"As we are God once was…"

We actively teach the second part; we don’t actively teach the first part.

I think the membership is all over the place about the first part (with lots of members not believing it); I think the “believing membership” is overwhelming is its support of the second part. President Hinckley famously said he wouldn’t say we teach the first part now; he has said many times we teach and believe the second part.

Again, just to clarify, since it’s really important to be precise in things like this:

Pres. Hinckley said the Church doesn’t teach or emphasize the first part anymore (that God once was mortal). The couplet is included in the Gospel Principles manual, but it is one line in a multiple page lesson – with no suggested follow-up questions or discussion starters. No leader of whom I am aware ever has said we don’t teach the second part (that we can become like God). It not only is taught still, but it is emphasized regularly.

How can we (I) follow prophets and leaders that give us church doctrine and then follow other prophets that teach different doctrine?

I don’t mean this flippantly, but we do it ALL. THE. TIME. We do it with regard to what’s in the Bible (with lots of things) – and the Book of Mormon (like the nature of the godhead) – and early church leaders (like the Adam/God theory or blood atonement or justifications for the Priesthood ban or changing understanding of homosexuality) – and some statements from current leaders (varies for each member) – etc. Every member of the LDS Church (and, really, every religious person of any religion / denomination) does it.

There is no way whatsoever that we can accept, agree with and follow everything that has been said by religious leaders. “Doctrine” simply means “what is taught” – and what is taught changes constantly. In Mormonism, we call it “continuing revelation” – and as much as we tend to want to deny that it actually changes prior doctrine (that there is VERY little that we see as “eternal doctrine”), it does.

Accepting and processing that isn’t easy for a lot of people, but it’s reality.

How can we (I) follow prophets and leaders that give us church doctrine and then follow other prophets that teach different doctrine?

I don’t mean this flippantly, but we do it ALL. THE. TIME. We do it with regard to what’s in the Bible (with lots of things) – and the Book of Mormon (like the nature of the godhead) – and early church leaders (like the Adam/God theory or blood atonement or justifications for the Priesthood ban or changing understanding of homosexuality) – and some statements from current leaders (varies for each member) – etc. Every member of the LDS Church (and, really, every religious person of any religion / denomination) does it.

There is no way whatsoever that we can accept, agree with and follow everything that has been said by religious leaders. “Doctrine” simply means “what is taught” – and what is taught changes constantly. In Mormonism, we call it “continuing revelation” – and as much as we tend to want to deny that it actually changes prior doctrine (that there is VERY little that we see as “eternal doctrine”), it does.

Accepting and processing that isn’t easy for a lot of people, but it’s reality.

I understand that ancient prophets taught different doctrine although not being a scholar I would hard pressed to go to scripture that shows it. I understand that things can change with times like the Priesthood ban, but this is different. This is not something that can be morphed. There was revelation that God was once like man. This means God told somebody. Church doctrine affirms that clearly according to our own official web site “It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.”. My wife found it in a Lorenzo Snow lesson manual and I’ve been told it is noted in the book “The Infinite Atonement”. I would like to know where “the continuing revelation” on this point is. Did President Hinckley or anybody else really say we don’t teach this any longer?

Official doctrine or no, I’ve been taught this all my life. The emphasis, however, has always been on “becoming like God.” The first part has never been addressed much in my past experience. The only thing I have heard regarding God’s origins has been highly speculative stuff coming from other members NOT what was taught in Church: “Our God the Father was once the Jesus Christ of his day” or “God had his own God the Father who had his own God the Father (I guess we have a God the Grandfather somewhere?)” I’ve been a bit puzzled by the discussion that tends to whirl about this. It always seemed a basic doctrine to me (both parts of the couplet). Interesting.

We have a great essay on this site describing what is official church doctrine and what isn’t.

Essentually the standard works are our definition of doctrine and the only thing that is binding on membership of the church. I am willing to bet good money that the concept of God starting out as a mortal man is not found there.

Another definition of “doctrine” is that which is taught or believed by a majority of church members at any given time. Even church leaders have suggested that isolated comments (or books [Mormon Doctrine cough cough]) from a particular leader can be dissmissed if they do not correlate to the message of the entire body of church leadership.

That’s why I clarified with calling it a teaching. I agree, Roy, much of what many consider doctrine is not doctrine at all, and we’ve had those discussions here.So perhaps that original line should say “but is it not a teaching?” While it is not actively taught (or at least very rarely taught), apparently for the reason stated, it does still appear to be a valid teaching/tradition/belief/whatever.

I agree. It is a moderately prominent teaching that is no longer actively taught from official sources (bacause so little has been revealed on the subject – as if that ever stopped us before) but has not been repudiated.

It is also consistent with our belief in theosis, eternal families, and eternal progression.