A God-fearing people

by Sharon

I've been reading in the Book of Revelation. I've been quite affected by the imagery of God as recorded by the Apostle John. We find God seated on a throne covered in radiant color and glory, surrounded by myriads of myriads of angels and elders and other living creatures, falling before Him in worship. They tell us He is holy, holy, holy. They cast their crowns down before Him. They sing His praises night and day. This is a picture many of us hold closely in our hearts. But there's more.

Revelation also gives us this:

From the throne came flashes of lightening, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire… (4:5)

The creatures in heaven speak with voices like trumpets and thunder. By God's command they call out horses and riders who bring judgment to the earth: war, famine and death. They kill with sword, pestilence and wild beasts. They bring earthquakes and gales; every mountain is moved and the sky is rolled up like a scroll. By God's will the trumpets are blown and the earth is showered with hail and fire mixed with blood. Stars fall from heaven like blazing torches; an eagle flies overhead calling, "Woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth…"

Another angel flies overhead proclaiming "an eternal gospel." He says,

Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water. (14:6-7)

Yet another angel warns that those who don't fear God and give Him glory (i.e., those who align themselves with the enemy of God),

…will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…" (14:11)

What rich and frightening imagery. Picture this scene and realize that God, in the midst of it all, is not dwarfed or obscured by these magnificent creatures and mighty events. He remains the overpowering Presence and focus of both heaven and earth.

I think most of us like to think about God in a far less fearsome way. We cling to His tenderness, His mercy, His image as Abba, Father. We say, "God is love; God is forgiving." This is true, of course. But we tend to emphasize these attributes of God and ignore His awesome power and His inherent wrath.

If we truly recognized God in His fulness, if we understood not only His love but also His judgment, we might understand what it means to fear God. If we truly feared God, who would dare to speak lightly or carelessly about Him?

Consider this from an LDS man who occasionally emails me:

The real reason that faithful Latter-day Saints cannot accept Evangelical-Protestant beliefs is simple, because your god is a LOSER…. For you, the choice is heaven or hell and either choice you make is made from fear and ignorance. Ultimately, this means that your god is a SADDEST and a LOSER.

Obviously, faithful Latter-day Saints do not share your same dismal view of deity. I think it's truly a shame that you don't have a more clearer description of your Creator and the Plan Of Salvation.

As for Latter-day Saints, our LOVING God came to seek and save that which is LOST. For us, this just happens to include EVERYONE.

This man seems to cling to certain attributes of God while neglecting others. If we truly feared God, who would dare to mock Him?

Consider these words spoken by Joseph Smith about the biblical God worshiped by Christians:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow -- three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. …All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God -- he would be a giant or a monster. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372)

Or this:

I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the Gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth -- diamond truth; and God is my 'right hand man.' (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:78, emphasis retained from the original)

I tremble to think of "the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger."

A poem by Stephen Crane comes to mind:

A Spirit Sped

A spirit sped
Through spaces of night;
And as he sped, he called,
"God! God!"
He went through valleys
Of black death-slime,
Ever calling,
"God! God!"
Their echoes
From crevice and cavern
Mocked him:
"God! God! God!"
Fleetly into the plains of space
He went, ever calling,
"God! God!"
Eventually, then, he screamed,
Mad in denial,
"Ah, there is no God!"
A swift hand,
A sword from the sky,
Smote him,
And he was dead.

The Book of Revelation reveals our fearsome God, a hater of sin and idolatry, a dispenser of fierce and righteous judgment. Yet at the same time He is our Rescuer and Redeemer who says,

Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." (21:3-4)

As John ended his recording of the Revelation, he cried out in joyful anticipation, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus!" I'm ready for that day. Are you?

Fair above all virgins

by Bill

In the recently released movie titled, The Nativity Story, viewers are given a glimpse at what life was probably like for Mary and Joseph after it was learned that the espoused Mary is pregnant. Though I've heard pastors and theologians discuss the social ramifications of such a predicament, I can't recall any film that does so. Since the Christmas story is recounted in only a minimal amount of New Testament paragraphs, some artistic license naturally comes into play; but the film does utilize quite a bit of scripture and there is no doubt that the Christ-child is "God made into flesh."

