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

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
CaptainM
captain of 100
Posts: 639
Location: "A chosen land, and the land of liberty"

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

Post by CaptainM »

From Solving the Prophet Puzzle page 500 by One Who Is Watching:

“The Famous sermon in which Joseph Smith contradicted the foundational teachings regarding the true nature and character of God is referred to as the King Follett Sermon. There were several accounts of the sermon that can all be viewed side by side. It is one of the best documented sermons given by Joseph Smith…

The Spirit of the Lord had been withdrawing from Joseph for quite some time because of the intercessory atonement offering he had made for the Saints. He had been showing signs of stress, depression, paranoia, and displaying erratic behavior. The previous year, on July 16, 1843, Joseph had announced he would no longer prophesy for the church in concert with Hyrum. He reminded the Saints that Hyrum held the office of "prophet" to the church.

According to the testimony of Lyman Wight, the Church had been rejected by the Lord with their dead in about September or October, 1841, when Joseph announced that baptisms for the dead would no longer by accepted by the Lord until the temple was finished. Joseph had also ominously declared that no more general conferences of the church would be held until that time:

‘There shall be no more baptisms for the dead, until the ordinance can be attended to in the font of the Lord's House; and the church shall not hold another general conference, until they can meet in said house. For thus saith the Lord!”

Since the Nauvoo temple was never completed, and since there is no known revelation reinstating General Conferences, it appears that none of the gatherings where sermons were given after Joseph's "thus sayeth the Lord” declaration, in1841, could be considered official "general conferences" of the church, even though they seemed to refer to some of them as conferences. The funeral of a person gave the prophet the opportunity to speak at a non-official church function. Furthermore, it appears as if, even though Joseph continued to speak and teach, he technically was not doing so as one of the prophets and presiding officers of the Church after June 16, 1843. It is really rather shocking to realize that Joseph was not acting in an official capacity during the majority of the Nauvoo discourses that are so popularly referred to by scholar, authors, and historians, myself included.

Again, Joseph was under a lot of pressure at this time and was exhibiting erratic behavior. Since he had not produced a revelation in quite some time, he was still being accused by some of the Saints of being a fallen prophet. In May, 1844, he had acknowledged:

My apostate enemies say that I have been a true prophet–& I had rather be a fallen true prophet, than a false prophet.

By acknowledging that he would no longer prophesy for the church, and by removing himself from the First Presidency, Joseph was making Hyrum the sole president of the Church, thus fulfilling the succession prophecy in Section 43 which foretold that if Joseph continued to abide in the Lord, he would not be replaced as the prophet until he was "taken”. The only other prophesied possibility given, is that his replacement would be called by the Lord through Joseph.”

I heartily recommend a reading or listening to the whole chapter 22.
Last edited by CaptainM on September 3rd, 2022, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stormcloak
captain of 100
Posts: 373
Location: Windhelm
Contact:

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

Post by stormcloak »

Shawn Henry wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 4:44 pm 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?
You're just a troll. I shouldn't say anything but I'll bite one last time.

You're not defending Joseph's scriptures. You stand in direct opposition to D&C 130 and many other things Joseph taught when under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Lord told us that, "whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:4). How's that for canonization. According to God's own word, He doesn't need you nor the 1833 First Presidency to rubber-stamp ANYTHING that was spoken by any member of His Priesthood when moved upon by His Spirit.

I can testify by my own witness that what Joseph Smith taught in D&C 130 and in the KFD were given when he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost. I don't have an "emotional attachment" to the KFD. I have a testimony from God that is too sacred to share with a Pharisaical chameleon like you that it is the literal truth.

