�鶹��ý

Readers of the Book of Mormon are sure to encounter what they may be tempted to call “trinitarian” depictions of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.[1] It is understandable why the text might leave this impression. Several passages in the Book of Mormon, after all, do in fact speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being “one God.” At the end of his record, Nephi bore testimony how “there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God” except through the name of Jesus Christ. He affirmed, “And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end” (2 Nephi 31:21). Centuries later, the prophet Abinadi taught that “because he dwelleth in flesh,” Jesus would be called the Son of God but that he would also be given the title of “Father, because he was conceived by the power of God,” thus making him both “the Father and Son”[2] and “one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:2–4).[3]

When he appeared to the assembled Lamanites and Nephites at the temple in the land of Bountiful, Jesus declared his gospel with precision and plainness, including the way the people would perform baptism (3 Nephi 11:21–41). As part of his instruction, Jesus affirmed, “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one,” and, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one” (3 Nephi 11:27). This Jesus would repeat later in a subsequent private discourse to his Nephite disciples, testifying, “All the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father; and the Father and I are one” (3 Nephi 20:35). Finally, in closing his record Mormon assured that those who had been saved and who “dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom” would “sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God” (Mormon 7:7).

Although an instinctive reaction to these verses would be to deem them “trinitarian,” one author writing in 1989 observed how “the important question becomes in what sense the Book of Mormon speaks of the oneness of the Godhead.” This is an important and often overlooked point. “That the Book of Mormon includes passages about the oneness of God does not necessarily establish it as trinitarian,”[4] this author continues, meaning the text does not necessarily promote the classical orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity as codified by the Nicene Creed of AD 325 and clarified by subsequent orthodox writers and theologians.[5] Indeed, there has been considerable debate over the precise nature of the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as revealed in the pages of the Book of Mormon, and calling the passages seen above and others like them “trinitarian” merely because they speak of three persons in the Godhead is inadequate for properly situating the text in its ancient context, to say nothing of its theological context.

The clear distinction between God the Father and Jehovah as made and understood by contemporary Latter-day Saints may not have been fully grasped by Book of Mormon peoples; the same holds true for the ancient Israelites.[6] The Nephites at the time of Benjamin clearly understood God to be Yahweh or Jehovah (e.g., Mosiah 3:8), and on at least five occasions in the Book of Mormon prophets declared that he who would perform the atonement was “God himself” (Mosiah 13:28, 34; 15:1; 17:8; Alma 42:15). And yet there are fifty-one cases where the title “Son of God” was also applied to Jesus Christ, showing they understood at some level that Jesus as Jehovah was their God but also that God the Father existed in a supraordinate position to Jesus. This was certainly apparent when Jesus prayed to God the Father (3 Nephi 19:27, 31, 33), a pattern they immediately replicated when the Twelve “prayed to the Father in the name of Jesus” (3 Nephi 18:24; 19:8) and later noted in Moroni 3:2. This was not a new paradigm, for Nephi had taught that they should “pray untothe Father in the name of Christ” for his approval and blessing (2 Nephi 32:9).

While Jesus is referred to as “God” in the Book of Mormon and in some instances is identified with Jehovah, the God of Israel (compare 3 Nephi 11:14),[7] the Nephites nevertheless expressly worshipped the Father. Jacob noted how “all the holy prophets” who came before them had “believed in Christ and worshipedthe Father in his name,” which he stated they also continued to do (Jacob 4:4–5). In fact, God the Father is mentioned individually at many points throughout the text. While still in the Old World, Nephi saw that “the work ofthe Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants” in the last days (1 Nephi 14:17). Nephi later wrote that the day would come when “the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh” (2 Nephi 25:12). That all three members of the Godhead were viewed as individual beings is also particularly clear from 2 Nephi 31:12, which reads: “And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost.” However, it is likely that the specific nature of the Godhead may not have been fully understood throughout Nephite history. It is possible that God the Father and Jehovah existed in a complex fashion as recipients of Nephite worship—thereby making this particular deity dyad less distinct at times. In our view, this blurring of lines between God the Father and Jesus Christ (Jehovah) in Nephite understanding was one contributing factor to the “trinitarian” language seen throughout the text of the Book of Mormon, and, concomitantly, made triadic deity complexes in both New and Old World contexts more mutually intelligible.

In this paper we seek to contribute to the ongoing discussion surrounding the trinitarian depiction of the Godhead in the Book of Mormon by situating its teaching about the nature of Jesus Christ and the relationship he shares with his Father in an ancient context. Specifically, this paper will explore how divine triads were understood and depicted in both the ancient Old and New Worlds. In terms of scope, this study will focus on two parts of the ancient world in making its comparisons with the Book of Mormon: Egypt and Mesoamerica. In our judgment, these two areas in particular offer interesting comparative data that afford useful ancient Near Eastern and ancient American cultural contexts for what readers encounter in the Book of Mormon. We are convinced that the divine triad of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as depicted in the Book of Mormon can be greatly illuminated by this comparative cultural approach. We shall therefore draw on ancient Egyptian and Mesoamerican textual material that describes divine triads in making our comparisons with the Book of Mormon and will assess how this cross-cultural context may help inform a modern Latter-day Saint reading of the text.[8] We hope to show how situating the teachings of Book of Mormon prophets in their ancient Old and New World contexts heightens our understanding of the Godhead and the nature of Jesus Christ.

