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.