|
Apologists might argue that there is plenty of evidence in the Book of Mormon for the Mormon concept of the Godhood. However, the same could be said for the Bible. Stephen saw the Lord on the right hand of the father, Peter, James, and John heard his voice, and Jesus offered the great intercessory prayer, presumably to someone besides himself. Still, the Bible contains numerous ambiguous references to “one” God, enough so to cause the confusion that lead to the ecumenical debates in the 4th century AD and the subsequent adoption of the Nicene Creed. Likewise, the Book of Mormon contains enough nuggets of ambiguity to leave plenty of room for doubt. Take, for instance, the following sermon by Abinadi: “I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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— The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth… Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen." (Selected verses from Mosiah 16) Many students of the Book of Mormon find this passage thoroughly confusing, but LDS institute instructors and other teachers in the church have assured them that this only confirms their belief about the Godhood. Admittedly, if the reader labors hard enough on it, the passage can be forged to fit the LDS concept. Even so, it’s one of the most strained and awkward explanations of doctrine found in the scriptures. If, on the other hand, the reader takes the traditional Trinitarian point of view, he will have a much easier time interpreting the passage. I ask: Why should there be this kind of confusion in a book intended to clarify God’s truth? Why didn’t Abinadi offer an unambiguous, definitive statement that corroborates Joseph Smith’s official description of the Father and Son in his account of the First Vision? Abinadi is not the only Nephite prophet to blame, however. Amulek contributed to the problem in this exchange with Zeezrom: “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 answered, No... Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last…” (Selected verses from Alma 11)
In another instance, the 1830 edition portrayed the angel’s words to Nephi in the following terms: “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh... And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!”2 Apparently, church authorities felt that clarification was in order, for in later editions, three additional words appeared that helped to pull the reader from the doctrinal quagmire: "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh... And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" (Selected verses from 1 Nephi, chapter 11) Ironically, even early church authorities, themselves, failed to articulate this new critical belief. The three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, signed their names to a document that ended with a conspicuously Trinitarian sentiment: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”3 It’s strange that one of the most important proclamations of the new dispensation would end with such an old sectarian phrase. Was not the Restoration to supplant the Reformation and the antiquated Catholic creeds? With the knowledge that came from the Sacred Grove in the Spring of 1820, one would expect a much more explicit statement about the Godhead.
As perplexing as it all may be, there is a reason why both the witnesses and the Book of Mormon are so abstruse. The missing piece to this theological puzzle is this: An account of the first vision that included both the Father and Son was not put to paper until 1838, when the Prophet sought to rewrite his history in the wake of numerous defections, a failed banking venture, and the banishment of nearly every witness to the Book of Mormon. The earliest account of the First Vision, written in 1832 in Joseph’s own hand, is very revealing (discovered in the historical archives of the church in Salt Lake City in the 1960’s). In it, Joseph explained that he did not go to the grove to ask God which sect he should join, for he had already determined on his own that they were all in error. He went there because he felt “convicted” of his sins and sought the Lord’s mercy… “…and while in attitude of calling upon the Lord a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph thy sins are forgiven thee… I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life…”4 In this account there is no mention of a Father in Heaven calling him by name; as impressive as it is, only Jesus appears to the boy Joseph. He extends forgiveness to Joseph and tells him that his Second Coming is imminent. In the 1838 account, Joseph explained that he was persecuted for telling people about his vision, but in the 1832 account, he merely said, “[I] could find none that would believe the he[a]v[e]nly vision…”5 The historical record supports his 1832 assertion. Historians have searched the Palmyra and Manchester records and have failed to find any personal letters, newspaper articles, or journal entries that suggest that Joseph Smith’s vision was even a popular topic of conversation in the 1820’s, let alone a target of derision (accounts of miraculous visions of the Savior were not uncommon at that time). What’s more, there is no indication that Joseph’s family or closest associates were talking about his vision either. From the earliest days of the church, the Saints were keeping journals, writing letters, granting interviews with journalists, and publishing church periodicals and missionary tracts. None of these early sources contain any information about the First Vision. Did Joseph revise his own story in 1838 to include the presence of the Father? An objective review of the historical research would indicate that he did. Perhaps, then, the most logical explanation for the Book of Mormon’s lack of clarity on the nature of the Godhead is that its author initially held traditional views on the Trinity, as did the Three Witnesses and everyone else in the early days of Mormonism. As a consequence, Book of Mormon prophets Abinadi, Amulek, and Nephi naturally followed. While disconcerting to the faithful, reexamining Book of Mormon statements from this new perspective allows the text to speak for itself, revealing a context consistent with the theology of post-Nicene Christendom. 1 Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 32. 2 Ibid., p.25. 3 The Testimony of Three Witnesses, printed in the Book of Mormon after the title page and introduction. 4 An American Prophet's Record, ed. Scott Faulring (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), p. 5. 5 Ibid.
|
One
God or Three?
The 1830 version of the Book of Mormon contained even more references to a
“Nicene” God than one finds
in modern editions. Nephi prophesied about the coming forth
of the Book of Mormon, saying, “These last records ... shall make known to all
kindreds, tongues, and people,
that the Lamb of God is
the Eternal Father and the Savior...”1
This was altered in later editions to read, “These last records ...
shall makeknown to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the
Son of the Eternal
Father, and the Savior ...” (1 Nephi 13:40)