Ancient Egyptian Triads

The ancient Egyptians acknowledged and worshipped a diversity of divine triads. This fact can be abundantly demonstrated through a variety of textual and nontextual sources.[9] Here we offer just a sampling of the evidence, drawn partly from the thorough analysis offered by Egyptologist J. Gwyn Griffiths in his important 1996 study.[10] “The triadic grouping of gods was an early and persistent tradition in the religion of Ancient Egypt,” Griffiths writes. “The best-known example is perhaps that of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, and the relationship within the triad is often on a family basis of father, mother, and child, although there are triads with three gods or three goddesses, the leading deities of one locality being sometimes this combined.” As he elaborates, the “prominence of this structural element in Egyptian religion” is such that it raises the serious question of whether Egypt “may well have influenced, in this matter, the formulation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.” In any case, “the triadic groupings are so conspicuous at all times in dynastic Egypt that they must be faced,” and what Griffiths asks for the Trinity of later Christian orthodoxy might with the same seriousness be asked of the Book of Mormon’s depiction of the Godhead.[11]

As Griffiths and others have observed, groupings of three divinities, or, alternatively, groupings of the king and two or three other patron deities, or general triadic groupings of a variety of figures, can be seen in the earliest epochs of Egyptian history in a number of different contexts.[12] In the mythological or heavenly realm, the Pyramid Texts from the Old Kingdom (circa 2700–2200 BC) display a “triadic schema” involving the deities Horus and Seth with the king and also Re addressing the king alongside Horus and Seth. In the pyramid of Unis these three gods are invoked in a recitation for the king’s ascent into heaven (PT 305): “Stand, O Unis, (says) Horus; sit, O Unis, (says) Seth; receive his arm, (says) Re.”[13] In another text from his pyramid (PT 268), Unis is said to be nursed by the divine triad of Isis, Nephthys, and Horus: “Isis shall nurture him; Nephthys shall give him suck; Horus shall receive him by his two fingers.”[14] The fluidity of these triads can be seen in the next recitation (PT 269) from Unis’s pyramid, where Isis and Nephthys are depicted together but Horus is substituted for Atum: “Unis shall go forth upon the thighs of Isis; this Unis shall climb upon the thighs of Nephthys; the father of Unis, Atum, shall take the arm of Unis for him.”[15]

In the Middle Kingdom (circa 2100–1650 BC) Coffin Texts, triadic groupings of a variety of divine “souls” (bAw) of gods are associated with their respective cities, including Heliopolis (Re, Shu, and Tefnut), Hermopolis (Thoth, Sia, and Atum), Buto (Horus, Imsety, and Hapy), and Hieraconpolis (Horus, Duamutef, and Qebehsenuef).[16] “The connection [of these triads] with specified places implies a reference to local gods,”[17] and indeed ancient Egypt saw a nationwide manifestation of triadic groupings attached to multiple cities.[18] The language used in Egyptian texts to revere and describe these triads is sometimes strikingly trinitarian. Take, for instance, the depiction of the divine triad of Amun-Re-Ptah as preserved in a New Kingdom papyrus (pLeiden I 350) dating to the end of the reign of Rameses II (circa 1228 BC).[19] This Hymn to Amun, as it is commonly designated, is divided into 26 “chapters” or “sections” (Hwt—“enclosure”) and focuses on the “ultimate cause” of creation, namely, “the creator himself, conceptualized in the god Amun.” Each chapter explores “a different aspect of the god” in what can otherwise be described as a fairly sophisticated theological exploration of the nature of the unity of Amun and his manifestations or appearances in other gods (and nature itself).[20] One passage from the text in particular stands out: “All the gods are three: Amun, Re, and Ptah, without their equal. His name is hidden as Amun; he is Re as the face; his body is Ptah. Their cities are upon the earth, established forever—Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis, for eternity.”[21]

In what Wilson called “a statement of trinity”[22] and Gardiner “a trinity in unity,”[23] here Amun, Re, and Ptah appear to be in some manner assumed into one divine being or substance identifiable as various manifestations, including their terrestrial localities. Particularly noteworthy is the numerical and grammatical ambivalence witnessed in the use of both the singular and plural prenominal suffixes. So, while Amun, Re, and Ptah are without their (=sn) equal and establish their (=sn) cities, his (=f) name is Amun, he (ntf) is Re, and his (=f) body is Ptah. “Three is the first number to signify a plural,” notes Otto. “But the number three contains at the same time the three components that express the essential qualities of a god—name, appearance, and essence. Amon, Ptah, and Ra embody in this sense all the gods, and at the same time they are only aspects of one ���ǻ�.”[24]

As is true with any theological discussion of the Christian Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, understanding what exactly the author of this text had in mind with this confusing formula is somewhat unclear. Gardiner understood this text as asserting Amun’s omnipotence, “the other gods [existing] only at his good pleasure.”[25] More recently Jan Assmann has explained that this trinitarian formula expresses the “three constituent elements of the divine person . . . put into the context of the earthly personified presence of the gods.”[26] In any case, this is not the only instance of a triadic conception of God in ancient Egypt.[27]

Given that the Book of Mormon depicts a Father-Son relationship between two of the persons in its triadic schema, it is interesting to further note how “the [Egyptian] deities are summarized in a pluralistic triad: the family. This theological solution of the problem of divine unity and plurality corresponds to the Egyptian conception of man not as a lone individual, but as a member of society.”[28] It is therefore plausible in some sense to maybe speak of ancient Egyptian triads as something like a “social trinity” which preserved the ontological distinctiveness of the individual gods while affirming their unity in the triad, as some Christian writers have posited for the Christian Trinity.[29] “By aid of the triad,” in other words, “divine plurality is explained as a unity.”[30]

What is said of Amun-Re-Ptah in pLeiden I 350 is similar to what was said of Atum, the primordial deity of the Heliopolitan Ennead, centuries earlier in Spell 80 of the Coffin Texts (II, 39): “Atum achieved eldership through his power when he begets Shu and Tefnut in Heliopolis; when he is One, so he becomes as Three.”[31] The determinative attached to “three” (xmt) in this passage is a seated god (with plural strokes), and, when coupled with the verbs in this text (wn, “to be”; followed by xpr, “to become”), would appear to indicate that “the doctrine emphasizes that Atum remained One after he became Three,” a theological conception which Griffiths compares to the position arrived at by the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.[32] The so-called Demotic Chronicle, dating to the early Ptolemaic period several centuries after the Amun hymn,[33] is also noteworthy given its description of the Apis Bull: “Apis, Apis, Apis, that means, Ptah, Pre, Harsiesis, who are the lords of the office of sovereign. . . . The three gods denote Apis. Apis is Ptah, Apis is Pre, Apis is Harsiesis.”[34] “What is implied” in this passage, Griffiths remarks, “is that these three gods are incorporated in Apis; they are, in effect, three forms of him. This recalls the doctrine of some early Christians that God in the trinity is revealed in three aspects or modes, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the primacy being assigned to the concept of God per se.”[35] It also recalls the depiction of Amun-Re-Ptah in pLeiden I 350 above, where the one god (Apis) is manifested as three separate deities (Ptah, Pre, and Harsiesis) who are assumed into a composite unity while retaining their individual ontology.

