Here is another post on the Book of Mormon and we’re going to tackle the big issue right up front: God. Can’t get much bigger than that. Specifically, let’s look at God in the first chapter of Nephi and consider the various names and descriptions that are employed to name God. But first we need to outline some concepts and doctrine.
Maybe You’re a Trinitarian
The Trinitarian theory of God is what became the orthodox Christian view of the Christian God: one substance with three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. “One substance” allows Trinitarians to lay claim to being monotheists, because no one in the modern age wants to be called a polytheist. But distinguishing substance from persons (from the Latin persona and Greek prosopon or mask) allows Trinitarians to speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate persons while still claiming to be monotheists. The Book of Mormon often seems to follow the same pattern, at times emphasizing that there is just one God (“… the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God …”, Alma 11:44) but often speaking of the three persons as distinct entities.
Or maybe you’re a true Monotheist, like Jews or Muslims, affirming there is one God without compromise. For a Christian, this would mean seeing Jesus of Nazareth as a prophet and possibly as a Messiah in the original Israelite sense of one chosen by God to deliver His people, but not as God. And this would mean seeing the Holy Spirit as a thing or a force emanating from God (in Old Testament terms, as ruach, the wind or breath of God). In other words, a Unitarian. For a Trinitarian, this is all heresy. For a Unitarian, this is a satisfactory explanation of God. Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian (more or less), so there’s that.
In between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism is Modalism or Monarchian modalism or even modalistic Monarchianism. This is the theory that there is one and only one God but He appears at various times in different modes, sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Spirit. Different modes, not different persons. Just one person, God, and He appears in different modes to us humans. Modalism tends to be a label that no one claims for themselves, but instead is used to paint those you don’t agree with as heretics. It’s almost an epithet. So it shouldn’t surprise you that some critics suggest the Book of Mormon adopts a modalistic view of God. And they have some good evidence. For example, see Mosiah 13:34: “Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?” Or this longer but not necessarily clearer explanation at Mosiah 15:1-4:
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.
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 —
And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
On the other side of the spectrum, there is flat out Tritheism which sees the Christian God as three substances as well as three persons. Tritheism sounds a lot better than polytheism, but it’s still a heresy to orthodox Trinitarians. There are also critics who see the modern Mormon Godhead as an example of Tritheism, although this does not come straight from the Book of Mormon but from the LDS tradition (beliefs that developed over time). Mormon defenders prefer to depict modern Mormon beliefs as Social Trinitariansism, in which there are three persons in the Godhead united by mutual love and shared goals, not by sharing the same substance (Greek ousia, from Aristotle). Social Trinitarianism is slightly less heretical than Tritheism, but don’t expect a pat on the back from your Lutheran or Episcopalian friends if you bring this up over dinner.
God in the Book of Mormon
The Bible says different things about God at various points, so it is probably asking too much of the Book of Mormon to state and follow one theory of God throughout the book. In general, God is discussed in general terms with a wide variety of names and descriptions, so (as with the Bible) it is very hard to nail down a specific view from the previous discussion that one could confidently apply to Book of Mormon theology. Let’s look specifically at 1 Nephi 1 to illustrate how many different names and descriptions of God appear in just the first chapter.
God the Father is referred to as “God” as follows:
- v. 1, “mysteries of God”
- v. 8, “God sitting upon his throne,” “praising their God”
- v. 14, “O Lord God Almighty”
- v. 15, “the praising of his God”
God the Father is also frequently referred to as “Lord”:
- v. 1, “highly favored of the Lord”
- v. 5, “prayed unto the Lord”
- v. 14, “exclaim many things unto the Lord”
- v. 15, “which the Lord had shown unto him”
- v. 18, “the Lord had shown so many marvelous things”
- v. 20, “tender mercies of the Lord”
The Son is referred to or described twice, but not named:
- v. 9, “he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven”
- v. 19, “manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah”
The Holy Spirit is referred to several times:
- v. 7, “being overcome with the Spirit”
- v. 8, “being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision”
- v. 12, “he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord”
There are some interesting things to notice in just this short review. The term “the Lord” is used to refer only to the Father here, never to the Son. As for the Son, the terms “Jesus” or “Christ” are not used (see below). And the term “Holy Ghost” is not used for the Spirit, which is just fine as I prefer the term “Holy Spirit” (which makes it much easier to explain to your kids that we don’t believe in ghosts).
