Gordon B. Hinckley and the “God Was Once a Man” Question

In a 1997 Time Magazine interview, President Gordon B. Hinckley appeared to distance himself from the LDS doctrine that God was once a man. Critics call this institutional deception. The full context tells a different story.

The Exchange

In the 1997 Time Magazine interview, the reporter asked President Hinckley whether the Church still teaches the doctrine, rooted in the Lorenzo Snow couplet — “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become” — that God the Father was once a man. President Hinckley responded:

Gordon B. Hinckley, interview by Richard N. Ostling, Time, August 4, 1997, p. 56

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it.”

Critics call this a lie — a deliberate attempt to obscure LDS doctrine from a mainstream audience.

The Response

1. What Hinckley Actually Said — Precisely

Hinckley did not say the doctrine is false. He said:

Hinckley’s Actual Words

“I don’t know that we teach it” — emphasis on current emphasis in curriculum
“I don’t know that we emphasize it”

This is not a doctrinal denial. It is an accurate statement about the current instructional status of a doctrine that is not taught systematically in Sunday School, Sacrament meeting, or missionary discussions. The Lorenzo Snow couplet is not in the missionary discussions. It is not a temple recommend question. It is not in the Preach My Gospel manual.

2. The Distinction Between Doctrine and Emphasis

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a vast body of revealed knowledge. Not all of it is taught with equal frequency or emphasis. The King Follett Discourse — where Joseph Smith most fully discussed this topic — is not canonized scripture. It is a remarkable prophetic statement, widely revered, but not formally in the standard works. A prophet saying “I don’t know that we teach it” in reference to a non-canonized philosophical discourse is a statement about curriculum, not a theological reversal.

3. The Broader Context — Other Hinckley Statements

Hinckley repeatedly affirmed the divine potential of man and the personal nature of God in other public statements throughout his ministry. The Time quote was taken as the complete picture when it was one exchange in a long interview about many topics.

4. The Honest Acknowledgment

There is a legitimate observation here: Church leaders sometimes speak cautiously about certain theological topics when addressing a mainstream audience in an adversarial journalistic context. That caution can create an appearance of evasion. The answer to this is not to excuse it — it is to note that careful public communication about complex theological topics is different from doctrinal denial. The doctrine itself has never changed. What varies is how prominently it is taught.

5. The Standard Applied to Other Traditions

Catholic theologians routinely speak carefully about papal infallibility, purgatory, and indulgences in mainstream contexts — using qualified language that does not represent the full scope of official teaching. Protestant pastors routinely soft-pedal predestination and eternal conscious torment in evangelistic settings. Every faith tradition has concepts that leaders communicate carefully to non-members. This is not unique to the LDS Church.

The Verdict

President Hinckley’s Time Magazine statement was imprecise — accurate as a statement about curriculum emphasis but incomplete as a representation of revealed doctrine. It was not a lie about what the Church believes. The doctrine of divine potential has never been formally rescinded, is affirmed in scripture (“heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” — Romans 8:17), and was confirmed by Hinckley in other public statements. The critics took an ambiguous interview quote and treated it as a theological reversal. It was neither.