Before the Book of Mormon was written, Ethan Smith (no relation to Joseph Smith that I am aware of) wrote a book on the Trinity, published in 1814, called A Treatise on the Character of Christ; with a second edition in 1824 called View of the Trinity. In his book on the Trinity, Ethan Smith argues strongly against the Unitarian doctrine, which rejected the divinity of Christ. In doing so Ethan Smith argued that Jesus was the Eternal Father (Jehovah incarnate). Ethan Smith also wrote a book called View of the Hebrews, which many historical scholars believe was used by Joseph Smith as a resource when composing the Book of Mormon (see Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon by David Persuitte).
When the Book of Mormon (from now on "BoM" at times) argues that in Jesus dwells the Father, the BoM sounded like many Trinitarians of the day. Ethan Smith was one of these persons who argued that Jesus is the Eternal Father. As discussed in the previous blog posts, this appears to be what the intent of the BoM is, which is to establish that Jesus wasn't what the Unitarians and Deists argued he was (a mere man) but was in fact God incarnate (Jehovah's identical seal/imprint to be exact). The Deists and Unitarians argued that Jesus was a derived being (meaning originating from something, as in decended from), that is created by God; and thus they argued that Jesus was not eternally divine. In contrast, the BoM, like Ethan Smith, argues that Jesus is not a derived being, and is in fact the very Eternal Father; with Joseph's future scriptures going on to explain that Christ is an exact duplicate of Jehovah in the flesh.
In Grant Palmer’s book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, he has provided historical evidence that the author of the BoM intended to counter Deism and Unitarianism, two theologies that denied the deity of Christ. Hence, the BoM attempts to do what many Trinitarians were doing during the time it was written and published in 1830, that is reject Unitarianism and Deism and defend and proclaim the divinity of Christ.
In this blog post I will present Ethan Smith’s view of the Godhead and how his ideas likely influenced or contributed to the theology of the BoM. In fact, Ethan Smith was the family minister of Oliver Cowdery, who was one of Smith’s scribes during the dictation of the BoM. If that doesn’t warrant an investigation into Ethan Smith’s views, I don’t know what would. Combine this with the book Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, where the author David Persuitte presents strong evidence that Ethan Smith’s book View of the Hebrews was used in the production of the BoM; and it becomes likely that the author of the BoM would very likely have relied on the theological concepts of Ethan Smith’s book on the Trinity.
Some scholars argue that Oliver Cowdery likely furnished Smith with Ethan Smith’s book, View of the Hebrews, or shared the ideas in the book with him. If this is probable then it is not a stretch to conclude that Cowdery also likely shared with Smith some of Ethan Smith’s ideas on the Trinity, which are contained in the book called A Treatise on the Character of Christ, which was published before the dictation of the BoM.
Cowdery may have even brought Ethan Smith’s book on the Trinity with him to the dictation sessions of the BoM. Or he could have simply shared its contents with Joseph Smith in private conversations. Or Cowdery himself, whose minister was Ethan Smith, could have unconsciously expressed Ethan Smith’s views which made its way into the BoM during the dictation and scribal process. We know from D&C chapters 8 and 9 that Joseph Smith encouraged Oliver Cowdery to write his own inspired words into the BoM. Cowdery could have very easily projected Ethan Smith’s ideas into the BoM as a scribe, as Ethan’s ideas were very likely swimming around in Cowdery’s subconscious since Ethan was Oliver Cowdery’s minister. We also know that Joseph Smith was encouraging Cowdery to
study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
(D&C 9: 8-9)
This sounds a lot like someone encouraging a writer to be creative and when a thought or the words “feel write” to go with it; but if the writer doubts then they will seize to be creative, suffer writer’s block, and not wish to write. This is good advice for any writer and if Cowdery felt God was guiding him by the Spirit then he would have felt justified in his actions of adding his own ideas into the BoM as a scribe. Those ideas would have inevitably aligned with Ethan Smith’s ideas. Another time Joseph Smith said:
A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.
If Cowdery ever had second thoughts about what he was doing, the next verses could have been meant to persuade him to continue. For, the context appears to show that Cowdery is expecting to be given the words to write by revelation, thus verse 7 states, “Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.” Then, as we saw above, in verses 8-9 Joseph encourages Cowdery to basically create the words, by the power of the Spirit, as he goes along and if it feels right it can be considered divine guidance; and if it is not right he will have a stupor of thought. The next verse implies that Cowdery was concerned that they were basically “making things up” with this reliance on inspiration, and whatever comes to mind to write, is of God. To which, Smith replies with a revelation that reads:
For, do you not behold that I have given unto my servant Joseph sufficient strength, whereby it is made up? And neither of you have I condemned. Do this thing which I have commanded you, and you shall prosper (D&C 9: 12-13).
My reading of his verse is that it means, "Don’t you see how I (God) have given Smith as a seer great powers through his seer stone, so why worry that it might be made up? I (God) don’t condemn either of you for using this method of being creative in your writing when the Spirit shall give you internal guidance regarding what you create is divinely inspired." Thus Cowdery was reassured that his actions were right with God. Hence, Cowdery could have very easily expressed his minister Ethan Smith’s ideas into his BoM dictations which he was encouraged to believe was divine guidance. Author, Robert N. Hullinger describes the situation this way:
When Oliver Cowdery took over scribal duties in April 1829, he told Smith that he wanted to try his hand at translating the plates. He tried and faltered, thereby forcing yet another shift in the role of the glasses [two stones in a bow, making glasses]. Cowdery had the idea that translating was merely a matter of reading [as in reading the contents of the gold plates through use of the stone glasses]. Smith answered Cowdery’s failure with a revelation. Cowdery should have studied his proposed translation “out in his mind” (D&C 8:1-3) and his bosom would “burn” within him when he felt “that it is right.” Thus Cowdery was held responsible for his failure. Earlier Smith had told him that Christ would “tell” him in his “mind” and “heart” the knowledge concerning the engravings of old records. Now it was explained that the translation really took place within a person and not in the lenses of the glasses or in the seer stone.
It was Smith who eventually emphasized the mind and heart of the translator as the medium of translation and deemphasized the inherent power of the spectacles.…
Cowdery didn’t need to have Ethan’s Trinity book in front of him. All he would have had to do is simply convey the ideas of the Trinity book to Smith, and Smith would have expressed those ideas into the BoM. Cowdery in turn would have felt that what he and Smith were writing “was right” because it sounded like the theology of his minister. We will now turn to the contents of Ethan Smith’s book on the trinity.
The following is from Ethan Smith’s book on the Trinity, titled A Treatise on the Character of Christ (1824 edition). Beginning with page 11, Ethan Smith refutes the idea that Jesus “is literally the Son of God, as much as was Isaac the son of Abraham...” On pages 14 to 16, Ethan argues that Jesus did not derive (i.e. originate from or had a source of origin) from the Father, and Jesus was the Son because of his flesh (which matches Mosiah 15: 1-5) and not because he was literally generated (procreated or created) by the Father. According to Ethan, Jesus was eternally the Word (which matches Moses 1:32). According to Ethan Smith in his book on the Trinity, Christ
was included in the true and living God. This appears to have been the case, from the remarks of the Jews, that his claiming to be the Messiah, was "making himself God;" also from the testimony of Thomas, when convinced of his Messiahship, "My Lord, and my God!" and from the tenor of the Old Testament language concerning the Messiah; as I shall have occasion to show. I see no room to doubt, that the general opinion at that day concerning the Messiah, was, that he is the "Mighty God; the Everlasting Father; the Jehovah of Hosts; the I AM; one with God; and really God” (pg. 15).
