Book of Mormon Central produced an article on Mosiah 15 and its Christology (here). It has recently been critiqued by a blogger, JKC (real name Jared Cook) on the By Common Consent blog (part 1; it appears to be the first in a series, so expect possible future posts interacting with his comments). Unfortunately, as with so many discussions of the Trinity and related fields, this blogger is woefully ignorant of the issues. He writes the following:
It is at odds with too many passages of restoration scripture, both in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere, to say that Jesus is not one God with the Father (and the Holy Spirit, for that matter). I understand that “as in a Trinity” likely is intended to qualify that statement, so that the likely implicit meaning is that Jesus is “‘one God’ with the Father,” but just not in precisely the same way as in the trinitarian creeds. But if you’re not reading carefully, this could also easily be (mis)understood as denying that they are in fact “one God.” LDS scripture forcefully proclaims–and not just here in Mosiah 15–that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are indeed “one God,” and does not put nearly the same emphasis on the distinctness of the members of the godhead that it puts on their unity.[1] To me, statements of theology that may appear to contradict or de-emphasize that point are problematic. It’s not technically wrong, but I think it’s problematic to phrase it this way.
The footnote for the above reads:
1] Sure, you can find scriptures that demonstrate circumstantially the distinctness of the Father and the Son (for example, the first vision, Stephen’s vision, the Father’s voice at Jesus’ baptism, Jesus praying to the Father, Jesus asking the Father to make the disciples one as he and the Father are one, etc.), and I’m not disputing that they are distinct. But I’m not aware of any canonized scriptures that affirmatively proclaim the separateness of the Father and the Son as an essential principle of the Gospel. By contrast, there are several scriptural passages that forcefully and explicitly proclaim that the members of the godhead are “one God.”
On the issue of the Father and Son being “distinct,” the author does not get into an important discussion of “being” and “person”—those who have studied Trinitarianism, Christology, and other fields will understand the importance of this. Furthermore, that the Father and the Son are numerically distinct from one another permeates both the Biblical texts (e.g., see my paper, Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus) and even the Book of Mormon, which distinguishes, not just between the persons of the “Father” and the “Son,” but “God” and Jesus (which is inconsistent with both modalism and Trinitarianism [see Examples of Non-Trinitarian Statements in the Book of Mormon]).
As for the passages that speak of the Father and Son (and, on occasion, the Spirit) as being “one God,” it should be noted that Latter-day Saints, Trinitarians, and even those who hold to modalism agree on their being “one God.” The issue is how. Again, this is not dealt with (such superficial treatments of the topic permeate a lot of popular LDS and non-LDS treatments of the issue). Because the author referenced Alma 11:27, let me reproduce what I wrote in response to an Evangelical critic of the Church:
The "Number of God"
Bartosiewicz alleges that Alma 11:27-39 and similar texts contradict D&C 121:32 and 132:20 on the "number" of God. However, this is eisegesis. We have shown from the above that the Bible affirms the ontological existence of beings called "gods," something consistent with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith elsewhere (e.g., Sermon in the Grove). What about the Book of Mormon?
Before we provide exegesis of the pertinent texts, we should note what Latter-day Saint theology actually is; in spite of anti-LDS claims that "Mormonism" is "polytheistic," such is far from the truth. Blake Ostler summed up succinctly the LDS position (“Kingship Monotheism”) rather cogently:
There are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
Furthermore, we have to present what Latter-day Saint theology teaches, something Bartosiewicz cannot do without showing his utter lack of intellectual integrity. In Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term—in our theology, by definition, God is the one supreme, absolute being, the ultimate source of the entire universe, the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator, ruler, and preserver of all things (cf. Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine [2d ed.: Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979], p. 317). In LDS theology, this refers to--
(1) God the Father, the ultimate power and authority of the whole universe (e.g., D&C 121:32)
(2) The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three members of the Godhead, who are perfectly united as One God in that they share the same will, love, and covenant with one another (cf. Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7)
Also, the term “God,” as well as divine titles are used of the person of Jesus Christ in LDS theology; as one example, D&C 19:1, 16-18:
I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, eve I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the World . . . For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all that they might not suffer if they would repent. . .
