The Cutting Away of Unwanted Revelation

By Sandra Tanner

---

Just as God spoke to Moses on the mountain, the LDS Church claims that God personally appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to establish “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30). LDS revelations are usually written with Biblical sounding words like “thus saith the Lord.” However, Brigham Young’s 1847 revelation is the last section added to the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) with that wording.

There have been three additions to the Doctrine and Covenants dated after 1847 but they do not include the words “thus saith the Lord.” One was a vision/dream of President Joseph Fielding Smith, dated 1918. The other two are declarations ending past practices of the LDS Church (originally claimed to be established by revelation). In 1890 President Woodruff issued the Manifesto to end polygamy and in 1978 President Kimball issued a statement that God had revealed that blacks could now hold the priesthood. While each president of the LDS Church is still ordained as a “prophet, seer and revelator,” revelations are no longer issued. Although early Mormon apostles denounced the Christian world for holding to a closed canon of scripture, the LDS Church’s canon is for all intents and purposes closed as well.

Not only are there no new revelations, since 1890 it seems that the LDS Church has retreated from a number of teachings once held as revealed doctrine. The following five examples illustrate this redefining of LDS doctrine.

1. Lamanite Identity

On November 9, 2007, Carrie Moore, writing for the LDS-owned Deseret News, announced that the year before the LDS Church had quietly made a change in the Introduction to the Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon. The change is to be incorporated in future church printings of the Book of Mormon. The sentence under discussion reads as follows:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

The Doubleday edition and future LDS editions will read:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

[Bold in quotations is added for emphasis and does not appear in originals.]

While only one word was changed its implications are astounding. This simple word change signals a retreat from past claims that all American Indians are descended from the Book of Mormon people. The Deseret News article stated:

A one-word change in the introduction to a 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon has reignited discussion among some Latter-day Saints about the book’s historicity, geography and the descendants of those chronicled within its pages. (Deseret Morning News, November 9, 2007)

The same article goes on to quote retired BYU professor John L. Sorenson that the change only “eliminates a certain minor embarrassment in the use of language.” However, the change seems to fly in the face of the majority of statements by LDS Church leaders in the past that the descendants of the Book of Mormon people are to be found in the American Indians from Alaska to Chile, from the east coast to the Polynesian islands. This was not just a casual identification, but one made by various LDS Church presidents and apostles for over one hundred and fifty years. President Spencer W. Kimball certainly held such a position. In the Ensign magazine we read:

The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years—six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ—a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here.

The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. (“Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971)

President Hinckley has repeatedly associated the American Indians with the descendants of Lehi. In Hinckley’s October 1997 conference speech he referred to the Navajos as “these sons and daughters of Father Lehi” (Ensign, Nov. 1997, p. 67). While attending the 1999 dedication of the new LDS temple in Guayaquil, Ecuador, Hinckley referred to “the descendants of Father Lehi” that were in the congregation and observed: “So very many of these people have the blood of Lehi in their veins” (Ensign, Oct. 1999, p. 74). Thus we see that the president of the church was equating Book of Mormon peoples as being in both North and South America as late as 1999.¹

With the Mormons changing who is to be considered a descendant of the Book of Mormon people, how are those who have been told all their lives that they are descended from Father Lehi to think of themselves? Hugo Olaiz, a third-generation Mormon from Argentina, wrote:

I have fond memories of being a Lamanite. As a Mormon boy growing up in Argentina, I often sang a Primary song that went like this:

“. . . [I am a young Lamanite of humble birth, but I gratefully carry a song in my heart.]”

Social stereotypes aside, the song was intended to tell the members in Latin America that they are a special people with a special racial identity, a once prevalent message from which Church leaders are now retreating. In past years, discourse about “Lamanites” played a key role in the missionary program in Latin America, used both as a proselytizing strategy and as an explanation for missionary success. . . .

