By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

---

Unfortunately, most members of the Mormon Church are completely oblivious to the serious changes that have been made by church leaders since the days of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith.

Dr. Hugh Nibley is proclaimed by many to be one of the greatest defenders the Mormon Church has ever known. Nibley once made this fantastic claim regarding Mormonism: “Yet of all churches in the world only this one has not found it necessary to readjust any part of its doctrine in the last hundred years” (No, Ma’am, That’s Not History, page 46). Nibley originally printed this statement in 1946, and as far as we know, he has never repudiated this false assertion.

A careful examination of the evidence reveals that Nibley was absolutely incorrect. For example, in the last issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger (April 1997) we demonstrated that church leaders changed the law of adoption in 1894. Prior to that time the Mormons sealed living men as adopted sons to other men in an unusual ceremony known as “the law of adoption.” In this way a man could greatly increase his family and kingdom, making himself a more powerful God in the hereafter.

Both the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith and his successor, Brigham Young, gave strong support to this strange doctrine. Both of them had many men adopted to them in a sacred ceremony. They were, in fact, absolutely convinced that they would have these men in their own kingdoms on other planets. Some of the men who entered into this covenant even added the last names of those who adopted them onto the end of their own surnames.

As we noted in our last newsletter, Wilford Woodruff, who became the fourth president of the church, was deeply involved in this practice. He wrote the following in his journal: “I officiated in Adopting 96 Men to Men” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833-1898, typescript, 1985, vol. 9, page 408).

Unfortunately for those like Nibley who believe that Mormonism has never changed its doctrines, the evidence clearly shows that the law of adoption was repudiated by the leaders of the church. Ironically, it was President Wilford Woodruff, who had been deeply involved in sealing men to men, who finally squelched the practice of adoption.

Although President Brigham Young called the law of adoption “a great and glorious doctrine” and “the means of salvation left to bring us back to God,” President Woodruff repudiated the practice! He taught instead that men should be sealed to their own fathers.

Speaking in the Mormon Tabernacle in 1894, President Woodruff acknowledged: “I have had friends adopted to me. We all have, more or less. But I have had peculiar feelings about it, especially lately.”

On April 8, 1894, George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency of the Mormon Church publicly stated: “I have never thought of this subject of adoption without having a certain amount of fear concerning it . . . this revelation [to stop the practice] that God has given to His servant, the President of our Church, removes all the danger which seemed to threaten us . . .”

For more information concerning “the law of adoption” see our book, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 480-483, and The Case Against Mormonism, vol. 1, pages 17-26).

Giving Up Polygamy 

In addition to giving up “the law of adoption,” the Mormon Church abandoned the practice of polygamy, a doctrine which Joseph Smith claimed he received by revelation from God. John Taylor, who became the third prophet of the Mormon Church, once declared, “. . . we are firm, conscientious believers in polygamy . . . it is part and parcel of our religious creed” (Life of John Taylor, page 255).

On another occasion Brigham Young emphatically declared:

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise you will be damned . . . take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned. (Deseret News, November 14, 1855)

Although the Mormon leaders adamantly maintained they would never give up polygamy, they finally yielded to the civil law and the practice was discontinued.

Strange as it may seem, however, Joseph Smith’s revelation regarding the importance of practicing polygamy still remains in the Doctrine and Covenants— one of the four standard works of the Mormon Church. We extract the following from the revelation:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord Justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines . . .

Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory….

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife . . . by the new and everlasting covenant . . . they shall pass by the angels, and the gods . . . to their exaltation . . .

Then they shall be gods, because they have no end . . .

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness . . .

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses . . . and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me . . .

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. . . .

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood — if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by the law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him: therefore is he justified. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132, verses 1, 3-4, 19-20, 37-38, 52, 61-62)

It is difficult to imagine the trauma that the Mormons experienced when they were forced to give up the practice of polygamy. In light of this major doctrinal change made by Mormon leaders, it seems incredible that Dr. Hugh Nibley would boast: “Yet of all churches in the world only this one has not found it necessary to readjust any part of its doctrine in the last hundred years.”

