:26—“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself”—to suggest that Christ emulates the Father’s actions, including laying down His life and taking it up again. This parallel implies that the Father’s mortal experience was part of His progression to divinity, setting a precedent for Christ and humanity. 

The Eternal Now and Christ’s Vision; The eternal now principle explains how Christ “sees exactly what the Father does.” Existing outside of time, the Father’s will and actions are eternally present to Christ. This timeless communion enables Christ to reflect the Father’s purposes perfectly, as seen in His ministry, atonement, and resurrection—all events that, while sequential to us, are unified in God’s perspective.

Reconciling Hosea 11:9b: Hosea 11:9b (“I am God and not a man”) does not contradict the idea of God’s past mortality in Latter-day Saint theology. Instead, it underscores God’s current divine state, exalted beyond human frailty. Christ’s incarnation demonstrates that divinity can intersect with mortality without diminishing holiness. Thus, the Father could have been mortal in the past, achieving exaltation, while now existing as “God and not a man” in His glorified form.

Significance - Human Potential and Eternal Progression: Joseph Smith’s teachings suggest a profound purpose for humanity: if God was once mortal and became exalted, humans can follow this path through obedience and grace. This is reinforced by Romans 8:17, where believers are “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,” potentially inheriting thrones of glory, as hinted in Matthew 20:23 and Revelation 3:21. This vision of eternal progression offers hope and a clear trajectory for the human soul.

Unity and Distinction in the Godhead: The eternal now principle and Christ’s statements about being “sent” highlight both unity and distinction within the Godhead. The Father and Son share a divine purpose, yet their roles—sender and sent—reflect separate identities. This balance is central to Latter-day Saint theology, affirming a personal, relational Godhead.

Theological Implications of Christ’s Mortality: Christ’s transition from divinity to mortality and back to glory serves as a model. It supports the idea that the Father’s mortal past, if analogous, was a step toward exaltation, not a diminishment of His divine nature. Hosea 11:9b, then, affirms God’s transcendence in His current state, harmonizing with this progression narrative.

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, Joseph Smith’s allusion to the Father’s mortal past, Christ’s alignment with the Father through the eternal now, and the interpretation of Hosea 11:9b form a cohesive theology of divine and human potential. The Father’s possible mortality, like Christ’s, illustrates a pattern of progression, while the eternal now explains their perfect unity. Hosea 11:9b affirms God’s exalted nature without negating this past, offering a hopeful framework where humanity can aspire to divine glory through Christ. This perspective underscores the transformative power of modern revelation and the eternal scope of God’s plan.

Bridging the Interpretations

Both perspectives attempt to find meaning in Hosea 11:9b, however, they diverge in application and understanding: 

Traditional View: God's declaration affirms His eternal, unchanging nature, distinct from humanity. 

Latter-day Saint Christian View: It reflects God's exalted state, distinguishing Him from mortal men while allowing for doctrine of progression. 

This sets the stage for how we come to examine Chatfield's broader claim and how it intersects with the incarnation of Christ. 

Section 2: The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation

Chatfield appeared to be quick with his response to my comment. One that seemed to have invoked the doctrine of the Trinity - which is a cornerstone of Traditional Christianity. The Trinity assumes that God exists as three distinct persons - Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit - who share the divine essence or substance. They are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial; meaning, there is one God in three persons, not three separate gods. 

This particular doctrine emerged from early Christian efforts to reconcile biblical teachings about God's oneness (e.g. Deuteronomy 6;4) with the divinity of Christ (e.g. John 1:1) and the whole role of the Holy Spirit (e.g. Acts 5;3-4). it was formalized in creeds like the Nicene Creed (325 AD), which states. 

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty ... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only - begotten Son of god ... of one substance with the Father ... who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man."

Within the context of the Nicene creed, we see the declaration that Jesus Christ had come down from heaven and was incarnate and became a man. Thus, rendering the interpretation Chatfield offers as contradictory - given his claim that God had not ever become a man. 