There is no evidence that these sermons or teachings from Joseph Smith were fabricated, and you have even acknowledged this yourself. Rather than trying to deny what Joseph taught, you have in this thread claimed that God allowed him to become a false prophet in order to deceive us. You are against Joseph and what he taught. You are not standing in defense of God's word nor His servant. You are only defending your own asinine interpretation of scripture.
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?
I didn't call you a chameleon because of your beliefs. I called you that because of your adolescent behavior and schizophrenic inconsistency in this debate.
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.
I.e., you cherry-pick which "witnesses" you believe and which ones you don't. You're like those people who won't accept any teaching unless it's rubber-stamped by the First Presidency. The only difference is that you subscribe to the First Presidency of 1833 only. I've pointed out that this in itself is inconsistent and ridiculous as there is no reason to attach any special loyalty to these men aside from your romantic notions about canonization. If you were a Catholic, you'd venerate the Nicene Creed and the apostate Church Fathers who accepted its false doctrines.
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.
God said He has a body. He told us so right in Genesis 18 amongst numerous other scriptures which I've quoted extensively for your reading pleasure. But you don't care because you worship a false god which has no body, parts, nor passions. No wonder the temple ceremony warns us about foolish and false ministers like you who teach doctrines of men for scripture. You, like the ministers of Joseph's childhood, accept a form of Godliness yet deny the power thereof.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

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

Post by Shawn Henry »

stormcloak wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 6:19 pm You stand in direct opposition to D&C 130 and many other things Joseph taught
Yes, proudly. We all should be, because Joseph never canonized 130 nor did God provide any witnesses and how could he when all 3 canons thus far teach he is a spirit. The only spirit that moves upon a person to teach contrary to scripture is the spirit of the devil.
the 1833 First Presidency
Show me any First Presidency. 1841? 1842? 1843? 1844? Never happened. According to the D&C, it is the First Presidency that receives the oracles.
you have in this thread claimed that God allowed him to become a false prophet in order to deceive us.
Bull crap, those are your words. What I said is God used Joseph to test the saints. Why shouldn't he? If God tests us, and his prophet is an extension of him, why wouldn't he use his prophet to test us?
I.e., you cherry-pick which "witnesses" you believe and which ones you don't.
All witnesses from God are witnesses, we just have to know they are from God. We know the 3 witnesses are from God because an angel from God visited them. This is a divine witness. Any man, no matter how high or low, simply saying a teaching is not a divine witness, especially when he never makes that claim. You seem quite stuck on the fact that people can witness Joseph teaching something. That does not make them witnesses from God. They would only be counted a witness if they had a similar experience to Amulek where an angel had appeared unto them and told them a holy prophet would come and teach the sermon. The witness has to be divine to be part of the Law of Witnesses otherwise it is just someone claiming something.
He told us so right in Genesis 18
No he didn't. Read that chapter again.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

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

Post by ransomme »

Luke wrote: August 28th, 2022, 3:05 pm Sad that people on this forum reject it.
Dad too that others misinterpret it... 😢

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

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

Post by Luke »

ransomme wrote: September 4th, 2022, 1:04 am
Luke wrote: August 28th, 2022, 3:05 pm Sad that people on this forum reject it.
Dad too that others misinterpret it... 😢
Elaborate please

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

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

Post by ransomme »

Luke wrote: September 4th, 2022, 2:02 am
ransomme wrote: September 4th, 2022, 1:04 am
Luke wrote: August 28th, 2022, 3:05 pm Sad that people on this forum reject it.
Dad too that others misinterpret it... 😢
Elaborate please
We don't need to hash out AGT in this thread too.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

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

Post by Luke »

ransomme wrote: September 4th, 2022, 2:11 am
Luke wrote: September 4th, 2022, 2:02 am
ransomme wrote: September 4th, 2022, 1:04 am
Luke wrote: August 28th, 2022, 3:05 pm Sad that people on this forum reject it.
Dad too that others misinterpret it... 😢
Elaborate please
We don't need to hash out AGT in this thread too.
No-one reads Adam-God into the KFD.