For a book “which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2), it is thus highly suggestive that we encounter comparable trinitarian concepts in the Book of Mormon. We are even tempted to apply Griffiths’s musing on “the possibility that Egyptian influence may later have affected the Christian formulation of the trinity” to the Book of Mormon. At the very least, “it must be agreed that Egyptian religion provides clear cases of triune conceptions of deity”[36] and that this provides a useful lens by which to analyze Nephite conceptions of the triunity of the Godhead.

Mesoamerican Triads

As interesting and illustrative as the Egyptian evidence might be for the Book of Mormon, the New World data on this topic are of particular consequence given the centuries-long historical and cultural context of the Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America.[37] There remain, however, significant gaps in our understanding of Nephite and especially Lamanite religion. We are given precious little information on the nature of the pantheons of Lamanites and other non-Nephite groups in the Book of Mormon. There is a singular, clear reference to polytheism at the end of the text in Mormon 4:14 where the Lamanites are said to have taken “many prisoners both women and children,” whom they offered “as sacrifices unto their idol gods.” Our only specific discussion of a Lamanite deity comes around 90 BC, where Ammon’s seemingly super-human abilities caused some Lamanites to ask if he were not in fact “the Great Spirit” come to punish them because of the murders they had committed (Alma 18:2; 19:25). This mention of “the Great Spirit” provides a singular emic description of the name of a Lamanite god. We also know from the text that the Great Spirit was viewed as a vengeful god because the Lamanites state that he “had destroyed so many of their brethren, the Lamanites” in the past (Alma 19:27). Lamoni initially believed that Ammon was this Great Spirit incarnate, a god spoken of by their fathers (Alma 18:4), indicating they believed the Great Spirit could assume bodily form. At this point in the narrative, Mormon interjects and clarifies that “this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit” (Alma 18:5). In other words, the belief of a Great Spirit was something held by Lamoni’s ancestors; importantly, however, we are not told whether this was true for all Lamanite groups (of which there were many, each of which could have their own king [compare Mosiah 24:2]), or whether this was a local patron deity of his particular city. Lamoni’s father attempted to reconcile his belief system with that of the Nephites’ when he asked if the Great Spirit was the deity “that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem,” to which Aaron, Ammon’s brother, responds in proper missionary bridge-building fashion, “Yea, he is that Great Spirit” (Alma 22:9–10).

While we make no direct effort to compare Lamanite gods to those of the ancient Maya or other Mesoamerican groups (because we have almost no data from the text for comparative purposes), there is one striking feature of the ancient Maya pantheon for which comparisons may be instructive: the presence of triadic deity complexes. The ancient Maya pantheon consisted of dozens of “gods” (��’u��), although the English term seems somewhat inadequate to describe the true nature of Maya supernatural beings. Gods in the Maya pantheon were not always discrete entities; rather they could conflate and overlap with other gods at times.[38] Martin suggests the term theosynthesis[39] to account for the fusion that takes place among Mesoamerican gods at times, and which he defines broadly as “the pictorial convergence of a deity with some other deity, creature, object, or material.”[40]

Apart from the pan-regional gods that were shared among many ancient Maya groups, local patron deities often rose to particular prominence. While these tutelary deities sometimes appear as pairs[41]—likely a reflection of the symmetric dualism common to Mesoamerica—in many cases individual gods are manifest as a trinity. All indications are that the notion of a deity triad stretches back millennia in Mesoamerica, certainly into at least late Book of Mormon times.[42] One of the first such triads to be recognized was at the Maya city of Palenque by Heinrich Berlin.[43] Berlin, unable to read hieroglyphs for each of the god names, simply labeled them GI, GII, and GIII. These three gods are repeatedly mentioned as a group in numerous texts at the site of Palenque. In this case, there was a hierarchy among the three since GI was “clearly the dominant and senior member.”[44] At Palenque and other Maya sites, the presence of deity triads often correlates with the construction of specific buildings dedicated to each of the three gods. Mesoamerican temples were commonly held to be dwelling places of particular gods. Epigraphic evidence shows the inner shrines of certain Maya buildings were conceived as being “god houses,”[45] either being owned by the gods themselves or by humans.[46] For example, at Palenque, the triad had at least one shrine dedicated to each member: GI the Temple of the Cross, GII the Temple of the Foliated Cross, and GIII the Temple of the Sun, thereby forming a triadic architectural complex. Beginning about 300 BC, we see triadic deities being mirrored by these triadic architectural groupings throughout the southern Maya lowlands.[47] Indeed, Hansen has argued that deity triads may have provided the “mythological basis” for these triadic architectural layouts.[48]

Several major Maya cities have clearly defined triadic deity complexes. For example, groupings of three gods in hieroglyphic texts appear on four separate monuments at Caracol (Stela 16), at Tikal on Stela 26, La Mar Stela 1, and at Naranjo on HS1 Step II (C2b-D2). At each of these four sites, however, the triad members do not fully correlate, clearly indicating the choice of which three deities was strictly a local phenomenon. The earliest appearance of a deity triad appears at Tikal on Stela 26, a reused basal fragment found in the shrine of Structure 5D-34-1st of the North Acropolis. In its original form, Stela 26 was likely a monument dating to the mid-fourth century AD during the reign of Chak Tok Ich’aak. A possible explanation for the reuse of this destroyed monument could lie in the content of the text itself, which contains a mention of the Tikal triad. Charcoal deposits around the stela show that burning ceremonies were being performed at the monument into the eighth and ninth centuries AD.[49] At Tikal the triad consists of “Baby Jaguar” (Unehn K’awiil), “The Principal Bird Deity” (Muut Itzamnaaj), and Ehb K’inich (possibly Yax Ehb Xook) on Stela 26. Here, however, the triad appears before the mention on a Tikal patron goddess, Ix Mut.[50] It is also noteworthy that triad gods are sometimes described as being “owned” by the rulers of a particular site. At Palenque, for example, on the tablet of the Temple of the Inscriptions and the Cross Group texts each of the three gods is said to be the ujuntahn, “sole/precious cared for one” or “receiver of the diligent care of” the king. The third person possessive pronoun u- marks the gods as being the “possession” or “thing owned” by each king.

