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

[TheDuke]

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

Now there is a convincing argument, Mindfields cannot reconcile the truth revealed in last days with truth revealed 1500 to 3000 years in previous dispensations... Where to those with the spirit, all truth is fully consistent and it makes sense. If you cannot make sense out of it, like the Pharasees with the parables, then it must be wrong.............. or just not for you yet.

two options, darkness and lack of clarity or light and understanding................... try praying about it! I did. I ignored KFD for years then the spirit prodded and prodded me to study it, not just read it, until the light came on.................................... It is the pinnacle of teachings from JS to launch the last dispensation!

[Shawn Henry]

I find DeBarthe's analysis lacking in so many other areas as well.

Is this your professional opinion or just your emotional outburst? Do you think you'll be able to forgive us for not throwing her Master's Thesis under the bus simply because you call it silliness?

How about stating links to the professional work of others, so we can read a professional analysis of her work?

Hell, I'll stoop as low as settling for the work of a professional blogger, if you can't find an academic.

Let me get this straight too; we who believe the scriptures are the "wicked and perverse generation"? The Bible says God is a spirit! The Book of Mormon says God is a spirit! The Lectures on Faith say God is a spirit! That's 3 canons of scripture, all in harmony and if we believe them, we are a wicked and perverse people?

[Shawn Henry]

I ignored KFD for years then the spirit prodded and prodded me to study it

So the Holy Spirit skipped over the scriptures that Joseph canonized and pointed you to non-canonical sources that completely contradict canon? Why would the Holy Spirit do that? Why wouldn't he first point you to the Lectures on Faith where the matter has been settled? You know, the scriptures that Joseph put forth to the whole church during his entire ministry, including the last year of his ministry when he selected all the sections of the 1844 edition of the D&C right before his death.

I will never, in a million years, believe the Holy Spirit teaches one to not study the canons of scripture that are given to us.

[Shawn Henry]

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.

Are you crapping me right now! Holy S#!T! That was the entire purpose of the Lectures on Faith, so that we would know the true nature of God, so that we could know what and how to worship! You will believe that about the Lecture on Faith, but you won't believe what they tell you of God's nature? Unbelievable!

[stormcloak]

I find DeBarthe's analysis lacking in so many other areas as well.

Is this your professional opinion or just your emotional outburst? Do you think you'll be able to forgive us for not throwing her Master's Thesis under the bus simply because you call it silliness?

How about stating links to the professional work of others, so we can read a professional analysis of her work?

Hell, I'll stoop as low as settling for the work of a professional blogger, if you can't find an academic.

It was a master's thesis written in 1969. She wrote it with an agenda to defend her church and debunk D&C 132. Her opinion about the King Follett Discourse was not even the main focus of the appendix in her thesis that you're referring to. It was a passing comment at the end of it. The academic community since then has unanimously acknowledged not only the legitimacy of D&C 132, but also the King Follett Discourse, including figures such as D. Michael Quinn (in his two volumes of The Mormon Hierarchy), Andrew F. Ehat & Lyndon Cook (in The Words of Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question), Hugh Nibley (in multiple works), and frankly far too many others for me to enumerate. Just try reading any book about Joseph Smith and you won't find anyone else making the claim that the King Follett Discourse was the brainchild of Brigham Young. It's simply not a tenable argument. And, as I said, it wasn't even a part of DeBarthe's thesis except as a comment in passing at the end. It served as a nice bolster to her church at the time, as the King Follett Discourse directly contradicts their whole system of modalistic theology and presents issues for accepting Joseph Smith as their founder.

You're the one that seems emotional here.

Let me get this straight too; we who believe the scriptures are the "wicked and perverse generation"? The Bible says God is a spirit! The Book of Mormon says God is a spirit! The Lectures on Faith say God is a spirit! That's 3 canons of scripture, all in harmony and if we believe them, we are a wicked and perverse people?