The change came only after years of resistance to mounting DNA evidence, including threats of excommunication to those who called attention to the mismatch between LDS claims that Amerindian peoples were of Middle Eastern ancestry and the overwhelming genetic data showing their descent from Asian peoples. (“How is it That Ye Could Have Fallen!,” by Hugo Olaiz, Sunstone, December 2007, p. 68)

If the Mormons cannot identify who are Lamanites how are they to fulfill the charge to take the Book of Mormon to them? In one of Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations in 1828, God instructed him that

. . . this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, . . . for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records . . . that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 3:18-20)

The blurring of the identity of who is a Lamanite is just another step back from the claims of the founder of Mormonism. In recent years various church writers have been trying to limit the Book of Mormon lands. The Book of Mormon claims that by approximately 49 BC the Nephites and Lamanites

. . . did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east. (Book of Mormon, Helaman 3:8)

Nineteenth and twentieth century church leaders spoke of the Nephites and Lamanites as occupying the whole land mass of North and South America. But now BYU scholars are pushing for a very limited Book of Mormon geography encompassing southern Mexico and Guatemala. This places the story in the same area as the Mayans. However, genetic research of the Mayans has not shown any link to Semetic people, only to Asian ancestry. Cody Clark, writing for the Provo, Utah Daily Herald reported:

A primary sticking point for some scientists—namely that DNA profiling of American Indians reveals no signs of the DNA that Nephite and Lamanite forebear[er]s would have brought with them from Israel—is captured in the 2004 book Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church. The book was written by Simon Southerton, a molecular biologist and former LDS bishop who is no longer a member of the church.

“We are certain that American Indians are essentially all descended from Asian ancestors,” Southerton said via e-mail. “Israelite DNA has escaped detection after tests on more than 12,000 individuals. How could the massive Book of Mormon civilizations not leave a significant genetic trace?” (Daily Herald, Nov. 24, 2007)

While there has been extensive research and excavations done in the Mayan area no archaeological sites, writing samples or artifacts have been identified as Nephite, Lamanite, or Jaredite. Also, there is no official LDS Church map designating the location of the Book of Mormon story. (See our article Where Is Cumorah?)

Another change that is being made in the Book of Mormon Introduction has not received as much attention. Carrie Moore reported:

Another change in the book’s introduction may be of interest to those who question whether Latter-day Saints are Christians, but church officials declined comment about when that change was made.

The second sentence of the introduction in many editions says the book is “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.”

The 2004 edition produced by Doubleday for non-Latter-day Saints omits the phrase, “as does the Bible.” A church spokesman declined comment on when the change was first made or an explanation of why. (Deseret News, Nov. 9, 2007, emphasis added)

One possible explanation could be that the statement would raise questions in the reader’s mind as to the need for the Book of Mormon if the Bible already contains the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.”

However, the same question could be asked about the need for the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price if the Book of Mormon contains “the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” For example, neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon contain any teaching on the need for eternal marriage in the LDS temple ceremony in order to inherit eternal life. This doctrine is taught in sections 131 and 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Also, the Book of Mormon has nothing in it about three kingdoms of heaven or about ordinance work for the dead. Thus it seems that the whole sentence in the Book of Mormon Introduction should have been removed as neither it nor the Bible contain all necessary components of the LDS gospel.

2. The Gathering To Zion

Early Mormonism combined the need for evangelizing the American Indians (considered to be Israelites descending through Manasseh) with the need for all true descendants of Israel to participate in the gathering to Zion.

The Jews were to gather to Jerusalem and the rest of the children of Israel were to gather in Zion, which according to Joseph Smith, is Independence, Missouri. In the LDS Articles of Faith we read:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. (Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith, no. 10)

Early Mormons believed that God led the scattered descendants of Israel to join the church. Lineage thus became very important to the LDS people.

Joseph Smith introduced the concept of the Patriarchal Blessing where a Mormon’s lineage is given. Usually a person is declared to be a descendant of Ephraim (from the Old Testament) unless he/she is an American Indian. Then they are told they are from Manasseh, Ephraim’s brother.

Originally these designations were taken as literal fact, but now the church says it doesn’t matter if you are truly descended from Israel, you are adopted into the family when you join the LDS Church. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, under the heading PATRIARCHAL BLESSINGS, explains:

An essential part of a patriarchal blessing is a declaration of lineage. The patriarch seeks inspiration to specify the dominant family line that leads back to Abraham. The majority of modern blessings have designated Ephraim or Manasseh as the main link in this tracing, but others of every tribe of Israel have also been named. Whether this is a pronouncement of blood inheritance or of adoption does not matter (see Abr. 2:10). It is seen as the line and legacy through which one’s blessings are transmitted. Thus the blessings “of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” are conferred. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, p. 1066.)