As Houston and Stuart have noted, the Palenque triad are not universal throughout the Maya area; rather they are distinctly local patron gods linked to the Palenque dynasty—a pattern found at other major Maya sites.[51] As Stuart stated, “I prefer to see the Palenque Triad as a local expression of wider mode of categorizing gods into a triadic format having its own deep cosmological meaning.”[52] The fact that all three Palenque Triad gods appear at others sites (not necessarily in triadic form) show that they “were members of the primary pantheon of Maya deities,”[53] but whose makeup of individual triads at different sites was not universal. Wright similarly emphasizes the site-specific nature of triadic deity complexes where “each triad created a diacritical marker of local identity and provided a unique mythological template for each city.”[54] Furthermore, the presence of a deity triad did not preclude the worship of other deities at a particular site. Various supernatural beings were often simultaneously worshipped, and the specific prominence afforded one god at any given period likely changed over time.[55] In some cases, deity triads are introduced by a glyphic compound that seems to deictically mark a trinity. This phrase, which reads ux-?-ti-��’u�� (three [?] gods), with one syllable of unsure reading,[56] appears before mentions of patron deity triads at various sites such as Palenque, Caracol, Tikal, and on polychrome ceramic vessels,[57] as well as in the Dresden Codex (P. 69, block C2-B2).[58]

In terms of function, triadic patron gods sometimes oversaw important events in the lives of rulers. Certain ceremonies were epigraphically stated to be performed y-ichnal, or “in the presence of” the Palenque Triad of patron deities. Stuart also notes that similar language appears on La Mar Stela 1 where a ruler is crowned y-ichnal u ��’u��uul, “before his gods.”[59] At the site of Piedras Negras, the elegantly carved Panel II depicts a banquet attended by Itzam K’an Ahkul II where the ruler danced (����’t����) and drank fermented cacao (uch’un tikal kakaw). The narrative then discusses an earlier event that took place in AD 518, at which Ruler 2 “took the [war] helmet” (uch’amaw kohaw) while “in the company of” (y-ichnal) three Piedras Negras patron gods (u��’u��uul).

There is also considerable ethnographic data to suggest different Maya groups worshipped a trinity of gods. For instance, the Northern Zapotecs of western Mexico had a deity triad.[60] Among the K’iche’ Maya of Guatemala, early evangelization efforts confronted triadic deity complexes such as Jun Junajpu and his two sons, Junajpu and Xb’alanque. Quiroa has noted that sixteenth-century missionaries found this to be “an opportunity to teach the Judeo-Christian concept of the Trinity, associating Jun Junajpu with God the Father, and Junajpu as a personification of Christ, born from divine conception.”[61] The K’iche’ lineage rulers who had responsibility for community temples also recognized three main local deities, Tohil, Auilix, and Hacavitz.[62] Furthermore, the Yucatec Maya likewise had the concept of three principal gods,[63] and in larger, conceptual terms, they classified deities into three distinct groups: balams (village guardians), chaacs (rain deities), and kuilob kaaxob (forest gods).[64]

In short, deity triads are clearly present in ancient, colonial, and modern Mesoamerican groups. While we have here focused principally on the deity triads of Palenque, Naranjo, and Tikal, there are in fact twenty-six different triads in the Maya hieroglyphic corpus.[65] Other notable sites such as Calakmul (e.g., Stela 58), Cancuen (e.g., Cancuen Panel), Yaxchilan, La Corona, Naranjo, and Copan have triadic lists of gods at times, showing the conception of a triadic deity unity has deep roots in the ancient Maya systems of worship.

The Godhead in the Book of Mormon Reconsidered

Besides being interesting, what might all of this teach us about the Book of Mormon’s depiction of the triunity of the Godhead? Several considerations come to mind. The first and most obvious is that these examples show just how widespread divine triads or trinities were throughout the ancient world.[66] The Book of Mormon’s depiction of a specific triad of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost worshipped by the ancient Nephites was just one of a multiplicity of divine triads scattered throughout the religious landscape of antiquity.[67] Furthermore, as seen from the evidence reviewed above, divine triads in both the Old and New Worlds tended to be localized to specific cities or cultic sites. Recognizing this might provide a useful way to understand the Nephite Godhead in the broader cultural landscape of ancient Mesoamerica. As Mark Alan Wright explained, “The Mesoamerican landscape was home to countless cultures throughout its pre-Columbian history. . . . Some of these cultures are well known, such as the Olmec, Maya, and Aztecs, but the majority of these ancient societies remain obscure.”[68] In what Wright describes as “localized diversity,” it is apparent from “the diversity of material culture” and from other strands of evidence that Mesoamerican kings “ruled over a multiethnic population, a melting pot of cultures from the Maya heartland in the west to Central American cultures in the east.”[69] We can perhaps situate the Nephites and their divine triad of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost into this diverse cultural landscape and understand their religious devotion as described in Mormon’s record not as a pan-national or pan-ethnic phenomenon but as a localized religious custom observed only in those lands that at some point hosted Nephite occupation. This would be consistent with what we have seen when it comes to the worship of divine triads in the ancient world and would explain why some Book of Mormon peoples, like the Lamanite king Lamoni and his subjects, were evidently ignorant of the Nephite Godhead. It might also satisfy those who wonder why there does not appear to be unambiguous attestation of the worship of the specific deity Jehovah in ancient America in the available epigraphic and iconographic record.[70]

Understanding divine triads, especially Mesoamerican triads, also possibly adds additional context to the relationship shared by God the Father and Jesus Christ. First, the notion of a triadic deity complex would have been highly meaningful and would have situated well within either of these cultural contexts. The limited Mesoamerican data suggests that the trinitarian language in the Book of Mormon that speaks of three divinities being “one god” (e.g., 2 Nephi 31:21; Mosiah 15:4) could have been viewed through the lens of “theosynthesis,” wherein individual deities could merge in some sense either physically or in terms of purpose and divine mission,[71] the latter being the clear intention of the Nephite authors. Also, Benjamin’s teaching that the Lord “dwelleth not in unholy temples” (Mosiah 2:37), specific language not found in the Bible (although alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:17), fully resonates with both an ancient Egyptian and a Mesoamerican understanding that gods dwelled in temples, often in triadic architectural complexes. While such terminology of temples as “god houses” is found throughout the Old and New Worlds,[72] both its prominence among Mesoamerican groups as well as the antiquity of attestations of this specific language lends special significance to Benjamin’s phraseology and theology.

