Monthly Archives: October 2010

Last Sunday’s General Conference address by Elder Boyd K. Packer caused, in the words of LDSLiving.com, “quite the stir in nonmember communities.”  It seems to have caused quite a stir in the LDS community as well (see this posting on “The Times and Seasons” discussing the talk as an example).  Then came word Wednesday that the official transcript of the discourse had been published, with key (and controversial) passages altered in an apparent attempt to tone them down (see here and here and here for analytical takes on the changes).  Most commentators take the changes made to Elder Packer’s published version to signal official disapproval of Packer’s word choices, and an attempt by the Church to officially distance itself from some of Packer’s statements.  While this is certainly a possibility, I believe another interpretation is possible, one grounded on historical episodes in the Church’s past.

Even in the days before television and the internet, Church leaders have struggled with the problem of speaking plainly to Church members, while at the same time knowing that words spoken in General Conference and other formal settings would be recorded and broadcast to non-members around the world.  President Brigham Young discussed this problem in 1857 when addressing a group of Saints in Salt Lake City’s “Bowery”:

“Our Sermons are read by tens of thousands outside of Utah.  Members of the British Parliament have those Journal of Discourses, published by brother Watt; they have them locked up, they secrete them, and go to their rooms to study them, and they know all about us” (JD 5:99).

This recognition presented a problem to Church leaders — how to speak freely to Church members, while avoiding the controversy that would come from those outside the Church, who may not be familiar with Church doctrine and practices, and thus misunderstand what was being taught?  And how to speak the “hard doctrines” to members, while avoiding the ridicule from those unaccustomed and unfamiliar with these deep theological ideas?

Brigham Young solved the problem by maintaining tight control over what was published outside Utah.

“Brother Heber says that the music is taken out of his sermons when brother Carrington clips out words here and there; and I have taken out the music from mine, for I know the traditions and false notions of the people.  . . . In printing my remarks, I often omit the sharp words, though they are perfectly understood and applicable here: for I do not wish to spoil the good I desire to do [abroad].  Let my remarks go to the world in a way the prejudices of the people can bear, that they may read them, and ask God whether they are true” (JD 5:99-100).

Brigham Young thus employed editorial license to walk the balance between speaking to Church members while simultaneously knowing that his words, his “sharp words”, might be misunderstood or cause more harm than good among non-members.  By altering the sermons before publication, he watered down the passages that might create controversy and ill-will.

A similar situation occurred with President Gordon B. Hinckley when he was asked by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter if he believed that man could become like God:

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.

President Hinckley realized that his words would create ill-will among the non-Mormon community if he forthrightly (and honestly) admitted that the LDS Church has, as one of its core doctrines, the idea that man can become gods.  So, he soft-pedaled his answer in order to avoid that controversy.

(more…)