The Incarnation within the Trinity

Central to the Trinity is the incarnation—the belief that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, took on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. This is articulated in John 1:14: 

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

In traditional theology, the incarnation is explained through the hypostatic union: Jesus possesses two natures—fully divine and fully human—united in one person without confusion or mixture. Thus, when Christ became man, He did not cease to be God; rather, He added human nature to His divine nature.

Chatfield’s comment reflects this: “God the Son was a spirit before being incarnate as a human when Mary conceived Him.” This underscores that the incarnation was a unique event where the eternal Son entered human history, not a transformation of God’s essence into something it was not before.

Implications for Hosea 11:9b

Within this framework, Hosea 11:9b poses no contradiction. When God says, "I am God and not a man," it refers to His divine nature, which remains immutable even in the incarnation. Jesus’ human nature—His hunger, fatigue, and mortality—coexists with His divine nature—His omniscience, omnipotence, and eternality. Thus, God remains "not a man" in His essential being, even as the Son takes on humanity.

This resolution hinges on the Trinitarian distinction between the persons of the Godhead and the unity of their essence, a concept foreign to LDS theology but critical to Chatfield’s argument.

Section 3: The LDS Doctrine of God and Christ

The Godhead in LDS Theology

Latter-day Saints reject the traditional Trinity in favor of a distinct understanding of the Godhead. In LDS doctrine, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings, united in purpose and will but not in substance. This is clarified in the First Vision (1820), where Joseph Smith described seeing two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ—as distinct individuals with physical forms.

The Doctrine and Covenants states:

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” (D&C 130:22)

This physicality sets LDS theology apart from traditional views of God as a purely spiritual being.

Eternal Progression and God’s Nature

The doctrine of eternal progression is a hallmark of LDS belief. It posits that God the Father was once a mortal man who, through obedience to eternal principles, became exalted. This process is not seen as a change in God’s divine character but as a fulfillment of His potential, mirroring the destiny offered to humanity. The Book of Abraham reinforces this:

“And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob … And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God.” (Abraham 3:3-9)

While not explicitly about God’s mortality, this passage reflects an expansive view of divine order and progression.

Jesus Christ, as the premortal Jehovah, is also divine but distinct from the Father. He took on a mortal body to accomplish the Atonement and is now resurrected and exalted, possessing a glorified physical form.

Christ’s Divinity in LDS Scripture

LDS scriptures affirm Christ’s divinity and His role in the Godhead. The Book of Mormon declares:

“And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.” (Mosiah 13:34)

“And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son.” (Mosiah 15:2-3)

These passages emphasize Christ’s divine identity while acknowledging His physical incarnation, aligning with the New Testament but framed within LDS theology.

Section 4: New Testament Passages on Christ as God Manifested in the Flesh

John 1:1-14: The Word Became Flesh

One of the most cited passages about the incarnation is John 1:1-14:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Traditional Interpretation: The "Word" (Greek: Logos) is the eternal Son, co-equal with the Father. His becoming flesh is the incarnation, where God enters humanity without ceasing to be divine.

LDS Interpretation: Latter-day Saints agree that the Word is Christ, who was with the Father in the premortal realm and took on flesh. However, they view Him as a distinct being, divine by nature and authority, not by shared essence.

1 Timothy 3:16: God Manifested in the Flesh

Another key verse is 1 Timothy 3:16:

“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.”

Traditional Interpretation: This affirms the incarnation as a mystery, where "He" (God the Son) took on human form, validated by His resurrection and ascension.

LDS Interpretation: This describes Christ’s mortal mission, consistent with the belief that He, as a divine being, condescended to mortality and was exalted thereafter.

Colossians 2:9: The Fullness of Deity

Colossians 2:9 adds:

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

Traditional Interpretation: Christ embodies the divine nature fully, supporting the hypostatic union.

LDS Interpretation: Christ possesses divine attributes and authority, dwelling in a glorified body post-resurrection.

These passages affirm Christ’s divinity and humanity, though their implications vary by theological framework.