Changing the Anti-black Doctrine 

Prior to 1978, Mormon Church leaders taught that blacks were cursed by God and inferior to whites. Because of this they could not hold the priesthood, participate in the sacred temple ceremonies, or be married for eternity in a Mormon Temple. Since a temple marriage is required for anyone to live in God’s presence, it was very difficult for LDS blacks to understand why they would be banned from the temple.

In 1966, Wallace Turner, a correspondent for the New York Times, explained what it meant to be denied the priesthood:

The Negro Mormon can hold no office whatsoever in a church which offers some office to every one of its male members at some time in his life. A gray-haired Negro Mormon who may have spent his adult life in careful practice of all the complicated and demanding rules set down by the LDS church stands disenfranchised before the altar where a youth whose beard is just beginning to fuzz may preside. A twelve-year-old boy may become a member of the Aaronic priesthood, more than this Negro man has been able to achieve through a lifetime of devotion. To hold any church office, a Mormon must be a member of the priesthood. (The Mormon Establishment, pages 243-244)

The doctrine which Mormon leaders used to teach concerning blacks was clearly set forth in a letter written by the First Presidency of the church in 1947:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. (Letter from the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, July 17, 1947, as cited in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart, 1960, pages 46-47)

Bruce R. McConkie, who later served as an apostle in the LDS Church, made this statement in 1958:

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. . . . The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them . . .

The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing . . . (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 477)

Mormon theology has always taught that a black skin is a sign of God’s displeasure. This teaching came directly from Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. Smith taught that a group of Jewish people came to the New World in about 600 B.C. The good people were called Nephites and those who were evil were referred to as Lamanites.

In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21 we read about the Lamanites being cursed with a black skin: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity . . . wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

In the Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6 we read: “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression . . .”

The prophet Joseph Smith taught that the Lamanites eventually destroyed the white skinned people (Nephites) and that the American Indians are the descendants of the ancient Lamanites. In his Book of Moses, Joseph Smith wrote about a group of people in the Old World who were cursed with a black skin:

For behold the Lord shall curse the land with much heat . . . and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 7:8).

Joseph Smith himself taught that “Negroes” are the “sons of Cain” (History of the Church, vol. 4, page 501). Mormon leaders also taught that “As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are >not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 102). Brigham Young, the second prophet of the church, asserted: “Cain slew his brother. . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is a flat nose and black skin” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, page 290).

Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth prophet of the church in 1970, made it clear that Mormons should consider blacks as inferior: “Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race” (The Way to Perfection, page 101). On the following page Smith asserted that the “negro brethren” have a “black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.”

Those who are familiar with Mormon doctrine know that the Latter-day Saints believe that all people who are born on earth had a previous existence in heaven. Mark E. Petersen, who served as an apostle in the church for many years, gave the following information concerning the doctrine of pre-existence and the effect it had on blacks and other races:

Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn’t the mercy of God marvelous?

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood. . . . This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. . . .

Now let’s talk segregation again for a few moments. . . . When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation. . . .

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them. . . . At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself< that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse . . . He forbade intermarriage . . . He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there. . . .

We must not intermarry with the Negro, Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the Priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the Priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church!

Now we are generous with the negro [sic]. . . . I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? . . . what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.” (Race Problems — As They Affect The Church, Address by Apostle Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

While Apostle Mark E. Petersen was very concerned about the need for segregation, Brigham Young, the second prophet of the church, was even more adamant about the matter. Young gave this chilling warning:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, page 110)

Pressure Forces Revelation 

During the 1960s and 1970s a great deal of pressure was put on the Mormon Church to abandon the anti-black doctrine. This pressure came from both members and nonmembers of the church. Serious protests were mounted against the church’s Brigham Young University and even the church itself. Mormon leaders, however, claimed that since the ban on blacks was a doctrine of the church there was no way it could be changed except through revelation from God.

Finally the pressure became so great that the church was forced to reverse it’s position. Notwithstanding the claim by Mormon prophets that the ban on blacks holding the priesthood could not be changed while “time endures,” on June 9, 1978, the church’s Deseret News carried the startling announcement by the First Presidency that the prophet Spencer W. Kimball had received a “revelation” that blacks could hold the priesthood, marry in the temple and receive the same privileges as any other member of the church. The announcement contained the following:

“. . . we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

“He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the church may receive the holy priesthood . . . including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.”

