Jared Cook (JKC) has part 2 of his response to Book of Mormon Central on Mosiah 15, "Abinadi on the Godhead and the Atonement: A Response to Book of Mormon Central (Part II)"; to read my response to part 1, click here. Many of his comments have already been dealt with, showing that Cook is rather ignorant of both exegesis and basic theological terminology (and he engages in projection when he claims early and modern LDS are ignorant of such terminology). For instance, take the following comment:
There are certainly differences in emphasis, if not in substance, between Nephi, who teaches a much moretrinitarian theology (not in the sense of the formal doctrine of the Trinity, but in the sense that he heavily emphasizes all three members of the godhead working together) emphasizing baptism in the name of the entire godhead, and the theology taught by Abinadi and Alma and his successors, which focuses more on faith in Christ alone and baptism “in the name of the Lord” without mentioning the other members of the godhead.
All the faulty presuppositions and related issues in this paragraph were interacted with, and refuted exegetically using the Bible and the Book of Mormon itself as evidence under the section, “The Number of God.”
But perhaps the first question is this: should we even assume in the first place that Abinadi and all the other Book of Mormon prophets taught a single “overall theology” of the godhead?
Ignoring that Cook is rather ignorant of theology and exegesis, which results in a lot of poor arguments critiquing the Book of Mormon Central article he is trying to respond to, and as shown in my response to his first article, Mosiah 15 is consistent with modern LDS theology, Latter-day Saints are to expect that our understanding of various theological issues have developed in light of further revelation; notice the following text from the Doctrine and Covenants that would have ended Cook’s speculation on this issue:
. . . [I]t is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. (D&C 128:18)
As I have argued elsewhere, this verse should read as a “controlling verse” of sorts in how Latter-day Saints approach biblical (and even Book of Mormon and other extra-biblical evidences for LDS theology [e.g., patristic literature]). We do not believe the Bible or any of our other scriptural texts are formally sufficient (per the Protestant understanding of the nature of scripture [per sola scriptura]). We should not expect those from previous dispensations to have believed, at least to the same degree we do, certain doctrines. For instance, while the New Testament teaches that there are varying degrees of rewards in the hereafter, outside a typological interpretation of 1 Cor 15:40-42 and Paul’s mention of the “third heaven” in 2 Cor 12:12, the New Testament Christians did not believe in the “three degrees of glory” as outlined in D&C 76. Our modern view of the hereafter is informed by explicit modern revelation.
Jehovah and Elohim in LDS Discourse
It is true that in modern LDS discourse, “Jehovah” is interchangeable with Jesus while “Elohim” is used of the Father. However, this has not always been the case. From the time of Joseph Smith onwards, there was a great level of fluidity in the use of these terms. For instance, in D&C 109:34, 68, the Father is called “Jehovah” (cf. v. 29, 47), but in D&C 110:3-4, “Jehovah” is predicated of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the name of the Father, as revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, is not Elohim, a Hebrew generic noun (D&C 78:20; 95:17).
In his diary for 23 August 1842, Joseph Smith used Elohim ("Eloheem"):
O, thou who seeeth, and knoweth the hearts of all men, thou eternal omnipotent, omnicient, and omnipresent Jehovah, God, thou Eloheem, that sitteth, as saith the psalmist, enthroned in heaven, look down upon thy servant Joseph, at this time, and let faith on the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah. And let the Lamp of eternal life, be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away, and the words of eternal life, be poured upon the soul of thy servant, that he may know thy will, thy statutes, and thy commandments, and thy judgments to do them. As the dews upon Mount Hermon, may the distillations of thy divine grace, glory and honor in the plenitude of thy mercy, and power and goodness be poured down upon the head of thy servant.
Among other early LDS, there was a practice of predicating Lord/Jehovah on the person of the Father, such as the following:
The Lord (Jehovah,) hath spoken through Isa. (42, 1) saying. behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; evidently referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God chosen or elected by the Father, (1 Peter i, 20, who verily was fore ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God,) to serve him in the redemption of the world, to be a covenant of the people, (Isa, xlii, 6) for a light of the Gentiles, and glory of his people Israel; having ordained forgiveness of sins might be preached (Acts xiii, 38) unto all who would be obedient unto his gospel (Mark xvi, 16, 17) (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, no. 21, p. 524).
It is not the purpose of this response to delve into this issue, so readers wishing to delve further into this, see the following link and its corresponding bibliography:
The “Jehovah = Jesus; Elohim = the Father” approach in LDS terminology is a modern convention, often to avoid confusion, especially as there are some “Yahweh” texts where only the person of the Father is in view (e.g., Psa 110:1; Isa 52:13), though in some cases, they are predicated of Jesus (for a full discussion, see, as one example, David B Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul's Christology [Mohr Siebeck, 1992]).
Cook’s initial article was pretty poorly argued; this second instalment even more so. There appears to be a third article planned; one can only hope that it is more carefully argued, theologically and exegetically.