Section 5: Reconciling Hosea 11:9b with the Incarnation

The Apparent Tension

Chatfield’s claim that "God is not, nor ever was, a man" seems at odds with the New Testament’s depiction of Christ as God incarnate. If Christ is God and became a man, how can God say He is "not a man"?

Traditional Reconciliation: 

Traditional Christianity resolves this through the Trinity and the hypostatic union:

• Hosea 11:9b refers to God’s divine nature, which is immutable and distinct from humanity.
• The incarnation is a unique event where God the Son added human nature without altering His divine essence.
• Thus, God remains "not a man" in His essential being, even as Christ takes on humanity.

LDS Reconciliation

LDS theology approaches it differently:

• Hosea 11:9b emphasizes God’s current exalted state, not a denial of past mortality. God the Father, now divine, is not a mortal man subject to human flaws.
• Christ’s incarnation was a temporary condescension for redemption, after which He returned to His divine glory.
• The doctrine of eternal progression allows that God was once a man but is now fully God, aligning with the potential for human exaltation.

Both views reconcile the texts, but they reflect fundamentally different understandings of God’s nature.

Section 6: Evaluating Chatfield’s Response

My Comment and His Reply

I asked: "What do you do with the numerous New Testament passages where it clearly states that Christ is God manifested in the flesh?" Chatfield replied:

“I’m sure you’ve heard of the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father is a spirit, God the Son was a spirit before being incarnate as a human when Mary conceived Him. The Holy Spirit, which indwells real Christians, is the third part of the Trinity.”

Does It Address the Question?

Chatfield’s response outlines the Trinitarian view of the incarnation, suggesting that God the Son’s transition from spirit to human does not contradict Hosea 11:9b. However, it does not directly engage the deeper implication of my question: how does this reconcile with the absolute claim that "God is not, nor ever was, a man," especially in light of an LDS perspective that God the Father was once mortal?

• Strengths: His reply is consistent with traditional theology, where the incarnation is a singular act of God entering humanity, not a progression from mortality to divinity.
• Limitations: It assumes a Trinitarian framework without addressing the LDS belief in eternal progression or the physicality of God. It may appear to dismiss the question by not exploring how his position interacts with an alternative view.

From an LDS standpoint, the response feels incomplete. It does not grapple with the possibility that God’s nature could include a past mortal phase, nor does it explain why the incarnation does not qualify as God being a man in some sense. However, given the brevity of a comment, it may not have been intended as a comprehensive rebuttal.

Section 7: Conclusion and Reflection

Summarizing the Dialogue

Chatfield’s post asserts that God was never a man, based on Hosea 11:9b, while LDS theology affirms that God was once mortal but is now exalted. The New Testament’s portrayal of Christ as God in the flesh complicates this debate, prompting different resolutions:

Traditional Christianity: The Trinity and hypostatic union maintain God’s immutable divinity alongside Christ’s humanity.

LDS Theology: Eternal progression and the Godhead allow for God’s past mortality and Christ’s divine incarnation.

Chatfield’s response to my question points to the Trinity but does not fully bridge the gap between his claim and the LDS perspective, potentially leaving the reconciliation unaddressed for those outside his framework.

A Call for Understanding

This exploration reveals the depth of theological diversity within Christianity. Both views are rooted in scripture and sincere faith, yet they reflect distinct visions of God’s nature and humanity’s potential. As a Latter-day Saint, I find beauty in the doctrine that God’s progression mirrors our own journey, offering hope through Christ’s example and Atonement. Traditional Christians, like Chatfield, find assurance in God’s eternal otherness, a constant anchor amid human change.

Rather than seeing these differences as divisive, we can view them as invitations to dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect. By engaging mindfully with each other’s beliefs, we honor the shared quest to know God more fully.

The Relevance of Joseph Fielding Smith's Teachings Today| On Family and Liberalization of Abortion

 

The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1971

The inaugural issue of the January 1971 edition of the Ensign provides a message from the then First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Namely, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee as the first counselor, and N. Eldon Tanner as the second counselor.