The Name “Jesus Christ” in the Book of Mormon
No reader of the Book of Mormon has any confusion about who is being referred to as “One descending out of the midst of heaven” and as “a Messiah,” but the term “Jesus Christ” does not appear until much later in Nephi’s narrative. Which is no surprise, because how would someone in the sixth century BC who, at the time of writing, was on a different continent eight thousand miles away come by that information?
After referring to the Son frequently, with a variety of descriptions and locutions, the name finally appears at 2 Nephi 10:3, where Jacob blurts it out, then explains how he knew the name: “Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world …”. That sounds fine to us, but the term “Christ,” a Greek word, wouldn’t make sense to Jacob. Nor is Christ really a name. “Jesus Christ” is used in English as a translation of “Jesus the Messiah” (or Joshua or Yeshua if you insist). But it’s not like this was Jesus Christ, son of Joseph Christ and Mary Christ. (Thank you, Bart Ehrman, for that quip.) It’s not a family name. It’s not a name at all. So if an angel told Jacob that “this should be his name,” the angel was wrong, or at least confused.
Once the name enters the text, it gets used a lot. At 2 Ne. 25:26 it is used four times in one verse! But then later, somewhat puzzlingly, the name gets re-revealed. At 2 Nephi 25:19, Nephi (not Jacob, as above) writes: “the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” So an angel (same angel?) revealed the name “Jesus Christ” to Jacob and then again to Nephi. Again, “Jesus Christ” is not a name.
It gets more interesting. The current version of 1 Nephi 12:18 reads in part, “… the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time …”. But the original wording in both the printer’s copy and the original copy of the manuscript for the Book of Mormon reads “Jesus Christ who is the Lamb of God.” (Thank you, Maxwell Study Edition, for that reference.) No explanation given at 1 Nephi 12:18 for how the name came to be known to the writer. The reference at 2 Nephi 25:19 to “the word of an angel” may refer back to the original wording of 1 Nephi 12:18, although no reference to an angel appears in that verse.
But wait, there’s more! In Mosiah chapter 3, King Benjamin repeats the same pattern: in verse 2 he states that he has learned some things “made known unto by an angel from God,” then he goes on discuss (in a rather modalistic way) the Son and that “he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth” (v. 8). That modalism is even plainer in earlier verses: “For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases” (v. 5).
In Mosiah 3, it’s not just the term “Jesus Christ” that appears, but a virtual summary of biographical information from the New Testament gospels: son of Mary; miracles as recounted in the gospels; suffer temptations; blood cometh from every pore; crucify him; rise the third day; and so forth. It’s hard to escape the impression that the account in Mosiah 3 is dependent on a reading of the New Testament gospels.
Conclusion
Obviously, to make any definitive statements about how God is depicted, described, and named in the Book of Mormon would require examination of the entire book, not just 1 Nephi 1. But the discussion in this post should give you enough to see that it really is an interesting question. In particular it is interesting that the Book of Mormon sure sounds modalistic in many places, which is quite different from the Social Trinitarian view that the Church now affirms.
I guess at this point I should give readers who have made it this far a round of applause (this post turned out longer than I intended) and also a good prompt for the comments. So are you a Unitarian, a Trinitarian, a Tritheist, or something in between like a Modalist or a Social Trinitarian? And how do you view the Book of Mormon theory of God: Trinitarian, Modalist, or just all over the map?