Obviously the idea that God has a on physical body exists as a necessary premise for Adam-God, but I’ve never seen anyone use the KFD as a text for Adam-God.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

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

Post by ransomme »

Luke wrote: September 4th, 2022, 2:29 am
ransomme wrote: September 4th, 2022, 2:11 am
Luke wrote: September 4th, 2022, 2:02 am
ransomme wrote: September 4th, 2022, 1:04 am

Dad too that others misinterpret it... 😢
Elaborate please
We don't need to hash out AGT in this thread too.
No-one reads Adam-God into the KFD.

Obviously the idea that God has a on physical body exists as a necessary premise for Adam-God, but I’ve never seen anyone use the KFD as a text for Adam-God.
KFD has been used plenty as a reference for AGT and MMP on these boards.

User avatar
Mindfields
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1869
Location: Utah

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

Post by Mindfields »

Alexander wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 2:47 pm
Mindfields wrote: September 2nd, 2022, 7:28 am
Alexander wrote: September 2nd, 2022, 6:55 am
Mindfields wrote: August 30th, 2022, 8:49 am 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?
Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that supports the KFD? According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus is the Father. There's no mention whatsoever of God once being a man.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

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

Post by LDS Watchman »

Mindfields wrote: September 7th, 2022, 8:16 pm
Alexander wrote: September 3rd, 2022, 2:47 pm
Mindfields wrote: September 2nd, 2022, 7:28 am
Alexander wrote: September 2nd, 2022, 6:55 am

“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?
Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that supports the KFD? According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus is the Father. There's no mention whatsoever of God once being a man.
48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.
29 Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in them.

10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;


These verses are clearly talking about the potential for man to become perfect like God is. And then when you add scriptures from the Bible and D&C it becomes even more clear. The KFD is very well supported by the scriptures.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

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

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

stormcloak wrote: September 2nd, 2022, 7:33 am
Redpilled Mormon wrote: August 28th, 2022, 3:26 pm 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:

Took me a long while to get back to this, and again I want to compliment you on your detailed and logical post. I was starting down the road of a detailed point-by-point, but realized I was getting lost in the weeds, so taking it back to something simpler to explain why I strongly disagree.

In 3 Nephi 11, we have the Savior himself telling us what is required for salvation, and also strongly saying that anything less or more is not of him but comes of evil. This is the Savior himself speaking, so imo this overrides anyone else, even Joseph Smith. (Frankly at this point I never trust anything that Joseph Smith is supposed to have been said; I've seen it demonstrated too many times that there's a ton of 'mormon myths' that were ascribed to Joseph without proof. But even if he absolutely did teach such a thing, as far as I'm concerned Christ's own words override anyone else's.)

What Christ describes in 3 Nephi 11 as his doctrine for salvation consists of only a very few things. Believe/Repent, be baptized, and at some point inevitably the Father will give baptism of fire/Holy Ghost. Really that's it.

So no, even if Joseph Smith taught it, guessing right about the nature of how the Godhead works cannot be salvific, unless we're disregarding what the Savior himself taught was salvific.

That said, we might be just be confusing terms, since in mormonism we have this whole other thing from salvation, which we call 'exaltation'. It's sort of the upgraded package apparently, for the really, really good boys and girls.

Who knows what all goes into the mix to get that premium-plus upgrade package called 'exaltation'? I honestly don't know if we've got any Book of Mormon scriptures in the Savior's voice, instructing what's needed for that. I think he just talked solely about salvation, and didn't mention so much about exaltation, or what all is required to become a literal god. Maybe for that we do need to guess right on the number of hairs in his left eyebrow, who knows?

I do think there's something very strange about how the form of the Godhead alluded to in the Book of Mormon, and the description of it in the Lectures of Faith differs so strongly with the version I learned in mormon culture from sunday school on, but no, I'm still not seeing how it matters to my salvation to guess right on exactly how the Godhead works.