Given the present social climate today - my reflection turns toward the teachings of our past leaders. Granted, when accessing the first issue of the Ensign at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints official website a notification regarding the archive content reminds us that the articles may reflect practices and languages of an earlier time.

Examining and studying some of these teachings reflects an ongoing understanding of what earlier Prophets and Apostles were warning members of the Church concerning cultural and societal norms.

Today, I want to examine what Joseph Fielding Smith shared in the First Presidency message. His thoughts focused on some key issues that are still prevalent today. His message appeared not only as divine inspiration in guiding members of the Church, and as wise counsel about gospel principles concerning the family, but he warned members of the faith regarding the increasing trend of social and cultural issues.

My purpose is two-fold: First, is there significant relevance to what President Joseph Fielding Smith shared that we are to understand and live out today? Second, is what President Joseph Fielding Smith sharing revealing prophetic wisdom and counsel regarding what has now become more problematic as acceptable social norms? 

Family and Its Social, Cultural, and Eternal Purpose

President Joseph Fielding Smith opens up with a reminder of the importance of the family unit in the Plan of Salvation.

"As you listen and read, may I remind you of just how important the family unit is in the overall plan of our Father in heaven. In fact, the Church organization really exists to assist the family and its members in reaching exaltation."

As Latter-day Saints, have we forgotten the importance of this? Have many members of our faith moved further away from the idea and understanding of how important family is about possessing an eternal perspective?

For me, the Gospel is key to not only calling people unto repentance and inviting people to come unto Christ, but it is also key in assisting individuals toward an assurance of faith and reaching their divine potential because of the Gospel. It is only through the atonement we receive grace and forgiveness of sins.

No wonder President Joseph Fielding Smith provided the following observation:

Family unity and family commitment to the gospel are so important that the adversary has turned much of his attention to the destruction of families in our society. On every side there is an attack on the basic integrity of the family as the foundation of what is good and noble in life.

Consider the following observation Rachel Allison makes in an article published on the United Families website regarding the Cause and Effect: Family Disintegration and Society Chaos:

We are hearing and reading more and more religious leaders speak up for the preservation of the family.  They are seeing and understanding the destructive trends of our society for what they are…civilization killers. One such religious leader who spoke out recently was M. Russell Ballard, a leader in the Mormon Church. “Much of the world has lost its way in particular with regards to priorities and values in our homes.” “Happiness is directly related to home and family.  There is no genuine happiness separate and apart from the home. No service is greater than that which promotes and preserves family life.”

Ryan N. S. Topping writes the following in his article The Long War Against the Family (Part I) published on the Crisis Magazine website calling attention to the charge that the progressive cultural elite has long perpetuated prejudices against the family... Topping provides three categories in which this occurs:

1. The assertion that marriage constricts men and women where they are less free
2. Assumption that children are more of a burden
3. Insistence that sexual differentiation is fiction

His argument focuses on how these three ideas represent, as it were, three waves of the anti-family movement of the past 150 years. Topping also observes that the first comes from the contribution of Marxist ideology, the second focuses on eugenicist ideals, and the third is the fruit of the recent gender theorists and propaganda.

Topping goes on and observes:

Social conservatives too often play a battle of catch-up with the progressive left.  We marvel at abortion; we worry over divorce; we wonder at the rise of the homosexual lobby. It is right that alarm is sounded.  But even before lobbying, if the family is ever to regain its natural position of prominence, conservatives need to recover the memory of how the “traditional family” lost its way. 

Does Topping have a point in what he is sharing? Has the traditional family in American Society (and for a broader aspect - within a Global society) lost its way?

President Joseph Fielding Smith addresses the social and cultural issues facing the faithful members of the church at that time. First, President Smith gave attention to how private and government efforts to limit the size of families, sometimes under the guise of saving the world from overpopulation, and how this ideology seemed to be gaining acceptance among many faithful members.

In his July 18, 1969, speech - Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth - before the Congress of the United States, President Richard Nixon remarks on the increasing frequency of population growth worldwide and presented problem:

One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man's response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization.

