This change may be another simplification
measure, but it may also be Abinadi’s deliberate adaptation to his trial before
the priests. Because they were building new religious elements on the fundamental
law of Moses, they probably had not attempted to alter with its most basic
belief in one God, even if the people included converts from polytheistic
cultures. In fact, such converts are typically more protective of their new
religious principles than lifetime believers. Thus, it seems unlikely that the
priests of Noah had attempted to introduce new gods. Rather they had probably reinterpreted
the law to effectively deny the salvific role of that one God. . . . Because
Abinadi’s defense of the Messiah accuses them of departing from that belief, he
may have deliberately shifted to the singular form (“God”) rather than quoting
the original (“gods”) because it would be easy for the priests to deny that
they worshipped multiple gods. However, Abinadi’s point is not polytheism but a
perversion of the worship of the One God. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness:
Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt
Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 3:275)
Further Reading:
Shon D. Hopkin on the Textual Variant between Exodus 20:3 and Mosiah 12:35