The repudiation of the ban on blacks holding the priesthood was probably the most significant doctrinal change the church has made in the 20th century.

Since we probably printed more material critical of the Mormon anti-black doctrine than any other publisher, the new revelation came as a vindication of our work. We printed our first criticism of this doctrine in 1959—almost two decades before the Mormon leaders changed their doctrine regarding blacks. This was followed by a number of articles, books and pamphlets which we printed on the subject. Many faithful Mormons also joined in criticizing the church’s doctrine. If there was any “revelation” about the matter, some members of the church received it long before their leaders.

Speaking out regarding the discrimination was certainly not a popular cause to espouse in Salt Lake City in those days. Those of us who criticized the church for its racial teachings were ridiculed for attempting to change the doctrine. In fact, one irate Mormon man threatened to punch Sandra in the nose because of this issue.

In any case, after the revelation was made public, a number of Mormons became very concerned that church leaders had betrayed their trust. They knew that former LDS prophets taught that blacks could not have the priesthood until after the coming of Christ.

President Brigham Young went so far as to proclaim that if the church gave “all the blessings of God” to the blacks prematurely, the priesthood would be taken away and the Mormon Church would go to destruction. We extract the following from a typed copy of Brigham Young’s speech which retains the spelling errors of the original:

. . . the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. . . . Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; [say] we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, — we should receive the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill that curse be removed. (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department)

President Brigham Young’s address presents a serious dilemma for Mormon Church leaders. If they really believe Young was a prophet, then it follows that the church has lost the priesthood, been put under “the curse” and is going to destruction! In spite of Brigham Young’s emphatic warning against giving blacks “all the blessings God has given us,” the present leaders have announced that blacks will now receive “all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords” (Deseret News, June 9, 1978).

Although the Mormon Church has always maintained that it is led by revelation, it appears that the word “revelation” is greatly misused. The revelations given to Joseph Smith contained the words “Thus saith the Lord” or similar wording indicating that the message had come directly from God. The expression, “Thus saith the Lord” is found over fifty times in the Doctrine and Covenants.

In recent times, however, it is evident that church leaders use the word “revelation” merely to indicate that they have agreed that a matter should be handled in a certain way.

Historian D. Michael Quinn reported that Wilford Woodruff’s “published sermon is [the] only available text of the revelation” changing the doctrine of adoption. Both the Manifesto to stop the practice of polygamy and the revelation allowing blacks to hold the priesthood have been declared to be revelations from God. Unfortunately for those who believe in Mormonism, neither of these “revelations” are set forth with the statement, “thus sayeth the Lord.” There is, in fact, no written message coming directly from the Lord to abandon these practices.

Both the practice of polygamy and the anti-Black doctrine were very offensive to American citizens. In both cases the church was under a great deal of pressure to abandon the unusual doctrines. The leaders apparently felt that the word “revelation” had to be used in these particular cases to get the people to conform to their decisions. They knew that if they claimed that they made the decisions on their own to abandon these doctrines it could cause a significant schism in the church.

In his recent publication, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, D. Michael Quinn gives some important information regarding the church’s decision to allow blacks to hold the priesthood. Quinn shows that Mormon leaders made an aborted attempt to abandon the practice in 1969:

On 12 November 1969 Stanford University refused to participate in athletic competitions with BYU because of the church’s refusal to ordain blacks. First Counselor Hugh B. Brown had been on record for six years as favoring an end to this ban. . . .

In November 1969 Brown told the university’s vice-president that he expected the church to drop this restriction. Shortly after Stanford’s decision Brown “was able to get a proposal allowing full priesthood for blacks approved by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.” With church president David O. McKay unable to function, the way was now open for the two counselors and the Quorum of Twelve to issue a joint declaration granting priesthood to those of black ancestry. Second counselor N. Eldon Tanner confided to BYU’s president Ernest Wilkinson on 3 December 1969 that “a special committee was to report on the Negro situation.” Wilkinson labeled his memorandum of the conversation as “ULTRA CONFIDENTIAL.” Apostle Harold B. Lee, an increasingly powerful member of the Twelve, was absent during his quorum’s decision and rejected it upon his return. Lee not only opposed giving priesthood to blacks, he also held “the traditional belief as revealed in the Old Testament that the races ought to be kept together.”