According to an NPG Forum Paper by Lindsey Grant, this speech, and the dedicated resources under the Nixon administration led to the creation of Article X in the Public Health Service Act of 1970. Grant shares how this led to the creation of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.

The growing concern of population growth within the United States, and globally, came on the rise of contraception use within family planning services. The Center for Disease Control published a paper on December 3, 1999, Achievements in Public Health, 1900-199: Family Planning, regarding the Article X and Family Planning:

Family size increased from 1940 until 1957, when the average number of children per family peaked at 3.7 (14,15; CDC, unpublished data, 1999). In 1960, the era of modern contraception began when both the birth control pill and intrauterine device (IUD) became available. These effective and convenient methods resulted in widespread changes in birth control (16). By 1965, the pill had become the most popular birth control method, followed by the condom and contraceptive sterilization (16). In 1965, the Supreme Court (Griswold vs. Connecticut) (17) struck down state laws prohibiting contraceptive use by married couples.

In 1970, federal funding for family planning services was established under the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, which created Title X of the Public Health Service Act (18). Medicaid funding for family planning was authorized in 1972. Services provided under Title X grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s; after 1980, public funding for family planning continued to shift to the Medicaid program (18).

Since 1972, the average family size has leveled off at approximately two children, and the safety, efficacy, diversity, accessibility, and use of contraceptive methods has increased. During the 1970s and 1980s, contraceptive sterilization became more common and is now the most widely used method in the United States (16,19,20). IUD use increased during the early 1980s, then declined because of concerns about intrauterine infections (16). In the 1980s and 1990s, the use of condoms increased among adolescents, presumably because of growing concern about human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) (21-23). Since 1991, increased use of long-acting hormonal contraception (Depo-Provera [Registered] [Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc., Peapack, New Jersey] and Norplant [Registered] [Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, St. Davids, Pennsylvania])**** also have contributed to the decline in adolescent pregnancy rates (24,25). Emergency use of oral contraceptive pills might reduce the risk for pregnancy after unprotected intercourse by at least 74% (26). Noncontraceptive health benefits of oral contraceptives include lower rates of pelvic inflammatory disease, cancers of the ovary and endometrium, recurrent ovarian cysts, benign breast cysts and fibroadenomas, and discomfort from menstrual cramps (27).

Given the social and cultural climate - it is no wonder President Joseph Fielding Smith centered his message on the importance of Family. It also raises the question: What significance does this have for us today? Furthermore, it raises an additional question - do we as Latter-day Saints balance out the eternal principle of family responsibly and ethically with that of a burgeoning increase of family disintegration seen over the years?

Liberalization of Abortion

The United States Supreme Court ruled against a Texas statute banning abortion. This landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, effectively legalized a woman's right to an abortion and protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. On June 14, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, holding to the idea there was no longer a federal constitutional right to abortion.

According to History.com, abortion before Roe v. Wade was only legal before a woman could first feel the movements of the fetus. Early regulations concerning abortion were enacted between the 1820s and 1830's and dealt with the sale of dangerous drugs that women used to induce abortions. It was not until the American Medical Association was established in the late 1850s that the call for the criminalization of abortion.

President Joseph Fielding Smith remarked that this liberalization of abortion throughout the world suggested an existing ideal where the sacredness of life is disregarded.

Not only was there a liberalization of abortion in our nation, and subsequently worldwide, but the history of abortion is also tied into eugenics and population pruning. In horticulture, population pruning is a practice that involves the selective removal of certain parts of a plant, such as branches, buds, or roots. This pruning technique ensures healing and prevents the risk of decay and disease. Similarly, the liberalization of abortion developed out of the idea and concept of pruning unborn children, sterilization of undesirable individuals, and decreasing population in certain ethnic groups.

The founder and pioneer is Margaret Sanger. Her belief focused on a personal creed of state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation.