To be sure, Nephite prophets learned by revelation about God’s nature and the character of his divine Son. Lehi, at the inauguration of his prophetic ministry, for example, was given a revelation where he learned “plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world” (1 Nephi 1:19). So likewise, Nephi and Benjamin learned the name of Jesus Christ by divine manifestation (2 Nephi 25:19; Mosiah 3:2, 8). But all revelation is bound to the culture and language of those receiving it (compare 2 Nephi 31:3; Doctrine and Covenants 1:24), just as manifestations of apostasy are constrained by the culture and language of those who fall away from divinely revealed truth.[73] Knowing something about divine triads as anciently conceptualized therefore helps us better appreciate the cultural context in which Nephite prophets taught about the nature of God and resisted opposing theological forces. As Wright and Gardner explain, “Syncretizing Nephite and Mesoamerican religions had to deal with concepts of deity. On this most fundamental point, where modern monotheists would see tremendous differences with the Mesoamerican polytheists, there were sufficient perceived similarities that the Nephite explanation of deity could accommodate, or be accommodated to, Mesoamerican ideas about the nature of the divine.”[74] By putting its teachings about the Godhead against this ancient cultural backdrop, the Book of Mormon’s message becomes all the more focused and clearer to modern readers who may otherwise not enjoy the benefit of this context.

From this study we therefore see emerge a plausible ancient context for the Book of Mormon’s trinitarianism, and one that can increase our appreciation for and understanding of the book’s theology. There is nothing really to suggest the Book of Mormon depicts the classical orthodox trinity of Nicaea. Never does the text suggest Jesus and God the Father are of one substance (homoousios), for example, which was precisely the metaphysical lynchpin of the Nicene council’s theological determination.[75] Nor, for that matter, is there reason to suppose the text promotes trinitarian modalism, despite the insistence of some authors. The social Nephite triad of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost who act in concert as “one God” (or Godhead) but who also clearly retain their individual personhood is a trinitarian concept basically unique to the Book of Mormon, but one that does find intriguing parallel with the evidence reviewed above. The Book of Mormon’s divine trinity, we contend, is best understood as a deity complex that reflects especially well an ancient Mesoamerican perspective on the nature of God but one that also finds significant parallel with Old World sources.[76]

Of course, the overtly Christological nature of the Nephite Godhead cannot be accounted for on historical grounds, because the book claims that its inspired authors derived that understanding from revelation, the ultimate reality of which historical inquiry can neither absolutely confirm nor deny. Yet it is striking that two cultural regions, Egypt and Mesoamerica, both of which arguably are linked to the Book of Mormon, have such highly developed but fluid notions of deity triads. Book of Mormon events did not take place in a vacuum, and so the theology expressed by authors in the text must be contextualized in the cultures that both informed them and with which they interacted. As we have shown here, the expression of trinitarian language in the Book of Mormon is certainly reflective of triadic deity complexes from ancient Egypt and Mesoamerica. Any attempt at grounded theological exposition on the nature of Jesus Christ and the relationship he shares with the other two members of this triad would do well to take this into account.

Notes

[1] An earlier and rough version of this paper originally appeared as Stephen O. Smoot, “A Note on Book of Mormon ‘Trinitarianism,’” Ploni Almoni, March 5, 2018, https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/03/a-note-on-book-of-mormon-trinitarianism.html. This current version of the paper at times slightly revises the language of the earlier blog version while also significantly expanding on it.

[2] This reasoning is nearly the same Jesus himself uses to describe how he is both Father and Son. In Doctrine and Covenants 93, Jesus states how “I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one” (verse 3), and then explicates, “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” (verse 4).

[3] Abinadi’s discourse to the priests of King Noah recorded in Mosiah 12–16 has received sustained attention by exegetes, including specifically his remarks on the relationship between the Father and the Son preserved in Mosiah 15:1–9. For representative samples of useful hermeneutical exploration of this text, see generally Richard L. Bushman, “Abinadi on the Nature of Christ,” Millennial Star, April 1958, 104–6, 111–12; Robert L. Millet, “The Ministry of the Father and the Son,” in The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, ed. Paul R. Cheesman (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 44–72; Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 103–5; Paul Y. Hoskisson, “The Fatherhood of Christ and the Atonement,” Religious Educator 1, no. 1 (2000): 71–80; Brian K. Ray, “Adoption and Atonement: Becoming Sons and Daughters of Christ,” in Religious Educator 6, no. 3 (2005): 129–36; Jared T. Parker, “Abinadi on the Father and the Son: Interpretation and Application,” in Living the Book of Mormon: Abiding by Its Precepts, ed. Gaye Strathearn and Charles Swift (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007), 136–50; Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 3:299–308.

[4] Dan Vogel, “The Earliest Mormon Concept of God,” in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1989), 21. Vogel, “The Earliest Mormon Concept of God,” 22, goes on to argue that the Book of Mormon reflects a modalistic rather than classical trinitarian view of the Godhead because of its “failure to clearly distinguish between the person of the Father and the person of the Son,” and, furthermore, because “modalistic elements such as the literal oneness of the Godhead, the Father becoming the Son, and patripassianism are clearly expressed in the Book of Mormon.” Vogel’s arguments, and others like his that see the Book of Mormon as teaching a form of modalism, have been convincingly challenged by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, “The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths,” FARMS Review of Books 13, no. 2 (2001): 109–69; Barry R. Bickmore, “Does the Book of Mormon Teach Mainstream Trinitarianism or Modalism?” (2001), online at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/; Blake T. Ostler, “Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity,” Element: The Journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology 1, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 31–58; David L. Paulsen and Ari D. Bruening, “The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi,” in Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, ed. Andrew C. Skinner and Gaye Strathearn (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell for Religious Scholarship, 2012), 191–233.

[5] A highly useful and accessible overview of the council and its theological outcome specifically aimed for a Latter-day Saint audience can be found in Lincoln H. Blumell, “Rereading the Council of Nicaea and Its Creed,” in Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy, ed. Miranda Wilcox and John D. Young (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 196–217.

