1. Introduction
I was recently reminded of Bruce R. McConkie’s June 1st, 1980 talk, “The Seven Deadly Heresies”. In it, he makes it clear that these are his personal views and emphasizes that he does not want to be misunderstood. So, in reality, these so-called “heresies” are only heretical according to one man. And since that man isn’t literally God, I think there’s plenty of room for disagreement. Nevertheless, I was curious to see how much of a heretic he might consider me, so I decided to give it re-read. After reviewing his points, I put together a chart summarizing my stances:
In short, according to McConkie, I an over 70% a heretic lol
After reading this I was quite interested that Bruce listed Divine progression as the first of his heresies. He was quite clear on this as well when he, in part, said:
“There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truth. 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.”
I feel like it’s important to discuss what the King Follett sermon actually said. I previously synthesized my own version of the King Follett sermon based on Stan Larson’s 1978 reconstruction. Mine is the version that I am quoting from:
- 12B. we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so you may see.
- 13A. …He once was a man like one of us and that God himself, the Father of us all, once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ Himself did in the flesh and like us.
- 27A. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self existent principle. It is a spirit from age-to-age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. 27B. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. 27C. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge power and glory. So he took in hand to save the world of spirits.
Even if we put aside the Adam-God Doctrine, if God has a soul, and was even once a human like us, does this not mean that He is also susceptible to enlargement and improvement? Would this process have stopped, or is bruce’s view just incorrect?
The best course of action in a situation like this is to read what other theologians have said, and it turns out that this has been a hotly-debated topic for generations.
2. The Case Against God Progressing
McConkie’s claim that God does not progress is not a new idea. Some of the Brighamite tradition’s best-known theologians, including Orson Pratt and Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., also argued against divine progression.
For example, Orson Pratt said in The Seer on page 117-118:
It has been most generally believed that the Saints will progress in knowledge to all eternity: but when they become one with the Father and Son, and receive a fullness of their glory, that will be the end of all progression in knowledge, because there will be nothing more to be learned. The Father and the Son do not progress in knowledge and wisdom, because they already know all things past, present, and to come. All that become like the Father and Son will know as much as they do, and consequently will learn no more. The Father and Son, and all who are like them and one with them, already know as much as any Beings in existence know, or ever can know.
[Earlier in the article] we showed that there could not possibly be but one God, so far as the attributes are concerned, but so far as it regards persons, that there were an immense number of Gods. Now we wish to be distinctly understood that each of these personal Gods has equal knowledge with all the rest; there are none among them that are in advance of the others in knowledge; though some may have been Gods as many millions of years, as there are particles of dust in all the universe, yet there is not one truth that such are in possession of but what every other God knows. They are all equal in knowledge, and in wisdom, and in the possession of all truth. None of these Gods are progressing in knowledge: neither can they progress in the acquirement of any truth.
Some have gone so far as to say that all the Gods were progressing in truth, and would continue to progress to all eternity, and that some were far in advance of others: but let us examine, for a moment, the absurdity of such a conjecture. If all the Gods will be eternally progressing, then it follows, that there must be a boundless infinity of knowledge that no God ever has attained to, or ever can attain to, throughout infinite ages to come: this boundless infinity of knowledge would be entirely out of the reach and control of all the Gods; therefore it would either not be governed at all, or else be governed by something that was infinitely Superior to all the Gods – a something that had all knowledge and consequently that could not acquire more. Have we any right to say that there is a boundless ocean of materials, acting under such Superior laws that none of the Gods to all ages of eternity can be able to understand them? We should like to know what Law Giver gave such superior laws? If it be said that the laws were never given, but that the materials themselves eternally acted according to them. This would not in the least obviate the difficulty; for then there would be a boundless ocean of materials, possessing a knowledge of laws so infinitely superior to the knowledge of all the Gods, that none of them, by progressing for eternal ages, could ever reach it. This is the great absurdity, resulting from the vague conjecture that there will be an endless progression in knowledge among all the Gods. Such a conjecture is not only extremely absurd, but it is in direct opposition to what is revealed.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. concurred with Orson Pratt in Doctrines of Salvation 1:7-8 when he said:
It seems very strange to me that members of the Church will hold to the doctrine, “God increases in knowledge as time goes on.” Or that they can believe (as a recently published article says): “If absolute perfection were attainable, there would eventually come a time when those who had chosen the better way would reach the ultimate; and if the ultimate could be gained, progression would cease, This cannot be, for as before specified nothing in nature remains at a standstill. When progression abdicates the throne, retrogression is the degrading successor.” But, how does anyone know? Where has the Lord ever revealed to us that he is lacking in knowledge? That he is still learning new truth; discovering new laws that are unknown to him? I think this kind of doctrine is very dangerous. I don’t know where the Lord has ever declared such a thing. It is not contained in any revelation that I have read. Man’s opinion unaided by the revelations of the Lord, does not make it so.
Neil A. Maxwell also taught in his 1986 book “All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience”
some have wrongly assumed God’s progress is related to His acquisition of additional knowledge. … Mortals should not aspire to teach God that He is not omniscient by adding qualifiers that He has never used in the scriptures. Job rightly asked, ‘Shall any teach God knowledge?’
Some folks have theorized that reaching Godhood means you are now omniscient and omnipotent, and the only progression that you can continue is essentially spiritual birthing and raising children for eternity.
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. supported this and elaborated in the Doctrines of Salvation:
[God’s] great work is in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. By the creation of worlds and peopling them, by building and extending, he progresses, but not because the fulness of truth is not understood by him.
