It was obvious to all who heard this voice that it was a god. Now the voice declares himself to be the God, and in particular, the God of the Nephite prophets. This is the God who is the creator. This is the God who is the Son. This is the God who was with, and is “in the Father, and the Father in me.”
Christology: This declaration of identity by the Messiah provides a turning point in the Nephite understanding of deity. It parallels a similar alteration in theological conception that happened after Christ’s ministry in the Old World.
In the New World we have noted that the Nephites understood their God to be Jehovah, and they had a particular emphasis on the coming of the Atoning Messiah who was understood to be Jehovah. This emphasis on the oneness of God is paralleled in the Old Testament by the theological understanding of the one God. In both the Old World and the New, the people of God believed in one God.
With the arrival of the Messiah in the New World, there is a clarification and delineation in the theological conception of God. The presence of the Savior on the earth raised the critical question of the unity of God, and in both the Old World and the New the Savior made certain to honor his Father even as he accepted his own magnificent role. In the New World, there will no longer be the confusion between Father and Son as God that we have seen to this point. From this point on, the distinction is clear and obvious, a clarity that comes from the Atoning Messiah himself who declares himself creator, but Son of God. Where the 1 Nephi saw the later addition of the clarification of “son of” which gives us the current “Mary the mother of the son of God,” rather than “Mary the mother of God,” in this passage there is no confusion. The designation as Son of God is not a later addition, but part of the original record.
Polemic: One of the discussions of the process of the translation of the plates has dealt with the order of translation after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages from the book of Lehi. There are two possibilities. The first is that Joseph started over again with the small plates. The second is that he picked up where he left off, and then translated the small plates later. In this second scenario, Mosiah is the earliest result of the translation process.
Brent Metcalfe used this argument to develop a criticism of the Book of Mormon. As he introduces that information, he notes:
“From the Lehites’ harrowing escape from Jerusalem to Moroni’s valedictory, the Nephite storyline is relatively fuid but not without exception. Occasionally the middle section of the book (Mosiah nad Alma) displays concepts which are less well developed than in the initial section (1 Nephi-Omni). These earlier portions are more congruent with later sections.” (Brent Lee Metcalfe. “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis.” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. Signature
Books, Salt Lake City, 1993, p. 414.)
As he develops this idea of a continuity in the development of ideas, he suggests that the Book of Mormon understanding of Jesus Christ developed after 3 Nephi, and it is that “developed” idea of Christ that shows in the 1 Nephi-Omni material. He supposes that since 1 Nephi-Omni was earlier, it should demonstrate the “earlier” idea.
This is an interesting argument, but one that fails completely on two fronts. The first is that the development idea is dependent upon the assumption that the 1 Nephi-Omni material would have been readily available to the “middle” writers, and therefore “should” have influenced them with this more developed theology. That assumption is indirect contradiction to the evidence of the text, which is that the 1 Nephi-Omni material was not only a separate tradition, but one that was not particularly well known. Mormon was unaware of that alternate tradition, and indicates that he found them while looking among the records (1:3). There are not obvious citations of this material in the later sections, and the references that parallel the material (such as the foundational promise) appear to have come from the large plate tradition rather than the paralleled statements in the small plate tradition.
Above this, however, is the fact that the assumption of the developmental Christology comes directly into conflict with the Book of Mormon’s understanding of the Messiah. We have from 1 Nephi to 3 Nephi the very consistent equation of the Messiah with God, including the 1 Nephi statements that Mary was the “mother of God.” This was a fundamental understanding of the Nephites, up to the time that the Messiah appeared. After that appearance, and the obvious distinction between Father and Son that was apparent at that time, the Book of Mormon shifts to an understanding of the Messiah that creates a greater distinction between Father and Son. This is a fundamental difference, and one that is consistent in time – but absolutely inconsistent with Metcalfe’s presumption of a developing Christology. It would require that the “developed” Christology carry over some parts to the later-written record, but collapse one of the most important theological issues into the earlier context. Given the nature of Metcalfe’s argument, this critical fact negates the argument based upon the very logic with which he attempts to buttress it.