To see the context for this and other questions in this series, please see the introduction, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Why Do Explicit Doctrines in the Book of Mormon
Contradict Implicit Doctrines Embedded in the Narrative?
There are doctrines in the Book of
Mormon that are taught explicitly, and there are doctrines that can be inferred
from events described in the narrative. Sometimes these explicit and implicit
doctrines do not square with each other. Let me give three examples. And let me
mention at the outset that all Book of Mormon quotations will come from
Skousen’s Earliest Text, because I
want to come as close as I can to what Joseph actually dictated, not what
decades of editing have produced.
The Memo Problem
A dilemma for Christian scholars
over the centuries has been referred to as the soteriological problem of evil,
or the memo problem (billions of God’s children didn’t get the gospel memo). This
dilemma results from the incoherence of two Christian doctrines and one
irrefutable fact: (1) God is loving and
just and wants all of his children to be saved; (2) salvation comes only
through an acceptance of Jesus Christ; and (3) billions of God’s children have
lived and died without ever having heard about Jesus. This is a perplexing problem,
over which much ink (or toner) has been spilled. And the Book of Mormon weighs
in on it very explicitly.
Jacob, Abinadi, and Mormon all agree that those who die without hearing
the gospel are saved through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Abinadi even goes
so far as to say that these people receive eternal life, although in the Book
of Mormon that term does not mean what it means in modern Mormonism. It is
simply another expression for salvation, or going to heaven, the ultimate
reward in Book of Mormon theology.
Jacob declares: “Wherefore he has given a law. And where there is no law
given there is no punishment, and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation,
and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel hath
claim upon them because of the atonement, for they are delivered by the power
of him. For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those
who hath not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful
monster, death and hell, and the devil and the lake of fire and brimstone which
is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath,
which is the Holy One of Israel” (2 Ne. 9:25–26).
Abinadi agrees: “And now the resurrection of all the prophets and all
those that have believed in their words—or all those that have kept the
commandments of God—these shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore
they are the first resurrection. They are raised to dwell with God, who hath
redeemed them. Thus they have eternal life through Christ, who hath broken the
bands of death. And these are those who have part in the first resurrection,
and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not
having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the
restoration of these, and they have a part in the first resurrection, or hath
eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord” (Mosiah 15:22–24).
Mormon, in his letter to Moroni about child baptism, includes a similar
claim about those who died in ignorance: “For behold that all little children
are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law, for the power of
redemption cometh on all they that have no law. Wherefore he that is not
condemned—or he that is under no condemnation—cannot repent, and unto such
baptism availeth nothing” (Moro. 8:22).
This is of course a problematic doctrine, one that we completely reject
today in the Church. If those who died without hearing the good news of the
gospel are saved, or given eternal life, through the mercy and grace of Christ,
then missionary work is not only unnecessary but ultimately counterproductive,
because people would be accountable and may be damned if they hear the word and
reject it. But if they never hear the gospel, they are automatically saved.
Likewise, family history and temple work would be completely unnecessary.
Because this is an unsatisfactory doctrine, Joseph Smith rejected it.
Charles Harrell, in his book This Is My
Doctrine, shows how this doctrine went through at least three stages of
development before arriving at what we now accept. The first step came in
February 1832 with the Vision, now recorded in D&C 76. Here, those who die
without the law inherit the terrestrial glory (D&C 76:72–74). The next
stage came in January 1836 with Joseph’s vision of his brother Alvin in the
celestial kingdom. Here those who die without the restored gospel receive the
celestial kingdom if they “would have received it if they had been permitted to
tarry” (D&C 137:7). They are judged “according to their works, according to
the desire of their hearts” (D&C 137:9), without any need for the ordinance
of baptism or the as yet unrevealed temple ordinances. The final stage in the
development of this doctrine began in 1840 with Joseph’s introduction of
baptism for the dead. This evolved over the years into our current program of
baptizing, endowing, and sealing the dead. A far cry from what we read in the
Book of Mormon.
But it appears from the Nephite narrative that they didn’t actually believe
Jacob, Abinadi, or Mormon. There is an implicit doctrine that carries through
the entire book. Preaching the gospel to the ignorant is seen as a necessity.