I've already addressed these arguments with you in-depth on a separate thread here. The Bible, Book of Mormon, and D&C all make it extremely clear that God has a body of flesh and bones in addition to also being a spirit. I'm a spirit too, but that doesn't mean I don't have a body. I'm not going to rehash these arguments with you again here. Your whole endless spiel about your silly interpretation about "the law of witnesses" (which you think can only apply to the First Presidency as it existed in 1833) and your continuous denial that God has a body, reveals your brazen theological agenda in plain colors. It's easy to see that you need to do away with Joseph Smith's statements and you rely on people such as Enid DeBarthe as a crutch, because you simply don't want to openly admit that your theology is at odds with Joseph Smith's. I don't have time to waste with someone like you who is clearly not open to anything other than what you've already made up your mind to believe.

[stormcloak]

I ignored KFD for years then the spirit prodded and prodded me to study it

So the Holy Spirit skipped over the scriptures that Joseph canonized and pointed you to non-canonical sources that completely contradict canon? Why would the Holy Spirit do that? Why wouldn't he first point you to the Lectures on Faith where the matter has been settled? You know, the scriptures that Joseph put forth to the whole church during his entire ministry, including the last year of his ministry when he selected all the sections of the 1844 edition of the D&C right before his death.

I will never, in a million years, believe the Holy Spirit teaches one to not study the canons of scripture that are given to us.

I seem to remember a scripture about this mindset...

And because my words shall hiss forth--many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. [...] Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? [...] Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

(2 Nephi 29:3, 8, 10)

[stormcloak]

Are you crapping me right now! Holy S#!T! That was the entire purpose of the Lectures on Faith, so that we would know the true nature of God, so that we could know what and how to worship! You will believe that about the Lecture on Faith, but you won't believe what they tell you of God's nature? Unbelievable!

And you called me the emotional one earlier? LOL. This response shows how emotionally invested you are in your interpretation of theology.

The wonderful thing is, the Lectures on Faith and the King Follett Discourse are not at odds in any capacity (except in the mind of Shawn Henry).

[Shawn Henry]

[And you called me the emotional one earlier? LOL. This response shows how emotionally invested you are in your interpretation of theology.

The wonderful thing is, the Lectures on Faith and the King Follett Discourse are not at odds in any capacity (except in the mind of Shawn Henry).

Of course, I'm emotional. I wear my emotions on my sleeve. Yes, I express my emotions, but my arguments are intellectual. You used emotions in the absence of an intellectual argument. Do you see the difference?

I encourage everyone to be emotional, just admit when your argument is based on emotions? Have some intellectually honesty, that's all.

[stormcloak]

Of course, I'm emotional. I wear my emotions on my sleeve. Yes, I express my emotions, but my arguments are intellectual. You used emotions in the absence of an intellectual argument. Do you see the difference?

I encourage everyone to be emotional, just admit when your argument is based on emotions? Have some intellectually honesty, that's all.

I quoted numerous sources to support my argument, including many statements from Joseph Smith, from scripture, and from scholarly books about the Bible. You can't seem to state anything in support of your argument except "I believe the Lectures on Faith!" and "I like Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams!"

[Shawn Henry]

I seem to remember a scripture about this mindset..

That's not fair, the BoM had more than enough witnesses. LoF had all the necessary witnesses. KFD has not a single witness from God, including Joseph. Joseph never moved to put it forth as scripture and he had plenty of time to include it in the 1844 edition.

Every word (surely Lord you don't mean every word) shall be established.......

[stormcloak]

That's not fair, the BoM had more than enough witnesses. LoF had all the necessary witnesses. KFD has not a single witness from God, including Joseph. Joseph never moved to put it forth as scripture and he had plenty of time to include it in the 1844 edition.

The King Follett Discourse had somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 witnesses (according to the official church newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, April 10, 1844). Joseph Smith stated during the discourse, "I have intended my remarks for all, both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small." (TPJS 361) Clearly he considered it something worthy for "all to hear," just as with the scriptures.

[Shawn Henry]

Of course, I'm emotional. I wear my emotions on my sleeve. Yes, I express my emotions, but my arguments are intellectual. You used emotions in the absence of an intellectual argument. Do you see the difference?

I encourage everyone to be emotional, just admit when your argument is based on emotions? Have some intellectually honesty, that's all.