For Ethan Smith, Jesus was the Everlasting Father (Jehovah), as the Logos (Word) of Jehovah made flesh. I believe that this is also what the BoM teaches. For example, the introduction of the 1830 BoM states that the book’s purpose is for, “the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”
Ethan Smith argues that Jesus was the Word (Logos), the second Person in the Trinity. On pages 19 to 20 Ethan writes of Christ's eternal divinity:
He is hence called God's own Son; -- his only Son; -- his only begotten. But those phrases do not necessarily enforce the idea, that the Divinity of Christ was derived from God. And other scriptures utterly forbid such an idea, as I shall endeavor in future pages to make appear. The Divinity of Christ is "without father, without mother, without descent; having neither beginning of days, nor end of time."
The above concept of Jesus Christ being part of God but not derived, that is not "descended" from God, mirrors LDS scripture in Moses 1:6: where the single God says to Moses, “mine Only Begotten [the form of Jesus of Nazareth] is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all” (words in bold, italics, and brackets for emphasis). In other words, the Logos (the "word of God's power" per Moses 1:32) becomes the Only Begotten (Jehovah's twin genome), which is an exact duplicate of Father-Jehovah. Thus Moses 1:6 says there is no God (Divine Gene) beside himself, but the Only Begotten is His exact duplicate, His Only Monogene and seal/imprint. In order to show how similar Ethan Smith’s Godhead theology is with the BoM, compare what Ethan Smith says below after I first quote from the original 1830 Book of Mormon, from Mosiah 15 (words highlighted in blue for comparison):
… 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; 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. … even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father; and thus God breaketh the bands of death; ... having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions; having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.
Now compare the above passage with the following excerpt from Ethan Smith’s 1824 Trinity book which explains this above passage, starting with page 20 (compare words in blue to Mosiah 15 above). Note, words in brackets my own:
What sentiments then, does the word of God furnish, relative to the Sonship of Jesus Christ? It teaches that Christ is a Son (in a sense) literally; and also he is figuratively the Son of God. He has two natures in his one Person. One of them [His divine Genome?] was begotten of God, in the womb of the virgin Mary; -- which is a reason, expressly assigned by God himself, why Christ is called the Son of God. And Christ in both his natures, Divine and human, was, as our Mediator, inducted -- constituted -- begotten -- into his mediatory office, in which he was perfectly obedient to God, as a perfect son obeying a father. …
This last sentence accords with D&C 93 where the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth says he is in the Father and the Father is in him (see D&C 93: 2), and speaks of the Father giving him his fullness and how he is “the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle” (verse 4). Then in verse 8, Jesus is referred to as the Word (compare Moses 1:32) that was in the beginning and made the world (see Moses chapters 2-3). Then we come to where Ethan’s last sentence above is mirrored in section 93 (words in brackets my own):
11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father [the Logos], full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.
12 And I, John, saw that he [the earth-born Jesus of Nazareth] received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.
16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;
17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.
The Father dwelling in him is later explained in the Fifth Lecture on Faith as meaning God's omnipresent glory and divine nature fully swallows up his human nature in accordance with Mosiah 15: 1-5. Hence, as Ethan puts it, “And Christ in both his natures, Divine and human, was, as our Mediator, inducted -- constituted -- begotten -- into his mediatory office, in which he was perfectly obedient to God, as a perfect son obeying a father. …” Ethan Smith makes it clear that the term Son does not mean a literal procreated son of a literal father, but means that God dwelt in the form of a human person (as in the Father God's genome and the Logos enters the Son/Flesh-body) and the Son is a mediatory office. Mosiah 15 can be further understood by turning to page 93 where Ethan Smith writes that (words in brackets my own):
There is and must be an overwhelming mystery, to short-sighted creatures, in the union of Christ's two natures, that he is Immanuel, God with us: "Which things the Angels desire to look into." -- Those, who would attempt to divest this subject of mystery, do violence both to the spirit and the letter of the testimony of God himself upon this subject. For God informed that Christ's name should "be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace." And he asserts, that "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." Here, the Logos [compare Moses 1:32], in the first of the Gospel of John, who "was made flesh, and dwelt among us," is, as he was by John, called, God [compare Moses 1:6]. Here he was manifested in human nature. And here we are divinely taught, that without controversy it is a great mystery.
The BoM does not use the term Logos (or Word), and instead the Word (Logos) is presented visually in "appearance" as the preexistent conceptual image of Jesus of Nazareth (God’s spirit form as a holographic-like image) that for example appears to the brother of Jared in Ether 3. In my article here, I explain how The Book of Moses and Ether 3 are about how the Only Begotten is basically the Philonic image/form of the literal resurrected Jesus of Nazareth seen in visions within God's omniscient Mind (before Jesus is even born). This is corroborated in D&C 93 (written early in 1833) where the image of the earth-born Jesus as the Only Begotten is referred to as the Word (i.e. Logos) in verses 6-11. What the BoM in Mosiah 15 calls two “wills” Ethan Smith calls two “natures.” What Ethan Smith describes as the will of the Word and the will of the human nature of Jesus, the BoM calls the will of the Father (Deity) and the will of the Son (flesh).
Ethan Smith again below explains why Jesus is called the Son, which is because of the flesh. Ethan also explains why the term Son isn’t used to refer to Christ before his human incarnation as a body of flesh. Note that Joseph Smith does use the term Son to refer to the Word in the JST John 1:16, since the Son (as the earth born flesh body) is the image of the Word (which is a conceptual prototype image of the Son as a flesh body) as we saw in Ether 3. Again, see my document The Preexistence, Second Sight, Philo, and Ether 3 as the Medium of Christ as a Prototype "Appearance." Hence, both Ethan Smith and Joseph Smith use the term Son only to refer to the non-literal Philonic form only seen in visions, that only "appears" to look like the future earth-born flesh body of Jesus of Nazareth (born of Mary).
Now let’s examine pages 45 to 47 of Ethan's Trinity book, where Ethan explains why Jesus was called the Son, as not a title of literal parental procreation, but as a miraculous formation of Jesus's bodily form through the earthly Mary wherein the Logos (of Moses 1:32) took form (words in brackets my own):
Yea, let John, in his introduction of the Messiah, decide the sense of it. God so loved the world, that he sent his beloved and adorable Logos [compare Moses 1:32], who was in the beginning with God and was God, one with the Father [compare Moses 1:6]; but who was now in human nature manifest to his people, as God's only begotten Son. The title under which he is now known, is given; but not the title, under which he was known, or which did apply to his Divinity, when God determined to send him.