(For more on these blessings see LDS Patriarchal Blessings.)

The teaching of the gathering was given as a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1831:

Hearken, o ye elders of my church, saith the Lord your God, who have assembled yourselves together, according to my commandments, in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints.

Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion . . . which is now called Independence . . . (D&C 57:1-2

Early converts to Mormonism took this very seriously, resulting in the emigration of thousands of Mormons from England and Europe to America during the nineteenth century. This was held to be so important that the church set up the Perpetual Emigration Fund to aid poor families in far off lands to come to America. Professor Dean May reports that

Ultimately some 85,000 British, Scandinavian, and European converts immigrated to Nauvoo and Utah between 1840 and 1890.
(“Rites of Passage: The Gathering as Cultural Credo,” by Dean L. May, Journal of Mormon History, Spring 2003, p. 4)

Originally the gathering was to be to the center of Zion, Independence, Missouri, but when the Mormons were driven out of both Missouri and Illinois they had to broaden the concept of “Zion.” It changed to mean all of North America. However, in the twentieth century the church de-emphasized the importance of the gathering. Speaking at the October 2006 LDS conference Apostle Russell M. Nelson explained that the Mormons are to gather in their own homelands, not to America:

The choice to come unto Christ is not a matter of physical location; it is a matter of individual commitment. . . . True, in the early days of the Church, conversion often meant emigration as well. But now the gathering takes place in each nation. The Lord has decreed the establishment of Zion in each realm where He has given His Saints their birth and nationality. . . . The place of gathering for Brazilian Saints is in Brazil; the place of gathering for Nigerian Saints is in Nigeria; the place of gathering for Korean Saints is in Korea; and so forth. (Ensign, Nov. 2006)

This led the people at Reachout Trust to observe:

In such circumstances the Church has, over the years, found it helpful to trawl through early Church writings to find alternative definitions of Zion. These include identifying Zion as a cause, a state of being, or “the pure in heart”, the whole of America, and finally wherever Mormons are gathered in the nations of the world. All, in Mormon theology, are legitimate definitions of Zion. This development of the concept of Zion is held up as an example of “continuing revelation in a growing Church”. However, Doctrine and Covenants section 84, makes it plain that, however you identify Zion, the centre place is Independence, Missouri. The problem is that, today, the centre place of the Mormon Zion is Salt Lake City. Revelation? (www.reachouttrust.org/articles/ldsquest/ldsq5.htm)

3. Polygamy Essential

When Joseph Smith introduced his doctrine of eternal marriage it was directly tied to plural marriage. In the first verse of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 we read that the revelation was given to Smith in answer to his prayer regarding David and Solomon’s plural wives. Verse six goes on to state that “as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.” In verse fifty-two the revelation instructs Emma, Joseph’s wife, to “receive all those [women] that have been given unto my servant Joseph . . .”

In fact, the very reason there are so many polygamist splinter groups today is due to followers of Joseph Smith taking his revelation seriously—live polygamy or be damned.

The importance of polygamy to the early leaders is seen in the extensive number of marriages they undertook. The first seven presidents of the LDS Church practiced plural marriage. Joseph Smith had at least thirty-four wives, Brigham Young, second president of the LDS Church, had over fifty and John Taylor, the third president of the LDS Church, had at least fourteen.

From Joseph Smith’s time until 1890 the practice of plural marriage was considered essential to attain godhood. Brigham Young, second president of the LDS Church, declared:

However, in 1890 President Woodruff, himself a polygamist, issued the Manifesto which ended the official practice of polygamy. Today the LDS Church separates the doctrine of eternal marriage from the practice of polygamy even though the two are tied together in Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. It should be kept in mind that the LDS Church has not abandoned the doctrine of polygamy, only the current practice.

(For further information on this topic see: LDS Leaders Still Believe There Will be Polygamy in Heaven.)