The “oneness” of the persons of the Godhead is not a metaphysical oneness, a much later development in Christian theology, later ratified during the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth centuries onwards, but the same oneness Christ expects us to have with Him:
That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou havest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. (John 17:21-22)
That such is the case can be seen in 3 Nephi 19:29, which should serve as a "controlling verse" for Book of Mormon theology:
The Greek fathers of the Christian church had a term “perichoresis,” basically meaning, “Dancing in unison,” to describe the inter- and intra-personal relationship between the members of the Godhead; such is similar to an informed LDS Christology. Furthermore, this matches the 1916 First Presidency statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son (entitled, “The Father and the Son”), one of divine agency (investiture); the following comes from section 4 of the statement:
Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in thee.
The Greek fathers of the Christian church had a term “perichoresis,” basically meaning, “Dancing in unison,” to describe the inter- and intra-personal relationship between the members of the Godhead; such is similar to an informed LDS Christology. Furthermore, this matches the 1916 First Presidency statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son (entitled, “The Father and the Son”), one of divine agency (investiture); the following comes from section 4 of the statement:
4. Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority
A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.
We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).
The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.
Let us provide the text that critics often cite, including Bartosiewicz:
And Zeezrom said unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered No. (Alma 11:26-29)
One should note from the get-go that the person of the Father is in view here. Later, there is a differentiation between “the one true God” and the Son of God, Jesus Christ:
And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? And he [Amulek] said unto him, yea. And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. (Alma 11:32-35)
The idea that the Father is the “one true God” is not inconsistent with either Latter-day Saint theology on the plurality of gods and/or any high Christology. Indeed, such comments are part-and-parcel of the New Testament itself, where the Father is said to be the only true God, and the Son is distinguished, not just from the person of the Father, but God (Greek: θεος). If Bartosiewicz were consistent , they would either drop this argument or at least modify such. Then again, their target audience is not informed members of the Church but Evangelicals who, like them, know next to nothing about “Mormonism.” Note the following example (many more could be offered)--
In John 17:3, we read:
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).
The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”) is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God” (interestingly enough, Isa 44:6, the other text cited by Donal Walsh, uses singular personal pronouns, indicating a singular divine person). However, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
Logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:
A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every “a” is a “b,” there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea--however, Trinitarianism also states:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it into logical language:
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the triune "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility.
As we have seen, Bartosiewicz is using “arguments” that would refute their own theology. So much for consistency and fairness, let alone intellectual integrity
Further, Alma 11 is consistent with LDS belief that there is only One God (the Father). However, it only shows theological and biblical illiteracy to claim that this refutes multiple gods being in the midst of the true God (cf. Deut 32:7-9 from Qumran [discussed above]). In the Hebrew Bible, "gods" are found in reference to heavenly beings that are not supreme, but have true/ontological existence. For example, there are divinities that are inferior or subordinate to, or are divinities only by permission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation/permission from the higher God. In the Old Testament, such would include member of the court of El alongside angels and possibly gods of foreign nations. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as the דבר or the divine word of Wisdom would belong to this class. In the New Testament, "the Word" and "the Mediator" are also used in this sense in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is considered a divine and meriting some form of worship which, ultimately, goes back to the Father (cf. Phil 2:5-11).
One possible criticism is that modalism is in view in Alma 11, as Jesus is called “the very Eternal Father” in v.39. However, as we have seen previously, there is a clear distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son in this chapter. Furthermore, “[eternal/everlasting] Father” is a title of Christ in the Book of Mormon, denoting his role as the creator. Note, for instance, the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:8:
And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
Only by confusing the title of “Father” with the person of God the Father can one claim such, but such would reflect pretty poor exegesis skills (cf. Isa 9:6 where the title אביעד ["Eternal Father"] is used of a Messianic figure).
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 is clearly a non-Trinitarian verse as is Alma 11:44 and related texts in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. 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.