I'm open to being wrong though, just giving my 2 cents in response to an excellent post.
Last edited by Redpilled Mormon on September 11th, 2022, 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DJB
captain of 100
Posts: 357

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

Post by DJB »

TheDuke wrote: August 28th, 2022, 5:33 pm 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).
Amen! Nicely said 👍

User avatar
stormcloak
captain of 100
Posts: 373
Location: Windhelm
Contact:

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

Post by stormcloak »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 11th, 2022, 8:28 pm In 3 Nephi 11, we have the Savior himself telling us what is required for salvation, and also strongly saying that anything less or more is not of him but comes of evil. This is the Savior himself speaking, so imo this overrides anyone else, even Joseph Smith. (Frankly at this point I never trust anything that Joseph Smith is supposed to have been said; I've seen it demonstrated too many times that there's a ton of 'mormon myths' that were ascribed to Joseph without proof. But even if he absolutely did teach such a thing, as far as I'm concerned Christ's own words override anyone else's.)

What Christ describes in 3 Nephi 11 as his doctrine for salvation consists of only a very few things. Believe/Repent, be babtized, and at some point inevitably the Father will give baptism of fire/Holy Ghost. Really that's it.

So no, even if Joseph Smith taught it, guessing right about the nature of how the Godhead works cannot be salvific, unless we're disregarding what the Savior himself taught was salvific.
Let's take a closer look at what Jesus taught in 3 Nephi. I see these scriptures getting tossed around a lot lately, and I find it interesting because I don't think most modern folks really understand what's being said in them.

First of all, Jesus establishes the context for His statements:
And there shall be no disputations among you as there hath hitherto been, neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine as there hath hitherto been.

(3 Nephi 11:28)
Christ clarifies that what He is about to teach the Nephites is essentially the lowest common denominator for the Law of the Gospel, the things that everyone can agree upon, which are crucial to salvation. He does this in large part to do away with contention amongst His disciples. He goes on to explain why:
For verily verily I say unto you: He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, which is the father of contention. And he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger one with another.

(3 Nephi 11:29)
In other words, Christ says that one of Satan's primary goals is to stir up men to anger with one another concerning the points of His doctrine... kind of like people are doing in this thread... and everywhere else on this forum...
Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger one against another. But this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

(3 Nephi 11:30)
He now says His primary purpose is to make peace and stop men from contending with each other. How can we do this? By focusing on Him as the means of our salvation. This is the lowest common denominator of the Law of the Gospel which allows one entrance and citizenship into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So what is His oft-discussed doctrine?:
Behold, verily verily I say unto you: I will declare unto you my doctrine. And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me. And I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me. And I bear record that the Father commandeth all men everywhere to repent and believe in me.

(3 Nephi 11:31-32)
So part 1 of His doctrine here is that all men must:
  1. Repent
  2. Believe in Him
Part 2 of His doctrine is then His emphasis of baptism as part of repentance:
And whoso believeth in me and is baptized, the same shall be saved. And they are they which shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me and is not baptized shall be damned.

(3 Nephi 11:33-34)
He now makes a very significant statement:
Verily verily I say unto you that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father. And whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also.

(3 Nephi 11:35)
This is very important. Jesus Christ here says that whoever believes in Him, will not only believe in Christ, but in His Father also. Many Mormons today, including the new cool kids on the block which are dumping Joseph's doctrines, know nothing of Christ's Father. They have no understanding of His identity, nor of the nature of His Being. They do not understand who He is or what He does. The pinnacle of their understanding is in the basic tokens of Christianity, but this is where their knowledge stops.

Actually living in Christ and accepting His doctrine means understanding and believing in His Father as well. This is according to Christ's statement in the Book of Mormon.

The way that the modern self-styled "Doctrine of Christ" movement thinks, they are simply living as basic Christians that have accepted the tokens of Christianity. Actually living in Christ has little relationship to the more commonly accepted situation of living as a Christian, or living a Christian life. Living AS a Christian means that one has accepted the tokens of Christianity, that one agrees in the divinity of Christ, that one is a member of a Christian congregation, in a largely Christian community, in a Christian nation. Thus, one can lead a Christian life without knowing Christ and without changing one's existence in the slightest degree.