Wheat & Tares 
Thanks for boiling down complex theological concepts in a nicely packaged concise post. I see Joseph Smith’s concept of God evolving over time from a sort of Trinitarian/Modalist God (fn1) to a Tritheistic God, and eventually a god among endless gods, but only one god for us (well one Godhead with three distinct gods). I know in my own life that recognizing the importance of how God is conceptualized and the different aspects of God did not come until later for me. Earlier in my life, I just assumed that God was a transcendent being who heard our prayers and gave commandments through the church that I had to obey. I ignored the topic of the nature of God because I thought it was hairsplitting, too abstract, and unimportant. I now think very differently and pay much closer attention to nature of God questions. I think that Joseph Smith didn’t have a strong concept of God earlier in his life and that that came later. Consequently, he borrowed from common Trinitarian understandings when crafting the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was very concerned about infant baptism, baptism by immersion, priesthood authority, and a variety of other topics when designing the Book of Mormon, but the question of the nature of God came after the Book of Mormon was published. In the 1832 account of the First Vision, he doesn’t see two personages. But by 1838 he does recall seeing two personages.
I think the question of the nature of God is a difficult one for Joseph Smith to grasp in his reading of the Bible, and understandably so. The doctrine of the Trinity did not emerge except through a good amount of mental contortionism by early Christian thinkers who seemed motivated to conceptualize a monotheistic god while at the same time including the divinity of Jesus in order to answer to accusations of polytheism by strictly monotheistic Jews in the Roman Empire. Early Christians wanted to make earlier Jewish scripture their own, and they needed to find a way find consistency in the concept of God in the Old and New Testaments (an impossible task as conceptions of God vary significantly throughout the OT). Joseph Smith’s Godhead, however, makes good sense, since Jesus and God appear very separate in the Four Gospels, and it is only in the Gospel of John where Jesus is actually claimed to be a god. Joseph Smith’s later musings about eternal progression and everyone possibly becoming a god also make sense in light of the references to polytheism of Genesis (and early Hebrews were no doubt polytheists who believed in a pantheon of Gods much like their Canaanite, Babylonian, and Egyptian neighbors). Joseph Smith was trying to accommodate much more than many other Christian thinkers of his time were.
fn1: While I acknowledge that there is a difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism (and many evangelicals today make a huge deal about embracing Trinitarianism and rejecting Modalism), the difference is really one of hairsplitting. They both see God as a single substance.
I think that broadly-speaking, in a modern context everyone generally agrees on the separate personhood of Jesus and the Father. So, I don’t think there are too many believers these days who are modalist. (It’s more of an atheist trope: was Jesus praying to himself? No believer would ever seriously have that confusion.)
So, broadly speaking, the debate is really about what Jesus and the Holy Ghost are related to the Father. I think the way you’ve lain out the positions helps to clarify some of the issues. As you’ve outlined in the traditional monotheistic discussion, one approach is to say that quite simply Jesus and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father — there is only one person who has the traits we would associate with full divinity, and Jesus and the HG are either not truly divine or in some way subordinated.
Apart from Unitarians and like, I guess, Jehovah’s Witnesses, I don’t really see too many modern “noteworthy” Christian or Christian-aspiring denominations (sorry to any missed denominations) taking a unitarian position.
So, the real question is what does it mean for Jesus, the Father, and Holy Ghost to be three distinct persons with divine nature? What does it really mean for them to have the same essence or have similar essence or to have different essences but shared purpose, and where do we fall on that?
I get that it’s really important for classically theistic Christians that divine nature/essence is simple, uncreated, etc., That necessarily requires a sort of unity. And yet, as I discussed at the top, the separate personhood of the Trinity is also non-negotiable. And thus the Trinity arises, because compromising on either point is unacceptable.
In contrast, with Mormonism, there is not a preoccupation with classical theist requirements for divine simplicity, so unity in an essential way is not that critical.
Thanks for sharing this. I enjoyed the comparison of trinitarianism, modalism, etc. Both OP and comments are great. Unfortunately, I don’t have much to add. Cheers.
Most members are happy to accept the doctrine that there is God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. This is fundamental and I never thought much about it until I researched the various versions of the First Vision (as mentioned above by John W). I guess my issue is how could there be any ambiguity with a detail so fundamental? If Joseph Smith saw two personages, and was told that they were the Father and the Son, how could this possibly not be the main takeaway from his experience? The fact that it took a later version of the First Vision to spell this out is very confusing to me. Like many narratives in the Church, the revised explanation was then applied retroactively even if it contradicts the original narrative. I’ve read the Gospel Topic essay on this many times and it just doesn’t resolve this for me at all.
So what do I believe now? Well, for 45 years I thought I knew. And I still believe the official narrative (doctrine) in my heart. But my head doesn’t seem willing to ignore the 1832 First Vision account – you know, the only one in Joseph Smith’s actual handwriting.
This analysis is appreciated with the exception of the category of “God the Father referred to as ‘Lord.'” In most of those instances, Latter-day Saints would note that YHWH (translated as Lord in the O.T.) = Jesus. Thus, Mosiah 3 need not necessarily be a form of modalism. As you likely know, Blake Ostler embraces a form of social trinitarianism in his writings and that notion is very popular with some LDS thinkers today. But I doubt the Church would acknowledge social trinitarianism as doctrinal.
As far as what Joseph Smith believed and when: I doubt Joseph knew that much unless he was told. The four versions of the First Vision do not define the Godhead per se. If I recall correctly, three can be interpreted as noting separate personages. His early abhorence of creeds likely made him highly suspicious of Trinitarianism, and I believe that those who interpret Trinitarian leanings in the Book of Mormon are ignoring the entirety of that Book and the historical context of that work and related revelations. As most know, the Lectures on Faith are unreliable as a gauge of Joseph’s beliefs, being produced by Sidney Rigdon.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Old Man, all I’m showing is that in 1 Nephi 1, the terms “God” and “Lord” are used more or less interchangeably in the text to refer to the Father. It’s observation drawn directly from the text. If that doesn’t match up with current LDS depictions of the Godhead or with current LDS doctrine about who was who in the Old Testament, that’s a different discussion. I’m just looking at what’s in chapter 1.
Anyone interested in further discussion of this topic should go read “Book of Mormon Christology,” by Melodie Moench Charles, in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Signature Books, 1993), p. 81-114. Here’s a short quotation from that article:
“Book of Mormon people asserted that the Father and Christ (and the Holy Ghost) were one god. When Zeezrom asks Amulek, “Is there more than one God?” Amulek, who learned his information from an angel, answers, “No” (Alma 11:28-29). At least five times in 3 Nephi, Jesus says that he and the Father are one. Emphasizing that oneness with a singular verb, Nephi, Amulek, and Mormon refer to “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is one God” (2 Ne. 31:21; Alma 11:44; Morm. 7:7, emphasis added).
“This is a common trinitarian formula. To allow Jesus’ divinity and yet safeguard against belief in more gods than one, the early Christian church developed trinitarianism in which “the Father is God … the Son is also God, and … there is only one God.” Technically trinitarianism is the belief that God is three distinct persons of one undivided substance. Each has an individual identity that does not merge with the identities of the others, and yet their essence or substance is identical. Because this concept is not logical, it has been misunderstood by laypeople and some of their religious leaders, and people have tended to label any idea trinitarian that defines God as being both one and three” (“Book of Mormon Christology,” p. 96-97, some references omitted).
All this seems overly confusing. According the 6 missionary discussions that I taught in the 60’s, there are three separate individuals: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit). Lately we’ve added a Holy Mother. That makes 4. Then if you take Snow’s couplet seriously, man has the potential to be a god. I think that makes us polytheistic. I have an acquaintance who claims to be a Mormon Trinitarian. But the Trinity doesn’t make any sense to me, it’s like believers are playing word games.
Apparently, anthropologist feel that monotheism is viewed as a higher level religion than polytheism. But I don’t buy it. Social tritheism doesn’t work for me, because I count at least 4 individuals in the Godhead. I’m a henotheist with an eternally progressing God. McConkie doesn’t agree, but I don’t care.
On the contrary, sir, there are lots of modalists. Oneness Pentecostals and Swedenborgians affirm modalist theology.
Scalia,
I’ll concede on Oneness Pentecostals, since there are more of them than there are members in the LDS church.
But there are only maybe 10k members of Swedenborgian New Churches.
So, when people talk about modalism, AT BEST we’re talking about 24 million people, out of 2 billion Christians worldwide. It hardly justifies the nonbeliever tropes (which most certainly aren’t aimed at Oneness Pentecostals…)