Peggy Fletcher Stack offers some interesting insight on the LDS view of the mother of Jesus in her recent piece in the Salt Lake Tribune titled "Something about Mary." She notes that,

"Mormons will drag Mary out of the shadows of their faith again this season and plop her into the annual Nativity scene,"

but for most of the year, she says,

"Mary is largely tucked away -- respected for her submissiveness, admired for her faithfulness, but largely invisible."

Stack goes on to explain,

They do, however, believe she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus in her womb. The Book of Mormon, which Latter-day Saints believe was written some 600 years before Jesus' birth, predicts the Messiah will be born in Jerusalem of a "precious and chosen vessel." She would be "the most beautiful and fair above all other virgins," the LDS scripture says.

Most Mormons choose to stop there. However, Stack goes on to say,

But Mormons also believe that God has a body and that Jesus was his literal son. Early LDS leaders including Brigham Young speculated that Jesus was created in much the same way as every other child -- in the marriage bed. But only one partner was human.

There is no denying that several LDS leaders taught that God the Father physically impregnated Mary. In an official LDS Church manual, sixth Mormon President Joseph F. Smith taught:

Now, we are told that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death: but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven. (Family Home Evening Manual, 1972, 125)

The same manual carried the above illustration showing the figure of a man, woman, and child. On page 126 LDS parents are told they should use this to explain to their children "how Jesus was the only begotten Son of God." Daddy plus Mommy equals you; Heavenly Father plus Mary equals Jesus.

The above comments raise an interesting question, "How can a Mormon reconcile the notion that Mary "was a virgin when she conceived in her womb," and also believe LDS leaders who taught that Jesus "was created in much the same way as every other child -- in the marriage bed." Certainly these statements are mutually exclusive.

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie obviously felt he had the solution when he wrote:

For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being. (The Promised Messiah, 466)

Traditionally, the definition of a virgin is a person who has never had sexual intercourse, and this is the definition historically held by Christians when it comes to Mary's conception. However, in order to defend the teachings of LDS leaders, McConkie is compelled to redefine this term. I find such an explanation to be very disturbing. I can only hope that Mormons are equally disturbed.

New and Improved King Follett Discourse

In 2004 the LDS Church brought its long-running City of Joseph pageant (Nauvoo, Illinois) to a close. In 2005 a new pageant premiered in the City of Joseph -- Nauvoo Pageant: A Tribute to Joseph Smith. Along with the introduction of the new pageant, the LDS Church also offered tourists several historic vignettes which were performed at various times and locations around Nauvoo by pageant actors.

One of these vignettes was of special interest to me: King Follett Discourse. In this vignette Dallyn Bayles, the actor portraying Joseph Smith in the pageant, was to deliver portions of the famous sermon as Joseph Smith did in 1844. I went to the grove to watch and listen, bringing a copy of the King Follett Discourse text for comparison. I had expected a cleaned-up version of the sermon, with all the references to men becoming Gods and the council of the Gods (etc.) removed. I was happily surprised when Mr. Bayles did not shy away from much of the content of the sermon that is contradictory to Christianity. Though the sermon was edited for the sake of time, the true nature of the sermon was left intact. That was in 2005.

This year, 2006, I again attended the King Follett Discourse vignette. Mr. Bayles delivered a compelling performance which elicited many positive comments from the audience. Again I was surprised by the content of the sermon, but this time not happily. This time the sermon had indeed been sanitized. All of the openness of Joseph Smith's teachings displayed in 2005 was gone.

The King Follett Discourse is a very important doctrinal sermon for the LDS Church. It was delivered at the church's 1844 April General Conference; therefore it carries the heavy weight of authority. LDS theologian B. H. Roberts called the King Follett Discourse the "crescendo" of Joseph Smith's life. The LDS Church described this year's King Follett Discourse vignette like this:

The Prophet Joseph Smith will share portions of one of his last major discourses, a funeral sermon given in honor of Brother King Follett. In this speech the Prophet shared profound insights on the nature of God and the immortality of man.

Given this description, it's hard to understand why the Prophet's "profound insights on the nature of God and the immortality of man" were edited out of the sermon. For example, Mr. Bayles (as Joseph Smith) said,

It is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God. Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God--grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation…

Now look at what was left out of this portion of the sermon.