John J. Conley, S.J. published an article in America the Jesuit Review on November 27, 2017, titled: Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist - Why are we still celebrating her? He writes:

Sanger’s eugenics creed is clearly stated in her speech “My Way to Peace” (1932). The centerpiece of the program is vigorous state use of compulsory sterilization and segregation. The first class of persons targeted for sterilization is made up of people with mental or physical disability. “The first step would be to control the intake and output on morons, mental defectives, epileptics.” A much larger class of undesirables would be forced to choose either sterilization or placement in state work camps. “The second step would be to take an inventory of the second group, such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection and segregate them on farms and open spaces.” Those segregated in these camps could return to mainstream society if they underwent sterilization and demonstrated good behavior. Sanger estimates that 15 million to 20 million Americans would be targeted in this regime of forced sterilization and concentration camps. In Sanger, the humanitarian dream of a world without poverty and illness has deteriorated into a coercive world where the poor, the disabled and the addicted simply disappear.

Conley also shares that Sanger's eugenics project carried its own racial preoccupation. This is reflected in a letter dated December 10, 1939, to Clarence Gamble. According to Conley, Margaret Sanger explains the nature of her organizations outreach to the African American community and quotes:

The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

He also cites how Sanger proudly recounts her address to the women of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, N.J. This, according to Conley, is written in her autobiography.

According to a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger stated:

I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin, that people can commit. (Sanger)

This writer and Mindful Latter-day Christian Living and Apologetics do not support nor endorse cigarette smoking - the video does promote cigarette and tobacco use which was socially and culturally acceptable at the time of this interview

In her own words, Margaret Sanger preached that birth control, and abortion within that understanding, supposedly alleviate women suffering unwanted pregnancies and control the population to alleviate poverty. She also claims to be a born humanist.

Liberalization of Abortion and, the proliferation of supporting abortion without ethical boundaries and parameters has increased to the point that it has become a threat to bearing and raising children today.

Howard Kainz published an article titled Natural Law and Abortion at Crisis Magazine and addresses how natural law relates to the life principle. He cites St. Thomas Aquinas Summa:

The natural law related to the life principle, according to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa (Q. 94, 1a2ae), is the first specific precept of natural law, and relates to the tendency of all beings to remain in existence. As applied to humans, it is the “law of self-preservation” for each individual — the instinctive tendency we all have to nurture our existence and maintain it at all costs, unless some supervening rationale demotes this tendency to secondary importance. The corollary duty for us who observe this law operative in some other individual is to respect that tendency, and do nothing to impede it, as long as that individual does not forfeit his rights in some way (e.g., by unjust, lethal aggression).

Kainz further observes:

Aquinas then goes on to enunciate the second specific precept of the natural law, common to humans as well as other animals — namely, to nurture and make provision for their offspring. As applied to humans, who require immensely longer care and education than other animals, the requirements are proportionally more stringent. This law is associated with the instinctive desire of persons to have offspring and their willingness to invest immense energy in children’s upbringing and well-being — even to the point of personal sacrifice, and even to sacrifice of life.

The main “empirical” proof that this is indeed a law of nature is in the emotions and inclinations — the powerful love most parents feel for their offspring, often maintained in spite of setbacks and unrequited love. Parents reflecting on these appetitive phenomena might suspect that they are being subjected to something like a computer program. Nevertheless, like all instincts, the impetus to care for offspring can be interdicted or redirected, depending on circumstances — including, for humans, not only external environmental circumstances, but also prevailing ideas, ideals, and ideologies.

Kainz also addresses the exception to natural law - as it pertains to abortion - about the threat to the mother's life and health and the case of incest and rape:

Those who apply the first precept often make an exception for situations threatening the life of the mother, since there is a conflict between two rights to life. But, in light of the second precept, a conflict of rights obtains also in the cases of rape and incest. For, if every woman has a right to conceive and procreate, and if this right implies that she has a right to make that choice voluntarily, no more obvious infractions of that right than rape and incest can be contemplated.

Proponents supporting the liberalization of abortion always criticize pro-life advocates with emotional pleading related to cases of incest and rape. According to an article published in USA Today on May 24, 2019, by contributing writer Alia D. Dastagir, shares that only 1% of abortions performed were due to rape and only 0.5% were due to incest.

