Modalism in the
Book of Mormon

The Salt Lake City Mormons of the present day believe in a plurality of gods, properly so described. They are, in short, polytheists. What some might find surprising is that Joseph Smith, when he wrote the Book of Mormon, was not a polytheist, but rather subscribed the heresy that is over on the other side, modalism. This is the idea that Jesus Christ is both Father and Son:

There are a number of such passages which still remain in the Book of Mormon, in addition to others which have been removed:

At the time he 'translated' this passage of the Inspired Version of the Bible, he was still a modalist:

Several of the Bible verses historically used by nay-sayers who are not on board with monotheism are softened or explained away by Joseph, such as Exodus 7:1, "And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a prophet to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy spokesman." (Exodus 7:1 Joseph Smith Translation), as compared with, "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (Exodus 7:1 KJV). Joseph's version is not a translation, but an explanatory gloss substituted for the text.

The first edition of the Book of Mormon was even more modalist than the updated versions available today. It has been corrected, albeit incompletely, in piece-meal fashion:

"One of the most significant changes was made in 1 Nephi 13:40. It was stated in this verse that the purpose of the Nephite records was to make known that Christ is the Eternal Father. In the first edition we read as follows:

"'... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... ' (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 32)

"In the 1964 edition it reads as follows:

"'... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ...' (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, 1 Nephi 13:40)

"Another important change was made in 1 Nephi 11:18...Verse 21 of the same chapter originally read:

'And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!'

It was changed to read: 'And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!'"

(3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon, 1996, Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

One change that might disappoint Catholic is Mary's demotion from her original title of 'Mother of God' in the 1830 edition. This title is not diagnostic of modalism in itself, but it does fit the already-established pattern:

"In the first edition (1830), 1 Nephi III, p. 25, reads, "the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." Joseph changed it to read, "the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh" (1 Nephi 11:18). Also, 1 Nephi III, p. 26, reads, "[The Lamb of God] was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world." It was changed to read, "[The Lamb of God] was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world" (1 Nephi 11:32)." (The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths, by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, BYU, Maxwell Institute).

It should be apparent a heretic who can't even agree with himself what heresy he is promoting is no prophet.

By the time he worked on his rewrite of Genesis, sometimes called the Book of Moses, Joseph had absorbed more of a trinitarian perspective, as shown in his rendition of Genesis 1:26: "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so." (Genesis 1:27, Joseph Smith Translation). This idea, of the eternal pre-existence of the Son, as the Son, is contrary to the modalist paradigm, thus one does not expect to see people like David Bernard endorsing this traditional interpretation of the verse. This work has the annoying habit of beginning its clauses with "I, God, said" as if it were a legal affidavit. Had Sidney Rigdon or others in the community with a more conventional theological perspective succeeded in explaining these points to him? However this, with him, was not a stable stopping-point, if indeed it was any more than binitarianism, rather he begins his descent into polytheism shortly thereafter.

Mormon responses to these perplexities labor under the disability that these defenders lack any comprehension of modalism. It is not helpful to explain that Joseph cannot possibly be a modalist because he says things that. . .every known modalist would happily say! Joseph is an unstated influence in many of the heresies of our time; for example, Word of Faith seems as though lifted intact out of his 'Lectures on Faith.' It is certainly possible that there is likewise a historical link between Joseph's modalism in the Book of Mormon and the 'Oneness' Pentecostalism of today, though of course no one outside the Mormon world likes to claim Joseph as precursor. It is true that Joseph's early ideas are unformed and often head off in unusual directions, for example in the vision of the Holy Ghost as a man: "And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof — for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another." (1 Nephi 11:11). However, the explicit identification of Jesus Christ as God the Father, with the proviso that 'the Father' is the spirit and 'the Son' is the flesh, is diagnostic of modalism and of no other heresy ever promulgated. This was his viewpoint when he wrote the Book of Mormon.

Joseph, with his customary slipperiness, sought to cover up the change in his perspective:

"I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years."
"Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, Illinois, 16 June 1844" (quoted in The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths, by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, BYU, Maxwell Institute)

Joseph likewise professed innocence of having practiced the profession of money-digger; he was not an honest man. Evidently he understood that a 'prophet' who undergoes such violent and spasmodic changes in basic understanding as evolving from modalism to polytheism has a credibility problem.