[6] In 1916 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve published a “doctrinal exposition” clarifying the use of the titles “Father” and “Son” as they pertain to God the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ, the first and second members of the Godhead. This treatise standardized and codified as a matter of official doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the usage of the name Elohim to refer to God the Father and Jehovah to refer to Jesus Christ. It further delineated the ways in which Jesus Christ could rightly assume the title and role of “father,” such as his role as Creator, his being the “father” of those who accept his Gospel, and his “fatherhood” being related to the investiture of authority given to him by his own Father. See “The Father and the Son. A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve,” Deseret Evening News, July 1, 1916, 4; “The Father and the Son,” Improvement Era, August 1916, 934–42. This exposition was republished as “Gospel Classics: The Father and the Son,” Ensign, April 2002, 13–18. However, as Latter-day Saint scholars have observed, while this usage of the names Elohim and Jehovah are normative for modern Latter-day Saints, these divine names and other titles, including “Lord,” were not uniformly applied throughout the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and among early Latter-day Saints. See the insightful comments in Ryan Conrad Davis and Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Usage of the Title Elohim in the Hebrew Bible and Early Latter-day Saint Literature,” in Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown, ed. Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl Griffin (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2011), 113–35; “Usage of the Title Elohim,” Religious Educator 14, no. 1 (2013): 109–27. For a Latter-day Saint argument that the New Testament authors understood Jesus to be Jehovah, see Roger R. Keller, “Jesus is Jehovah (YHWH): A Study in the Gospels,” in Jesus Christ: Son of God, Savior, ed. Paul H. Peterson, Gary L. Hatch, and Laura D. Card (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2002), 120–51. Throughout this paper we accept and employ the conventional Latter-day Saint standard of using the divine name Jehovah (or Yahweh) to refer to Jesus Christ.

[7] In addition to the examples cited above, consider also that the Book of Mormon frequently employs the divine title “Holy One of Israel,” used in the Hebrew Bible for Jehovah (e.g., Psalm 89:18; Isaiah 1:4; 5:24; 10:20; 30:15; 31:1; 41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 55:5; 60:9, 14; Jeremiah 50:29) to refer unambiguously and explicitly to Jesus Christ (e.g., 2 Nephi 1:10; 3:2; 6:9–10, 15; 9:11–12, 19, 23–26, 40–41; 25:29; 30:2; Omni 1:25–26; 3 Nephi 22:5). This fact does not on its own prove the Nephites exclusively understood or applied the name Jehovah to Jesus Christ, but it is consistent with our claim that they in some manner did recognize him as such.

[8] We are of course aware that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes no official position on the geographical setting of the events narrated in the Book of Mormon. As an official statement from the Church has made clear, “Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, members and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have expressed numerous opinions about the specific locations of the events discussed in the book. Some believe that the history depicted in the Book of Mormon—with the exception of the events in the Near East—occurred in North America, while others believe that it occurred in Central America or South America. Although Church members continue to discuss such theories today, the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.” See “Book of Mormon Geography,” Gospel Topics, online at www.churchofjesuschrist.org. We respect and affirm the Church’s neutrality on Book of Mormon geography as a matter of revealed doctrine. In this paper we assume a Mesoamerican cultural and geographical setting for the Book of Mormon not as such, but rather out of our own individual scholarly judgments that a Mesoamerican setting matches best the world of the Book of Mormon as described in the text and provides an especially illustrative cultural backdrop by which to read the text. We of course recognize that some readers of this paper may in good faith hold to different geography theories for the New World setting of the Book of Mormon but nevertheless hope that what we have to offer herein will be of interest.

[9] See variously Herman Te Velde, “Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57 (1971): 80–86; J. Gwyn Griffiths, “Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt,” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache 100 (1973): 28–32; Wendy Wood, “A Reconstruction of the Triads of King Mycerinus,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 60 (1974): 82–93; L. Kákosy, “A Memphite Triad,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 66 (1980): 48–53; Manana Khvedelidse, “Babylonian and Egyptian Triads,” in Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien, ed. Horst Klengel, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982), 137–41; L. Kákosy, “The Ptah-Shu-Tefnut Triad and the Gods of the Winds on a Ptolemaic Sarcophagus,” in Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman Te Velde, ed. Jacobus van Dijk, Egyptological Memoirs 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 219–29; J. Gwyn Griffiths, Triads and Trinity (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), 11–113; Edward Brovarski, “A Traid for Pehenptah,” in Essays in Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipińska, Warsaw Egyptological Studies 1 (Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw, 1997), 261–74; Florence Dunn Friedman, “Reading the Menkaure Triads, Part I,” in Palace and Temple: 5th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, ed. Rolf Gundlach and Kate Spence, Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft Früher Hochkulturen 4,2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011), 23–56; “Reading the Menkaure Triads: Part II (Multi-directionality),” in Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750–2150 BC, ed. Nigel Strudwick and Helen Strudwick (Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, 2011), 93–114; José das Candeias Sales, “Divine Triads of Ancient Egypt,” Hathor: Studies of Egyptology 1 (2012): 115–35.

[10] J. Gwyn Griffiths, Triads and Trinity (University of Wales Press, 1996): 11–113.

[11] Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 11.

[12] See Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 11–43, and the authorities cited in note 7 above.

[13] Egyptian: aHa Wnis in 1r Hms Wnis in 4t Ssp a=f in Ra. James P. Allen, A New Concordance of the Pyramid Texts, Vol. III: PT 247–421 (Providence, RI: Brown University, 2013), §PT 305 473b–473c; Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Writings from the Ancient World 23, ed. Peter Der Manuelian (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 57; Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 31. Unless otherwise indicated, translations from the Egyptian are ours.

[14] Egyptian: ATy sw Ist snq sw Nbt-Hwt Ssp sw 1r r Dbawy=f. Allen, A New Concordance of the Pyramid Texts, Vol. III, §PT 268 371c–372a; The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 49; Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 32.

[15] Egyptian: pr Wnis Hr mntwy Ist Hfd Wnis pn Hr mntwy Nbt-Hwt nDry n=f it Wnis Itm a n Wnis. Allen, A New Concordance of the Pyramid Texts, Vol. III, §PT 269 379c–380a; The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 49; Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 32.

[16] Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 45, citing CT II, 286b–c, 323c–325e, 348b–c.

[17] Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 45.

[18] Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 80–113.

[19] James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts, Yale Egyptological Seminar (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 49.

[20] James P. Allen, “From Papyrus Leiden I 350,” in The Context of Scripture, Volume I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 23.

