It was obvious to all who heard this voice that a divine being was speaking. Now the voice declares himself to be the God—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 “in the Father, and the Father in me.” This is Yahweh come down to earth.
Christology: This declaration of identity by the Messiah provides a turning point in the Nephite understanding of deity. It parallels a similar theological development after Christ’s ministry in the Old World. In the New World, the Nephites understood their God as Yahweh and also understood him as the Atoning Messiah who would come. (See “Excursus: The Nephite Understanding of God,” following 1 Nephi 11.) Their 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 (by this time) and the New, Yahweh’s people believed in one God (Alma 33:1).
The Messiah’s arrival in the New World clarifies the Nephites’ theological conception of God. The presence of Yahweh-Messiah 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. The blurring of identity between God the Father and God the Son that we have seen earlier will no longer occur (Morm. 9:37). 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. In 1 Nephi 11:18, which originally read, “Mary the mother of God,” “son of” was added later to provide the current reading: “Mary the mother of the son of God.” (See commentary accompanying that verse.) Here there is no confusion. The “Son of God” designation is not a later addition, but part of the original record. Nevertheless, Nephites still understood Yahweh as God.
Apologetics: The order in which Joseph Smith translated the plates after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages from the book of Lehi has generated two possibilities. (See commentary accompanying Jacob 4:7.) One possibility is that Joseph started over again with the small plates. The second is that he continued from where he left off (with Mosiah), then translated the small plates later.
Brent Lee Metcalfe, after presenting evidence of the second possibility, used it to critique the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith’s creation: “From the Lehites’ harrowing escape from Jerusalem to Moroni’s valedictory, the Nephite storyline is relatively fluid but not without exception. Occasionally the middle section of the book (Mosiah and 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.” He argues that the Book of Mormon understanding of Jesus Christ developed after 3 Nephi and that this “developed” Christology appears in the 1 Nephi–Omni material.
This argument is an interesting one, but it fails on two points. First, the “developing doctrine” theory assumes that the 1 Nephi–Omni material would have been readily available to the middle writers (Mosiah–3 Ne.), and therefore should have influenced them with this more developed theology. That assumption contradicts the text, which shows that the 1 Nephi–Omni material (small plates of Nephi) was not only a separate tradition but was not particularly well known. Mormon was unaware of the small plates’ existence before he came across them while searching among the records (W of M 1:3). The small plate material is not obviously quoted in the later sections, and references that parallel the material (such as Lehi’s foundational promise) apparently came from the large plates, not Nephi’s small plates.
More importantly, this assumption of developmental Christology conflicts with the Book of Mormon’s presentation of the Messiah’s identity. From 1 Nephi to 3 Nephi, the Messiah (Yahweh) is consistently identified as God and as both father and son. (See “Excursus: The Nephite Understanding of God,” following 1 Nephi 11.) After the Savior’s appearance, the theological use of father and son for Yahweh falls into disuse and the Most High God is the Father and Jesus the Atoning Messiah is the Son.