If a person leads a Christian life, and it does not transform one's existence, then one can be sure that he does not KNOW Christ, nor has he felt the Holy Spirit sent forth by Christ's Father. Knowing Christ is the only manner in which one can go beyond oneself, and the only manner in which one can go beyond one's world. In knowing Christ, one is immediately lifted out of the mechanical life of the human existence, one transcends the common existence. One is no longer a human machine, leading a hopeless, mechanical life, repeating the same meaningless motions like a robot throughout the years of one's earthly existence.

And what did Christ say? That if you KNOW Him, you will also believe in His Father and come to know Him as well. This knowledge is what Joseph Smith witnessed to us and taught in his ministry.

Jesus actually prophesied of the Gentiles rejection of the Father's Gospel right in the Book of Mormon. This can be seen from a careful commentary on 3 Nephi 16:
And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you [direct instruction from Heavenly Father; it was His message]: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel [the fulness of Heavenly Father's Gospel, rejecting His higher laws], and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth [the pride of many Latter-day Saints, like the Jews in the days of Jesus; they feel pride in their religion above all the rest, because of the Restoration], and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations [a review of things such as the Glenn Pace Memo, and the current issues with the vaccine, etc., reveal that this is not an exaggeration. The church as it is today is currently guilty of all these things.]; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them. [What gospel is this? It is not the preparatory gospel of Jesus Christ (as related in chapter 11), it is the fulness of the gospel of His Father. This includes living His higher laws as revealed through Joseph Smith (one of which was the commandment to build Zion, which we have clearly not accomplished). The Church rejected these doctrines, so He will bring it out from among them through a remnant of Ephraim, as Heber C. Kimball once said: "If we make a bad use of [the] Priesthood, do you not see that the day will come when God will reckon with us, and he will take it from us and give it to those who will make better use of it? [...] But the day will come when the Lord will choose a people OUT of this people, upon whom he will bestow His choicest blessings." (JD 6:125; JD 11:145)]

And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them. [He will not repair the extant damage to His Church (just as He did not do with the Catholic Church), because He doesn't put new wine into old bottles. He will select a new people out from the old apostasy to carry His Gospel forth. He will remember the remnant of Ephraim and the other tribes of the House of Israel, such as the Lamanites and the Lost Ten Tribes. The Jews as a whole will not accept Christ until He delivers them from annihilation upon the Mount of Olives.]

And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you [These Gentiles had the Priesthood when no one else did. They had among the choicest of the Father's blessings, but rejected it in favor of pride and wickedness.]; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel. [A key word here is to "return." How could they RETURN if they did not already have this gospel previously? These are apostates from the Father's Gospel which the Lord is talking about. So it is evident that the Lord is saying: "If the Latter-day Saints repent of their apostasy, they will be forgiven and numbered among His people." This is also evident from the fact that this prophecy is delivered in the Book of Mormon of all places. What other Christian denominations are reading this text aside from the Latter-day Saints? Is this prophecy / warning directed at them, or at other churches? What good would it be to other churches who would never read the Book of Mormon?]

And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father. [All of these statements are coming directly from the Father. He is saying that He will give them a chance to repent and not be trodden down by His chosen remnants of Israel once this apostasy is consummated in full.]

But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel. [But if they refuse to repent, they will be destroyed with the rest of Babylon. This parable is a reference to a tradition amongst the Jews regarding filthy salt. When salt is mixed with other condiments or substances (there is no other way for salt to lose its savor; it never expires or rots--it has to be mixed and mingled with other substances, which is yet another metaphor within this metaphor explaining to how the Latter-day Saints apostatized to begin with), the Jews would take this unclean salt outside (since it was no longer fit for eating) and sprinkle it on the paths they walked on, to kill weeds. And again, who else could the Father be referring to as "the salt of the earth" aside from the Latter-day Saints who had the fulness of His Gospel among them when no other people had it, and yet they rejected it?]

(3 Nephi 16:10-15)
In going back to the enunciation of His doctrine to the Nephites -- next Jesus makes an interesting statement that almost seems to contradict Himself:
And thus will the Father bear record of me. And the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me, for the Father and I and the Holy Ghost are one.