There is no real contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.
The Christology of Mosiah 15:1-4
Let us actually exegete the text. Here is the pericope in question:
(1)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. (2)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—(3)The Father because he was conceived by the power of God and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son—(4)And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
Let us focus on investigating this issue applying the “Indiscernibility of Identicals.” Simply put, the Indiscernibility of Identicals states that for any x and any y, x=y if x and y (1) never have differed, (2) don't differ, (3) will not ever differ, and (4) could not differ.
In Mosiah 15:2, we read of how Jesus will “be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the father,” and in 15:7 Abinadi states that “[Jesus] shall be crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.” In these two verses, there are two wills; the Father’s and the Son’s, the latter submitting to the former. Each person has their own will, showing that the person of the Son is distinguished from the person of the Father in that Jesus submits his will to God the Father, but the latter does not submit his will to himself and/or the Son.
Furthermore, in 15:8, we read another text that differentiates the Father and the Son:
And thus God [the Father] breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men.
In this verse, the Father gives to the Son the power to make intercession for the children of men (cf. Heb 7:24-25; Rom 8:33-34; 2 Nephi 2:9-10). It is the Son, not the Father, who offers intercession, and it is offered by the Son to the Father.
Applying the Indiscernibility of Identicals, we can see that, even within the context of Mosiah 15 itself, ignoring the plethora of texts in the Book of Mormon that differentiates between the person of the Father and the Son, Jesus and His Father differ from one another and cannot be identified as being one and the same person.
Furthermore, such is also consistent with the entirety of the Book of Mormon. Notice the following texts from 1 Nephi (which was translated after Mosiah [per the Priority of Mosiah]):
And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God, for he is Go over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God: wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou has desired. And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign that after thou hast behold the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God. (1 Nephi 11:5-6; notice how Jesus is referred to as the “Son of God”—this was original to the 1830 ed.; also, this verse answers the question of who the “Spirit” is in Nephi’s vision—the Holy Spirit [Bruce McConkie held that it was the premortal Jesus] as well as showing the personality of the Spirit).
And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I behold the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him. . . . And I looked and behold the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also behold the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptised of him; and after he was baptised, I behold the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove. . . . And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and I behold the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld the multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God, and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out. And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying, Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record. (1 Nephi 11:24, 27, 31-32).
Blake Ostler offered the following exegesis of Mosiah 15:1-4, which is spot-on:
40. Modalism or Distinction in Unity? Those who adopt a modalist reading of Mormon scripture rely heavily on Mosiah 15 as a proof-text for their view. The focus of this scripture is to explain how Jesus Christ is both God and man. The primary issue is thus what we would now callchristology. However, the explanation of Christs dual humanity/divinity is elucidated in terms of the Sons relation to the Father. Their are four key comparisons in Mosiah 15 that elucidate this relationship. First, "the flesh" is parallel to the "spirit." Second, the Son is identified with the flesh and the Father is identified with spirit; that is, possession of flesh is predicated only of the Son and the Father is identified with the spirit. Third, the Sons will is subordinated to, or "swallowed up in," the Fathers will as a result of the Sons death of the flesh. Finally, the Son becomes "the Father and the Son" whereas the Father already is the Father but never the Son.
41. For purposes of exegesis, I will also introduce the principle of identity of indiscernibles. The importance of this logical principle is that any expression of the relation between the Father and the Son which can be termed patripassionism (i.e., that the Father suffers in the Sons suffering because the Father is identical to the Son) or modalism must satisfy this principle. Roughly this principle asserts that something is identical to another thing if and only if everything that is true of that something is also true of the other thing. For purposes of reviewing this scripture, I will present it in parallelismus membrorum form:
God himself shall come down
among the children of men,
and shall redeem his people.And because he dwelleth in the flesh,
he shall be called the Son of God,
and having subjected to 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 the Son --
And they are one God,
yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.
And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit,
or the Son to the Father,
being one God,
suffereth temptation....
Yea, even so he shall be led,
crucified and slain,
the flesh becoming subject even unto death,
the will of the Son
being swallowed in the will of the Father.
