“If we were making a list, I think we might include the names of at least the first five LDS prophets as those whose doctrines are often considered irrelevant in Mormonism today. A number of their significant teachings have fallen by the wayside.”

I provided examples of some of these teachings, including Lorenzo Snow’s couplet on the nature of God (“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”) A Latter-day Saint reader responded:

“Haha. I can only laugh at this posting. The thought came to me: Who better to tell ME (a proactive and faithful member of the LDS Church) what teachings are ignored or taught in the Church, than Sharon? It’s hilarious.

“The Lorenzo Snow couplet is one of the LEAST ignored teachings in the Church. I hear it, at least, twice a month…. Which is a lot, considering.

“…So, you made me laugh, Sharon. You say that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is an ignored teaching, when I hear it ALL THE TIME, in the Church. It really hurts your credibility.” (Excerpted from lengthier quote)

Sometime later I came across Krista Tippett’s January 2008 interview of LDS scholar Robert Millet (Speaking of Faith on American Public Media). In this interview, Ms. Tippett asked Dr. Millet about the LDS godhead. She expressed her understanding that the Mormon idea of God is that He is a product of something like spiritual evolution: “God who was once a man, and moved into this very different kind of being.”

Dr. Millet acknowledged the fact that Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets taught that God was once a man. He continued,

“but you know, it’s talked about so little, so infrequently; I hear much, much more of that teaching from those who are outside the LDS faith than I do from people within.”

How could the church experiences of our Mormon reader and Robert Millet be so different? One hears the doctrine “all the time” in the Church, and the other hears it “so little, so infrequently.”

In March I suggested that this could be a case of public Mormonism vs. private (members only) Mormonism. This idea seems to be borne out in a Church News report of the 61st annual Joseph Smith Memorial Lecture. Speaking to a Utah audience, Joe J. Christensen, then of the Presidency of the Seventy, told this story during the Memorial Lecture, related here by Church News:

“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 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.”‘” (Church News, 2/4/1995, 4; emphasis retained from the original)

Mr. Christiansen admitted the truth of the doctrine in the end. During the Tippett interview Robert Millet also admitted believing that God was once a man, for he thinks it’s “part of the faith.” Dr. Millet added,

“but it’s rather theologically tangential in the sense that we believe He’s a man; what went on before He was God we just have no idea.”

Dr. Millet referenced Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse earlier in the interview when he acknowledged prophets had taught God was once a man. It seems that if Dr. Millet is willing to believe Joseph’s teaching on that point, then Joseph’s statement on the pre-godhood of God should inform Dr. Millet on that as well. Joseph Smith said,

“…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.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347)

So, according to the Prophet, what went on before God became God was this:

• He was learning how to be a God;
• He was learning how to be a king and a priest to His God;
• He was going from one small degree to another;
• He was going from a small capacity to a great one; etc.

This seems pretty clear to me; and it’s pretty important as well. Those who believe the Bible can in no way consider the doctrine of God “theologically tangential.” Knowing God as He is–and worshiping Him alone–is theologically essential.

“‘…let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows Me,…’” *

* Jeremiah 9:24. In addition, please consider Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; John 17:3

I’d encourage everyone to become familiar with Joseph Smith’s sermon on the Godhead and the plurality of gods as printed in History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 473-479. Ask yourself: What would Joseph Smith have said on Larry King?

“If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.” (>>)

Joseph went on to write:

“I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.”

Discussion Questions

• Joseph Smith the Bible is “full” of the doctrine the Father having a Father. What Biblical support is there for this doctrine, if any? What does the Bible say that would preclude this from even being a possibility?
• What would Joseph Smith say on Larry King in contrast to Gordon B. Hinckley?
• Do you think Joseph Smith thought he was merely speculating?
• Why do you think the notion of the Father having a Father is so offensive to Christians? Most importantly, do you think it is offensive to God himself?

“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.”

The sermon of which Mr. Oaks spoke is the King Follet Discourse. The teaching Mr. Oaks referred to, in Joseph Smith’s words, is this:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret…

“…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 vail, 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;…

“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.”

When Helen Whitney interviewed Apostle Oaks she asked if these teachings were the “core” of Mormon theology. Mr. Oaks replied,

“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… 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…”

Thus, according to Mormon theology, the purpose of life is for men and women to become Gods, just like all Gods have done before, just like the “only wise and true God” of Mormonism has done.

This is consistent with teachings from other LDS sources. The August 2006 issue of Ensign magazine included an article titled “The Purpose of Life.” It said,

“We cannot understand the purpose of this mortal life–why we are here–unless we first understand who we are, where we came from, and what our eternal destiny is. These truths, found in the scriptures and restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, teach us that we are literal spirit children of God, that we lived with Him in a premortal existence, and that we have within us the seeds of godhood, the potential to become like Him.” (64)

An LDS Church Student Manual, Achieving a Celestial Marriage, explains these Mormon beliefs this way:

“…God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality… The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles,… GOD WAS ONCE A MORTAL MAN… He Experienced Conditions Similar to Our Own and Advanced Step by Step… GOD IS NOW AN EXALTED MAN… MEN ARE GODS IN EMBRYO… We Have the Potential to Become Like Our Heavenly Parents… We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our offspring… our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children.” (copyright 1976 Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 129-132. Capitals retained from the original.)

So to summarize, according to Mormonism, the purpose of life for men and women is to achieve Godhood — the same type of Godhood Heavenly Father has achieved. The purpose of the LDS Church is to “put people’s feet on the pathway” to Godhood. This is the core of Mormon theology.

“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.