[21] Egyptian: xmt pw nTrw nbw Imn Ra PtH nn nw=sn imn(.w) rn=f m Imn ntf Ra m Hr Dt=f PtH niwt=sn Hr tA smn(.w) r nHH wAst Hwt-kA-PtH r Dt. Alan H. Gardiner, “Hymns to Amon from a Leiden Papyrus,” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache 42 (1905): 35.

[22] John A. Wilson, “Amon as the Sole God,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 369n11.

[23] Gardiner, “Hymns to Amon from a Leiden Papyrus,” 36.

[24] Eberhard Otto, Egyptian Art and the Cults of Osiris and Amon, trans. Kate Bosse Griffiths (London: Thames and Hudson, 1968), 52, emphasis in original. As Otto elaborates, “The two triads Osiris-Isis-Horus and Amon-Ptah-Ra are joined by the king himself [Sety I], the original owner of the mortuary temple [at Abydos]. In this way is reached the otherwise uncommon number seven. Probably the Egyptians would have gone still one step further and explained the seven as a triad, that is, the gods around Osiris, the gods of the country, and the king.”

[25] Gardiner, “Hymns to Amon from a Leiden Papyrus,” 36.

[26] Jan Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism, trans. Anthony Alcock, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2009), 141–42,

[27] Herman Te Velde begins his 1971 study on this subject by observing, “Although the Egyptian word for triad rarely appears in Egyptian texts, the triad is undoubtedly a structural element of Egyptian religion.” (Te Velde, “Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads,” 80.) Such triads include: Amun-Re-Ptah, Khepri-Re-Atum, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, Qadesh-Astarte-Anat, Atum-Shu-Tefnut, Osiris-Isis-Horus, Amun-Re-Horakhty, Amun-Re-Montu, Re-Horaskhty-Osiris, Ptah-Sakhmet-Nefertem, and the Ennead of Heliopolis, “structured in three phases: Atum became Shu and Tefnut; Shu and Tefnut became Geb and Nut, Geb and Nut became Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys. Thus the triadic structure . . . is not 3 x 3 but 1+2+2+4. To the one god, gods were added three times.” Te Velde, “Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads,” 81–83, quote at 83; Griffiths, “Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt,” 29.

[28] Te Velde, “Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads,” 83.

[29] Compare Michael C. Rea, “Polytheism and Christian Belief,” Journal of Theological Studies 57, no. 1 (2006): 133–48, who seems to recognize this but despairs of the theological consequences of admitting such.

[30] Te Velde, “Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads,” 82; Griffiths, “Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt,” 29, points out that grammatically the Ennead is likewise ambivalently treated as both a singular and a plural.

[31] Egyptian: iri.n Itm smsw m Axw=f m mst=f 5w 6fnt m iwnw m wn=f way m xpr=f m xmt. Adriaan de Buck, ed., The Egyptian Coffin Texts, II: Texts of Spells 76–163 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 39.

[32] Griffiths, “Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt,” 29.

[33] H. Felber, “Die Demotische Chronik,” in Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine Kritische Analyse der Relevanten Texte aus dem Griechisch-Römischen Ägypten, ed. A. Blasius and B. U. Schipper (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 68.

[34] Egyptian: 1ap 1ap 1ap Dd PtH pA-Ra 1r-sA-ast nt aw nA nbw n tA aAwt . . . 1ap pA xmt nTrw Dd=f 1ri nAi 1ap PtH pAi 1ap pA-Ra pAi 1ap 1r-sA-ast pAi. As translated in Griffiths, “Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt,” 29. For the Demotic transliteration, see Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Die sogenannte Demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliothèque Nationale zu Paris (Leipzig: Hinrichsche Buchhandlung, 1914), 12, lines 12–13; cf. Felber, “Die Demotische Chronik,” 86, who renders this passage: “Apis, Apis, Apis! Ptah, Re, Harsiese, welche die Herren des Herscheramtes sind. . . . Apis ist die drei Götter, die er oben genannt hat. Apis ist Ptah; Apis ist Re; Apis ist Harsiese.”

[35] Griffiths, “Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt,” 30; compare Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, 91.

[36] Griffiths, “Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt,” 32.

[37] On which, see generally John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1985); Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013).

[38] Jan Szymański, “Between Death and Divinity: Rethinking the Significance of Triadic Groups in Ancient Maya Culture,” Estudios de Cultura Maya 44 (2014): 149, 158.

[39] Simon Martin, The Old Man of the Maya Universe: A Unitary Dimension to Ancient Maya Religion, in Maya Archaeology 3, ed. Charles Golden, Stephen Houston, and Joel Skidmore (San Francisco: Precolumbia Mesoweb Press, 2015), 186–227.

[40] Martin, The Old Man of the Maya Universe, 210.

[41] Mark Alan Wright, “A Study of Classic Maya Rulership” (PhD diss., University of California, Riverside, 2001), 231.

[42] David Stuart, “The Gods of Heaven and Earth,” Del saber ha hecho su razón de ser. Homenaje a Alfredo López Austin 2 (2017): 257.

[43] Heinrich Berlin, “The Palenque Triad,” Journal de la Societe des Americanistes 59 (1963): 107–35.

[44] David Stuart, “The Palenque Mythology,” in Sourcebook for the 2005 Maya Meetings, Austin. The Mesoamerica Center, Department of Art and Art History, University of Texas (Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 2005), 88.

[45] Stephen Houston, and David Stuart, “Of Gods, Glyphs and Kings: Divinity and Rulership among the Classic Maya,” Antiquity 70, no. 268 (1996): 293.

[46] William Saturno, Franco D. Rossi, David Stuart, and Heather Hurst, “A Maya Curia Regis: Evidence for a Hierarchical Specialist Order at Xultun, Guatemala,” Ancient Mesoamerica 28, no. 2 (2017): 432.

[47] Arlen F. Chase, and Diane Z. Chase, “Complex Societies in the Southern Maya Lowlands: Their Development and Florescence in the Archaeological Record,” in The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology, ed. Deborah L. Nichols and Christopher A. Pool (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 258.

[48] Richard D. Hansen, “The Archaeology of Ideology: A Study of Maya Preclassic Architectural Sculpture at Nakbe, Peten, Guatemala” (PhD diss., Department of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1992), 167–68.