And thus God breaketh the bands of death,
giving the Son power to make intercession
for the children of men. (Mosiah 15:1-8)
Now let's ask a few questions. How many wills are there among the divine persons? The answer seems fairly transparent. There are two. The Son has a will of his own but he subjects it to the Fathers will by undergoing death in furtherance of the Fathers will. How many wills are expressed in the Sons life? There is only one will functionally expressed because the Sons will is swallowed up in the Fathers will. Because the Father's will is embodied,so to speak, in the Son, the Son becomes both the Father and the Son. Will this scripture satisfy the principle of the identity of indiscernibles? Manifestly it will not because the Son has a number of properties that the Father does not have. The Son has a distinct will which is subjected to the Fathers will. Thus, the Son has the property of having a will subjected to the Fathers will and the Father does not. The Father gives power to the Son to make intercession, the Son thus has the property of receiving power from the Father to make intercession and the Father does not. The Son has the property of being made flesh and is called the Son because he possesses this property which the Father does not. The Son has the property of being conceived by the power of the Father and the Father does not. It follows that the Father and the Son are not identical although they are intimately united by a common will.
42. Thus, there are two divine persons having distinct wills in this passage, the Father and the Son. However, there is only one God. The Father and the Son in relation to one another "are one God." It is of utmost importance to note that whenever the Mormon scriptures predicate oneness of God, it is always, without exception, a relationship of the Father and the Son, or the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to one another, and never a reference to just one of the divine persons. This usage can be compared to references to "one God" in the Old Testament which refer to a single divine person, Yahweh (Dt. 6:4), or in the New Testament where the Father is sometimes called the one God (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6) or "the only true God" (John 17:3)
43. There is another feature of this passage which is important to note. The Book of Mormon views possession of a body as a necessary condition for humans to experience suffering. (2 Nephi 2:15-25) Moreover, God is no exception to this general rule. It is true that the Book of Mormon views the Son as the God of the Old Testament who delivered the Law to the Israelites. (1 Ne. 19:7, 9-10; Alma 7:8-13; 3 Ne. 11:14; 15:5-9) It is the very God of Israel who is incarnated as the Son of God. However, the Book of Mormon is careful to specify that whenever the God of Israel suffers, he does so only "according to the flesh." (Alma 7:8-13, "the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh"). There are fifteen references in the Book of Mormon which predicate suffering of God, and all fifteen references are attributed to "the flesh" or to the Son of God as a mortal and never to the Father or God simpliciter. (1 Ne. 19:9; 2 Ne. 9:5, 21-22; Mosiah 3:7; 17:15, 18; 15:5; Alma 7:13; 33:22; Hel. 13:6; 14:20) The Son has the property of suffering according to the flesh and the Father does not.
44. Moreover, the Book of Mormon refers to the Son as "the Father of heaven and earth" five times (Mos. 3:7; Mosiah 15:4; Alma 11:39-40; Ether 3:14-17). Each time that the Son is called the Father of heaven and earth it is always and only in the context of: (1) the Son becoming mortal and taking upon himself flesh, and (2) the Son as creator. For example, Mosiah 3:5-8 states that "he shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay .... [And shall] suffer temptations, pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer ... And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things ...." It seems to me that the best way to understand references to the Son as the "Father of heaven and earth" is that the Father's will has become embodied in the Son because the Son fulfills the Father's will by becoming enfleshed. This is exactly the conclusion of Mosiah 15:3 which states that the Son "becomes the Father and the Son" because he was conceived by the power of the Father and became flesh as the Son. Further, the Son is recognized as the Father's exact duplicate in creation of heaven and earth because he embodies the Father's will in such activities.