…it is necessary that 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 will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that 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. I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon.) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power"--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner, to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

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, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

Here, in this section of the discourse, are found Joseph Smith's "profound insights on the nature of God"; but these teachings were not included in the performance. Look at a few additional omissions from Joseph Smith's sermon:

• To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.
  
  
• In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.
  
  
• God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
  
  
• God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

These are just a sampling. Joseph Smith indeed taught "profound" doctrines on the nature of God via the King Follett Discourse -- doctrines Mormonism still embraces today. Why do you suppose the LDS Church wasted the opportunity to share what they believe to be Joseph Smith's prophetic insights on the nature of God with the vignette audience in Nauvoo?

To see scanned images of the entire King Follett Discourse from an LDS source click here.

A Rarely Discussed Mormon Doctrine

Deseret News reported today on the first session of a two-day conference held at Utah Valley State College, "Mormonism and the Christian Tradition." According to the report,

"Participants in a panel discussion representing various perspectives shared their thoughts on a host of doctrines that mainstream Christian faiths and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have widely divergent opinions on."

The short news report does not identify the number of participants on the panel, but it does name and quote one Mormon professor from Brigham Young University, Robert Millet.

Dr. Millet spoke about the LDS doctrine of Eternal Progression. Though the article defined Eternal Progression as "the notion that mortals can become like God in the afterlife," a better and fuller definition of the doctrine is found in a famous (among Latter-day Saints) couplet written by Lorenzo Snow, who became the 5th LDS Prophet in 1898:

"As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become."
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism 4:1474)

Mr. Snow claimed this doctrinal teaching came to him via revelation in 1840. Later, Joseph Smith told him it was a "true gospel doctrine' revealed "from God to you." (LeRoi C. Snow, "Devotion to a Divine Inspiration," Improvement Era, June 1919, page 656)

According to Deseret News, Dr. Millet said doctrines like Eternal Progression are not as frequently discussed now as they were 30 years ago "because we've begun to talk about other things more." In the 1970s,

"…[LDS] church members 'began to become much more literate in the scriptures,' which led to a greater emphasis on redemptive theology through Jesus Christ. The result 'has caused us to focus more on some things and less on other things,' Millet said."

Dr. Millet's comments make it seem as if the doctrine of Eternal Progression is not really an important part of Mormon theology. He doesn't deny or repudiate the teaching, but he shifts attention away from it and points his audience instead to an LDS belief in Christ. However, sitting on my desk I have four issues of Ensign magazine that teach the concept of Eternal Progression as a true and current doctrine of the LDS Church:

• August 1995: "…our Heavenly Father proposed that all of his spirit children who lived with him in heaven might obtain the same blessings and privileges of Deity he enjoys. The process includes our gradually obtaining a clear understanding of the eternal principles that prepared and placed him in his current exalted condition." ("Learning to Live for Eternal Life," Seventy Carlos H. Amado, page 38)
  
  
• July 1996: "Knowing what we know concerning God our Father--that he is a personal being; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as our own; that he is an exalted and glorified being; that he was once a man and dwelt on an earth…" ("The Eternal Gospel," Robert L. Millet, page 53)
  
  
• February 2002: "God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. …even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God." ("The Origin of Man," First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, reprint of November 1909 statement, page 30)
  
  
• January 2006: "…if we are faithful and true to the commandments of the Lord, to become sons and daughters of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and in His presence to go on to a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever, and perhaps through our faithfulness to have the opportunity of building worlds and peopling them." ("Adam's Role in Bringing Us Mortality," President Joseph Fielding Smith, reprint of October 1967 General Conference address, page 52)

Furthermore, though my copies of Ensign don't go back this far, consider one more incidence of the teaching Eternal Progression since the 1970s:

• July 1982: "It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." ("I have a question," Gerald Lund, page 38)

In the end it doesn't really matter how often Eternal Progression is discussed in the LDS Church. What matters is that it is a central point of doctrine. This doctrine defines the God that Mormonism calls people to worship; this doctrine constitutes the eternal hope of Latter-day Saints to one day become Gods.