The sons of Mosiah were “desirous that salvation should be declared to every
creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even
the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to
quake and tremble” (Mosiah 28:3). But if Jacob, Abinadi, and Mormon are to be
believed, this was a needless anxiety. In fact, by going to the Lamanites and
preaching to them, they ensured that thousands who heard their words and
rejected them would suffer eternal torment. If they had just stayed home and
ruled the kingdom, all those Lamanites would have been automatically saved
through the Atonement of Christ. And their missionary effort is not unique. The
theme runs through the whole Nephite narrative. Preaching the gospel to the
ignorant is viewed as a high priority. Amulek insists that “this life is the time for men to prepare
to meet God” (Alma 34:32). It is
obvious from the Nephite narrative that the implicit doctrine is at odds with
the explicit theology taught by three different prophets.
Modalism among the Nephites?
The second example is a bit messier. For this doctrine, there is only one
extended explicit theological explanation, but there are several brief
references, some of which can be interpreted in various ways. I became aware of
this second example when LDS theologian David Paulsen sent a book manuscript to
us at BYU Studies. The book has not been published, and Paulsen has since died,
but in the manuscript he and two coauthors attempt to refute the notion that
the Book of Mormon teaches modalism.1 They are mostly successful,
but I think their blanket conclusion does not fit all the evidence they present.
The notion of explicit teachings not exactly matching the implicit teachings
comes closer to the mark, in my opinion.
According to Theopedia, “Modalism,
also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is
one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in
contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally
existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during
the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or
role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different
mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same
time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three
modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and
coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.”2
The most obvious place where the doctrine of modalism appears to be
taught in the Book of Mormon is again Abinadi’s preaching to the priests of
King Noah: “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 earth—and thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the
Father, being one God, suffereth temptation and yieldeth not to the temptation,
but suffereth himself to be mocked and scourged and cast out and disowned by
his people” (Mosiah 15:1–5).
Some of this doctrine is admittedly confusing, but portions of it
definitely do sound like a form of modalism. Paulsen and his coauthors grant
that this passage is hard to not see as modalism, but they also try to spin it
in a different direction.
Other passages in the Book of Mormon also appear to lean toward a
modalistic concept of God. For instance, in 3 Nephi 1:14, Jesus, speaking to
Nephi4, says, “Behold, I come unto my own to fulfil all things which
I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world,
and to do the will both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of
me, and of the Son because of my flesh.” This language is somewhat confusing,
but a plain reading of it has Jesus claiming to be both the Father and the Son.
Amulek, in his debate with Zeezrom, claims that Christ “is the very
Eternal Father of heaven and earth” (Alma 11:39) and that “Christ the Son and
God the Father and the Holy Spirit” are “one Eternal God” (Alma 11:44). These
verses can be read modalistically, but they can be interpreted in other ways
too.
Another seemingly modalistic passage appears in Ether 3:14: “Behold,
I am he which was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my
people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all
mankind have light—and that eternally—even they which shall believe on my name;
and they shall become my sons and my daughters.” Here it is possible that
Christ is saying he is the Father because those who believe on his name become
his children, but it can also be read with a flavor of modalism.
Another example comes again from Abinadi in Mosiah 16:15: “Teach
them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, which is the very Eternal
Father.” Moroni also uses similar language (Morm. 9:12).
Finally, there are a handful of
passages in the Book of Mormon that originally referred to Jesus as “God” or
“the Everlasting God” or “the Eternal Father,” but these were changed by Joseph
Smith in 1837 to “Son of God,” “Son of the Everlasting God,” and “Son of the
Eternal Father.” For example, 1 Nephi 11:18 originally read, “Behold, the
virgin which thou seest is the mother of God after the manner of the flesh.” A
few verses later, 1 Nephi 11:21 read in the original, “Behold the Lamb of God,
yea, even the Eternal Father.” And 1 Nephi 11:32 once read, “And I looked and
beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people, yea, the everlasting
God was judged of the world.” All these had “Son of” added to them to remove
any apparent modalism.