45. There is of course a rival interpretation of this passage which attempts to square it with modalism. If I have properly grasped the view presented by those who argue for a modalist interpretation, they would suggest that in Mosiah 15 the divine person who is the Father is spirit and the same person became flesh as the Son. Thus, this one person is called both the Father and the Son because the Fathers spirit has entered flesh and become the Son, thus becoming both Father and Son. The Father has certain properties as a spirit before becoming mortal and then has other properties subsequently as flesh. For example, as a spirit the divine person who is called the Father cannot experience pain but when this same divine person takes upon himself flesh as the Son he is capable of experiencing pain. Thus, it may be argued that the incompatible properties refer to successive states of being of the same divine person.
46. However, this interpretation cannot account for all of the aspects of this text. According to Abinadi, the Son as flesh has a distinct will which is "swallowed up" in the Fathers will as spirit. The Father has a will at the same time that the Son has his will. This modalist interpretation leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father's will was swallowed up in his own will, but as the Son." This interpretation fails to recognize the distinction of wills presented in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father gave himself power to make intercession." This interpretation fails to recognize the relational giving from Father to Son in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father conceived himself." The Son has properties as flesh while at the same time, and not in a successive state, the Father has different properties. Thus, this interpretation seems to me to violate the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals and cannot account for the text in its totality.The term "Trinity"
Near the end of the article, we read the following:
As John has explained, the historical reason that we use “godhead” rather than “trinity” to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is that early translators of the English bible, beginning with Wycliffe, coined the english term “godhead,” rather than use the Latin term trinity. But they mean the same thing: as any LDS missionary that has served a mission speaking a Latin-based language knows, the LDS word for “godhead” in such languages is “trinity.”
This is not entirely accurate. While the term "Trinity" originally did not mean the (creedal/Latin) Trinity (three co-equal, co-eternal persons who share the same "essence/being and the like), that is what the term is synonymous today. The use of "Godhead" to distinguish the LDS view from the Trinitarian view (the latter the blogger doesn't seem to understand too well, leading to many errant claims) is a good one. Furthermore, the terms translated as "Godhead" in the KJV do not mean "Trinity" or any related concept; they are:
θειος (Acts 17:29--"divine/divinity")
θειοτης (Rom 1:20 and Col 2:9--"divine nature")
With respect to the origin of the term in the early Latin Church Fathers--it is true whenever one hears the term “Trinity,” one immediately thinks of the post-biblical formulation that the persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in “essence”; furthermore, it contains later theological baggage such as the Hypostatic Union and communicatio idiomatum, etc. As a result of this, some have read the early Patristic writers rather anachronistically. For instance, Tertullian of Carthage used the term trinitas to describe the relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Some rather ignorant Trinitarian apologists, both historically and in modern times, have latched onto this term, citing it as evidence, if not “proof,” that Tertullian was a “Trinitarian” in the modern understanding thereof. However, as Dr. Dale Tuggy and others have shown, Tertullian used the term trinitas to denote a “triad,” with this triad being composed of the “one true God,” the Son, and the Spirit—for Tertullian, only the person of the Father was the “one true God.” Indeed, Tertullian (as well as Origen) used the term “second God” to denote Jesus. Furthermore, when one reads Tertullian’s writings, and not just selective “proof-texts” thereof, one finds that he was most definitely not a Trinitarian; for instance, contra Trinitarian theology, Tertullian taught and believed:
That the person of the Father is the only true God (Answer to the Jews ch. 1)
That the true God was the “common Father” (the person of the Father [Apology ch. 39])
That Jesus did not exist eternally (Against Hermogenes ch 3)
That the Son’s relationship to the Father can be understood as that of a beam to the sun, a rather “Arian” understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Against Praxeas 8)
The Father is older than the Son (Against Praxeas 9)
This caution with the patristic use of the term trinitas should serve as a caution, not just for patristic exegesis, but also how one approaches how terms are understood in modern times, like the term "Trinity."
Conclusion
Mosiah 15:1-4 is, at first blush, a difficult text. However, when one examines the text it the context of the entire chapter, as well as the Christology of the Book of Mormon, there is no true tension between the Christology of Abinadi and that of the modern LDS Church. The original article by Book of Mormon Central was correct in that respect, JBK's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
One does hope that if there will be subsequent posts on this issue, they will be theologically more sound than this offering.