Lee persuaded the Quorum of Twelve to rescind its vote. Then he pressured the first counselor to sign a statement which reaffirmed the priesthood restriction on blacks “in view of confusion that has arisen.”. . .

Five years after Lee’s death, church president Spencer W. Kimball in June 1978 extended priesthood ordination to all Mormon men of black African ancestry. For decades he had been troubled about this racial restriction, and was among the apostles who unsuccessfully voted for this proposal eight-and-a-half years earlier. (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, pages 13-15)

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who was present during the discussions regarding giving blacks the priesthood, claimed that the General Authorities of the church had a powerful and miraculous experience of “complete harmony, between the Presidency and the Twelve on the issue involved.” Nevertheless, McConkie acknowledged that there was no vision or voice from heaven:

The Lord could have sent messengers from the other side to deliver it, but he did not. He gave the revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. Latter-day Saints have a complex: many of them desire to magnify and build upon what has occurred, and they delight to think of miraculous things. And maybe some of them would like to believe that the Lord himself was there, or that the Prophet Joseph Smith came to deliver the revelation . . . which was one of the possibilities. Well, these things did not happen. The stories that go around to the contrary are not factual or realistic or true . . . (“All Are Alike Unto God,” by Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, as published in Following The Brethren, Part 2, page 2)

In his new book, D. Michael Quinn quoted the following from Gordon B. Hinckley, who is now president of the Mormon Church:

“No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the spirit whispered into our minds and our very souls.” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, page 16)

The fact that the Brethren were finally in agreement with one another regarding a doctrine that could have caused a serious split in the church undoubtedly brought a feeling of peace to those who were present.

The thing that is distressing about this matter, however, is that instead of church leaders admitting that they made a grave error when they stubbornly denied blacks equality, they turned right around and claimed that they had a “revelation” from God about the matter.

It is obvious from President Spencer W. Kimball’s statement printed in the church’s own newspaper that he did not receive any word from God concerning the matter:

“I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, ‘Now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?’ And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn’t right, if He didn’t want this change to come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I’d fight the world against it if that’s what He wanted.

“We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it.” (Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, page 4)

It would appear, then, that when President Kimball asked the Lord if He had any objections to his changing the doctrine, he received no answer from heaven. Since God did not seem to contest the idea, Kimball felt he had the “assurance” that it must be the Lord’s will. This, of course, seems like a very unusual way to obtain a “revelation.”

We feel that it was wrong for the leaders of the church to fail to accept any blame for their treatment of blacks before 1978. Instead of pretending to have a “revelation” to get them out of their dilemma, they should have publicly apologized to the blacks. By their actions, however, church leaders made it appear that God Himself was a racist who stubbornly refused to allow blacks to hold the priesthood.

Church leaders gave the impression that by “pleading long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple,” they finally persuaded God to give blacks the priesthood.

The truth of the matter, however, is that

God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts 10:34-35)

It was the Mormon leaders who kept blacks under a curse. They continually and stubbornly opposed the advancement of black people, threatening and excommunicating those who differed with them on the matter. Finally, when their backs were to the wall, the Mormon leaders were forced to change their position.

Interestingly, the three doctrines which were reversed—sealing men to men, polygamy, and refusing to allow blacks to have the priesthood—were all attempts to abandon past teachings made by the early founders of the Mormon Church. As someone once observed, “Today’s truth may become tomorrow’s heresy.”

Besides the revelation regarding blacks and a vision given to Joseph Smith in 1836, the only other revelation added to the Doctrine and Covenants during this century was a vision that church President Joseph F. Smith had less than two months before his death. He was eighty years old and “was very ill” at the time.

Church officials did not include this revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants after it was given in 1918. In fact, they did not add it until many decades after Joseph F. Smith’s death. Michael Quinn wrote:

14 Nov., First Presidency and Twelve vote to accept Joseph F. Smith’s revelation on spirit world, even though several apostles have misgivings about it. (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, page 816)

As early as 1972, we were pointing out that although the church claimed to have “living prophets,” the leaders were failing to canonize any new revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. We stated: “The Manifesto of 1890 is the last revelation, if it can be termed a revelation, that has been added to the Doctrine and Covenants” (Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 184). While we will never know for certain whether our statements had any impact on church officials, the leaders were apparently concerned about the matter and eventually added the two revelations mentioned above to the Doctrine and Covenants. In any case, this hardly solved the problem since both revelations were anything but new revelations. As noted above, the first revelation was given in 1836 and the other in 1918.

