The case involves God's knowledge and official LDS belief about God's knowledge.
In sum, the historical record is clear that Prophet Brigham Young, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve presented and signed a document stating that true LDS doctrine holds that God progresses in knowledge. This was in response to statements made by Orson Pratt in the Seer that God does not progress in knowledge. Much later, Bruce R. McConkie suggested that the view of Prophet Brigham Young, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve was heretical.
McConkie's thesis, while unrefuted (to my knowledge) by later GA's, is nevertheless unofficial and non-binding.
McConkie's Heresies
Bruce R. McConkie delivered a fireside address at Brigham Young University on 1 June 1980 entitled, "The Seven Deadly Heresies." Among the heresies he discussed (in fact his number one list-topper) was the heresy of believing that God progresses in knowledge and learns new truths:
Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.
This is false--utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression.
Here.
McConkie was, at the time, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Does that make his statements authoritative?
[Oddly, if one takes McConkie's statement seriously, one must conclude that he is implicitly labeling Brigham Young, his First Presidency, and his contemporary Quorum of the Twelve as heretics--i.e., those who hold heretical views. McConkie himself, however, would likely have been labeled as heretical by Brigham Young, etc., for denying what they themselves affirmed.--cks]
What is Official Doctrine?
Writing for FAIR, Michael R. Ash presents the following guidelines:
Harold B. Lee expressed similar thoughts when he taught that any doctrine, advanced by anyone—regardless of position—that was not supported by the standard works, then “you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.”
He recognized that the Prophet could bring forth new doctrine, but “when he does, [he] will declare it as revelation from God,” after which it will be sustained by the body of Church (John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy.” [Unpublished, 1999, copy in my {i.e., Ash's} possession.]).
The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31).D&C 26:2
And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.D&C 107:21-30
21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding aofficers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.
22 Of the aMelchizedek Priesthood, three bPresiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and cupheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special cwitnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.
25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
26 And they form a quorum, equal in aauthority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.
27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—
28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—
29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were arighteous and holy men.
30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all arighteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and blong suffering, and in cfaith, and dvirtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;
Until such doctrines or opinions are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church” (Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1992), 15.)
Here.
I am unaware of a sustaining vote in General Conference of either (1) Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve's pronouncement that God is indeed progressing in knowledge or (2) McConkie's pronouncement that such a belief is "completely false" and heretical.
Thus, if we apply the suggestions of Tvedtnes, Harold B. Lee, and Stephen Robinson to the issue of God's progressing in knowledge, we find that neither The First Presidency/Q12's pronouncements nor McConkie's directly contrary pronouncement are doctrinal. Of course, to my knowledge, none of the statements by Tvedness, Lee, or Robinson have been pronounced by the First Presidency in General Conference and sustained by members. Thus, their comments are certainly not doctrinal and it is unclear what, if any, weight they should be given. Their statements are manifestly unofficial and so are certainly not authoritative.
The article signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (see Deseret News, 25 July 1860, pp. 162-163; or the reprint in ibid., 23 August 1865, pp. 372-373) clearly indicates that those institutions viewed Pratt's notion that God doesn't progress in knowledge to be doctrinally abberant. In other words, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve implicitly affirmed as official LDS doctrine that God, in fact, does progress in knowledge.
In the article (signed by the First Presidency and Q12), one finds the following warning (directed against Pratt and those who might be tempted to do what Pratt had done):
It ought to have been known years ago by every person in the church for ample teachings have been given on the point that no member of the church has the right to publish any doctrines as the doctrines of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the twelve. There is but one man upon the earth at one time who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the church and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the church and any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines without consulting with the First Presidency of the church respecting them places himself in a false position and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his priesthood
We see here that Brigham Young affirmed that only the Prophet (at the time, himself) had the right to offer up doctrinal pronouncements for the Church. And it was he (acting in that capacity) who steadfastly affirmed that God does progress in knowledge (contra Pratt). And, not to put too fine a point on it, it must again be stressed that both the First Presidency and Q12 attached their names to both points: (a) that God progresses in knowledge and (b) that only the Prophet is allowed to make doctrinal pronouncements.
There can be no doubt that, in accord with the lines of authority operative and assumed at the time of writing, that it was officially-binding LDS doctrine that God progresses in knowledge. Brigham Young affirmed it. The First Presidency and Q12 affirmed it. Orson Pratt was bound by it.
Whether modern LDS wish to own this doctrine is, of course, another matter. Some do, indeed, affirm it; others do not.
What is clear is that, assuming Ash's paradigm, McConkie's denial of God's progression is without a doubt neither doctrinal nor doctrinally binding. His statements, having not been presented by the First Presidency and sustained by the members, can be easily and justifiably ignored. As far as the issue of official doctrine goes, he may as well not have uttered a word at the fireside in question.
