In my post on Book of Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Divine Investiture, Representational Modalism, I mentioned the idea that some people hold up Mosiah 15:1-5 as proof that Joseph Smith (as supposed author of the Book of Mormon) originally wrote the Book of Mormon to support a Swedenborgian view of God (aka Serial Modalism) where The Father is a spirit that took on a body called Jesus.
In my opinion, this point of view ignores a lot of facts or at least force fits them. For example, the Book of Mormon also presents both the Spirit of the Lord as being a person as well as the premortal Jesus. It also presents the premortal Jesus as talking from Heaven as a personality separate from the Father.
But there is a bigger problem I have with the assumption that Mosiah 15:1-5 can only be historically read as Swedenborgian and thus (we are told) we must assume Joseph Smith meant it that way.
Do Joseph Smith’s own writings count as counter evidence if he explicitly tells us what he means?
If we take Joseph Smiths’ revelations as historical documents and as “his” writings, then I’d have to say D&C 93 completely undermines the Swedenborgian interpretation of Mosiah 15:1-5 in favor of a Representational Modalism / Divine Investiture interpretation instead.
For those not aware of this, please take a look at the following chart that shows that D&C 93 was clearly meant to elucidate Mosiah 15:1-5. (But to get the full effect, read one and then the other in the right verse order.)
| Mosiah 15 | D&C 93 |
| v. 2: 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— | V. 13-14: 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. |
| v. 3: The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— | V4: The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. |
| v. 4: And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. | V. 3: And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one— |
| v. 5: 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. | V. 12: And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; |
| V 6: And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. | v. 5: I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest. |
This was the clincher for me. This is only May of 1833, still nearly two years away from when skeptics claim the Church switched, during the Lectures on Faith, to believing the Father and the Son were distinct [1]. In other words, this is still a very early explanation from either Joseph Smith or God as to how to interpret Mosiah 15:1-5 and it’s pre the suppposed change of doctrine of 1835.
Therefore, when “Joseph Smith’s writings” outside the Book of Mormon are included in the discussion, there just is no doubt he didn’t read Mosiah 15:1-5 as Serial Modalism. Worse yet for the skeptics, D&C 93 is an almost perfect description of Representational Modalism / Divine Investiture based on growing grace from grace and taking upon the Father’s fullness rather than a literal putting of the Father’s spirit into a body at the birth of Jesus. In other words D&C 93’s version of Mosiah 15 is mutually exclusive from the Swedenborgian interpretation.
D&C 93 proves beyond doubt that there was supposed to be at least a Divine Investiture / Representational Modalism interpretation of Mosiah 15:1-5 back amongst 19th century Mormons. Therefore, we know for certain that the Swedenborgian interpretation isn’t the only one possible for the 19th century Mormons and the skeptics are wrong in insisting theirs is the sole possible interpretation.
Now, to be sure, if I were a skeptic, I’d merely claim that between 1830 and 1833 Joseph changed his mind. But we should note that if D&C 93 has been written in 1831 we could claim the same. Indeed, if it had been written even one month after the Book of Mormon we could claim the same. Therefore, I submit that D&C 93 is the final arbiter on this subject unless the skeptics can give us any reason whatsoever that Joseph actually believed Mosiah 15:1-4 was intended as Serial Modalism and then changed his mind by 1833.
[1] Wikipedia states: “Before about 1835, Mormon theological teachings were similar to that established view [of the Trinity]”
For those that want to see the 1835 edition of D&C 93, see here and here.