Commenting on the Latter-day Saint engagement, or really, lack of engagement with Christological debates about one vs. two wills/natures to Christ, Grant Underwood noted:
LDS thought has never seriously engaged the possibility of two souls, two wills, or two independent subjects or “principles of action” in the single Christ. Mormon nominalism assumes that two wills, as concrete realities, require two persons. Thus, Latter-day Saints interpret the various New Testament passages in which Christ distinguishes his will from the Father’s as proof that the Father and Son are two, separate, volitional beings, not as manifestations of Christ having within him two separate wills—one human and one divine—as would ultimately become the orthodox “two wills” position known as dyotheletism. Despite Mormonism’s simpler understanding that Christ had a single will, there is widespread acknowledgment among Latter-day Saints that Christ was both human and divine. How Mormons have conceived that interplay in the incarnate Lord differs from many early church fathers in large part due to the different metaphysical assumptions undergirding their respective Christologies. Since Christ really only has one nature, Mormons do not talk of the Son taking his divine nature with him to earth and conjoining it to a human nature that first materializes in Mary’s womb. Instead, they see Christ’s preexistent spiritually corporeal body entering his physically corporeal body. Nor do Latter-day Saints feel the need exegetically to tag every expression or action of Jesus as either divine or human. While they do not disavow that the human and the divine coexist in Christ, their metaphysics do not compel them to constantly parse the divine-human grammar. B.H. Roberts (1857-1933), a member of the First Council of the Seventy from 1888 until his death, remarked, “I deplore those [theological] refinements which try to tell us about the humanity of Jesus being separate from the divinity of Jesus. He Himself made no such distinctions. He was divine, spirit and body, and spirit and body was exalted to the throne of His Father, and sits there now with all the powers of the Godhead residing in Him bodily, an immortal, glorified, exalted man!” (B.H. Roberts, Seventy’s Course in Theology [Salt Lake City: The Canton Press, 1910], 3:188) (Grant Underwood, “Condescension and Fullness: LDS Christology in Conversation with Historic Christianity” in Eric D. Huntsman, Lincoln H. Blumell, and Tyler G. Griffin, eds. Thou Art the Christ the Son of the Living God: The Person and Work of Jesus in the New Testament, [Provo/Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University/Deseret Book, 2018], 335-61, here, pp.341-42)
Elsewhere (pp 356-57 n. 19), Underwood noted that:
Not only have no authoritative LDS Church pronouncements been made on this matter, but virtually no General Authorities have addressed the topic in any setting. Even among LDS religion educators, commentary is rare. One BYU religion professor, however, is on record as embracing the idea of two wills in Christ. In the 1989s, Rodney Turner wrote that “begotten of an immortal Father and a mortal mother, Jesus possessed two natures (one divine, one human), and, therefore, two wills (that of the Father, and that of the Son). He could manifest either nature ‘at will.’ . . . The atonement required the subjection and sacrifice of the fleshly will of the ‘Son’ to the spiritual will of the ‘Father.’ . . . The Son willed to let the cup pass; the Father willed that it should be drunk to its dregs . . . In a sense, it was not the Son as Son, but the Father in the Son who atoned. That is, Jesus not only did the will of his Father in heaven, but the will of the Father in himself. Rodney Turner, “Two Prophets: Abinadi and Alma,” in Studies in Scripture, Vol. 7: 1 Nephi to Alma 29, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 245.
