King Follet...Wilford and thousands of others must have been on the edges of their seats!

[Redpilled Mormon]

Why? It's not salvific, even if it turns out to be true. I see no more reason to mourn someone 'guessing wrong' about this than if they happened to 'guess wrong' about the existence of Bigfoot.

Joseph's entire point in the discourse is that it IS salvific. "This is life eternal..."

Can you cite a source on that? Because if Joseph really did say that understanding of this was salvific, that would mean he was definitely a false prophet at that point, since it directly opposes what Christ himself taught as salvific in 3 Nephi 11, with the strong caution that anything more or less taught for salvation was of evil.

• Go to the morn of creation to understand the decrees of the Eloheem at the creation. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God at the beginning, if we get a good start first we can go right, but if you start wrong you may go wrong. But few understand the character of God. they do not know they do not understand their relationship to God. the world know no more than the brute beast & they know no more than to eat drink and sleep, & this is all man knows about God or his exhistance, except what is given by the inspiration of the Almighty. go then to the beginning that you may understand. I ask this congregation what kind of a being is God? turn your thoughts in your hearts, & say have any of you seen or herd him or communed with him this is a question that may occupy your attention The scriptures inform us that this is eternal life to know the ownly wise God & Jesus Christ whome He has sent. If any inquire what kind of a being God is—I would say If you dont know God you have not eternal life, go back & find out what kind of a being God is. If I am the man that shows you what kind of a being God is then let evry man & woman sit in silence and never lift up his hand against me again

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... woodruff/1

Funny how you say that that proves he had fallen as a prophet by that point. Joseph made clear that this speech would prove that he was not a fallen prophet:

• President Joseph Smith said He should not occupy time in speaking of any difficulties that might have occured in our midst, Said He was not a fallen prophet, & never in any nearer relationship to God than at the present time, & would show before the Conferen closed that God was with him.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... woodruff/1

Thanks for the citation, but I see a long stretch between defining eternal life as knowing God and some arbitrary requirement to guess right on the exact nature of God to be saved. Of course anyone who has attained eternal life is dwelling with and knows God by that point. That's not the same as saying we have to 'guess correctly' on the details of exactly how the Godhead works in order to be afforded redemption via Christ's atonement by following his doctrine.

[onefour1]

Indeed there was times when Israel ran after pagan Gods, indeed a pantheon of gods, the Hebrew writers and their Prophets faithfully recorded such in their Scriptures, so all said Biblical archeologists are doing is supporting the Biblical writings concerning the varied times when Israel and the ancients whored after strange gods and goddesses.
The fact remains that the Bible teachs of One true God, that in the meridian of time He would manifest Himself in the flesh, walk amongst us and pay the price of his creations sins with His own Blood.
And it was for this testimony that nigh on all the Prophets and messengers in ancient times were persecuted, imprisoned, exiled or put to death.............
The Bible from beginning to end is a Witness to this one God, this Father of all creation, whom in the form of Jesus of Nazerath suffered death apon the cross and after three days in the tomb arose from the dead and thru faith in His name mankind can obtain timeless happiness.
Let all the learned academics and religious men in any church claim whatever they will, but every man and woman that truly humbles themselves, confessing their sins and seeks out this God whom is our Father, our King, our redeemer and Saviour shall know of a surety, just as I do that Jesus our Lord presides in Glory over all in the heavens, earths and worlds without number or end, but yet has time for each and every one of us His children and will reveal His love in a manner that cannot be put into mortal words to each and every one of us that believe and call apon His name............
We cannot, we must not at the very peril of losing our salvation, demote nor in the slightest degree seek to take even one particle of the Glory away from Jesus of Nazerath and give it to others.
As I have written many times......
Whom was it that was mocked, beaten, flogged, stripped naked then nailed to a Cross in our stead?
If it was this lowly Jewish teacher called Jesus, then worship Him, for the Scripture clearly attests that no one else in the Heavens was worthy nor able to endure, nor pay the price of sin, nor take their lives up again.........
That means no grandfather god, no arch Angel, no michael, nor gabriel or raphael was worthy or able to accomplish the work of Calvary, only God Himself was able and that God is our Lord Jesus.........

If Jesus is also the Father (the one whom he prayed to) then why would Jesus need to go unto the Father?

John 14:12
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And why would Jesus need to ascend to his Father in heaven?

John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

[Peeps]

Sad that people on this forum reject it.