4. Temple Ceremony and Garments Changed

The LDS Church has traditionally stated that its ordinances and rituals are given by revelation and are to remain unchanged. Writing in 1840 Joseph Smith said:

Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations. . . . He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. (History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 208)

In preparation of the Mormons building the Nauvoo temple Joseph Smith claimed that God revealed to him that he was about to

restore again that which was lost . . . that I may reveal mine ordinances . . . And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, . . . (D&C 124:40, 42)

This was again emphasized in the Deseret News in 1982:

As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering.
(W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982. See also “W. Grant Bangerter states that the First Presidency has care over temple ordinances,” [bhroberts.org])

In spite of this many changes have been made through the years.

A. Change in Washing and Anointings.

The first time a Mormon goes to the temple he/she will participate in a washing and anointing ceremony conducted by two people of the same sex. This was originally a full bath. Years later it was shortened to a ceremonial touching with water and then oil on various parts of the body as prayers were said. It has now been modified to just having the forehead anointed with water and oil as the prayers are said.

B. Garments Abbreviated.

The special undergarment worn daily by those who have participated in the temple endowment ceremony was first made under Joseph Smith’s direction. They were one-piece and similar to old-fashioned long johns. However, over the years they have gradually been shortened so that they no longer go to the wrist or ankle. They are now two-piece, go to the knee and have a short sleeve.

C. Changes in the Endowment Ceremony.

After Mormons have their washing and anointings they cover their garments with either white pants and shirt or long white dress. During the Endowment Ceremony they add a robe over one shoulder, a hat or veil, and a green fig-leaf apron. This ceremony was first performed in Nauvoo under Joseph Smith’s direction and was claimed to be given to him by revelation. Yet the Endowment part of the ceremony has undergone a number of revisions over the years.

After the turn of the twentieth century the oath of vengeance against anyone responsible for Joseph Smith’s death was removed.

By the 1960’s the death penalty oaths for revealing the ceremony to outsiders was toned down to make it sound more like agreeing to martyrdom for revealing the ceremony instead of being a penalty inflicted by the church.

In 1990 these penalties were completely removed. Now a member simply agrees not to discuss the specifics of the ceremony outside of the temple. They also switched the chant “Pay Lay Ale” to “Oh God hear the words of my mouth.”

Also removed was the portrayal of a minister, wearing a clerical collar, entering into a contract with the devil to teach false doctrine for money. Another change in 1990 was the removal of the embrace on the five points of fellowship at the veil.

Other changes have been made through the years. For more on this see our book, Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony, 1842-1990.

5. Blacks and the Priesthood

Thirty years ago, in June of 1978, the LDS Church announced the end of its priesthood restriction for blacks. Although Joseph Smith allowed a few black men to be ordained elders, that policy was changed under Brigham Young. In 1854 Young taught:

When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143)

For years the LDS Church leaders taught that the reason people were born black and cursed as to the priesthood was a direct result of their failures in their pre-mortal life.

In a speech given at the church’s Brigham Young University, Apostle Mark E. Petersen gave the following information concerning the doctrine of pre-existence and how it affected the various races:

We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments . . . When He forbade inter-marriages . . . He established segregation. . . . Who placed the Chinese in China? The Lord did. It was an act of segregation . . . in the cases of the Lamanites [Indians] and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse (2 Nephi 5:21). . . .

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 . . . In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel . . . he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” (“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; reproduced in Tanner and Tanner, 2004, Curse of Cain? Racism in the Mormon Church, Appendix B, p. 104)

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained that one’s behavior in the pre-mortal life affects his birth on earth:

Of the two-thirds who followed Christ [in the pre-mortal existence], however, some were more valiant than others. . . . Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. 1966, p. 527)

While the ban has been lifted the LDS Church has yet to clarify its theological view on race or why the ban was ever instituted in the first place. Was the original ban based on revelation or prejudice? If it was only a policy, why did it take a revelation to end it?

If a revelation was received in June of 1978 to end the restriction, why isn’t the specifically worded revelation published instead of a statement about a supposed revelation? (For more on this see our book The Curse of Cain? Racism in the Mormon Church.)