I would say without a doubt that Deseret News got it right. The conference panel absolutely discussed doctrines "that mainstream Christian faiths and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have widely divergent opinions on." To Mormons, Eternal Progression is truth; to Christians, incontrovertible heresy.

Bruce McConkie vs. Brigham Young

I was reading an article in the Deseret News on Saturday that discusses the history of "The Seven Deadly Sins." At the end of the article the journalist mentions a fireside talk the late LDS Apostle Bruce R, McConkie gave back in 1980 titled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" I'm sure I've read that talk before, but out of curiosity I read it again today. There are many things of interest in Mr. McConkie's talk, and I may address more of them in the future; but today I thought we could look at just two of the heresies Mr. McConkie was concerned had "crept in among us [Latter-day Saints]."

To set the stage, so to speak, and to put his address in authoritative context, Bruce McConkie began his talk this way:

"I have sought and do now seek that guidance and enlightenment which comes from the Holy Spirit of God. I desire to speak by the power Of the Holy Ghost so that my words will be true and wise and proper. When any of us speak by the power of the Spirit, we say what the Lord wants said, or, better, what he would say if he were here in person."

Important for the context of what was to follow, Mr. McConkie said,

"I shall speak on some matters that some may consider to be controversial, though they ought not to be. They are things on which we ought to be united, and to the extent we are all guided and enlightened from on high we will be. If we are so united-and there will be no disagreement among those who believe and understand the revealed word-we will progress and advance and grow in the things of the Spirit; we will prepare ourselves for a life of peace and happiness and joy here and now, and for an eventual eternal reward in the kingdom of our Father."

Please keep this in mind.

Mr. McConkie began with the first heresy on his list:

"Heresy #1: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

"This is false--utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression…

"I have been sorely tempted to say at this point that any who so suppose have the intellect of an ant, and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp. But, of course, I would never say a thing like that." (Mr. McConkie meant this last statement as a joke and it was understood as such by his audience. I've included it here because, though said with a smile, it illustrates the idea that faithful Latter-day Saints would never believe such nonsense. Please note that most internet sources for Mr. McConkie's speech have edited this portion out of the text.)

Though Mr. McConkie claims the doctrine that God is progressing in knowledge is heresy, the prophets that laid the foundation of the LDS Church in the early days taught it was true.

"Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful" (President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:286, 1867).

"God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us" (President Wilford Woodruff, Apostle, Journal of Discourses 6:120, 1857).

Mr. McConkie's sixth heresy:

"Heresy #6: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship…

"Anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, and who yet believes the 'Adam-God Theory' does not deserve to saved."

This heresy was taught by Mormonism's second Prophet for more than 20 years. For example, Brigham Young taught in 1852:

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do…"

"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation" (President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50-51. Italics and capitalization retained from the original.).

And in 1873:

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me -- namely that Adam is our father and God...Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth" (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.).

If a Latter-day Saint believes Apostle Bruce McConkie, LDS Prophet Brigham Young had "the intellect of an ant, and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp [and] does not deserve to be saved." But if a Latter-day Saint believes LDS Prophet Brigham Young and other early Mormon leaders, he is laboring under condemnation from one of his apostles.

I'm glad I'm not a Mormon. As a Christian I am bound by the Word of God found in the Bible, which does not change. I can believe it, or I can reject it and face the consequences, but there is no equivocation.

Mormons, on the other hand, must follow their prophets, seers, and revelators; a group to which both Brigham Young and Bruce McConkie belong. If they reject either man's authoritative teachings they have, in effect, rejected the Lord. As Apostle Russell M. Nelson said during the April 1997 General Conference of the LDS Church:

"Loyalty to the Lord carries an obligation of loyalty to those called by the Lord to lead His Church. He has empowered that men be ordained to speak in His holy name. As they guide His unsinkable boat safely toward the shore of salvation, we would do well to stay on board with them" (Ensign, May 1997, page 72).

But what happens, as in this case, when the leaders aren't on the same boat?

The Nature of the Godhead, part II

Yesterday I wrote about the LDS doctrine of deification as taught by Joseph Smith, and how the Church today seems to want to cover up that "basic belief" of Mormonism. There's another aspect of that doctrine I'd like to talk about.