I don't reject it, I believe that Genesis chapter 1 "God" or "elohim" god, or gods, were the rebellious 1/3 who were cast out of Heaven. Adam and Eve were formed in Genesis chapter 2 by Jehovah Elohim, or the LORD God.

[CaptainM]

Also from the King Follett discourse. I wonder if the listeners were on the edge of their seats when he said this. I wonder if Joseph was inspired to say this about himself in the third person. I believe in and revere the prophet Joseph Smith, and believe he has yet a great work to do that will affect all of our salvations.

“I advise all of you to be careful what you do, or you may by-and-by find out that you have been deceived. Stay yourselves; do not give way; don't make any hasty moves, you may be saved. If a spirit of bitterness is in you, don't be in haste. You may say, that man is a sinner. Well, if he repents, he shall be forgiven. Be cautious: await. When you find a spirit that wants bloodshed-murder, the same is not of God, but is of the devil. Out of the abundance of the heart of man the mouth speaketh.” (April 7, 1844.) T&S Aug. 15, 1844.” — Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

In Christ. Best wishes...

[kirtland r.m.]

Joseph's entire point in the discourse is that it IS salvific. "This is life eternal..."

That was the entire purpose of LoF actually. The doctrine portion of the D&C that let's the saints know the nature of God because you have to know his nature in order to worship him. Thank goodness for canon that allows us to recognize false doctrine.

Also, thank goodness for forensic writing style analysis that let's us know that most of the king Follet discourse is a match to BY. God bless you Edith Debarthe.

Wow, is that right? That would explain a lot, if the King Follet discourse was a fabricated rewrite by Brigham.

There is zero evidence that the KFD was fabricated by Brigham. It is simply hilarious how whenever someone disagrees with Joseph Smith, they throw that old chestnut out. People independently wrote reports of the KFD that Brigham had no access to. There are four main contemporaneous reports of that sermon which were used to write the official report and they are practically identical.

The writing style of King Follett isn’t Brigham’s either. It reads just like Joseph’s other sermons. Brigham had a totally different way of speaking.

Enid Debarthe was just plain wrong. She was an RLDS apologist seeking to bolster the official narrative of the Group which they soon did a 180 on upon the realisation that Joseph Smith was in fact a polygamist.

Remember the Lord's law of witnesses, there were thousands who witnessed this talk. It would be impossible for anyone later to make any major change to what was said and taught, and have gotten away with it.

[Niemand]

The problem with creation being just "rearranging matter" and/or an infinite chain of gods going back, is that you're still left with the question of where both the universe and the gods came from. It's the theological equivalent of "elephants all the way down" if you know the reference, or the Steady State Universe theory.

[Edit to add: I see Redpilled Mormon has made this point before me.]

That said, I have always enjoyed reading the KFD and wish it was included in the official scriptures.

There is no beginnings or endings to the Wheel of Time…

Who was talking about a beginning or an end? I'm talking about an origin, and this answer doesn't give us one. It tells us that the wheel is round, but it never tells us where it came from...

[Mindfields]

Poor King Follet. Killed by a bucket of rocks falling down a well and killing him and now his name is tied to this unscriptural mess of Mormon doctrine.

[TheDuke]

To be clear the KFD, as we have it was not the sermon given at the funeral. That was never recorded. This is a sermon for JS last GC in Nauvoo. It has some reference to King as many asked him to repeat what he said in a smaller group. Joseph was hell bent on pulling fire down from heaven and attacking his adversaries. In the end the spirit told him to give the KFD or GC talk for spring 1843 for a better name. He did intersperse a few flames for his ever present foes. And his time did limit his discussions to bible only references.

BYW if you don't see truth in it, it is not because it isn't there, I would look inside before casting stones out your glass window at it.

[Luke]

Poor King Follet. Killed by a bucket of rocks falling down a well and killing him and now his name is tied to this unscriptural mess of Mormon doctrine.

Joseph Smith certainly didn't see it that way:

• I wish I cod. speak for 3 or 4 hours it is not expedt. on acct. of the rain—I will still go on & shew you proof on proof all the Bible is as equal one part as another

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -bullock/5

[Shawn Henry]

Enid Debarthe was just plain wrong.

She is just plain wrong because you say so? Your emotionally based statement should dismiss her entire Master's Thesis?

Is this really the intellectual path you would have us follow?

[Shawn Henry]

Remember the Lord's law of witnesses, there were thousands who witnessed this talk.