God Was Once a Man?

This was not listed with the previous five examples of revision as it seems to be more a matter of camouflage than change. Although some have thought that the LDS Church is abandoning the doctrine that God was once a human, we find that this teaching is still promoted in their current manuals. Granted, it isn’t emphasized as much as in the past, but it is the bedrock of their theology.

Joseph Smith laid out his doctrine of God in his sermon delivered at the LDS Conference on April 7, 1844, often referred to as the King Follett Discourse. While the sermon was printed in its entirety in the 1971 April and May issues of the Ensign, quotes since then have been kept to a minimum. In that sermon we read:

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is . . . God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. . . . I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; . . . it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. . . . Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, . . .

Apostle Lorenzo Snow later encapsulated this doctrine in his famous couplet. The 1984 LDS priesthood manual, Search These Commandments, referred to Lorenzo Snow’s statement:

President Lorenzo Snow recorded this experience that occurred when he was still a young elder:

“The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noon-day, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man.” Elder Snow expressed this new found understanding in these words: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” Later the Prophet Joseph Smith assured him: “Brother Snow, that is true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you . . .” (Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, 1984, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pp. 151-152)

(See also: Current Status of the Lorenzo Snow Couplet.)

In the 1989 Ensign is an article on the distinctive doctrines of Joseph Smith. In it we read:

Though most people who believe the Bible accept the idea of a Godhead composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith revealed an understanding of the Godhead that differed from the views found in the creeds of his day. . . .

The Prophet explained that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, . . . yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”; and that he “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling.” . . . As God’s children, we may become gods ourselves through Christ’s atonement and the plan of salvation, being joint heirs of Christ of “all that [the] Father hath.” . . . Along with these concepts is the concept of divine parents, including an exalted Mother who stands beside God the Father.

The LDS doctrine of Heavenly Father has led one recent commentator to write, “The Mormons espouse a radical, anthropomorphic conception of God that sets them far apart from other religions.” (Ensign, January 1989, p. 27)

However, when Smith’s sermon was referenced in the 2007 manual, Teachings of the Presidents: Joseph Smith, it was carefully edited to minimize the teaching that God has not always been God. Here is the part of the sermon that is used:

God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. . . . (Teachings of the Presidents: Joseph Smith, 2007, p. 221)

In the chapter heading of Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young there is another statement of this doctrine:

President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997, p. 29)

People often read these quotes without seeing the implication of plural gods.

If God was once a mortal on another world then he has not always been God. This would necessitate another God being in charge of that world.

In the current LDS manual Gospel Principles we read:

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation . . . it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” . . .

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 305)

Thus we see that the doctrine is still an integral part of Mormonism even if it is not clearly delineated in all of their doctrinal books.

Apostle Dallin Oaks on PBS

When Apostle Dallin Oaks was interviewed on July 20, 2007, for the PBS special The Mormons, he candidly spoke of Joseph Smith’s doctrine that God was not always God but progressed from mortality. The following is taken from the LDS web site and is part of his interview with PBS producer Helen Whitney:

D[allin] H O[aks]: Before the close of his ministry, in Illinois, Joseph Smith put together the significance of what he had taught about the nature of God and the nature and destiny of man. He preached a great sermon not long before he was murdered that God was a glorified Man, glorified beyond our comprehension, (still incomprehensible in many ways), but a glorified, resurrected, physical Being, and it is the destiny of His children upon this earth, upon the conditions He has proscribed, to grow into that status themselves. That was a big idea, a challenging idea. It followed from the First Vision, and it was taught by Joseph Smith, and it is the explanation of many things that Mormons do—the whole theology of Mormonism.

H[elen]W[hitney]: Is it the core of it?

DHO: That is the purpose of the life of men and women on this earth: to pursue their eternal destiny. Eternal means Godlike and to become like God. One of the succeeding prophets said: “As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become.” That is an extremely challenging idea. We don’t understand, we’re not able to understand, all [about] how it comes to pass or what is at its origin, but it explains the purpose of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is to put people’s feet on the pathway to a glorified existence in the life to come that is incomprehensible, but far closer to God than the Christian world generally perceives.