The apostle, Gal. iv. 4 [i.e. 4:4-5], affords a clue to explain this point. "But when the fulness of time was come. God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." –
I explain what this means for the Son of God to redeem people as sons in my blog series Restoring True Theosis in The Restoration (Blog Series); wherein I explain that God basically replicated His Divine DNA, in accordance with Romans 8:29 (EXB), as Christ is the first Son among many divinely molded human-born Sons (molded into the "noomatic form" of the Divine Genome), who are thus regenerated as resurrected "noomatic bodies" after fully partaking of the divine DNA (see 2 Peter 1:4). Note that here we see that where Ethan speaks of Christians being adopted as sons, that this accords with the following passages in the BoM and D&C:
ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons: Mosiah 5:7
being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters: Mosiah 27:25
they shall become my sons and my daughters: Ether 3:14
ye certainly will be a child of Christ: Moro. 7:19
all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters: D&C 25:1
as many as would believe might become the sons of God: D&C 34:3
are begotten sons and daughters unto God: D&C 76:24
Ethan continues his explanation of why Jesus is called the Son by stating the following (words in brackets my own):
Here, when the time of the promise arrived, God sent his Son. How was the Person [the Logos], who was now sent, God's Son? The passage informs; "made of a woman; made under the law;" to redeem and save. Christ here was made the Son of God, by the miraculous producing of his humanity from the virgin Mary, …This is the plain sense of the above text. And it perfectly accords with the words of Gabriel to Mary; and with the account given of this subject in "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ."
This is exactly what Joseph Smith dictated to his scribes in Mosiah 15: 2-3, “And because he [Jesus the Messiah] dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father [Jehovah], being the Father and the Son— The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh…”
Ethan continues:
Again. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." -- This may relate to the days of Christ on earth, when he was known as the Son of God. God did not then spare him; but "laid on him the iniquities of us all." He, who was presented as God's own Son, must suffer, and be delivered up to death.
And of course this mirrors Mosiah 15: 5-8.
Just as the Book of Ether in the BoM has the pre-earth-born Christ calling himself the Father (because he is God's identical twin genome). On page 74 Ethan Smith writes:
In Isai. ix. 6, Christ is called, "the Mighty God, the everlasting Father." In Jer. xxiii. 6, he is "the Jehovah our righteousness."
On pages 76 to 83 below, Ethan’s ideas may explain the reason why Ether 15 argues that God Himself, as Jesus, atoned for sins. Ethan Smith argues that a finite and dependent being (a literally descended/derived son of the Deity) could not make an infinite atonement, as only the Deity Himself can do that. But if the Deity himself (God's Logos, see Moses 1: 6; 32) dwells in a human body and is the infinite Deity himself (see Lecture on Faith 2:2) makes atonement then there is an infinite atonement. This is a lengthy quote but worth reading entirely for it explains the BoM on the atonement I think. Words in brackets are my own (emphasis added):
…grace teaches, that God would not have been just, had he bestowed or tendered them on any ground, short of a sufficient exhibition's being made on man's behalf, of justice and righteousness, to magnify the Divine law. Here the infinite riches of grace are exhibited; that God would not only pardon and save lost man; but would be at the infinite expense necessary to open the way for the proper bestowment of pardon and salvation. But could anything be equal to this redemption from hell, and title to heaven, short of an infinite atonement, and an infinite righteousness? A foundation short of this must have been infinitely insufficient for the eternal superstructure, which was to be built upon it. To say, that God might, in order to confer on his Son an infinite honor, determine, that an atonement and righteousness, which a finite Son could effect, should be declared and viewed as of infinite avail, appears preposterous. For it must, after all, appear to the intelligent universe, that the ground presented, as the only foundation of the pardon and salvation of guilty man, is in fact finite. This must of necessity operate to the amazing dishonor of God. ...
The idea, of resolving this thing into the divine sovereignty, or suggesting, that God has a right to say, that the atonement and righteousness of his own finite dependent Son, shall be viewed as of infinite avail, can never satisfy a rational being. For the question will arise, Why might not God as well pardon and save, without any atonement made, or righteousness wrought out, in behalf of man? Or if something done, which is finite, may be pronounced sufficient, why might not an Angel have done the work of the finite Mediator? which work, at God's sovereign word, should be pronounced sufficient for the salvation of lost man? Yea, why might not God as well dispense with all his exhibitions of justice and propriety, in his vast kingdom; and let a system of merely arbitrary words be substituted in their stead? Is not God's infinite authority sufficient to have those words believed, though all his administration be in contradiction to them? Could he not work miracles, and cause all his subjects to believe his contradictory assertions? Many such questions occur to the mind, on the suggestion, that God may say, that a finite Son shall make an adequate atonement; or shall do what shall be esteemed sufficient for the eternal salvation of his Church.
… Christ's atonement and righteousness then, must be infinite.
But how could a finite Saviour make an infinite atonement? Yea, how could such an one make any atonement at all? Or how could he work out a righteousness for others? Must not a derived being owe personally to God, according to the immutable religion of nature, as well as of Revelation, all the service, that he is able to render? Every dependent being must owe to God the love and service of his whole heart, soul, strength and mind. How then could the righteousness of a derived being be of avail for any one beside himself? much less of that infinite avail, needed for the salvation of the fallen world? Yea, how could it be "the righteousness of God?" How could Christ be, "Jehovah our righteousness?"
To render a derived Saviour adequate to the work, for which Christ was designed; or to give an infinite weight to his atonement, righteousness, and administration; the advocates for such a Saviour must have recourse to the indwelling of the fulness of the Father in Christ, in this case, the sufficiency of the Mediator is rested on the infinite fulness of Divinity, that dwells in him [see the Fifth Lecture on Faith published in 1835 by Joseph Smith]. But if recourse must be had, after all, to the infinitude of the indwelling Divinity, in the derived Son of God; what is gained by supposing the nature of Christ, that actually suffered, to be superior to human nature? Nothing is gained, except that small addition of merit, which may be supposed to result from the superiority of this derived nature over human nature. But how trifling must this be, when compared with the infinitude of the indwelling fulness of the Father, on which dependence is really made? This infinitude of merit needs no such addition. Infinity of merit must be sufficient without it. Such an addition goes not to the point, on which dependence is finally made, -- the infinitude of the indwelling fulness of the Father. But no Trinitarian doubts but the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ [again, compare the Fifth Lecture on Faith]. The Trinitarian rests the infinitude of the atonement on the underived Deity, who dwells in the man Jesus Christ. And the opponent (who believes at all in an atonement) must have recourse to the indwelling fulness of God, in Christ, to render his atonement of sufficient avail. What then has he gained by representing Christ as possessed of a nature superior to all creatures, aside from the indwelling fulness of God? For he does not with this find Christ adequate to the work of mediation, without The indwelling fulness of God. And the Trinitarian finds Christ fully adequate to the work, with the indwelling of his proper Deity, without supposing his created nature to be more than human.
