The doctrine of “becoming like God” has long been one of the most distinctive teachings in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For many, it is an inspiring concept that offers a sense of eternal purpose. However, like many aspects of LDS theology, the details surrounding this teaching have shifted over time, leaving both current and former members with questions. One of the Church’s Gospel Topics Essays, “Becoming Like God,” attempts to clarify this doctrine, but in many ways, it only highlights the ambiguity and inconsistencies within it.

One notable aspect of the essay is its admission of uncertainty. It also highlights that the idea of becoming like God has roots in early Christian beliefs, as seen in writings from early theologians like Irenaeus and Athanasius, who spoke of humanity’s potential to partake in divine nature. However, the essay notes that no other modern Christian denomination currently teaches this doctrine in the same way as the LDS Church. It openly acknowledges that much about “becoming like God” and exaltation is not fully understood, even by prophets and apostles. While it references Lorenzo Snow’s well-known statement, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become,” it stops short of declaring it official doctrine. Instead, the essay emphasizes that “we don’t fully understand the process by which God became God” and discusses “eternal progression” in broad, vague terms—describing it as the ongoing ability to learn and grow forever.

This ambiguity raises significant questions. If even prophets admit they don’t fully understand these doctrines, why have they been presented as central to Church teachings? Why have members been encouraged to sacrifice so much—their time, financial resources, and even personal aspirations—for something that remains so undefined? For many, it feels like being asked to dedicate their lives to an idea that even Church leadership cannot clearly articulate. Personally, I find this lack of clarity troubling. If leaders are the ones tasked with guiding members through divine revelation, how can they do so effectively without concrete understanding? It seems unfair to expect members to place unwavering trust in teachings that remain so ambiguous.

Adding to the confusion is the contradiction between the essay’s depiction of “eternal progression” and what earlier Church leaders have taught. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith, in his “Doctrines of Salvation” series, explicitly stated that eternal progression is possible only within the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. According to Smith, individuals in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms will remain in their assigned glories without the opportunity for further advancement. He also emphasized that celestial marriage is a requirement for this progression, stating, “Without it there could be no eternal progress in the kingdom of God” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2). This teaching creates a clear distinction: progression is reserved for those who achieve exaltation, while others experience eternal stagnation. This raises another critical question: Is eternal progression a universal opportunity, or is it limited only to those who achieve the highest celestial glory? For me, this contradiction highlights how doctrinal shifts often leave members with more questions than answers. It feels like a moving target—what was once taught as definitive truth now seems less certain.

This trend toward ambiguity appears to reflect a broader pattern within the Church: a reluctance to fully commit to or clarify past teachings. By framing exaltation as a “beautiful mystery,” the Church avoids making definitive statements that could later prove problematic. While this approach may protect the Church from certain criticisms, it also has consequences. For many, this lack of clarity feels less like a respectful acknowledgment of divine mystery and more like an evasion of responsibility. Members are left wondering: If prophets and apostles, who claim to speak for God, cannot provide clear answers, what is the purpose of their leadership? Personally, I struggle with this question. I believe that prophetic leadership should come with the ability to provide clarity and guidance, especially on matters as significant as exaltation and eternal life. When such guidance is lacking or inconsistent, it undermines the trust that members are asked to place in their leaders.

After considering the ambiguities and contradictions surrounding eternal progression and exaltation, my conclusion is that these shifting teachings create more questions than answers. The Church’s reluctance to provide clarity feels like an evasion of accountability, leaving members and former members to reconcile significant sacrifices with a doctrine that remains vague and inconsistent. For me, it raises the question of how much weight we should give to teachings that leaders themselves admit they don’t fully understand. If doctrines so central to the LDS faith can evolve or fade over time, it challenges the trustworthiness of prophetic leadership and the reliability of what is taught as eternal truth. Ultimately, this lack of clarity undermines my confidence in the Church’s ability to provide definitive answers to life’s most profound questions.