[49] William Coe, Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace, and North Acropolis of Tikal, Tikal Report #14, University Monograph 61 (Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1990), 476, 498–99. See also Megan E. O'Neil, “Ancient Maya Sculptures of Tikal, Seen and Unseen,” Res 55/56 (Spring/Autumn 2009): 123–24.

[50] Simon Martin, “Early Classic Co-Rulers on Tikal Temple VI,” Maya Decipherment: A Weblog on the Ancient Maya Script, November 22, 2014, https://mayadecipherment.com/tag/tikal/.

[51] Houston and Stuart, “Of Gods, Glyphs, and Kings,” 301.

[52] Stuart, “The Palenque Mythology,” 90.

[53] Karen Bassie-Sweet, “The Chahk Thunderbolt Deities and Flint Weapons,” in Maya Gods of War, ed. Karen Bassie-Sweet (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2021), 41.

[54] Wright, “A Study of Classic Maya Rulership,” 230.

[55] Christian M. Prager, “A Study of the Classic Maya ��’u�� Concept,” in Tiempo detenido, tiempo suficiente, ed. Verónica Amellali Vázquez López et al. (Wayeb, 2018), 603.

[56] The second sign resembles the lu syllable, which would yield a lut reading. Nicholas Hopkins first proposed a Ch’ol cognate lot meaning “together”, suggesting a possible “three-together-gods” interpretation for this compound. Similar terminology appears in Tzotzil Maya (ox lot, lit. ‘three together’) as a name for three stars found in the belt of Orion. Evan Vogt, “Zinacanteco Astronomy,” Mexicon 19, no. 6 (1997): 112. However, the lu syllable is not safely identifiable in this case, so the reading of this grouping remains unsecure.

[57] Stuart, “The Palenque Mythology,” 160.

[58] Carl Callaway, A Catalogue of Maya Era Day Inscriptions (PhD thesis, La Trobe University, Australia, 2012), 255.

[59] David Stuart, “Making a Mountain: The Reconstruction of Text Fragments from Palenque’s Palace Tablet,” The PARI Journal 21, no. 3 (2021): 7.

[60] David Tavárez, Rethinking Zapotec Time: Cosmology, Ritual, and Resistance in Colonial Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2022).

[61] Nestor Quiroa, “Missionary Exegesis of the Popol Vuh: Maya-K’iche’ Cultural and Religious Continuity in Colonial and Contemporary Highland Guatemala,” History of Religions 53, no. 1 (2013): 78.

[62] Hubert Howe Bancroft, The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, vol. 3: The Native Races, vol. 3, Myths and Languages (San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft, 1883), 554, 648. See also Allen Christenson, Popol Vuh: The Sacred Book of the Maya (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2012), 212.

[63] Luis Rosado Vega, Amerindmaya (Mexico: Botas, 1938), 82–83.

[64] Robert Redfield and Alfonso Villa Rojas, Chan Kom, A Maya Village (Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1934), 112–13, 134.

[65] Joanne Baron, “Metapragmatics in Archaeological Analysis: Interpreting Classic Maya Patron Deity Veneration,” Signs and Society 2, no. 2 (2014): 180.

[66] Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, passim, reviews divine triads from a variety of ancient cultures and parts of the world, ranging from Iran to India to Mesopotamia to the Greco-Roman world.

[67] In this regard, it is noteworthy that a contemporary critic of Joseph Smith thought the Book of Mormon anachronistic for its portrayal of the Trinity. See Alexander Campbell, “Delusions,” Millennial Harbinger, February 1831, 92. Time, it would appear, continues to vindicate the prophets.

[68] Mark Alan Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22, no. 2 (2013): 4.

[69] Wright, “The Cultural Tapestry of Mesoamerica,” 11.

[70] Notwithstanding the well-intended efforts of writers such as L. Taylor Hansen, He Walked the Americas (Amherst, WI: Amherst Press, 1963), Bruce W. Warren and Thomas Stuart Ferguson, The Messiah in Ancient America (Provo, UT: Book of Mormon Research Foundation, 1987), Diane E. Wirth, “Quetzalcoatl, the Maya Maize God, and Jesus Christ,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 4–15, 107, and David G. Calderwood, Voices from the Dust: New Insights into Ancient America a Comparative Evaluation of Early Spanish and Portuguese Chronicles, Archaeology and Art History, the Book of Mormon (Austin, TX: Historical Publications, 2005), efforts to demonstrate the presence of the worship of Jesus Christ among the peoples of ancient America are fraught with both methodological and evidentiary problems. See, for example, the considered critique of this line of argumentation by Brant A. Gardner, “The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl,” Sunstone, August 1986, 7–10; Second Witness, 5:353–95.

[71] The unity of Jesus and God the Father in the Book of Mormon is certainly not one of substance but one aptly described by Abinadi (Mosiah 15:7) as a unity of purpose, “the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.”

[72] For example, at the site of Copan, certain miniature stone temples were epigraphically labeled as uwayib ��’u��, “the sleeping places of the ���ǻ�.” Similarly, in Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, the term for “temple” was teocalli, literally “god-house.” In the colonial period, the Yukatek Mayan referred likewise referred to a temple as ��’u�� nah, literally “god-house.” For an informative discussion on the temple/house complex in Mesoamerica see Karl Taube, “The Classic Maya Temple: Centrality, Cosmology, and Sacred Geography in Ancient Mesoamerica,” in Heaven on Earth: Temples, Ritual, and Cosmic Symbolism in the Ancient World, ed. Deena Ragavan (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2013), 90–91. In ancient Egypt the terminology is similar, with both pr-nTr (“house of the god”) and Hwt-nTr (“enclosure of the god”) as the most common designations.

[73] Mark Alan Wright, “‘According to Their Language, unto Their Understanding’: The Cultural Context of Hierophanies and Theophanies in Latter-day Saint Canon,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity 3 (2011): 51–65; Mark Alan Wright and Brant A. Gardner, “The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 1 (2012): 25–55.

[74] Wright and Gardner, “The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy,” 34, and passim, where they provide multiple examples of how the Nephite conception of deity could have easily translated into a Mesoamerican religious backdrop.

[75] Blumell, “Rereading the Council of Nicaea and Its Creed,” 206–8, explains how the Christology of both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants appears to significantly contradict the Nicene Creed.

[76] See further Wright and Gardner, “The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy,” 34–38.