The sentiment, that to atone for the sins of the world, the sufferings of the Saviour must, in some sense be deemed infinite, most clearly lies at the foundation of the Christian system. "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission." And this blood must be of infinite avail. It must be (as we are taught by inspiration to view it) the blood of God." "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood;" (Acts xx. 23.) ...
The suffering of Christ must have been the suffering of God in a sense, that was either real, or constituted. A person really divine either must exhibit himself as capable of suffering, and really suffering for sin; or else he must adopt a creature into such a constituted union with himself, as that both this divine and this created nature shall go to constitute one complete Person: And the sufferings of the created nature shall be esteemed as the sufferings of the whole Person, or the sufferings of God. There is no other possible sense, in which the sufferings of the Mediator can be of infinite avail, as being the sufferings of God. But Christ's sufferings are esteemed the sufferings of God: And his blood is esteemed of infinite avail, as the blood of God. Therefore real Deity did dwell in the man Jesus, in such a sense, as to constitute them One, the Person of the Mediator. This connection of the two natures is a mystery; but it is no contradiction, nor absurdity; it is not above the power of God to effect.
No doubt many plausible things may be said, (if men are disposed,) against the divine economy of constituting such a connexion between a Person really divine, and a created [human/flesh] nature, as that the sufferings of the latter shall be esteemed as the sufferings of God. …
… The relief is too small to be noted, to say, that the derived Person of their Mediator, in whom the Father dwells, is very far greater than human; being formed of the Father's essence! For to what does all the difference between derived natures amount, when compared with the infinite God? Before him all dependent beings sink to nothing! The reliance of our opponents, who hold to a literally derived Son of God, is in fact solely on the Father, exclusively of any other truly divine Person in the Godhead (for they believe in no other) for both the existence, and all the ability of the Son of God to atone for Sin, or to officiate in any of the duties of the mediatorial office. There can be no adequate merit or dignity attending them, but what comes from God the Father. Yet some of our opponents represent the Son as having made the atonement, and as doing all the work of the Mediator. And some of them will admit of it as an infinite atonement; a mediation of infinite efficacy; while to render it thus, their reliance must be on the indwelling, and the infinite fulness of the Father. Do not the same objections then, stated above, apply with as great force to their own scheme? Most certainly! for, did God the Father suffer, in the sufferings of Christ? And if not, how could his infinite fulness and dignity add any weight to the sufferings of the finite Son? But if the opponent can imagine, that the infinite fulness and dignity of the Father can add an infinite weight to the atonement made by the derived and finite Son of God; why can it not as well he admitted, that the constituted union of real Deity (the second Person in the Trinity) with the man Jesus Christ, may give an infinite dignity to the atonement made by him? Why shall the latter scheme, any more than (the former, be represented as a mere pretense? But, may not God constitute a connection between one of the infinite Persons in the Trinity, and the man Jesus Christ, so that they shall properly be called and viewed one? Is not God able to do this? And has he not a right to do it, whatever difficulties or objections may arise concerning it in the minds of fallen man? All connections in creation depend on the sovereign will of God. Suppose God could previously have consulted man, relative to many of these connections; as, that between man's soul and body; that between God's own sovereign, universal agency in the government of the world, (making all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil; Prov. xvi. 4,) and the free agency and accountability of man; what would the wisdom of man have replied? Could he have been God's counsellor? Inexplicable difficulties would have appeared. But God has established these, and all other created connections in the* universe. The laws of nature are of his ordaining: and it is in vain for man to object. And no less vain or impious is it, to object to the constituted connexion between the real Deity and humanity of Christ, which unitedly constitute his Person. The union is constituted. It is not essential to either nature. But it was constituted by the sovereign will of Him, who constituted all the created connexions in the universe. Man may repeat the question of Nicodemus in another case, "How can these things be?" This question may be asked concerning some part of every work of God, not excepting the smallest atom; and no man can answer if. Man is of yesterday, and knows nothing
This is exactly what we get in Mosiah 15: 1-7, where Jesus’ human nature is subjected to, as Ethan Smith puts it, “the sovereign will [of God],” a simple formula based on Ethan’s arguments or arguments from others in Joseph Smith’s environment who argued similarly. In Lee Metcalfe’s response to Boyd Kirkland’s presentation, at the 1983 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium titled, "The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine 1830-1916," Metcalfe discusses the theological differences between Unitarians and Trinitarians in Smith’s day regarding the atonement. Trinitarians like Adam Clarke, and we can now add Ethan Smith, argued that an infinite being (God) had to atone for sins and that a finite normal man could not do it as the Unitarians argued. Metcalf then argues that the Book of Mormon picks up the debate and has the Book of Mormon character Amulek agreeing with the Trinitarians of Smith’s day by stating, “there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. … [For] there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world” [Alma 34:11-12]. Metcalf goes on to argue that:
Amulek’s position is based on the postulation that “For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice” [Alma 34: 10]. Amulek’s theology accommodates the entire spectrum of this nineteenth century controversy. The infinite being is to be the propitiation for His finite creatures. The evidence is compelling that the theology of an infinite atonement as delineated in the early scriptural texts of Mormonism and their nineteenth century counterparts was more than just a statement of an atonement consummated by an infinite God. It was a Trinitarian confession of faith and a fortification of this position against the impending threat of antagonistic Unitarians. By way of recapitulation [or summarizing] Joseph Smith’s early theology of God as depicted in the early scriptural texts of Mormonism; it consisted essentially of Trinitarian ideals. This position is not only explicated in these early texts it is defended.
As we can see, this is exactly what Ethan preached. That God himself (as the Logos) comes down and dwells in the flesh, and God’s Spirit (Glory) subjects the will/nature of the flesh to the will/nature of the divine nature in order to make an infinite atonement. Ethan argues that Jesus is the Father/God and the Logos, the Triune God Himself in the flesh. Early Mormonism teaches nearly the same thing.
In Mosiah 15 and D&C 93 we learn that at Christ’s baptism the divine-will fully swallows up the human-will, thus becoming one Divine Gene (or Mono-Species), or one Godhead: which is later clarified in the Fifth Lecture on Faith. This concept of two wills matches Ethan’s concept of two natures within Jesus, making it an infinite atonement as the Book of Mormon argues as well.
I compiled the following excerpts from Ethan Smith’s book below in order to show how he further explains how Jesus is both human and divine (as the Father's divine nature dwells within him while being a seperate human personality as the Logos incarnate). Note that if Joseph Smith was influenced by Ethan Smith's Trinity, this would make sense of the Book of Mormon's Godhead language, as Joseph Smith would not feel the need to clarify that Jesus is the Logos incarnate because he would have presumed his Trinitarian Protestant audience would already read that into the text.
Now for some excerpts from Ethan Smith’s book explaining the Trinity (emphasis mine):
To represent Christ as a being distinct from the Father; and to allow, that he is at the same time called God; is to own two Gods. There is no possibility of evading this charge, till it can be made to appear, that one real God, and one constituted God, do not amount to the number two. To say they are one in spirit, gives no relief; for so are all the saints. To say the two distinct Beings are one in original essence, helps not the case. For upon the scheme of the opponent, they are now no more one in essence, than is a human father and his son. But these are as really two, as are two angels in heaven. There is no evasion of the charge of having two Gods, but by allowing that the Father, and the Divinity of the Son, are equal in one Godhead, and that in some mysterious and essential sense, they are absolutely one God. And we find it a fact, that they are abundantly so represented. And I see not why it should be less offensive to believe in two distinct Gods in heaven, than to believe in one God, mysteriously consisting of Father, Word and Holy Ghost. …
... Christ then, is [Father] Jehovah alone, the God of heaven. Although relative to Christ's humanity, he is made head overall things to the church; and God the Father hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, that is above every name; yet relative to his Divinity he is, according to the clear sense of the above passages, viewed in their connexion, Jehovah alone, the God of heaven, exalted in that day. Accordingly the prophet says, of that very period, Isai. xl. 9-11, "Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God. Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him; behold his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a Shepherd, he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." -- This is Christ coming in his kingdom. Yet he is "the Lord God." The saints triumph; "Lo this is our God; we have waited for him, he will save us." Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King, be will save us. Are all these things said of a derived [descended], dependent being, who is distinct from the Father? Is it such a being alone, who is "exalted in that day?" These Scriptures teach, that Christ in his Divinity, is one with God; and is the great, the living and true God.
(Pages 101 -104).
Ethan makes it clear that the human body of Christ, his flesh (humanity), is made head over all things and God the Father exalts him (the human Jesus). Yet mysteriously they (Father and Logos made flesh) are one God. Again, this is mirrored in Mosiah 15 where Jesus is “God [as the Logos] himself” come down to “dwell in the flesh,” (vs. 12), and Jesus is conceived by the mysterious “power of God” (vs. 3); and in verse 5 it states that his “flesh becoming subject to the Spirit.” This completely fits Ethan Smith's trinitarian theology.
The following further excerpts can also explain 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, and other passages, where the earth-born Jesus and the Father speak with separate voices, yet only Jesus is seen in these passages as there is always only one BODY (or Divine Genome) in the form of Jesus as Jehovah's twin seal that bodily represents the Deity. As Ethan Smith writes on pages 104 – 108 (emphasis added):
[The] Scriptures teach, that Christ in his Divinity, is one with God; and is the great, the living and true God.
Jesus Christ relative to his human body, said, "Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up." "But God raised him from the dead." Christ here decides, that he is God. And he decides that he has two natures in his one Person, divine and human [as the Logos as a human body]; And sometimes he speaks of himself in relation to the one, and sometimes in relation to the other. When he spake, in the days of his humiliation, of his dependence on God, he spake in relation to his mediatorial character, as will be shown. But when he spake in relation to his divine nature, he spake as God. I will raise up this temple of my body in three days. "I will; be thou clean." To the dead, "I say unto thee arise." "Lazarus, come forth." To the stormy lake, "Peace, be still!" To the Disciples, "I will make you fishers of men." "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do it." "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come unto you." In relation to his humanity, and mediatorial character. Jesus wrought miracles in his Father's name. In relation to his Divinity, he wrought miracles in his own name, and received the praise of it. Should any doubt relative to the correctness of this distinction, between Christ's two natures, let Christ himself decide it. "I am the Root and offspring of David." * Here, in a short clause, he speaks in relation to both his natures.
He is David's Root, and David’s offspring; David's Jehovah, and David's Son; David's God, and David's descendant: David's Creator, and his seed according to the flesh." Can any believer in Revelation doubt whether Christ does possess two natures? And whether this fact together with his constituted mediatorial character, may Solve all the seeming contradictions of Christ's dependence on God; and yet his being himself the very independent God? ... While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son?" This reduced them to silence. Christ was both David's Lord, and Son. In his Deity, he was the former; in his humanity the latter. And had the Pharisees understood (and had grace enough to acknowledge) this evident sense of the scriptures concerning Christ, they could have answered his question, with great ease, by saying; Christ's Divinity is David's Jehovah, whom he set always before his face, and worshipped as God. But Christ's humanity is made of the seed of David, according to the flesh: Or, Christ is David's Root, and offspring.
The two natures in Christ are often clearly distinguished from each other, and things said of him, which apply to but one of these natures. As 1 Cor. xv. 27; "But when he saith, All things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, who did put all things under him." Here reference is had to Christ's glorified humanity; that it is the infinite God, who glorified the man Christ, and put all things under his power. Compare this with Phil. iii. 21; -- "the Lord Jesus Christ -- who is able even to subdue all things to himself." The word in the original, in the former of these texts, (importing the putting of all things under Christ) is the same with that in the latter text translated to subdue. Christ, in the latter text is said to be able to do the very thing, which God, in the former text, is said to do. The former text then, alludes to Christ's humanity; the latter to his Divinity.
I might multiply evidences of Christ's proper Deity, till almost the whole scripture would pass in review: But it is needless. …
Paul tells the Corinthians, that he was determined to know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. But was not the glory of God his object? Jesus Christ then, in Paul's view, was God. To preach Christ, was to preach God. To know Christ, was to know God. Christ was Paul's only object. Yet God was his only object. This accords with the words of Christ, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." …
Christ has two natures in his Person. He is God; and he is man. And he is constituted a Mediator. And in passages concerning Christ, reference is sometimes had to the one of his natures; and sometimes to the other. This is a most evident fact. "I am the root and offspring of David." Here, in the pronoun I, are contained God and man. As God, he wrought by his own power; as man, he wrought by the power of God.
As we can see this explains all the early Mormon Scriptures where Jesus speaks of the Father, prays to the Father, yet people pray to Jesus, etc. It also explains those passages in the D&C when the resurrected Jesus speaks as the human flesh body, then mid sentence it seems as if the resurrected Christ starts speaking as if it is now Father-Jehovah talking who sends His Son. This would make sense though, if they are one divine genome as identical twins with two distinct personalities and natures (Deity and Logos made human) but act as one God (one Genome). These confusing scriptures are also made sense of by turning to Ethan Smith in these excerpts (emphasis added):
Hence Christ, speaking (as the man, whom the Jews beheld) of the Divinity [e.g. the Deity of Lecture 2:2], who [whose Mind and glory per Lecture 5] operated within him, would naturally speak of this divine person as being the Father; because nothing was done without the Father; and he [Christ] is the Head of the economy of grace subsisting between the Three in the Godhead. The Father would of course be mentioned first, when the Three were mentioned. And he would often be mentioned alone, as expressing the whole of Deity. This latter must be the case, when Christ informs, "The Father, who [His Genome or Mind] dwelleth in me, doeth the works." Other scriptures explain the passage. "In him (Christ) dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Here we learn the true sense of the Father's dwelling in Christ. The Father here, is the fulness of the Godhead [Note: Lecture 5 says the same thing] ...
… Notwithstanding that the meek and lowly Jesus, in the days of his flesh on earth, and as the man, whom the Jews beheld, ascribed the miracles he wrought to the Godhead under the name of the Father. … No doubt the whole Godhead, who dwelt in Christ bodily, co-operated in all that was done. …
(pg. 166-168).