That's not how the Law of Witnesses works. A witness is not witnessing Joseph said something. A witness is when God calls another to be a witness and that individual then has the same testimony given him from heaven.

The 3 and 8 witnesses are good examples of this. God first gave a specific revelation saying that there would be witnesses, in addition to the BoM saying as much. The 3 actually had an angel appear to them. Sydney Rigdon was the man called by God to witness for Joseph, which call is attested to by God's words in the D&C. It is also in the BoM that teaches that the Seer will receive the word and the spokesman will declare it.

If I say there is a unicorn in my bedroom, you can't be a witness because you heard me say it. You are a witness when you too see it.

[Luke]

Enid Debarthe was just plain wrong.

She is just plain wrong because you say so? Your emotionally based statement should dismiss her entire Master's Thesis?

Is this really the intellectual path you would have us follow?

She was plain wrong for the reasons I listed. I read her thesis. There is no deep analysation of JS’ and BY’s words. Just conjecture.

[Alexander]

Poor King Follet. Killed by a bucket of rocks falling down a well and killing him and now his name is tied to this unscriptural mess of Mormon doctrine.

“unscriptural”

The discourse quite clearly gives scriptural support for its praxis.

[Mindfields]

Poor King Follet. Killed by a bucket of rocks falling down a well and killing him and now his name is tied to this unscriptural mess of Mormon doctrine.

“unscriptural”

The discourse quite clearly gives scriptural support for its praxis.

I believe the Book of Mormon is incompatible with the King Follet discourse.

[stormcloak]

go ahead worship according to bigfoot!

Made me chuckle. No, you don't have to guess right on whether bigfoot or aliens or the loch ness monster exists or not to get into heaven. Such a notion would be absurd if we are to worship a God who is Just. It's equally nonsensical to suppose we have to guess right on the number of hairs in Christ's left eyebrow to be saved. Knowing and comprehending the true nature and substance of God is simply not possible for a mortal man, and it's absurd to think that this would somehow be a requirement for salvation.

Anyone who is walking around saying 'oh yeah, I totally got this whole God thing down and figured out, I comprehend all aspects of God' is delusional to the point he might want to check a mirror to see how far up his own behind his head is stuck.

So sad to see redpilled Rimuru Tempest of all people lacking crucial understanding of Joseph Smith's crowning doctrinal discourse before he died, and making light of the brilliant truths he revealed...

The King Follett Discourse was not the first time Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that God was once a man and has a body. Consider this:

That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones. John 5-26, "As the father hath life in himself, even so hath he given the son to have life in himself". God the father took life unto himself precisely as Jesus did. The first step in the salvation of men is the laws of eternal and self-existent principles. Spirits are eternal [this sentence exactly parallels the KFD]. At the first organization in heaven we were all present and saw the Savior chosen and appointed, and the plan of salvation made and we sanctioned it. We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the Celestial Kingdom. The great principle of happiness consists in having a body. The Devil has no body, and herein is his punishment. He is pleased when he can obtain the tabernacle of man and when cast out by the Savior he asked to go into the herd of swine showing that he would prefer a swines body to having none. All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him; the moment we revolt at anything which comes from God the Devil takes power.

The Words of Joseph Smith: 5 January 1841 (Tuesday). Old Homestead.

Joseph is here teaching the same concepts, way back in 1841. He affirms that God has a body, and was thus once a man. He also affirms that our purpose in taking bodies is to become like Him through these bodies, not apart from them. This is the radical departure which traditional Christianity hates Mormonism for.

He even also teaches that our spirits were self-existent in the beginning with God, just like in the KFD. What more could you ask for?

Consider this statement as well:

What was the design of the Almighty in making man, it was to exalt him to be as God, the scripture says ye are Gods and it cannot be broken

(The Words of Joseph Smith: 27 August 1843, James Burgess Notebook)

This was given a year before the KFD, and yet Joseph is preaching on the deification of man as taught in John 10:34, Psalms 82:6. This account wasn't even included in the later official History of the Church!

Why? It's not salvific, even if it turns out to be true. I see no more reason to mourn someone 'guessing wrong' about this than if they happened to 'guess wrong' about the existence of Bigfoot.

It was absolutely salvific! Joseph Smith said so, right in his discourse:

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or his existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.

...

I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own heart, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with him. This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question--What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The Scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,--if he will search diligently his own heart--if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

(TPJS 343-344)

Yes, I'm using the amalgamated version from TPJS, but it matches nicely with the original accounts. I just don't feel like bracketing in all the partial words and missing punctuation from the manuscripts, so I opted to use the TPJS amalgamation.

Now this statement from Joseph Smith is just as plain as the nose on your face. If you want to argue that "eternal life" doesn't constitute salvation, then let's see what the scriptures say about "eternal life":

And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

(D&C 14:7)

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(John 17:3)

Remember that this above scripture was Jesus' dying prayer.

And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life.

(D&C 101:38)

Wow! So here we have the much-lauded Second Comforter experiences being equated with eternal life! And Joseph Smith says that we cannot have that blessing unless we have a correct understanding of the nature and character of God! Talk about a showstopper!

If you further want to argue about the reliability of the King Follett Discourse, just try reading all the contemporary accounts of the sermon. There are no less than 9 contemporary reports! Check them out here: The Words of Joseph Smith: 7 April 1844 (2) (Sunday Afternoon). Grove 1/4 mile east of Temple

We have the following:

• Joseph Smith's own diary, kept by Willard Richards
• Wilford Woodruff's diary
• Thomas Bullock's report (professional scribe, possibly most detailed report)
• William Clayton's report (another professional scribe, very detailed for part of sermon)

On top of these, we have:

• Samuel W. Richards diary (confirms teaching that God was once man)
• Joseph Fielding's diary (confirms teaching about the nature of God)
• Willard Richards' diary (simply reports the amount of people who attended)
• William Clayton's diary (says "Joseph discoursed on the dead")
• George Laub's diary (written circa 1845, but compiled from contemporaneous notes; confirms teaching that God was once man and many other important teachings)

And really, we're supposed to think Enid DeBarthe, an RLDS apologist, was credible when she asserted Brigham Young authored this sermon? What silliness! I personally even enjoy Brigham's discourses, but my goodness, we're really over-crediting him when we attribute the masterful King Follett Discourse to his fabrication. Nothing else but the inspired and illustrious mind of Joseph Smith, Jr. could have articulated the principles of Godliness and the nature of our Father quite like he did. Anyone asserting otherwise is simply unfamiliar with the scriptures and with history, or they have a theological agenda.

I find DeBarthe's analysis lacking in so many other areas as well. She relies on faulty stylometry for one thing, as she thinks Brigham's verbal sermons are somehow equivalent with Joseph's printed articles. The whole thing is just silliness to me. The only interesting point I found that she makes in her whole essay is the D&C 136:42 ends similarly to D&C 132:66. But that whole issue resolves itself when you realize that D&C 55:6, D&C 57:16, and D&C 60:17 also contain endings similar to D&C 132:66. Moreover, D&C 95:17 contains another arguably similarly anomalous ending for a verse, stylistically speaking. Are we going to argue that Brigham authored D&C 95 as well? How about D&C 128:25? B.H. Roberts anticipated many of DeBarthe's arguments and addressed them quite masterfully years before her analysis was ever written in History of the Church, vol. 5, pages XXXVIII-XLII.

I find it almost comical but ultimately sad that people are so benighted in their understanding of scripture that they resort to arguments like these to deny the obvious inspiration of the King Follett Discourse. The Book of Mormon even spells it out for us that God has a body. Consider Ether 3:16

Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Here Christ teaches the Brother of Jared that He has a body and created us after the image of His spiritual body. Are we really to believe that the mystery of Godliness is so great, that we cannot know the simple fact that our God has a body like we do? What hogwash! What nonsense! What sheer folly! What could please Satan more than the fact that Christianity today rejects the fact that God has a body, whilst the rest of the world rejects the fact that man has a spirit?

O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?

(Helaman 13:29)

[Mindfields]

So and so said Joseph Smith said God told him such and such... first hand, second hand, or even third hand, it's all the same and considered boneified doctrine as long as it fits the current paradigm. The Achilles heal of Mormonism.

Ironically the current church is backing away from these teachings. Still thinking you're going to get your own planet to populate and rule over. Not so fast...

[stormcloak]

So and so said Joseph Smith said God told him such and such... first hand, second hand, or even third hand, it's all the same and considered boneified doctrine as long as it fits the current paradigm. The Achilles heal of Mormonism.

The exact same reasoning is employed by atheists to argue against the Bible. When you really boil it down, the New Testament is filled with pseudepigrapha. Objectively, we have no idea if Paul authored Timothy or Titus. The four Gospels were all written much later after Jesus died and ascended. The Talmud argues very forcefully against the account of Jesus' parentage and the mode of His miracles. The Old Testament gets even hairier in many places. But Christians drive on by, "nothing to see here!" But Mormonism -- now that's unreliable!

Ironically the current church is backing away from these teachings. Still thinking you're going to get your own planet to populate and rule over. Not so fast...

Of course. The apostasy has been happening in gradual phases.

[Luke]

go ahead worship according to bigfoot!

Made me chuckle. No, you don't have to guess right on whether bigfoot or aliens or the loch ness monster exists or not to get into heaven. Such a notion would be absurd if we are to worship a God who is Just. It's equally nonsensical to suppose we have to guess right on the number of hairs in Christ's left eyebrow to be saved. Knowing and comprehending the true nature and substance of God is simply not possible for a mortal man, and it's absurd to think that this would somehow be a requirement for salvation.

Anyone who is walking around saying 'oh yeah, I totally got this whole God thing down and figured out, I comprehend all aspects of God' is delusional to the point he might want to check a mirror to see how far up his own behind his head is stuck.

So sad to see redpilled Rimuru Tempest of all people lacking crucial understanding of Joseph Smith's crowning doctrinal discourse before he died, and making light of the brilliant truths he revealed...

The King Follett Discourse was not the first time Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that God was once a man and has a body. Consider this:

That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones. John 5-26, "As the father hath life in himself, even so hath he given the son to have life in himself". God the father took life unto himself precisely as Jesus did. The first step in the salvation of men is the laws of eternal and self-existent principles. Spirits are eternal [this sentence exactly parallels the KFD]. At the first organization in heaven we were all present and saw the Savior chosen and appointed, and the plan of salvation made and we sanctioned it. We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the Celestial Kingdom. The great principle of happiness consists in having a body. The Devil has no body, and herein is his punishment. He is pleased when he can obtain the tabernacle of man and when cast out by the Savior he asked to go into the herd of swine showing that he would prefer a swines body to having none. All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him; the moment we revolt at anything which comes from God the Devil takes power.

The Words of Joseph Smith: 5 January 1841 (Tuesday). Old Homestead.

Joseph is here teaching the same concepts, way back in 1841. He affirms that God has a body, and was thus once a man. He also affirms that our purpose in taking bodies is to become like Him through these bodies, not apart from them. This is the radical departure which traditional Christianity hates Mormonism for.

He even also teaches that our spirits were self-existent in the beginning with God, just like in the KFD. What more could you ask for?

Consider this statement as well:

What was the design of the Almighty in making man, it was to exalt him to be as God, the scripture says ye are Gods and it cannot be broken

(The Words of Joseph Smith: 27 August 1843, James Burgess Notebook)

This was given a year before the KFD, and yet Joseph is preaching on the deification of man as taught in John 10:34, Psalms 82:6. This account wasn't even included in the later official History of the Church!

Why? It's not salvific, even if it turns out to be true. I see no more reason to mourn someone 'guessing wrong' about this than if they happened to 'guess wrong' about the existence of Bigfoot.

It was absolutely salvific! Joseph Smith said so, right in his discourse:

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or his existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.

...

I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own heart, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with him. This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question--What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The Scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,--if he will search diligently his own heart--if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

(TPJS 343-344)

Yes, I'm using the amalgamated version from TPJS, but it matches nicely with the original accounts. I just don't feel like bracketing in all the partial words and missing punctuation from the manuscripts, so I opted to use the TPJS amalgamation.

Now this statement from Joseph Smith is just as plain as the nose on your face. If you want to argue that "eternal life" doesn't constitute salvation, then let's see what the scriptures say about "eternal life":

And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

(D&C 14:7)

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(John 17:3)

Remember that this above scripture was Jesus' dying prayer.

And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life.

(D&C 101:38)

Wow! So here we have the much-lauded Second Comforter experiences being equated with eternal life! And Joseph Smith says that we cannot have that blessing unless we have a correct understanding of the nature and character of God! Talk about a showstopper!

If you further want to argue about the reliability of the King Follett Discourse, just try reading all the contemporary accounts of the sermon. There are no less than 9 contemporary reports! Check them out here: The Words of Joseph Smith: 7 April 1844 (2) (Sunday Afternoon). Grove 1/4 mile east of Temple

We have the following:

• Joseph Smith's own diary, kept by Willard Richards
• Wilford Woodruff's diary
• Thomas Bullock's report (professional scribe, possibly most detailed report)
• William Clayton's report (another professional scribe, very detailed for part of sermon)

On top of these, we have:

• Samuel W. Richards diary (confirms teaching that God was once man)
• Joseph Fielding's diary (confirms teaching about the nature of God)
• Willard Richards' diary (simply reports the amount of people who attended)
• William Clayton's diary (says "Joseph discoursed on the dead")
• George Laub's diary (written circa 1845, but compiled from contemporaneous notes; confirms teaching that God was once man and many other important teachings)

And really, we're supposed to think Enid DeBarthe, an RLDS apologist, was credible when she asserted Brigham Young authored this sermon? What silliness! I personally even enjoy Brigham's discourses, but my goodness, we're really over-crediting him when we attribute the masterful King Follett Discourse to his fabrication. Nothing else but the inspired and illustrious mind of Joseph Smith, Jr. could have articulated the principles of Godliness and the nature of our Father quite like he did. Anyone asserting otherwise is simply unfamiliar with the scriptures and with history, or they have a theological agenda.

I find DeBarthe's analysis lacking in so many other areas as well. She relies on faulty stylometry for one thing, as she thinks Brigham's verbal sermons are somehow equivalent with Joseph's printed articles. The whole thing is just silliness to me. The only interesting point I found that she makes in her whole essay is the D&C 136:42 ends similarly to D&C 132:66. But that whole issue resolves itself when you realize that D&C 55:6, D&C 57:16, and D&C 60:17 also contain endings similar to D&C 132:66. Moreover, D&C 95:17 contains another arguably similarly anomalous ending for a verse, stylistically speaking. Are we going to argue that Brigham authored D&C 95 as well? How about D&C 128:25? B.H. Roberts anticipated many of DeBarthe's arguments and addressed them quite masterfully years before her analysis was ever written in History of the Church, vol. 5, pages XXXVIII-XLII.

I find it almost comical but ultimately sad that people are so benighted in their understanding of scripture that they resort to arguments like these to deny the obvious inspiration of the King Follett Discourse. The Book of Mormon even spells it out for us that God has a body. Consider Ether 3:16

Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Here Christ teaches the Brother of Jared that He has a body and created us after the image of His spiritual body. Are we really to believe that the mystery of Godliness is so great, that we cannot know the simple fact that our God has a body like we do? What hogwash! What nonsense! What sheer folly! What could please Satan more than the fact that Christianity today rejects the fact that God has a body, whilst the rest of the world rejects the fact that man has a spirit?

O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?

(Helaman 13:29)

Thank you stormcloak for your masterful and brilliant defence of this crystal clear, beautiful doctrine.

[Original_Intent]

If you truly want to understand the concept of exaltation, read the KFD over and over. I read it, then put it down. I was inspired/compelled/commanded if you will to read it again, then again then again. On the fourth or 5 path, having read much of Alaris' writing and other with other studies, the truth of progression was made clear to me. So, clear that in this bit of topics I can personally say "all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole." Anyone who dismisses the teaching in KFD, IMO has at least one more eternal round before claiming the top-level of glory, not salvation (it isn't required to get into the CK, and only some for the second level in CK (requiring some endowment of power) but for the highest level, if you cannot accept and comprehend the basic teachings in the KFD, you are not yet ready for eternal life, which is to know god, not know about him, not love him, not love your neighbor, all those things are necessary for salvation, but for exaltation it is required to "know god". That is to understand him and at the same time tame the natural man (telestial, terrestrial and celestial body) and to do it in the face of opposition (i.e. overcome Satan), but not in the quiet hall of the CK, gee, everything there is easy, not so when faced with opposition however (hence this mortal probation).

Isn't it beautiful when you begin to comprehend that "all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole"? Not only CAN it be it MUST be. If you have beliefs that do not reconcile with each other, you are a house divided against yourself. You cannot believe in agency on one hand and the denial of agency on the other. Or at least you must have a comprehensible framework of when agency can be denied. Far too often when people feel these internal conflicts, they simply ignore them or give little effort to reconciling them.

[Luke]

If you truly want to understand the concept of exaltation, read the KFD over and over. I read it, then put it down. I was inspired/compelled/commanded if you will to read it again, then again then again. On the fourth or 5 path, having read much of Alaris' writing and other with other studies, the truth of progression was made clear to me. So, clear that in this bit of topics I can personally say "all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole." Anyone who dismisses the teaching in KFD, IMO has at least one more eternal round before claiming the top-level of glory, not salvation (it isn't required to get into the CK, and only some for the second level in CK (requiring some endowment of power) but for the highest level, if you cannot accept and comprehend the basic teachings in the KFD, you are not yet ready for eternal life, which is to know god, not know about him, not love him, not love your neighbor, all those things are necessary for salvation, but for exaltation it is required to "know god". That is to understand him and at the same time tame the natural man (telestial, terrestrial and celestial body) and to do it in the face of opposition (i.e. overcome Satan), but not in the quiet hall of the CK, gee, everything there is easy, not so when faced with opposition however (hence this mortal probation).

Isn't it beautiful when you begin to comprehend that "all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole"? Not only CAN it be it MUST be. If you have beliefs that do not reconcile with each other, you are a house divided against yourself. You cannot believe in agency on one hand and the denial of agency on the other. Or at least you must have a comprehensible framework of when agency can be denied. Far too often when people feel these internal conflicts, they simply ignore them or give little effort to reconciling them.

A wise friend of mine put it this way: “all functional truth exists in the balance of two or more opposing principles”. I realised that this is poured out all over the Scriptures.

Or as Joseph Smith said: “when proving contraries, truth is made manifest”.

[Original_Intent]

If you truly want to understand the concept of exaltation, read the KFD over and over. I read it, then put it down. I was inspired/compelled/commanded if you will to read it again, then again then again. On the fourth or 5 path, having read much of Alaris' writing and other with other studies, the truth of progression was made clear to me. So, clear that in this bit of topics I can personally say "all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole." Anyone who dismisses the teaching in KFD, IMO has at least one more eternal round before claiming the top-level of glory, not salvation (it isn't required to get into the CK, and only some for the second level in CK (requiring some endowment of power) but for the highest level, if you cannot accept and comprehend the basic teachings in the KFD, you are not yet ready for eternal life, which is to know god, not know about him, not love him, not love your neighbor, all those things are necessary for salvation, but for exaltation it is required to "know god". That is to understand him and at the same time tame the natural man (telestial, terrestrial and celestial body) and to do it in the face of opposition (i.e. overcome Satan), but not in the quiet hall of the CK, gee, everything there is easy, not so when faced with opposition however (hence this mortal probation).

Isn't it beautiful when you begin to comprehend that "all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole"? Not only CAN it be it MUST be. If you have beliefs that do not reconcile with each other, you are a house divided against yourself. You cannot believe in agency on one hand and the denial of agency on the other. Or at least you must have a comprehensible framework of when agency can be denied. Far too often when people feel these internal conflicts, they simply ignore them or give little effort to reconciling them.

A wise friend of mine put it this way: “all functional truth exists in the balance of two or more opposing principles”. I realised that this is poured out all over the Scriptures.

Or as Joseph Smith said: “when proving contraries, truth is made manifest”.

Exactly! But you MUST work it out, you can't just shrug your shoulders and say "God's ways are not man's ways" or similar easy-mode answers.

[Mindfields]

Mormonism is free to believe and teach whatever it chooses. Though I find it's teachings irreconcilable with the Book of Mormon.

[Original_Intent]

Felt like this belongs here.

[Redpilled Mormon]

So sad to see redpilled Rimuru Tempest of all people lacking crucial understanding of Joseph Smith's crowning doctrinal discourse before he died, and making light of the brilliant truths he revealed...

Don't have time to reply to the meat of your post at the moment, but I wanted to say I appreciated it and do have things to say/ask in response (just no time right now).

But I had to say I never thought my chosen avatar pic would be recognized here at LDSFF, good catch. For those who aren't familiar, it comes from the anime 'That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime' (surely one of the greatest and most descriptive titles for a tv show ever lol)

[jreuben]

It may be argued that Japanese values and culture imbued slightly through anime could be one of the few saving graces of modern video entertainment, although it has a lot of smut in it as well. Surely it is at least slightly better than anything being produced in the reptilian luciferian governed hollywood and all of its outgrowths.

The KFD is one of the most valuable documents we have and it is easily and handily argued that there is nothing at all of more value than knowing God The Father and His Son and Their attributes and nature. This is indeed life eternal itself and that to which we all must or at least eventually will aspire when and if we progress sufficiently.