I quoted numerous sources to support my argument, including many statements from Joseph Smith, from scripture, and from scholarly books about the Bible. You can't seem to state anything in support of your argument except "I believe the Lectures on Faith!" and "I like Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams!"

You quoted zero sources showing why her analysis is wrong.

You showed numerous sources that Joseph taught it, which is a waste of time on me because I am in complete agreement with you and with Quinn and with others that he taught it. Of course, he taught it. Men are always allowed to teach whatever they want to teach. Show me where he attested that it was the word of the Lord.

How do we know the Lord didn't tell Joseph to teach it to test his people to see if they would recognize God's pattern for revealing things? How do we know it wasn't just a test to see if we would be faithful to what we have previously been given?

My main point is: God has never taught it and the scriptures he gave us seem to teach otherwise. My secondary point with the writing analysis was simply to show that BY was at liberty to change or tweak whatever he wanted by rewriting it and that is not how God works.

You tell me that I "can't seem to state anything in support of your argument", well, there's a whole 'nother point. I referenced canon, so that's all the support I need. Once scripture has been canonized, it is scripture, it needs no further support.

God's pattern of revealing scripture has been completely violated with the KFD and you're ok with that?

[Luke]

Of course, I'm emotional. I wear my emotions on my sleeve. Yes, I express my emotions, but my arguments are intellectual. You used emotions in the absence of an intellectual argument. Do you see the difference?

I encourage everyone to be emotional, just admit when your argument is based on emotions? Have some intellectually honesty, that's all.

I quoted numerous sources to support my argument, including many statements from Joseph Smith, from scripture, and from scholarly books about the Bible. You can't seem to state anything in support of your argument except "I believe the Lectures on Faith!" and "I like Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams!"

You quoted zero sources showing why her analysis is wrong.

You showed numerous sources that Joseph taught it, which is a waste of time on me because I am in complete agreement with you and with Quinn and with others that he taught it. Of course, he taught it. Men are always allowed to teach whatever they want to teach. Show me where he attested that it was the word of the Lord.

How do we know the Lord didn't tell Joseph to teach it to test his people to see if they would recognize God's pattern for revealing things? How do we know it wasn't just a test to see if we would be faithful to what we have previously been given?

My main point is: God has never taught it and the scriptures he gave us seem to teach otherwise. My secondary point with the writing analysis was simply to show that BY was at liberty to change or tweak whatever he wanted by rewriting it and that is not how God works.

You tell me that I "can't seem to state anything in support of your argument", well, there's a whole 'nother point. I referenced canon, so that's all the support I need. Once scripture has been canonized, it is scripture, it needs no further support.

God's pattern of revealing scripture has been completely violated with the KFD and you're ok with that?

There is no “pattern of revealing scripture”. It only exists in your mind.

[Shawn Henry]

The King Follett Discourse had somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 witnesses (according to the official church newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, April 10, 1844). Joseph Smith stated during the discourse, "I have intended my remarks for all, both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small." (TPJS 361) Clearly he considered it something worthy for "all to hear," just as with the scriptures.

This above statement and mine can both be true at the same time. The question still stands, however, how many of those witnesses are from God? What if those same 20,000 witnessed Joseph on top of Fanny, would say, "See, it's from God"!

It's not called the Law of People witnesses. It's God's Law of Witnesses. He provides them.

You keep avoiding my statement that Joseph can't be a complete witness because he never made the claim that it was from the Lord. I already agree with you that it was important for all to hear. The importance, however, was in passing the test of recognizing how new doctrine comes. It doesn't come without witnesses.

Btw, my apologies for not associating your username with our previous conversation. I suppose it's just too illogical a concept to remember, God being both. Now if you simply say, God is an intelligence and he can choose either form to manifest that intelligence, then I would have any argument against that. If we are talking transitioning back and forth at the speed of thought, then cool.

[stormcloak]

You quoted zero sources showing why her analysis is wrong.

You showed numerous sources that Joseph taught it, which is a waste of time on me because I am in complete agreement with you and with Quinn and with others that he taught it. Of course, he taught it. Men are always allowed to teach whatever they want to teach. Show me where he attested that it was the word of the Lord.

Wow. You yourself just now disagreed with DeBarthe's analysis. Let me quote it for you since you seem to have forgotten her assertion:

Since the tests all applied to Section 132, would they apply equally to the King Follett sermon, which is sometimes cited as the basis for the new doctrines taught by Brigham Young? The pattern did fit, and the conclusion seems evident. Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon.

(A Bibliography on Joseph Smith II, the Mormon Prophet-Leader (1969) by Enid DeBarthe, p. 315)

She literally says, "Brigham Young rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon." This is in direct contradiction to your statement that "Of course, [Joseph] taught [the King Follett Discourse]."

So which one do you agree with now? Because it seems like you were hiding behind DeBarthe until I brought up names like D. Michael Quinn. You're shifting the goalpost a lot here. First you're claiming Brigham concocted it, now you're agreeing Joseph taught it. You really need to make up your mind.

How do we know the Lord didn't tell Joseph to teach it to test his people to see if they would recognize God's pattern for revealing things?

How do we know it wasn't just a test to see if we would be faithful to what we have previously been given?

Because you could also throw away the Book of Mormon on the basis of that argument. I think that's a completely silly idea. God could just have as easily revealed the Book of Mormon to test who would cling to the Bible, as much as He could have revealed the KFD to see who would cling to the Book of Mormon. Your logic leaves the extra-canonical scriptures you claim to love (such as the LoF, BoM, etc.) on non-existent ground. They fall just as flat as the KFD if you take that line of reasoning.

My main point is: God has never taught it and the scriptures he gave us seem to teach otherwise.

They may "seem" to teach otherwise to someone who cannot reconcile such contradictory scriptures as Genesis 18 and John 4:24. Fortunately your interpretation of things is not scripture.

My secondary point with the writing analysis was simply to show that BY was at liberty to change or tweak whatever he wanted by rewriting it and that is not how God works.

So if Brigham did alter them, how did he do it? When did he do it? Which accounts did he alter, because it seems that DeBarthe was unaware of the fact when she wrote her thesis in 1969 that the KFD was composed of multiple contemporary accounts that were amalgamated into one. She claims "Brigham Young rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon," but she fails to tell which report he rewrote. There was not just one report. I doubt she knew this, as it only became general knowledge in the academic community after 1980 when The Words of Joseph Smith was published by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook. She was probably just looking at whatever was published in the History of the Church.

You tell me that I "can't seem to state anything in support of your argument", well, there's a whole 'nother point. I referenced canon, so that's all the support I need. Once scripture has been canonized, it is scripture, it needs no further support.

And that's not an intellectual argument. Canon does not equal intellectual argument. You were getting on my case for not having an intellectual argument. Now you seem to be appealing to canon instead. You really can't seem to get your goalpost straight. It almost feels like I'm arguing with someone who has multiple personalities.

God's pattern of revealing scripture has been completely violated with the KFD and you're ok with that?

I don't believe it has. That's your interpretation of things, not mine.

[Shawn Henry]

There is no “pattern of revealing scripture”. It only exists in your mind.

Oh come on, Luke! You know full well there is a pattern laid out in the D&C.

[stormcloak]

The King Follett Discourse had somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 witnesses (according to the official church newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, April 10, 1844). Joseph Smith stated during the discourse, "I have intended my remarks for all, both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small." (TPJS 361) Clearly he considered it something worthy for "all to hear," just as with the scriptures.

This above statement and mine can both be true at the same time. The question still stands, however, how many of those witnesses are from God? What if those same 20,000 witnessed Joseph on top of Fanny, would say, "See, it's from God"!

Fanny Alger has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking about the KFD, not Fanny Alger. Please try to keep the discussion on-topic here.

It's not called the Law of People witnesses. It's God's Law of Witnesses. He provides them.

And in your mind, only the infallible Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, and Oliver Cowdery can count as God's witnesses. Except all three of these men were very human and two of them apostatized. Just so you know the definition of a "witness":

A person who knows or sees any thing; one personally present; as, he was witness; he was an eye-witness. 1 Peter 5:1.

(Webster's Dictionary, 1828)

I'm not going to adopt the definition of "witnesses" as contained in the magical dictionary of Shawn Henry.

You keep avoiding my statement that Joseph can't be a complete witness because he never made the claim that it was from the Lord. I already agree with you that it was important for all to hear. The importance, however, was in passing the test of recognizing how new doctrine comes. It doesn't come without witnesses.

LOL. Keep living in your fantasy land where God deceives people just to see how smart they are. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

Btw, my apologies for not associating your username with our previous conversation. I suppose it's just too illogical a concept to remember, God being both.

Funny. I seem to remember you saying you appreciated my comments in that former thread. Now you disparage them as being too insignificant to remember. You truly are an inconsistent personality, if nothing else.

Now if you simply say, God is an intelligence and he can choose either form to manifest that intelligence, then I would have any argument against that. If we are talking transitioning back and forth at the speed of thought, then cool.

Have fun in your little world of modalism, buddy. Mormonism / True Religion might not be for you.

[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.

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

How so?

[Shawn Henry]

You quoted zero sources showing why her analysis is wrong.

You showed numerous sources that Joseph taught it, which is a waste of time on me because I am in complete agreement with you and with Quinn and with others that he taught it. Of course, he taught it. Men are always allowed to teach whatever they want to teach. Show me where he attested that it was the word of the Lord.

Wow. You yourself just now disagreed with DeBarthe's analysis. Let me quote it for you since you seem to have forgotten her assertion:

I don't agree or disagree with it. I'm not qualified to do either. I only do what the Lord requires me to do and that is to test anything new against what has already been revealed.
Since the tests all applied to Section 132, would they apply equally to the King Follett sermon, which is sometimes cited as the basis for the new doctrines taught by Brigham Young? The pattern did fit, and the conclusion seems evident. Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon.

(A Bibliography on Joseph Smith II, the Mormon Prophet-Leader (1969) by Enid DeBarthe, p. 315)

She literally says, "Brigham Young rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon." This is in direct contradiction to your statement that "Of course, [Joseph] taught [the King Follett Discourse]." No it's not. It just means BY could have put his own twist on it.

So which one do you agree with now? Because it seems like you were hiding behind DeBarthe until I brought up names like D. Michael Quinn. You're shifting the goalpost a lot here. First you're claiming Brigham concocted it, now you're agreeing Joseph taught it. You really need to make up your mind. Show me the doctrine in Joseph's handwriting and Brigham's copy in his handwriting and we could compare the two, but we don't have that luxury, do we.

How do we know the Lord didn't tell Joseph to teach it to test his people to see if they would recognize God's pattern for revealing things?

How do we know it wasn't just a test to see if we would be faithful to what we have previously been given?

Because you could also throw away the Book of Mormon on the basis of that argument. I think that's a completely silly idea. God could just have as easily revealed the Book of Mormon to test who would cling to the Bible, as much as He could have revealed the KFD to see who would cling to the Book of Mormon. Your logic leaves the extra-canonical scriptures you claim to love (such as the LoF, BoM, etc.) on non-existent ground. They fall just as flat as the KFD if you take that line of reasoning. No, the BoM is completely congruent with the Bible and it had 3 and 8 witnesses and also Joseph. The KFD has no witnesses speaking for God.

My main point is: God has never taught it and the scriptures he gave us seem to teach otherwise.

They may "seem" to teach otherwise to someone who cannot reconcile such contradictory scriptures as Genesis 18 and John 4:24. Fortunately your interpretation of things is not scripture. The reason scripture speaks clearly is so that we don't have different interpretations. The LoF say God is a personage of spirit and Jesus is a personage of flesh and blood. There is no interpretation, just plain language. The problem is, you don't believe the LoF.

My secondary point with the writing analysis was simply to show that BY was at liberty to change or tweak whatever he wanted by rewriting it and that is not how God works.

So if Brigham did alter them, how did he do it? When did he do it? Which accounts did he alter, because it seems that DeBarthe was unaware of the fact when she wrote her thesis in 1969 that the KFD was composed of multiple contemporary accounts that were amalgamated into one. She claims "Brigham Young rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon," but she fails to tell which report he rewrote. There was not just one report. I doubt she knew this, as it only became general knowledge in the academic community after 1980 when The Words of Joseph Smith was published by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook. She was probably just looking at whatever was published in the History of the Church. All that is irrelevant when we can't trace the teaching to the Lord himself, especially when he already spoke on the matter with the LoF.

You tell me that I "can't seem to state anything in support of your argument", well, there's a whole 'nother point. I referenced canon, so that's all the support I need. Once scripture has been canonized, it is scripture, it needs no further support.

And that's not an intellectual argument. Canon does not equal intellectual argument. You were getting on my case for not having an intellectual argument. Now you seem to be appealing to canon instead. You really can't seem to get your goalpost straight. It almost feels like I'm arguing with someone who has multiple personalities. Canon has always been my goalpost. Canon is above any intellectual argument. It is our entire foundation. It is the only reason we know what we know. I have always consistently defaulted to canon, hence my defense of LoF.

God's pattern of revealing scripture has been completely violated with the KFD and you're ok with that?

I don't believe it has. That's your interpretation of things, not mine. Assuming you aren't familiar with the pattern God set up in the D&C, you are at least knowledgeable of the fact that every word will be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, right? So, perhaps you could tell us how these new teachings have been witnessed by the Lord.

[TheDuke]

something about .line-upon-line........................................ here a little there a little.............................. Shawn Henry, It is no skin off my nose if you wish to reject truth. I don't wish to push further as the only way truth of exaltation can be understood is by the spirit as it contains mysteries. w/o that spirit, truth cannot be revealed, but that is between you and the spirit. Me and the spirit already sorted this out. AND BTW it is BS for you to say the spirit had me bypass other revelation, it has had me seeking truth from all sources, just some are either more profound or more pertinent at any given time, like KFD for me.

[stormcloak]

You quoted zero sources showing why her analysis is wrong.

You showed numerous sources that Joseph taught it, which is a waste of time on me because I am in complete agreement with you and with Quinn and with others that he taught it. Of course, he taught it. Men are always allowed to teach whatever they want to teach. Show me where he attested that it was the word of the Lord.

Wow. You yourself just now disagreed with DeBarthe's analysis. Let me quote it for you since you seem to have forgotten her assertion:

I don't agree or disagree with it. I'm not qualified to do either. I only do what the Lord requires me to do and that is to test anything new against what has already been revealed.
Since the tests all applied to Section 132, would they apply equally to the King Follett sermon, which is sometimes cited as the basis for the new doctrines taught by Brigham Young? The pattern did fit, and the conclusion seems evident. Brigham Young wrote Section 132 and rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon.

(A Bibliography on Joseph Smith II, the Mormon Prophet-Leader (1969) by Enid DeBarthe, p. 315)

She literally says, "Brigham Young rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon." This is in direct contradiction to your statement that "Of course, [Joseph] taught [the King Follett Discourse]." No it's not. It just means BY could have put his own twist on it.

So which one do you agree with now? Because it seems like you were hiding behind DeBarthe until I brought up names like D. Michael Quinn. You're shifting the goalpost a lot here. First you're claiming Brigham concocted it, now you're agreeing Joseph taught it. You really need to make up your mind. Show me the doctrine in Joseph's handwriting and Brigham's copy in his handwriting and we could compare the two, but we don't have that luxury, do we.

How do we know the Lord didn't tell Joseph to teach it to test his people to see if they would recognize God's pattern for revealing things?

How do we know it wasn't just a test to see if we would be faithful to what we have previously been given?

Because you could also throw away the Book of Mormon on the basis of that argument. I think that's a completely silly idea. God could just have as easily revealed the Book of Mormon to test who would cling to the Bible, as much as He could have revealed the KFD to see who would cling to the Book of Mormon. Your logic leaves the extra-canonical scriptures you claim to love (such as the LoF, BoM, etc.) on non-existent ground. They fall just as flat as the KFD if you take that line of reasoning. No, the BoM is completely congruent with the Bible and it had 3 and 8 witnesses and also Joseph. The KFD has no witnesses speaking for God.

My main point is: God has never taught it and the scriptures he gave us seem to teach otherwise.

They may "seem" to teach otherwise to someone who cannot reconcile such contradictory scriptures as Genesis 18 and John 4:24. Fortunately your interpretation of things is not scripture. The reason scripture speaks clearly is so that we don't have different interpretations. The LoF say God is a personage of spirit and Jesus is a personage of flesh and blood. There is no interpretation, just plain language. The problem is, you don't believe the LoF.

My secondary point with the writing analysis was simply to show that BY was at liberty to change or tweak whatever he wanted by rewriting it and that is not how God works.

So if Brigham did alter them, how did he do it? When did he do it? Which accounts did he alter, because it seems that DeBarthe was unaware of the fact when she wrote her thesis in 1969 that the KFD was composed of multiple contemporary accounts that were amalgamated into one. She claims "Brigham Young rewrote the major portion of the report on the King Follett sermon," but she fails to tell which report he rewrote. There was not just one report. I doubt she knew this, as it only became general knowledge in the academic community after 1980 when The Words of Joseph Smith was published by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook. She was probably just looking at whatever was published in the History of the Church. All that is irrelevant when we can't trace the teaching to the Lord himself, especially when he already spoke on the matter with the LoF.

You tell me that I "can't seem to state anything in support of your argument", well, there's a whole 'nother point. I referenced canon, so that's all the support I need. Once scripture has been canonized, it is scripture, it needs no further support.

And that's not an intellectual argument. Canon does not equal intellectual argument. You were getting on my case for not having an intellectual argument. Now you seem to be appealing to canon instead. You really can't seem to get your goalpost straight. It almost feels like I'm arguing with someone who has multiple personalities. Canon has always been my goalpost. Canon is above any intellectual argument. It is our entire foundation. It is the only reason we know what we know. I have always consistently defaulted to canon, hence my defense of LoF.

God's pattern of revealing scripture has been completely violated with the KFD and you're ok with that?

I don't believe it has. That's your interpretation of things, not mine. Assuming you aren't familiar with the pattern God set up in the D&C, you are at least knowledgeable of the fact that every word will be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, right? So, perhaps you could tell us how these new teachings have been witnessed by the Lord.

I'm not going to respond to this post point-per-point. You formatted it too weirdly.

You're just a broken record at this point, Shawn. I don't have any interest in responding to these same points over and over again. The crux of the matter is that you don't believe in Mormonism. I've studied the Lectures on Faith very seriously and they don't say what you think they say. They simply assert that God the Father is a "personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness." (Lecture 5:2) Well, guess what, Shawn? I'm a personage of spirit too! And so are you! Everything that is alive is a personage of spirit! This DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE BODIES. I don't know how much more plain this can be. You think it's ridiculous for God to be both a spirit and a body? Then go take a long look in the mirror.

The Lectures on Faith even go on to say that the Son (Jesus Christ) is "the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him." (Lecture 5:2)

Right here in the Lectures on Faith you have an affirmation that Jesus Christ is the "express IMAGE, LIKENESS, and PERSONAGE of the Father." This means His Father has a "PERSONAGE" and it even goes on to say that He "BEGOT" Jesus Christ after the image of His PERSONAGE. You can deny the plain meaning of these words, but it's right there in the Lectures on Faith, in the very same verse you're clinging to for support of your ridiculous pseudo-theology.

There is absolutely zero support for the idea that Brigham wrote the Lectures on Faith. I find it laughable that you talk about Brigham's handwriting. I bet you've never laid eyes on a single document that Brigham wrote (which were very few). Brigham didn't write almost anything himself. He wasn't fond of writing, just like Joseph. You still can't even point to a single specific word from the KFD that you think Brigham "twisted" or "edited," and you haven't provided the first piece of evidence pointing to such an idea, except for hiding behind Enid DeBarthe's archaic thesis which is based on stylometry alone (which was not that advanced in the 1960s). Your sheer ignorance of history shines like the blazing sun.

Your preference to canon is no different than why Christianity rejects the Book of Mormon. You simply won't take more of the word of God, even if it slaps you in the face.

[Shawn Henry]

Fanny Alger has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking about the KFD, not Fanny Alger. Please try to keep the discussion on-topic here.

Don't get all sensitive on me, it's just an example. We aren't talking about witnessing that he taught it, we are talking about the Lord providing his witnesses.