This again explains why the Book of Mormon did not bother to use phrases like, “The Triune God dwelt in Jesus.” Joseph Smith likely presumed his readers were already familiar with the Trinitarianism of the day (and theologians like Ethan Smith); afterall, Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery both lived in Poultney, Vermont while Ethan Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended. Cowdery was one of Joseph's scribes, so as Cowdrey took down dictation from Joseph Smith he himself was likely reading into the text the Trinitarian theology of Ethan Smith. Ethan continues on page 198:
Thus I have endeavoured to ascertain, what was the great question concerning Jesus Christ, after he entered his public ministry on earth; that it did not relate to a derivation [receiving from a source] of his divine Person [the Logos] from God; but to the truth of his Messiahship; the Messiah being understood to be God: in what sense Jesus Christ is the Son of God: in what sense he was begotten of the Father: that no benefit results from a supposed derivation [receiving from a source] of Christ's Divinity: that proper Divinity is infinitely incapable of being derived [decended]: that Jesus Christ is God underived: that Christ has a human soul [the Logos?] and body [flesh]: that the Godhead consists of a Trinity in Unity: and that the fathers of the three first centuries, after Christ, clearly testify in favor of the Trinity, and of the proper Divinity of Christ, essentially as now held by Trinitarians.
Instead of using the language here of Jesus having a “human soul and body” and “two natures, divine and human,” the Book of Mormon speaks of Jesus having a human will being swallowed up by the divine will in Mosiah 15. As I argue in my article here, in the early 1830s LDS theology held that the soul was the spirit-essence from God and the human body combined. Thus, in the early Mormon view, Jesus was dwelt in by God the Father's Mind and glorious energy (per Lecture 5) and was also a soul (spirit and human, or the Logos of Moses 1:32 made flesh). In the language of Joseph Smith's contemporary, Alexander Campbell, Jesus is the embodiment of God as the IDEA and His Word (Logos) made flesh. Similar to Campbell's language of God as the IDEA, the Fifth Lecture on Faith speaks of the Spirit of the Father (as the Divine MIND) dwelling in fulness in the Son-Jesus (a body of tabernacle/flesh). Ethan Smith continues:
As Christ is possessed of real Divinity, and real humanity mysteriously united in his one Person; so all the Perfections of God, and all the properties of a perfectly holy man, unite in the Person of Jesus Christ. Accordingly we find them ascribed to Christ. Sometimes the properties of his humanity are ascribed; and sometimes the perfections of his Divinity. In the former case, he is the dependent, circumscribed man. In the latter, he is the independent, omniscient, almighty God; …
The union of the two natures in the person of Christ, and his constituted mediatorial character, furnish a fruitful source of objection and error among short-sighted depraved beings. It is true, things are said of Christ, which at first view, seem a real contradiction.
To afford relief in this point then, let it ever be remembered, that the sacred Oracles do furnish us with three classes of sacred texts, which relate to Jesus Christ.
One class relates simply to his humanity. In this we are assured of his being born of a woman; being a child; being twelve years old; increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man; his hungering, thirsting, being weary; sleeping; being touched with the feeling of our infirmities; being fed, and clothed: and many such things. These things alluded to the "man Christ Jesus."
A second class of sacred texts, alludes to him, as the true and infinite God. This class of texts has been adduced in the sixth section of this book. Here he is the Mighty God; the Everlasting Father; the true God, and Eternal Life”
(pg. 29-130).
Just as Ethan speaks of Jesus’ humanity, yet Jesus is also the Everlasting Father, so to D&C 93 speaks of Jesus growing grace for grace, etc. In the following excerpt, we again see how Ethan Smith, gives a perfect explanation for why early Mormon Scripture avoids terms like Trinity or Triune God, or the Father and the Logos, etc. For the term Father meant God as both Word and Holy Spirit. And this is why, from the Book of Mormon to the Fifth Lecture on Faith, the only term for the Triune God that is used, is the term Father. Ethan writes on page 115 (emphasis added):
When Christ speaks of the Son of man coming in the glory of his Father, he speaks of himself in relation to his humanity, and to his constituted official character.
The Father in such passages, represents the fulness of the Godhead, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost. But Christ speaks also of his coming in his own glory. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory." And surely, in the 50th Psalm, Christ does come in his own glory, as God. "God is Judge himself. -- I am God, even thy God. -- The mighty God, even Jehovah."
Thus the key factor to understanding the Book of Mormon and early Mormon Scripture is that when one reads of God the Father it can be read as the Trinitarian Deity or Godhead. So when we read the Father and the Son, by Father is meant “The IDEA/MIND, His Word, and Holy Spirit,” and Son refers to the “flesh,” as in the earth-born Jesus of Nazareth. Making this distinction is I think the key to understanding the otherwise confusing use of terms in early LDS scripture
All these ideas conveyed by Ethan Smith could have been absorbed by Oliver Cowdery, who could have had private conversations with Joseph Smith about Ethan’s views on the Trinity. Or when creating the contents of the Book of Mormon, Smith could have known about these ideas within his Protrstant culture, and incorporated them into the Book of Mormon. Thus without even reading Ethan’s book on the Trinity, Joseph Smith could have been influenced by Ethan Smith. This, combined with Sidney Rigdon who likely held a Campbelite view of the Trinity (which was in alignment with Ethan Smith’s ideas), is the most likely interpretive “lens” through which to interpret the Book of Mormon.
In the LDS book of Moses chapters 3 and 4, Father-Jehovah talks with His Only Begotten/Word (the Philonic conceptual image of Jesus of Nazareth) before Jesus is born on earth in a non-literal prophetic vision. A careful reading of these chapters in context reveals that the Word is not a separate deity from God (Moses 1:6). What we see is that God foreordains the future earth-born Jesus of Nazareth to be the Savior on earth, and the bodily image of this Jesus is a conceptual image in God’s mind, that appeared to the brother of Jared within a vision. This idea was taught by Ethan Smith as well. For Ethan Smith called Jesus the “Son” only in reference to his birth on earth; and Ethan explains that Jesus of Nazareth was in some sense the form of God prior to his birth. As Ethan writes on page 21 (emphasis added):
The Sonship of Christ clearly originates in his being begotten of God [in the flesh]. This is decided by inspiration: Psalm ii. 7 [i.e. 2:7]; "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Find the fulfilment then, of this passage, and we infallibly find the true origin of Christ's Sonship. It is evident that this passage in the second Psalm was a prediction of something then future [compare Ether 3]. The event predicted existed at the time when David wrote the Psalm, only in the divine counsel; It was in the eternal counsel of God, that the second Person in the Trinity should become a Mediator, and be known as the Son of God. In this sense, he was "the eternal Son of God." But the actual event [of becoming the Son], noted in this Psalm as the only ground of Christ's Filiation [parental decent/descended], was then only in decree [compare Moses 1:6]. Ascertain therefore, when and how it was fulfilled; and the true origin of the Sonship is ascertained. But we find it clearly ascertained when, and how it was fulfilled. It was not at some period before the foundation of the world. It was not in the ancient times of the Old Testament. It was when the fulness of time was come for the Messiah to appear. The text is applied by the Holy Ghost, to the time and manner of Christ's coming in the flesh; or his miraculous conception; to his induction into his office, as the Prophet, and especially the High Priest of his people; and to his resurrection from the dead, and exaltation to glory. To the first it was applied, as in a sense literally fulfilled; and therefore in a sense which exhibits the primary reason of the Mediator's being called, the Son of God. …
As we can see, when the LDS book of Moses talks of the Only Begotten “Son” talking to the Father-Jehovah, this was, like Ethan Smith puts it, in line with the passage in the second Psalm in that it “was a prediction of something then future.” Just as Ethan Smith makes it clear that Jesus is not the Son by way of literal filiation (parental decent) but due to He being Jehovah's Logos incarnate, this accords with the Boook of Mormon in Mosiah 15 where Christ is called the Son specifically because of the flesh (incarnation); while the terms Only Begotten and the Son, when spoken of Christ in Old Testament times, is meant as predictions of the Logos' forordination as the Savior in the flesh.
