Cadence, have you heard it (that God was once a mortal man) in General Conference or from "the Church" - or have you heard it from members of the Church?
I've heard it from members of the Church, and I'm positive there is a very large percentage of members who believe it. I don't think there's any legitimate way to assert otherwise. I just can't remember the last time I heard "the Church" teach it or emphasize it.
Let me relate this to another topic, while begging everyone not to derail this thread by making it about the priesthood ban just because I'm using it as an example:
"The Church" hasn't taught or emphasized the previous justifications for the ban in a long time, and, in fact, there have been some very strongly worded statements over the past couple of decades, especially, about how we need to let go of those justifications. However, too many members still cling to them, because previous leaders used them.
If Pres. Hinckley had been asked the exact same question about the former justifications for the ban, and if he had said that he wouldn't say that we teach or emphasize them anymore, he would be correct - regardless of how many members can't let go of them. If he said, "Those things are never taught anywhere in the LDS Church today" - well, that obviously would be wrong. However, if he simply said, "The Church doesn't teach them or emphasize them today" - well, he would be correct.
So, based strictly on what he was asked and what he answered, it really doesn't matter if members still believe the first half of the couplet - when it comes to evaluating the interview. Does it matter in the sense that we want to know if it's correct or not? Sure, if we care and want to know; not at all, if we dont' care and don't want to know. How much emotion we invest in it is up to us, but I'm just pointing out that I think we do him a disservice if we support the idea that he lied in his answer, or that he should have given a doctrinal discourse to someone who didn't want one (in a setting where it wouldn't have been appropriate in the first place).
Did he "duck" the question a bit? Maybe, since he might have been able to elaborate a little more - but maybe not, since he might not have been able to elaborate a little more, given the constraints of the interview - and maybe not, since he might have answered more fully in the unedited version or afterward in person to only the interviewer - and maybe or maybe not for a number of other possible reasons. I accept his answer as carefully worded (even with the use of a colloquialism that some didn't understand) and "political" in that sense - but I also accept that it was an answer to the question asked, and that it actually might have been the best answer possible in the circumstances of that interview.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)
Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken