Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born, died, and was resurrected. Why would His pattern be any different than that of the Father?:
(New Testament | John 5:19)
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Did it ever occur to you to actually read the passages you quote in context? Because if you did, you'd see that the quoted portion can't possibly support the strange theology and timeline behind the question you've placed before it.
I'm on my phone, so cutting and pasting huge blocks of text isn't an option for me, but I'll summarize the context you're missing and you and others can check it yourselves, if you wish.
John 5 begins with healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, during which Jesus tells the man "Rise, take up your bed and walk" (verse 8). It being the Sabbath, the Jews tell this man that it is unlawful that he carry his bed, and demand to know of him who gave him command to violate the Sabbath. Upon confronting Jesus, He tells them "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working" (verse 17). This made the Jews even angrier, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but made Himself equal with God in the process, by claiming to be His Son (verse 18).
This is the immediate context of the section you've quoted. He is telling the Jews, over their objections to the contrary, that He hasn't done anything but exactly what the Father has given Him power and authority to do, as the Son and the Father both work together, not at cross purposes, the Son being the manifestation of and thereby doing the work of the Father, realizing His will, as His Word/Wisdom. (I would think, given the Mormon false understanding of the Holy Trinity that they are united "in purpose", you'd understand this, since its an affirmation of that fact, in a way). This is what it means that "the Son can do nothing of His own but what He sees the Father do." To claim that it is meant as literally as you are taking it to mean not only violates several other passages in the Bible already presented in this thread (e.g., about I AM having neither father nor mother; that has to be wrong for your question to make sense), but even Christ's own words a few verses later in verse 20, when Christ says "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel." The Father shows Christ His great wurks, enabling Christ, as they are One in divinity, to perform the same and even greater works -- an allusion to the Resurrection, no doubt, because what else could even be classified as being "even greater" than what the Father already shows Him to do in healing the lame, raising the dead, and all other signs already performed which testify to Christ's unique divine unity with the Father? (Their being homoousios/consubtantial, a reality which this thread shows -- as many others before it have shown -- Mormons incapable of understanding, due to the warped theological views they have inherited from JS and the other 'Mormon fathers'.)
Here we have the one thing which even Christ affirms is greater than what has been shown to Him by the Father, and it is one thing the Father did not do. The Father did not die upon the cross. Not only would the passion narrative make no sense if He did (e.g., "My God, My God...why have You forsaken me?" Hint: He wasn't talking to Himself!), but the basics of Christian theology with regard to the incarnation and the entire plan of salvation are violated by the belief that it was the Father who died upon the cross. This is actually an ancient heresy called Patripassionism (lit. "Father-suffering"), which was condemned by the Church many centuries before Joseph Smith was ever born, proving Mormonism once again to be theologically nothing but the rebranding of already-rejected ancient heresies.
Anyway, this is why later in John 10:18, when Christ speaks of His death and resurrection, He says that He lays His body down of Himself (no one takes it from Him), and takes it up again of His own power, for this command He has received of His Father. He doesn't say here that He does so in imitation of the Father Who has already done so (because the Father hasn't; practically speaking, that is 'the point', if you will, of the incarnation), but rather that of His own power He does so, by
command of His Father.
To say that
another Father-God must have been crucified on some other planst at some time to "show Jesus how" or whatever is just absolute insanity. Not only was crucifixion already practiced by the Romans before Christ's coming, rhe Mormon set-up essentially reduces the entire salvation history into a kind of play/act repeated ad nauseam, robbing all Persons of the Holy Trinity of their unique relationship of shared divinity (because if there's another God the Father, then there's another God the Son, and another Holy Spirit, on some other planet -- i.e., the Holy Trinity is not the revelation of the One God to man, but simply our particular one of many 'trinities').
In short, you make God and salvation in Christ -- the pillars of the Christian religion -- into a complete farce, all in service of an absurdly literal and wrong interpretation of one verse, since that's what best fits Mormon theology.
There are really no words for this...at least none that I can repeat in polite company. Such profoundly deep heresy is surely from the devil. May God save you and us all from his clutches, in the name of
the Father, and
the Son, and
the Holy Spirit,
the One God.