As I wrote yesterday, the LDS Church has begun a new series of articles in the Ensign for the purpose of "explaining the basic beliefs of the restored gospel." The first article, The Nature of the Godhead, appears in the January 2006 issue on pages 50-51.

As with the doctrine on the nature of man that I discussed yesterday, there is something missing from the article regarding the LDS doctrine on the nature of God as well. The Ensign quotes Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse in order to aid in explaining Mormonism's "basic belief" about the nature of God.

"It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,…and that He was once a man like us… When you climb 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."

But the author of the Ensign article does not include Joseph's clear teaching "… 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…"

In the LDS Sunday School book Gospel Principles the "ladder" portion of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse is quoted. Then the book goes on to say, "This is the way our Heavenly Father became God." (p. 305)

[A separate issue, but one that I find interesting, is the fact that older editions of Gospel Principles are a bit different from the current edition. In my 1986 edition, page 293, it says, "This is the way our Heavenly Father became a God." (emphasis mine)]

The reason this captures my attention, apart from the heretical nature of the teaching, is because of some statements made by LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1997.

In April of that year the San Francisco Chronicle's Religion Writer Don Lattin interviewed President Hinckley (13 April 1997). A portion of the interview went like this:

"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. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can."

A few months later Time Magazine's cover story was Mormons, Inc., the secrets of America's most prosperous religion (4 August 1997; only a preview of the article, Kingdom Come, is available online from Time Magazine). Time gave this report of its interview with President Hinckley (page 56):

"On whether his Church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [President Hinckley] 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."

Well, it looks to me like President Hinckley was either mistaken or trying to hide a basic LDS belief about the nature of God. Perhaps his appeal to ignorance in stating that he didn't know that the Church taught the doctrine was not a dodge to keep from answering the question asked by Time Magazine. And I suppose it's possible that Mormons just don't believe the doctrine so clearly taught by Joseph Smith.

Whatever the reasons for President Hinckley's statements in 1997, this article in the Ensign should help clear up any confusion. We still don't know if members believe the doctrine, but we do know that the LDS Church still teaches it as a "basic belief of the restored gospel."

For more information on Gordon B. Hinckley's 1997 interviews check out these online articles:
Dodging and Dissembling Prophet?
Lord of the Dance

The Nature of the Godhead

The LDS Church has begun a new series of articles in the Ensign which are for the purpose of "explaining the basic beliefs of the restored gospel, doctrines unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The first article in the series, The Nature of the Godhead appears in the January 2006 issue on pages 50-51.

The portion of the article that I find most interesting is the part titled The Nature of Man. It states, "…from this restored understanding of the nature of God flows the Latter-day Saint belief regarding our nature and potential." The author (who is not named) continues by quoting a portion of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse. Joseph's teaching that God [the Father] was once a man is quoted, but the author leaves out much of Joseph's important doctrinal exposition on the nature of man and God. For instance,

"…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… 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;…"

This omitted teaching is important because, as the quote of Joseph's sermon in the Ensign article continues, readers are given the principle that

"When you climb 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."

When Joseph's words are removed from their clarifying context, as they have been in the Ensign article, the doctrines he taught become veiled; this leaves the article's conclusion wide open for a more orthodox personal interpretation.

The author closes by quoting LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks: "…the purpose of mortal life is to prepare us to realize our destiny as sons and daughters of God—to become like Him." But what does it mean to "become like Him" if the only information we're given is the selective quoting included in the article? The reader may be able to go a step beyond thinking it means merely sanctification; but surely he will not understand he's being told that as he faithfully climbs the ladder he will one day become a God just like Heavenly Father.

Looking back in an older edition of the LDS Sunday School book Gospel Principles I find, "We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation" (1988 ed., p, 290. Emphasis mine.). But today's edition reads, "We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."

Isn't it odd? What's the purpose of the LDS Church fostering doctrinal confusion among its members? Why not just spell it out clearly? Either Mormons accept Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse as true teaching on the nature of man and God, or they don't. But wouldn't it better accomplish the goals of the Church if leaders were to stop obscuring the "basic beliefs" of Mormonism and let people—both members and non-members—see what they really are?