The concept I discussed in my document, The Preexistence, Second Sight, Philo, and Ether 3 as the Medium of Christ as a Prototype "Appearance", that God foresees concepts in his mind before they exist on earth, and how there was a conceptual prototype of the future human Jesus before he was born on earth, is also intimated by Ethan Smith who talks about this idea on page 47 (words in brackets my own):
Christ … [says] "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" He here alludes to his own pre-existent state in heaven. But did he pre-exist in heaven as the Son of man [as a literal human derived from God]? Surely not; but as the Logos; -- one with God, and who was God [compare Moses 1:6, 32]. But being now known as the Son of man [a human in form], he modestly applies this name, by which he was now known, and by which he most frequently denominated himself, to his pre-existent person in heaven, tho' he was never known as the Son of man, till he tabernacled on earth, and was God manifest in the flesh [compare Mosiah 15:1-5]. We say, When king David kept his father's sheep. But he was not king, when he kept them. We say, When king Solomon was born. Yet he was not born king, nor Solomon. But afterward being known by both the office and the name, these are carried back to his birth, when his birth is spoken of. One says, My father was born in such a year. He does not mean, that he was born his father. In like manner, when we read, "God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son" -- "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman" -- the plain meaning appears to be, God sent his beloved Logos, the darling of his bosom, infinitely dear, as one with himself, who took human nature, and was manifested as the only begotten Son of God.
But such texts do not teach that the Divinity of Christ did literally sustain the filial [literal child-to-parent] relation to God, as having been begotten by the Father, at some period before creation. And we see, from numerous scriptures, that this sense cannot be admitted.
This is exactly what Moses 4 and the JST John 1 mean when they basically explain that in Old Testament times the term Son is used only in reference to the future earth-born Jesus of Nazareth. Each of these passages are explored here in more detail, where I show that these texts are describing allegorical prophetic visions of Jesus of Nazareth’s future foreordination on earth; and it is only a Philonic "appearance" of Christ being presented as only within God's mind.
Ethan Smith explains over and over in his Trinity book, that Jesus is not literally a son birthed by a literal divine Father prior to earth in the heavens, but that Jesus’ divinity is the ungenerated self-existent second person (or Logos) in the Trinity. On pages 24 -26 he writes:
If Christ in his divine nature were literally the Son of God, and men ought thus to believe; -- why was not direct information here given, that the Person then in heaven, and who was about to condescend to be born of Mary, was the Son of God?
Why is it said only, that the holy thing to be born of her [Mary] should be called the Son of the Highest, -- the Son of God? This conversation was not calculated to impress an idea, that the Logos then in heaven was the Son of God, as being derived [originating, coming from something] from him [the Father]; but that the time was then at hand, when this relation of Father and Son should be actually formed. God [the Logos of the Godhead] was now about to be to the divine Person [Flesh], who had engaged to become a Mediator, for a Father; and this divine Person [Jesus] was about to be to this Father, for a Son.
The Angel assigns the primary reason, why the Logos appearing in the flesh should be called the Son of God. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Mary], and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also, that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." …
It was just now hinted, that in the beginning of the New Testament, we learn the sense of the noted passage, Psalm ii. 7, relative to Christ's being begotten of God. Matt. i. 1; "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." -- i. e. The book in which the true sense of Christ's being begotten of God, is unfolded. Here then, surely, we must look, to find the correct view of his divine generation. But what do we here find? -- an account of the generation of Christ's divine nature, before the foundation of the world? Not a word, which bears the least resemblance to it. But the writer proceeds and gives an account of the genealogy and generation of his humanity; of his induction into office; and his glorification. After giving his lineal descent, he says; "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise;" and proceeds to note the miraculous conception of his humanity; and circumstances attending; and says; "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Here is "the generation of Jesus Christ." Who will presume to say, that he has a generation far more ancient, and more important than what is here given? One that respects a literal producing of his divine nature, at some period before the creation or the world? Where is the least evidence found to support such a proposition? I have never been able to discover it. And it does not become man to be wise against, nor above what is written. The celebrated Bishop Horsley upon this subject says. "The Son of God is a title, which belongs to our Lord in his human character, describing him as that man, who became the Son of God, by union with the Godhead."... This is indeed the origin of Christ's Sonship, as is taught in "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ."
The prophet enquires, Isaiah liii. 8, relative to Christ; "Who shall declare his generation?" Upon which some have remarked, that Christ's generation is indescribable; but he has a generation, which relates to his divine nature.
Again, this same idea is expressed in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 15: 1-5 and also in D&C 93, which scriptures agree with Ethan Smith that Jesus is not a derived being but is the very eternal Father (as Father-Jehovah's duplicate genome) and Jesus as the Logos of the Father is the Son through his glorification in the flesh.
Christ's Form as a Medium of the Father in the Old Testament
Next we see that Ethan Smith attempts to explain why the New Testament says that no man has seen God at any time except through seeing Jesus who reveal's God's image, yet men see a form of God the Father in the Old Testament. Ethan explains this by saying that in Old Testament times they were beholding Jesus' earth-born form as an "appearance" only. Ethan explains that God (as an infinite omnipresent Spirit) manifests Himself through various means (mediums) like a burning bush for example; as well as the Deity manifesting in bodily form in the Old Testament times as a medium (or means or mode of "appearance") as the man Jesus of Nazareth who had not been born yet (as it was only a visionary medium or "appearence"). As I argue in my blog series, what Ethan Smith describes as the Medium of God is the only the "appearance" of the earth-born man Jesus, as a mental blueprint prototype, a Philonic Form in God's mind, and seen only as a kind of "holographic" form through the eyes of faith in a visionary state. As Ethan puts it (emphasis added):
He then says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” *
[ Footnote “*” here reads: "No man hath seen God at any time." This clause furnishes no objection against the real and proper Divinity of Jesus Christ. Pure Deity is an infinite Spirit, invisible. The Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, as well as that of the Father, is thus: No man ever saw the Divinity of Christ, with the bodily eye. But Christ [the Logos] has assumed a medium [of flesh], which men have literally beheld. We see not a human soul [in Old Testament times]. But we see a man by the medium of his [human] body. The divine Logos, when he would appear to man, under the Old Testament, ever assumed some miraculous appearance, as a medium, which man might behold. This [former days "appearance"/Medium/Avatar], as well as his [earthly] body, in after days [New Testament era], was seen [that is the Medium was seen]; while yet it is a truth, that "No man hath seen God at any time." And yet Christ is the true and the great God [as Father-Jehovah's duplicate seal in the flesh]. Christ declared, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." [Because they are indentical twins/one divine genome] And of the Jews; -- "They have both seen and hated both me and my Father." Yet, "No man hath seen God at any time." The seeing in this latter text means seeing pure Divinity with the bodily eye. But the Jews had seen Christ [i.e. his Medium/"Philonic "appearance"] and the Father, in the miracles and wonders, which had evinced their Divinity and the truth of their doctrines. Those texts then are no contradiction. And no evidence is furnished in them against the pure Divinity of Christ.]
