One God in 1830, many gods by 1844

Contested

LDS scholars have a real answer here. Say so before your friend does.

What the Book of Mormon says about God

It is strictly monotheistic, and the Father-Son unity is so tight it reads almost as one person in two roles. Mosiah 15:1-5 has Christ as "the Father and the Son… one God." Alma 11:26-29 says there is one God and no other.

What later teaching says

That the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. That the Father has a body of flesh and bone.

And that faithful people may become gods themselves.

Their answer, at full strength

David Paulsen of BYU says the 1830 text read whole is not modalist. It does tell Father and Son apart in other places.

He adds that early Christian writers were loose with words too, before the councils tightened them.

How strong is this argument?

Arguable on any one verse. Harder to argue with is the direction of travel.

The 1830 book sounds much more like ordinary Christianity than 1844 does.

What to say

"Read me Alma 11:26-29 in your own book. How many Gods does it say there are?"

A facsimile reprint of the 1830 Book of Mormon, whose Mosiah 15 language preceded the 1844 sermon

The Kirtland Temple, dedicated 1836, standing between the 1830 text and the 1844 plurality sermon

How they answer this — at its strongest

Read whole, the 1830 text does tell Father and Son apart, as the New Testament does.

David Paulsen and Ari Bruening of BYU argue the 1830 text is not modalist when read whole. It does tell Father and Son apart. The Father's voice introduces the Son in 3 Nephi 11, and Christ prays to the Father.

So its 'one God' language describes a unity of distinct persons. That is no further from later teaching than the New Testament's own 'one God' texts are from Nicaea.

Mosiah 15 is explained by divine investiture. Christ acts as Father by creation and covenant, and as Son in the flesh. The First Presidency set that out in 1916. Brant Gardner adds that the modalist ring may come from the limits of translation language.

The verdict

Arguable on that one charge, but the 1830 book says nothing of the later teaching.

The narrow charge of modalism is genuinely arguable. Critics do sometimes overstate it. Paulsen really does find Father and Son told apart in the text.

The broader point survives anyway. The Book of Mormon insists on one eternal God. It says nothing at all about many gods, about eternal progression, about God having a body, or about people becoming gods. Those doctrines define mature Mormonism, and the 1830 book is silent on every one.

The 1916 divine-investiture framing exists because the plain text does not teach the later doctrine.

Open this case in the full study tool →