I suppose one can almost as easily erase the clear statements of the First Presidency and Q12 to the effect that God does progress in knowledge. But, in that case, one's rejection of Brigham Young's prophetic pronouncement imports an anachronistic overlay onto the historical situation at the time. It was clear to the principals involved that what Young pronounced and FP/Q12 affirmed simply was doctrine. No official statements, again, to my knowledge, have overturned their pronouncement.
But, now, real weirdness ensues.
In his book, Are Mormons Christian?, Robinson makes what is, to my mind, a strange reference. In chapter two, "The Exclusion by Misrepresentation," Robinson attempts to build a case that Latter-day Saints should not be excluded from bearing the label "Christian" "for things they don't believe" (p. 9).
In a subsection of that chapter, "What is Official Doctrine?" Robinson references the very issue discussed above.
In their encounters with anti-Mormon critics, quite often the Saints seem to feel constrained to defend too much. For example, the fact that Orson Pratt may have said such and such on this or that occasion does not make it a proposition that needs defending. Elder Pratt was very outspoken in his opinions [including the opinion that God does not progress in knowledge--cks], which sometimes disagreed with the General Authorities. He was frequently instructed to make clear to his hearers or readers that his views were his own and not the doctrine of the Church; and on at least one occasion he was instructed by the President of the Church [Brigham Young--cks] to recant publicly opinions he had represented as doctrine.
His fn 8 is, of course, a citation of Deseret News, 25 July 1860, pp. 162-163; or the reprint in ibid., 23 August 1865, pp. 372-373.
And publicly Pratt did so, in Deseret News, 25 July 1860, p. 162. He recanted any and all personal views that were not in line with the Prophet. He stated, in effect, that nothing would be revealed to him truly by God that did not conform to the doctrine of the Church leadership.
What were the beliefs he was then repentant that he had erroneously proclaimed?
They are detailed in the 1860 article.
This article, signed by the then First Presidency, clearly and forthrightly denounced Pratt's notions as untrue. It was not doctrinally correct, per the highest Church leadership, to believe that God does not progress. The notion was "not true."
The original denunciation by the First Presidency in 1860 was quoted and reprinted in a longer article in 1865 (Deseret News, 23 August 1865, pp. 372-373) that was signed by, not just the First Presidency, but also the Quorum of the Twelve, as shown below.
That Robinson would cite this instance (without providing details) strikes me as odd. His characterization of the event implies that (a) there is such a thing as official LDS doctrine, (b) that Pratt's pronouncements were not constitutive of official LDS doctrine, and © that the position held by the President of the Church (Brigham Young) was official LDS doctrine.
Bear in mind, this citation is from the subsection of chapter two entitled "What is Official Doctrine?" If Robinson does not hold the pronouncement by Prophet Brigham Young, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve to be official doctrine, it seems dishonest for him to use these events as an instance of church leadership correcting aberrant, non-official doctrinal statements.
The other option is that the predicative proposition "God progresses in knowledge" was at one time true, but has since become false. But, this is an absurd positon to take. It won't suffice to suggest that Robinson was merely illustrating a principle without committing himself to the truthfulness of the prophetic pronouncement involved. Again, he is attempting to illustrate that there does indeed exist true, offical LDS doctrine and that the Pratt affair was an instance of the GA's affirming said true, official LDS doctrine to the exclusion of Pratt's false, abberant doctrinal opinions.
Latter-day Saints have at least three options: (1) Agree with Prophet Brigham Young, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve (and, apparently, Robinson) that God does indeed progress in knowledge, (2) agree with McConkie that the Prophet Brigham Young, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve (and, apparently, Robinson) believe/d and proclaimed heretical doctrines, or (3) suggest that the Prophet Brigham Young, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve were acting in no official capacity with regard to this pronouncement and that their pronouncement can be justifiably ignored (which, per BY and Pratt's statements, is manifestly anachronistic). Of course, (3) entails that (4) McConkie's pronouncement to the contrary must also be justifiably ignored.
Thus, per (3) and (4), LDS have no official doctrine regarding whether or not God progresses in knowledge. Maybe yes; maybe no. Either McConkie was heretical or BY/FP/Q12 was heretical. Both cannot be correct.
The question to the interested outsider becomes: if LDS have so little knowledge of God that they cannot say officially and unequivocally whether he is omniscient or epistemologically finite, why should the LDS religion be considered definitive re: the question of God?
If anything, this issue demonstrates that LDS authority structures are ill-equipped to provide even basic "official" information about the nature of God's knowledge.
And What's the point of having a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, a First Presidency, and a Quorum of the Twelve if their (signed) doctrinal pronouncements can be so readily ignored?
Thoughts? Corrections, material and interpretive, welcome.
And what is official LDS doctrine about the state of God's knowledge?
CKS