The Logos, now manifest in the flesh, and who has thus become the only begotten of God, he hath declared God. Here John gives the transition, from the Mediator's being the Logos in heaven, one [genome] with God, and really God; to his becoming God manifest in the flesh, and known as the Son of God. John, after this, often speaks of Christ as the Son of God.
(pg. 41-43)
I believe it's possible that this theology inspired Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith to expand upon Ethan's concept of God’s “medium" (the mere "appearance” of the earth-born man Jesus) in the Old Testament, being not just a "miraculous medium (like the burning bus) but a spiritual prototype, a Philonic Form of the earthly Jesus, which one could not see with the human eye (what Ethan calls the bodily eye); but had to be seen with "spiritual eyes."
This "medium" explanation by Ethan Smith would explain passages like 1 Nephi 11, where the “spirit of the Lord” is heard by the character Nephi in a vision and he says in verse 11 (emphasis added): “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 [medium?] of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.” In other words, Nephi saw the “medium” (Philonic avatar/"appearance") of Christ, that was a conceptual medium only. Thus Nephi sees the not-yet-born Jesus in the “form of a man,” yet he also knows it is the “spirit of the Lord,” meaning it is only an appearance/medium seen in a vision through spiritual eyes. Nephi then writes in verse 12, “And it came to pass that he said unto me, look: And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.” At this point an angel visits Nephi and he begins seeing the spiritual/conceptual forms of things that didn't yet exist but would in the future. Just as the Lord “showed unto the brother of Jared all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be; …” (Ether 3: 25). This is because Nephi and the brother of Jared, through being in a visionary state (being caught awaynin the Spirit) "spiritually" entered God’s prescient mind (as the Book of Moses explains); for God foresees all things conceptually in his mind before those Philonic forms are physically made on earth. Then, while experiencing the vision the angel says to Nephi, “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh.” Note that Mary (the virgin) hadn’t been born yet, so Nephi is clearly seeing in a vision the conceptual form (or medium) of Mary, the future mother of Jesus. This made clear when Nephi looks within the vision and in verses 20-24 he beholds the virgin again, “bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father![”] …And after that he had said those words, he said unto me, look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.” (Source: 1830 Book of Mormon). It is clear that Nephi is not seeing the actual form of Jesus of Nazareth here, but only a Philonic representation (a medium/form) through his own imagination or "spritual eyes" through God's omnicient power which he experiences within the vision (caught away in the Spirit). The brother of Jared undergoes the same type of experience in Ether 3.
So how can Nephi see these things when Jesus had not even been born yet? It is because he was seeing a spiritual/conceptual version of future events. In this visionary state, he can see and even converse with the earthly Jesus before he was born. We see this in 2 Nephi 31, where the Son (meaning the flesh-born-body of Jesus per Mosiah 15), which is clearly the Logos, speaks in Old Testament times as "the Son" alongside the Father, which clearly implies the "Son" here is the medium/Philonic form of the Logos appearing (in this case speaking as) the future earth-born Jesus.
After arguing that Christ is Jehovah the Eternal Father, in several passages, Ethan Smith argues that the resurrected Christ was the appearance or visual form of God before his incarnation, as we see on page 90 below emphasis added):
The [New Testament] apostle says, of Christ's pre-existent Divinity, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man." Here Christ, before he came in the flesh, and before we have any account of the Father's dwelling in him or of the Spirit's being given him without measure, was existing in heaven, a distinct Person [the Logos] in the Godhead, and viewed himself equal with God. Is not this testimony decisive that Christ is God? The form of a servant, in the above text, is a servant. The likeness of man, is a man. And the form of God is God. Christ was in the form of God; and he thought it not robbery to be equal with God. But if the highest nature of Christ were derived [decended] and dependent, it must have been infinite robbery in him to have claimed equality with God! …
Reading the above passage may have led Oliver Cowdery to influence Joseph Smith to say that if Christ is the form of God, then perhaps God’s body itself (in Old Testament times), is the Philonic form of the earthly Jesus. This Philonic realm of conceptual forms in God's mind would later be articulated in the Book of Moses, when Joseph Smith worked with Sidney Rigdon, a former Protestant theologian.
So to summarize so far, the ideas of Ethan Smith were likely “in the cultural air,” or Cowdery presented Ethan Smith’s ideas to Joseph Smith as his scribe. The combination of Rigdon’s Campbelite background (and Rigdon knowing Alexander Campbell's Trinity of "God the IDEA and His Word") and Ethan Smith’s concept of Christ as the Eternal Father with two natures, and the Logos manifesting the Godhead prior to earth in various mediums, explains The Book of Mormon's Mosiah 15; Ether 3; 2 Nephi 31; 3 Nephi; and 1835 The Lectures on Faith; wherein you have the one Deity and His Logos (Word of God), with the Holy Spirit being refferred to as an “it” (as a poured out, infilling, fluid energy) all throughout The Book of Mormon and Lecture 5, just as Alaxander Campbell often did. Note that as I explain here, early Mormonism distinguished between the Holy Spirit (a fluid substance) and the Holy Ghost (the third Person in the Godhead).
It is highly probable that Oliver Cowdery would have known about Ethan Smith’s book on the Trinity or heard about it when listening to one of Ethan Smith’s sermons he attended. The Book of Mormon appears to combine some of Ethan Smith’s theory about the Native Americans (from Ethan's book View of the Hebrews) and his view that Jesus is both the Eternal Father and the preexistent “medium” of God as the Word, with a human and divine nature as the Son (flesh). These ideas I think are mixed in with the Campbelite Trinity and the ideas of other Alternative Trinitarians.(see Jesus and the Father. The Book of Mormon and the Early Nineteenth-Century Debates on the Trinity by Clyde D. Ford). Thus, Smith was borrowing from and expanding upon the ideas of those around him and forming his own hybrid Godhead.
Note: The source of the quotes in this chapter were taken from Ethan Smith’s book on the Trinity available online at: http://olivercowdery.com/texts/ethn1824.htm. All the quotes were taken from the 1824 edition.
Back to my blog series on the origional LDS Godhead.
