Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)
Alma 11 has been discussed before in this article, responding to the arguments of Desmond Ferguson (formerly of Irish Church Missions), showing that Alma 11 is not in conflict with the Book of Abraham and modern Latter-day Saint theology vis-á-vis the “number” of God.
In this verse, as with previous texts in this chapter, the person of God (not just the Father [which is anti-Trinitarian itself] and the Son are numerically distinct from one another (e.g., vv.32-35). Furthermore, the polysemic nature of the term “God” which is found in biblical and other canonical texts is stressed here, as “God” is predicated upon the person of the Father, and is then used to denote the “oneness” of the persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit (here, having the meaning similar to “Godhead”; cf. the concept of perichoresis). Instead of being a chapter in the Book of Mormon that is said to be in conflict with modern LDS theology, Alma 11 is consistent with such.
The above should be compared with other passages in the Book of Mormon that distinguish "God" from "Jesus," including:
And the people went forth and witnessed against them-- testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; and also testified that there was but one God, and that he should send his Son among the people, but he should not save them; and many such things did the people testify against Alma and Amulek. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land. (Alma 14:5)
In the above passage, the category of the “One God” is exhausted by the Father of Jesus, not the “Trinity,” something consistent with New Testament texts such as John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:4-6, Eph 4:5-7; and 1 Tim 2:5.
A related question would be “if the Father is "the only true God" does that mean Jesus is an idol?” This question, however, ignores the biblical witness that there are (true) beings who are called “gods” (e.g., Deut 32:7-9, 43; Psa 29:1; 82:6, etc), not “false gods” or “idols.” Instead, the term “true” (Greek: ἀληθινός) in John 17:3 refers to God the Father being intrinsically God; as we know from texts such as Heb 1:3 and the unanimous consent of the Patristics, only the person of the Father is God in an underived sense (autotheos); the Son is divine based on His participation with the Father.
The “either Jesus is true God in the same sense of the Father, or he is an idol”-approach is nothing short of an either-or fallacy. For instance, in John 6:32, we read:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you note that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven (τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν).
Jesus is referred to being “true” bread, using the same adjective in John 17:3 (ἀληθινός). However, the bread (manna) the Israelites received in Exo 16 was not “false” or “non-existent” bread; however, it was not the archetypal bread that Jesus truly is, as only the latter can give eternal life to those who consume; the former could only satiate physical hunger and could not provide salvation.
John 17:3 and similar passages in the Bible and the Book of Moron are clearly non-Trinitarian in theology (in fact, very much anti-Trinitarian). The LDS view, that allows for a polysemic meaning to the term (true) G/gods is consistent with the entirety of the biblical witness, something that Trinitarian and Socinian theologies do not allow for. This “either-or” approach is based on eisegesis, as it is based on a common logical fallacy.
This, of course, refutes the following misinformed statement from a recent book by a Pentecostal scholar:
In the conversation between Amulek and Zeezrom cited earlier, in response to Amulek’s claims about ‘the truth and living God’, Zeezrom asks him directly, ‘Is there more than one God to which Amulek responds, ‘No’ (Alma 11.28-29). It was precisely this aspect of Amulek’s teaching that was picked up by those who did not believe, witnessing against these prophets in particularly that ‘they testified that there was but one God’ (Alma 14.5).
The understanding that there is but one God, not several gods, is underscored in a variety of other texts in the Book of Mormon, where the nature of God is being discussed (2 Nephi 31.21; Mosiah 1.4:-5; Mormon 7.7). Thus, one could conclude that the Book of Mormon is rather clearly monotheistic in orientation. (John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction [Cleveland: CPT Press, 2016], 194-95)