And in your mind, only the infallible Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, and Oliver Cowdery can count as God's witnesses. Except all three of these men were very human and two of them apostatized. Just so you know the definition of a "witness":

Any witness called to that position by God will suffice and Sydney retained that position throughout Joseph's life. Referencing hi as an apostate after Joseph's death is intellectually lazy.

I'm not going to adopt the definition of "witnesses" as contained in the magical dictionary of Shawn Henry.

We all know what it means to witness. You just haven't yet learned that God is the one providing his witnesses and that they don't count as a witness unless called to do so by God. You and I could have heard every word ourselves directly from Joseph, but we didn't hear it from the Lord, did we?

LOL. Keep living in your fantasy land where God deceives people just to see how smart they are. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

God didn't do it. That's the point. He tried to prevent it by giving us LoF. We did it to ourselves by disregarding previous revelation.

Funny. I seem to remember you saying you appreciated my comments in that former thread. Now you disparage them as being too insignificant to remember. You truly are an inconsistent personality, if nothing else.

Well hey, maybe you should have mentioned before that you disavow LoF and then we could have had it out then, lol.

It's very strange how I am the only one standing up in defense of the scriptures that JS canonized and that prompts you to say that maybe Mormonism isn't right for me.

[stormcloak]

Fanny Alger has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking about the KFD, not Fanny Alger. Please try to keep the discussion on-topic here.

Don't get all sensitive on me, it's just an example. We aren't talking about witnessing that he taught it, we are talking about the Lord providing his witnesses.

LOL. I'm totally done here with you. You're beyond a lost cause. I feel sorry for anyone who listens to your asinine sophistry. I wasn't getting emotional there, but your schizophrenic changing of the standards of the debate is getting on my nerves. As well as your constant hypocrisy. You say Brigham concocted KFD, then you say Joseph taught it. You say you're openly emotional, then say I'm too sensitive. You say you agree with DeBarthe, then with Quinn. You say you support intellectual arguments about history, then you only support what is canonized. I'm totally done with this. You're just a chameleon that wears whatever you think makes you sound smart.

[Shawn Henry]

. AND BTW it is BS for you to say the spirit had me bypass other revelation, it has had me seeking truth from all sources, just some are either more profound or more pertinent at any given time, like KFD for me.

I wasn't trying to disparage your relationship with the spirit. What I would ask is what was your relationship with the spirit when you prayed to know if the LoF were given to us by JS? Did you start this seeking process first with the scriptures given to us by him. Do you agree with my premise that Lof are canon and that the KFD is not?

[Shawn Henry]

Don't get all sensitive on me

LOL. I'm totally done here with you. You're beyond a lost cause. I feel sorry for anyone who listens to your asinine sophistry. I wasn't getting emotional there, but your schizophrenic changing of the standards of the debate is getting on my nerves. As well as your constant hypocrisy. You say Brigham concocted KFD, then you say Joseph taught it. You say you're openly emotional, then say I'm too sensitive. You say you agree with DeBarthe, then with Quinn. You say you support intellectual arguments about history, then you only support what is canonized. I'm totally done with this. You're just a chameleon that wears whatever you think makes you sound smart.

So you prove me right by being more sensitive?

I'm just responding because you've levelled some un-Christlike accusations against me, so I'm asking: How is it that I am the only one defending the scriptures Joseph brought forth, but I'm the one not being a good Mormon?

Why wouldn't your first inclination be to commend me for standing in defense of God's word?

Why does me articulating what I think our canon says, result in you name calling? Why would any follower of Christ resort to name calling?

You said: "Your preference to canon is no different than why Christianity rejects the Book of Mormon. You simply won't take more of the word of God, even if it slaps you in the face." I've already pointed out how that is completely unfair and wrong because the BoM came with witnesses and was therefore the word of God. I realize you have an emotional attachment to the KFD, but you can still believe it while at the same time acknowledge that nobody claimed its divine origins.

You saying you can look in the mirror and see body and spirit is what we would expect because you have a body and spirit. When God says he is a spirit (not both) we would expect him to look in a mirror and see only spirit. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but at least concede the point that God didn't say he has a body.