Surprisingly, church leaders made a mistake when they finally printed the two old revelations as scriptures of the church. Instead of printing them in the Doctrine and Covenants, they added them to the Pearl of Great Price in 1976. In our book, The Changing World of Mormonism, page 435, we pointed out that this was the wrong place to publish them. We noted that President Joseph F. Smith clearly stated that, “if the Lord should reveal His mind to His people and it should be accepted by His people in the way that He has appointed, it would then become a matter to be added to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.”

Mormon leaders later realized they made a mistake when they added the two revelations to the Pearl of Great Price. Consequently, in 1981, they removed the two revelations from that book and added them into the Doctrine and Covenants as sections 137 and 138. While we do not have access to the original text of Joseph F. Smith’s revelation (section 138), a comparison of the prophet Joseph Smith’s vision (section 137) with his diary reveals falsification has occurred to protect Smith’s reputation as a prophet. Over 200 words which appear in Joseph Smith’s diary have been omitted. If these words had been included in the Doctrine and Covenants it would show that Joseph Smith had given a false prophecy (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 31-B). This fumbling with the revelations only tends to emphasize that the Mormon Church is led by fallible men rather than by direct revelation from God.

Interestingly, President Gordon B. Hinckley, the current “living prophet” of the Mormon Church, has recently revealed in a newspaper interview that “revelation” does not come in the way most of us were brought up to believe:

“Revelation no longer comes by vision,” Mr. Hinckley said, “but in the ‘still, small voice,’ like that heard by Elijah.

“We wrestle with a problem, we discuss it, we think about it, we pray about it,” he said of the First Presidency, made up of Mr. Hinckley and his two counselors. “And the answer comes in a remarkable and wonderful way.” (Washington Times, December 3, 1996, page A8 )

Don Lattin, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle also interviewed President Hinckley and asked him about divine revelation:

Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?

A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind.” (Interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley, as published on the Web site of the San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997)

In the same interview the current prophet of the Mormon Church seemed to be downplaying one of the most important doctrines of the church—i.e., that God Himself was once a man:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.

Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression.”

Significantly, President Gordon B. Hinckley also wavered concerning the Mormon doctrine that God was once a man when he was questioned by TIME magazine:

In an interview with TIME, President Hinckley seemed intent on downplaying his faith’s distinctiveness. . . . At first Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that “it’s of course an idea. It’s a hope for a wishful thing,” but later affirmed that “yes, of course they can.” (He added that women could too, “as companions to their husbands. They can’t conceive a king without a queen.”) On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, “don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it . . . I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.” (Time, August 4, 1997 page 56)

Unlike the first Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, President Hinckley gives the impression that he is ashamed of the teaching that God was once a man. In the Mormon Church publication, Times and Seasons, Smith boldly proclaimed that God was once a mortal man and that men can become Gods:

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. . . . God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did . . . You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves . . . No man can learn you more than what I have told you. (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pages 613-614)

Since the days of Joseph Smith, the Mormon church has always taught that God the Father had a Father, and that God’s Father also had a Father, and so on. Smith’s successor, Brigham Young declared:

He [God] is our Father — the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. . . . there never was a time when there were not Gods . . .

It appears ridiculous to the world . . . that God has once been a finite being . . . (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, page 333)

President Young’s statement was restated in the 1985 Melchizedek Priesthood manual (see page 153).

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt made it very clear that God was once in a “fallen state,” “died” and was “redeemed from the grave” (The Seer, Jan. 1853, page 23).

That President Hinckley would downplay this important doctrine of the church in at least two major interviews seems almost incredible. It has, in fact, shocked some members of the church. There seems to be only two reasons why Hinckley would be reticent about discussing a doctrine which is so ingrained in the minds of the Mormon people and taught in some of their current manuals.

1. He may fear that orthodox Christians would be shocked to hear about this doctrine and declare it to be blasphemous.
2. On the other hand, however, it is possible that Hinckley himself doubts the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s strange doctrine about God and is trying to curtail the dissemination of information about it.

---

---