While Oaks was candid about Snow’s couplet, others have deliberately evaded discussion of their doctrine of God with non-members. When Joe J. Christensen, of the Presidency of the Seventy, addressed a Utah audience in 1995 he told of side-stepping the topic with a non-Mormon professor. The Deseret News reported on his speech:

He [Christensen] told of speaking to a university class in the Southwest on the Church during a Religion in Life Conference. After the class, the [non-Mormon] professor approached him [Christensen] and asked him if he believed the statement, “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.”

“I had purposely not used that statement during my remarks to the class because I felt that I could raise more dust with that one than I would be able to settle in one class period,” he recalled. “After circumlocuting around and around the question, I finally said, ‘Yes, we believe that.’” (“Prophet Joseph Taught ‘Powerful Ideas’,” LDS Church News, Deseret News, Feb. 4, 1995)

Couldn’t one simply be honest and answer “yes” to the question? Willful “circumlocution” on doctrinal issues does not lead to clarity.

Hinckley’s “I Don’t Know”

For over 150 years the LDS Church has defended the doctrine that God evolved to godhood and that man has the same potential. When President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked in 1997 about their doctrine of God he seemed to be dismissing the doctrine. In the San Francisco Chronicle interview, Hinckley was asked,

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. (San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p. 3/Z1)

That same year in an interview in Time magazine President Hinckley again downplayed the idea of God having once been a man or that man could become a god: “It’s of course an ideal. It’s a hope for a wishful thing.” He later added that “yes, of course they can.” Further on in the article we read:

On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, “I 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, Aug. 4, 1997, p. 56)

Joseph Smith seemed to be certain about the doctrine. One wonders why President Hinckley would equivocate on a doctrine that is central to LDS theology? It appears to be a public relations effort to hide true LDS beliefs from the public.

Hinckley Dies

The Deseret News of January 28, 2008, carried the announcement of President Gordon B. Hinckley’s death at the age of 97. He had held the position of “prophet, seer and revelator” to his church for thirteen years.

During that time he oversaw the building of the new 21,000-seat Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, the rebuilding of the Nauvoo, Illinois Temple plus dozens of new temples, and established the Perpetual Education Fund to provide loans to returned missionaries to aid them in getting the “training and education necessary for adequate employment in their own countries” (Ensign, January 2004, p. 37). Hinckley also announced the church’s new project to rejuvenate downtown Salt Lake City. The City Creek Center will cover 25 acres along South Temple at a projected cost of $1.5 billion (“3 Salt Lake Streets to close for parking-ramp work,” Deseret News, February 20, 2008).

While Hinckley issued no new revelations, Mormons believe that he guided the affairs of the church through prophetic insight.

Thomas S. Monson, Next President

On February 4, 2008, senior apostle and native Utahn Thomas S. Monson was announced as Hinckley’s successor, with his two counselors Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf making up the First Presidency. The New York Times wrote:

In a news conference at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, Mr. Monson said he had worked with Mr. Hinckley for more than four decades in various assignments, and hinted at no significant departures. . . .

Mr. Monson’s appointment comes at a time of expectation and anxiety in the Mormon world. The number of converts, especially in South America and Africa, rose sharply under Mr. Hinckley as the missionary program—typically young men, working in pairs on two-year assignments—was expanded. But Mr. Hinckley also wrestled with the problem of structure in the far-flung corners of the church, and how to keep converts engaged and active after the missionaries departed. . . .

His career, beginning in the late 1940’s in advertising and later as sales manager for the Deseret News Press, a commercial printing firm then affiliated with the church, went hand-in-hand with his advancement into bigger and bigger assignments for the church itself. (“Former Executive Named to Lead Mormon Church,” New York Times, Feb. 5, 2008)

President Monson is well-known for his story-telling but not for in-depth doctrinal teaching. How he will present Mormon doctrine remains to be seen.

---

Footnotes:

1. For further information on Lamanite identity problems see our newsletter, no. 103, “Who Are the Lamanites?”; see also the article “The Use of ‘Lamanite’ in Official LDS Discourse” by John-Charles Duffy, in the Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 34, no. 1, Winter 2008. ↩︎

---

---