Political leaders, Pro-Choice advocates, and other leaders consistently argue that abortion is a reproductive right. Denying this reproductive right is a denial of women's right to proper reproductive care and health. Senator Patty Murray, speaking at the HELP Committee Meeting, challenges Pro-life politicians and advocates.

Her statement is a passionate critique of Republican policies on abortion, emphasizing the harm caused to women and families by restrictive abortion laws. It frames the issue as one of fundamental freedom, arguing that no one should be forced to continue a pregnancy against their will. The statement highlights the widespread impact of post-Dobbs abortion bans, detailing heartbreaking stories of women denied essential care and the broader consequences for healthcare access, especially for marginalized groups.

Senator Murray further accuses Republicans of seeking to control women’s bodies and points to their support for extreme measures like national abortion bans and fetal personhood laws, which could criminalize abortion and restrict other reproductive healthcare options. The statement calls these actions a threat to women's autonomy and broader health services.

Despite the dire warnings, it underscores a strong public backlash, with abortion rights winning in every vote since Dobbs. She passionately concludes with a commitment from Democrats to fight for the restoration of abortion rights, pledging to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act and protect reproductive freedoms.

Speaking on the proliferation of how abortion is liberalized, defended, and upheld in our society and culture today; President Russell M. Nelson spoke on how Abortion is an assault on the defenseless in the October 2008 edition of the Ensign.

President Nelson agrees that abortion is limited to a necessary medical intervention in the case of a threat to a mother's health or the case of rape and incest:

Concern for the health of the mother is a vital one. But circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare.

He further cautions on the medical necessity of abortion due to potential congenital malformation and harmful effects of certain infectious or toxic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy being real. His caution focuses on terminating pregnancy are of great consideration.

Liberalization of Abortion has focused more on terminating unwanted pregnancies; not because of medical threats to the mother or child, or due to incest or rape. Instead, the liberalization of abortion is focused on providing abortion on demand as a form of birth control. According to President Nelson, elective abortion is legalized on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. He further remarks that each of us is, to an extent, free to think, plan, and do. He points out that we are not free to choose the consequences.

President Nelson succinctly affirms this:

They have freedom of choice—to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made.

Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.

President Nelson further observes that the laws of liberalization of Abortion, and present political support for Abortion as a reproductive right is in direct violation of God's divine law and commandments:

Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. Scriptures state repeatedly that people will prosper only if they obey the commandments of God.

In essence, liberalization of abortion, advocating for abortion as a reproductive right without healthy and ethical safeguards is a disregard for natural law and divine commandments when it pertains to the sacredness and sanctity of life.

Conclusion

Reflecting on the teachings of President Joseph Fielding Smith and their resonance with today’s cultural and societal shifts, it becomes evident that the preservation of the family is not only central to the Gospel but crucial to societal stability. The adversary’s targeted attacks on the integrity of the family reveal the prophetic wisdom in Smith’s counsel. From family disintegration to the liberalization of abortion, the erosion of moral values continues to impact our homes and communities. These trends highlight the necessity of revisiting eternal principles to fortify the family against these pervasive challenges.

In revisiting past prophetic teachings, it’s clear that the principles of family unity, moral accountability, and the sanctity of life remain as relevant today as they were decades ago. President Smith’s call to defend the family is a reminder that societal norms often diverge from eternal truths, emphasizing the need for individuals and families to anchor themselves in Gospel teachings.

In the next article, I will expand on the theme of addiction and its devastating impact on families. How addiction not only isolates individuals but also fractures relationships, erodes trust, and disrupts the family’s divine purpose. It will delve into the cautions and warnings leaders have shared about addiction’s ripple effect, offering insights into how faith-based principles can foster healing, resilience, and restoration for families affected by this pervasive issue. This exploration aims to inspire a renewed commitment to supporting family members and helping them navigate the challenges of addiction with grace and faith.

I invite you to share your thoughts in the comment section.