Paulsen and his coauthors argue that the Book of Mormon does not teach
modalism, because the book contains an overwhelming number of verses that not
only imply a trinitarian or tritheistic reading but cannot be read any other
way. I agree with this assertion for the most part. There are scores of
passages in the Book of Mormon that strongly indicate separate divine beings in
the Godhead. But because of the few verses that do seem overtly modalistic, I
see this as another example of explicit doctrines teaching one thing and
implicit doctrines teaching another.
The most prominent (perhaps only) passage in the book that actually
spells out a doctrine of the Godhead is Abinadi’s sermon to the priests of
Noah. Other verses imply modalism. But the vast majority of passages referring
to members of the Godhead do not support a modalistic interpretation of the
Book of Mormon. So here again we have an explicit doctrine that seems at odds
with multiple expressions of an implicit doctrine.
The Curse on the
Lamanites
A third doctrine that appears to have contradictory explicit and implicit
understandings revolves around the curse God place upon Laman and Lemuel and
their followers and descendants. The explicit doctrine is taught by Nephi, in 2
Nephi 26:33: “And he [the Lord] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake
of his goodness. And he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond
and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen. And all are alike
unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” Earlier, Nephi taught, “Behold, the Lord
esteemeth all flesh in one” (1 Ne. 17:35).
These verses seem at odds with the account Nephi gives of God cursing his
older brothers with a skin of blackness. According to Nephi, “he [the Lord] had
caused a cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing because of their
iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had
become like unto flint. Wherefore as they were white and exceeding fair and
delightsome [even though they were already wicked], that they might not be
enticing unto my people, therefore the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness
to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
loathsome unto thy people save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed
shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed, for they shall be cursed
even with the same cursing” (2 Ne. 5:21–23). The obvious implication here is that the curse was passed on
genetically, which also conflicts with the doctrine that children are not culpable
for the sins of their parents (a doctrine that we accept now but that was,
ironically, taught in the Book of Mormon by none other than Korihor [Alma
30:25]).
Some apologists have attempted to explain away this cursing by interpreting
the “skin of blackness” as a metaphorical skin. It was symbolic of wickedness.
But this interpretation has more holes in it than Swiss cheese (for instance,
see my bracketed comment in the quote above). A plain reading of the text
indicates that God cursed the Lamanites with a dark skin, a literal dark skin.
Which suggests that all are not alike unto God. Black and white are not equal
in his eyes. And even when thousands of Lamanites were converted by Ammon and
his fellow missionaries, the curse of a dark skin was not taken away, even
though they became more strictly righteous than the Nephites.
Now, this topic is a massive can of worms, and my purpose here is not to discuss
racism or white supremacy in the Book of Mormon. It is merely to point out that
an explicit doctrine proclaimed by Nephi appears to directly contradict his
narrative. I don’t know how or if he reconciled this contradiction in his mind,
but this is another example of a seeming disconnect between the theology and
the narrative.
How to explain this disconnect? Well, one way is to accept Royal Skousen’s
conclusion, that “the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of
what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the
translation must have involved serious interventions from the English-language
translator, who was not Joseph Smith.”3
But if this was the case, which of the conflicting doctrines came from
the translator and which were on the plates? Were the explicit doctrines, which
usually appear in speeches or direct teachings, added by the translator, and were
the implicit doctrines embedded in the narrative original to the plates? If so,
why would the translator add theology that isn’t consistent with the story? Or
were both added by the translator? If so, then was everything added by the
translator? Or did the Nephites just not understand the practical implications
of their own doctrines? Any way you slice it, having explicit doctrinal
teachings that are inconsistent with the narrative is problematic.
__________________
1. David L. Paulsen, Ari D.
Bruening, and Benjamin B. Brown, The
Earliest Mormon Understanding of God (1829–1844): Modalism and Other Myths, unpublished
manuscript, in my possession.
2. “Modalism,” Theopdedia, https://www.theopedia.com/modalism.
3. Royal Skousen, ed., The King James Quotations in the
Book of Mormon, part 5, volume 3, The History of the Text of the Book of
Mormon, The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: The
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and Brigham Young University
Studies, 2019), 6.
