Thank you, that is helpful. I am curious, then, about this
1982 Ensign Q&A regarding the doctrine, in reference to the statement by Lorenzo Snow: —“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." More specifically, the question is answered by Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. He states that the lack of any official pronouncement on the subject is not a valid measure for determining if it is doctrine, as the First Presidency does not speak officially on all doctrinal matters. He states that there is substantial support for this being official doctrine:
Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said...
“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. (underline added; italics in original). Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’
“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …
I am of course no expert on Mormon theology or doctrine and I am happy to read any official pronouncements. As I have said elsewhere, my own impression from discussing this issue with Mormons is that the doctrine of exaltation and the pre-creation existence of Heavenly Father is opaque at least in its particulars. For example,
this 1992 edition of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism refers to it as "doctrine," but it would appear largely on the basis of it being attributable to Smith. And President Hinckley certainly downplayed the first part of the saying of Snow in public statements, while agreeing with eternal progression.
In 2007, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Mormonism's highest-ranking "General Authorities), issued the statement that I quoted from:
Approaching Mormon Doctrine (link). You may wish to read it in its entirety as it is not long.
I previously quoted one paragraph from that statement. Here is another:
- Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
That paragraph is almost more important, in my opinion, than the one I quoted previously, at least with regards to a discussion of God's origins. You could attend LDS worship services for years on end (as I have) and never hear a sermon or a lesson on God's origins. Very infrequently, someone may make mention of either the King Follett Discourse or Lorenzo Snow's couplet, but it's never more than just a passing comment. If you were to go to the Church's official website and were to do a search of all the General Conference talks of the past nearly 40 years (that would be literally thousands of talks by the Church's General Authorities) to see how extensively the subject of God's origins is taught, you would find what I did when tried it. I first searched on "Follett." I found two entries, both quoting from paragraphs in the King Follett Discourse that had nothing to do with God's origins. When I searched on "As man is, God once was," not a single mention of the statement came up.
When you ask "What are the LDS Church's doctrines?" you could really be asking one of two possible questions: (1) "What teachings are canonical? What teachings are doctrinally binding on members of the Church?" Or you could be asking, (2) "What do Mormons teach in their adult Sunday School classes or in Priesthood Meeting (for males) or Relief Society (for females)?"
Once I month, I teach a 30-minute lesson in Relief Society. I am assigned a topic each month based on a talk (i.e. sermon) from the previous General Conference (there are 2 such conferences each year). Last month I had to teach a lesson entitled, "The Sacrament -- A Renewal for the Soul." It was on what we call "the Sacrament" and what most Christians refer to as "Communion" or "the Lord's Supper." During the lesson, one woman raised her hand and asked, "My mother used to always tell me that I was supposed to take the Sacrament with my right hand. Is that right?" I replied by asking the class if anyone knew of any scriptural support for the instructions her mother had given her. No one knew of any (there isn't any) but a couple of other women said, "Yeah, I can remember being told that, too, but come to think of it, I've never read anything to that effect in the scriptures." Suppose I had been taught that I must take the Sacrament with my right hand (which I wasn't) and it had been drilled into my head that this was really important. I could have answered the first woman's question by saying, "Yes, that is absolutely right. You must take the Sacrament with the right hand." If the word "doctrine" is just a synonym for the word "teaching," all thirty or so women in the class could leave the class believing that "Mormon doctrine is that you must take the Sacrament with your right hand." And suddenly Katzpur, having "taught" this, would have been declaring doctrine. This is how misunderstandings about what is and what is not official doctrinal, and it's why I am always careful to only post "official church doctrine" when I post at all. If I am merely presenting my own opinion or perspective, I make a point of saying so.
With respect to President Snow's well-known couplet, President Hinckley probably downplayed the first part of the saying ("As man is, God once was...") because it cannot be scripturally supported and is therefore not "official doctrine." The second part of the couplet, ("As God is, man may become.") is doctrinal. It is a one-line summary of the doctrine of Eternal Progression, for which there is scriptural support. It basically falls into the category of a teaching that is "peripheral to the Church’s purpose instead being placed at the very center." (Refer to the paragraph I posted in red font.)
A number of LDS leaders (more recent than past) have advised the members of the Church not to waste a lot of time speculating on doctrines that are somewhat vague (you used the word "opaque"). Some, however, don't seem to be able to resist the urge. Finding reasons for things we don't understand seems to be something human beings are inclined to do. In the case of Snow couplet, one might argue that if the second half of the statement is doctrinal, the first half is a logical possibility. In other words, if we can become godlike, could not the reverse be true as well? Still, saying that something "could be" does not make it so.
Regarding Gerald Lund's statement... Gerald Lund eventually became an LDS General Authority (although never as high-ranking as an Apostle). At the time he made the statement (in a Church periodical), he was a lay member of the Church voicing his own opinion as to what comprised Mormon doctrine.
I am curious what the origins of Heavenly Mother are. Is she co-eternal or was she also formed out of pre-existing matter?
I'm afraid I can't help you out with this one at all. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say she was co-eternal with God, but I could be wrong as easily as I could be right.