Bruce R. McConkie affirmed this as well in his 7 Deadly Heresies talk when he said:
eternal progression consists of living the kind of life God lives and of increasing in kingdoms and dominions everlastingly.
In short, those who believe that you can reach a point where you are omniscient, and the only thing that you can do to keep progressing is to eternally have children.
3. The Case For God Progressing
Yet, not all LDS leaders agreed with this conclusion. Others, such as Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, and B.H. Roberts, took an entirely different view – one that embraced the idea of eternal divine progression.
For example, Wilford Woodruff said in 1857:
If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us.
Woodruff was not alone in this view; in fact Brigham Young was quite enamored by it and was off put by what Orson Pratt taught. In 1867 Brigham Young said:
Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful. But there are some of our brethren who know just so much, and they seem to be able to learn no more. You may plead with them, scold them, flatter them, coax them, and try in various ways to increase their knowledge; but it seems as if they would not learn. … do they know anything about the character of Him whom they profess to worship? No, only that the Gospel has been revealed. The Holy Spirit has touched their hearts; they believe the Gospel, and they do not know that they can learn any more.
Young again reaffirmed his position in the Deseret News on June 18th, 1873, page 309
Some may say to me, “Why, Brother Brigham, you seem to know it all.” I say, Oh no, I know but very little, but I have an eternity of knowledge before me, and I never expect to see the time when I shall cease to learn, never, no never, but I expect to keep on learning for ever and ever, going on from exaltation to exaltation, glory to glory, power to power, ever pressing forward to greater and higher attainments, as the Gods do. That is an idea that drowns the whole Christian world in a moment…. “What,” say they, “God progress?” Now, do not lariet the God that I serve and say that he cannot learn any more; I do not believe in such a character. “Why,” say they, “does not the Lord know it all?” Well, if he does, he must know an immense amount.
In 1899 George Q. Cannon also affirmed this point of view when he taught:
… If we have His spirit we will feel as He does … and we shall go on from one degree of perfection to another, advancing as our Father in heaven advances, for there is progress for our Father and for our Lord Jesus. There is no such thing as standing still in the eternal work of our God. It is endless progress, progressing from one degree of knowledge to another degree.
This perspective carried on in the generations following the pioneers. For example, in his 1915 book “Rational Theology” John A. Widtsoe wrote:
If the great law of progression be accepted, God must have been engaged from the beginning, and must now be engaged in progressive development, and infinite as God is, he must have been less powerful in the past than he is today.
and B.H. Roberts spoke on this topic on multiple occasions. In “The Seventy’s Course in Theology“ volume 4 – which was designed to be a systemic approach to Mormon doctrine – Roberts said:
But God’s immutability should not be so understood as to exclude the idea of advancement or progress even of God. … we could not say of God’s immutability as we do of his eternity that it is absolute, since there may come change through progress even for God: but an absolute immutability would require eternal immobility–which would reduce God to a condition eternally static, which, from the nature of things, would bar him from participation in that enlargement of kingdom and increasing glory that comes from redemption and the progress of men. And is it too bold a thought, that with this progress, even for the Mightiest, new thoughts, and new vistas may appear, inviting to new adventures and enterprises that will yield new experiences, advancement, and enlargement even for the Most High? It ought to be constantly remembered that terms absolute to man may be relative terms to God, so far above our thinking is his thinking; and his ways above our ways.
In short, these folks believed that progression – including learning new things – would continue on forever.
4. My Perspective
The question of whether God continues to progress – what Matthew Bowman called “What Is the Nature of God’s Progress?” – has been debated for more than a century and a half. This long-standing discussion has fostered a rich diversity of thought, and I believe that diversity is valuable. It allows us to explore what it truly means to be divine and how we might cultivate those qualities within ourselves.
Yet, figures like Brigham Young and McConkie sought to shut down this discussion, discouraging those who did not share their views. By suppressing theological exploration, they limited the depth and richness of our tradition – a limitation I believe has been to its detriment, and other contemporary Mormon theologians, such as Jaxon Washburn, seem to concur with me.
Theologian Eugene England sought to harmonize both sides of this debate in his 1989 BYU Studies paper “Perfection and Progression: Two Complementary Ways to Talk about God.” He argued that “perfection in one sphere is possible, but then so is progress in a higher sphere or realm.” This perspective resonates with me.
Bruce R. McConkie declared that God is no student, but I disagree; learning is an eternal process. In mortality, we progress from elementary school to high school to higher education. The idea that progression simply stops at a certain level – especially for a being whose glory is intelligence – feels counterintuitive. If divinity is about creation, growth, and enlightenment, then why assume it is also about stagnation?
From my perspective, Adam and Eve came to earth to learn and provide human bodies for others. They gained all they could from this realm and then moved on to the next realm. From our vantage point, they have become gods, knowing all there is to know here. Yet even now, they continue to help us grow into their own maturity, just as they themselves are still learning and evolving in their new sphere. In this way, they are among our Heavenly Parents.
I say among because, inevitably, others have followed a similar path. Just as Adam and Eve learned what they needed and progressed, so too must there be others who have done the same – Divine beings who once walked a mortal path and now reach back to guide us forward. In this sense, they resemble the Bodhisattva Devas of Eastern thought: exalted ones who have attained wisdom but continue to assist those still journeying toward enlightenment.
If the glory of God is intelligence, then why would we assume that progression ever ceases? To me, divinity is not about reaching a final state of knowledge but about an eternal journey of expansion, discovery, and growth – worlds without end.