(3 Nephi 11:35-36)
Jesus has been speaking this whole time as if He and His Father are distinct personages. And yet now He declares them both (along with the Holy Ghost), to be one God? How is this possible? Most of Christendom solves the issue with nonsense like the Nicene Creed. But Jesus made the answer very clear in His dying prayer in the New Testament, as to how exactly He and His Father are "one":
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

(John 17:19-26)
Jesus makes it abundantly clear in these verses that He expects us to be "one" even as He and His Father are one. Not through sharing the literal substance of our bodies, but through perfect love and charity.

Going back to the Nephites, we now understand that Jesus was saying that each member of the Godhead bears perfect witness of each other, and that they all unify in glory and love. He was not saying He is the same personage as His Father -- just try reading the scripture again. Jesus makes it very clear He's not talking to Himself. He wants us to worship the Father in addition to Him.

All these doctrines beg the question, what kind of being is Jesus? How are we to believe in Him if we have no conception of who He is an what He is like? The knowledge which gives us more understanding about who He is only increases our ability to exercise faith in Him, and thus naturally tends to our salvation and makes us more able to affirm and teach His doctrine.

And yet, somehow people reject the message of His mouthpiece Joseph which strengthens His doctrine and clarifies these mysteries. As if somehow Joseph was an obstacle to Christ's doctrine. This is simply not the case.

Finally Jesus concludes with instruction that this is the barebones basics of His doctrine, and that these are the basic requirements for salvation:
And again I say unto you: Ye must repent and become as a little child and be baptized in my name, or ye can in no wise receive these things. And again I say unto you: Ye must repent and be baptized in my name and become as a little child, or ye can in no wise inherit the kingdom of God. Verily verily I say unto you that this is my doctrine. And whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this and establisheth it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil and is not built upon my rock, but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation; and the gates of hell standeth open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore go forth unto this people and declare the words which I have spoken unto the ends of the earth.

(3 Nephi 11:37-41)
We should bear in mind that in 3 Nephi 16, Christ spoke of "the Father's Gospel" as a distinct Gospel message, which would be given to the Gentiles in the latter days. Furthermore, in 3 Nephi 17:15 we are told that "the things which [Jesus] prayed cannot be written." We know these are not the things He set forth in 3 Nephi 11, because these were already written.

Then was Christ in violation of His own commandment? Because in 3 Nephi 17, He prayed things, of which the Nephites bore record that:
The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard before so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father. And no tongue cannot speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak.

(3 Nephi 17:16-17)
Clearly He was not giving an expanded version of His comments about baptism in 3 Nephi 11, for these things were already written.

Clearly what Christ meant was that those who declare things which are fundamentally incompatible with His doctrine are those things which we would be damned for, if we were to add them atop the structure of His doctrine as if such false doctrines belonged to Him. None of which constitutes what Joseph Smith taught. Rather, what Joseph taught falls exactly in the scope of what the Prophet Alma spoke of in the Book of Mormon:
And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

(Alma 12:10-11)
Compare this with Joseph Smith's own words:
I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.

(Jan. 20, 1844; TPJS 331)
So was Alma "adding to Christ's doctrine" in this above scripture? He taught of mysteries regarding the Resurrection, and yet in this same record they teach of the Plan of Redemption. It is clear that Joseph Smith taught doctrines in the same manner as Alma did. He only expounded upon those hidden things which are necessary components of Christ's doctrine to "believe in Him" and "repent." In order for us to sufficiently believe in Him to repent, we must first understand His plan of salvation and all the things inherent unto that doctrine.
That said, we might be just be confusing terms, since in mormonism we have this whole other thing from salvation, which we call 'exaltation'. It's sort of the upgraded package apparently, for the really, really good boys and girls.
This is incorrect. Eternal Life is equivalent with salvation. Go and read the Lectures on Faith for proof of that. Joseph Smith taught us that a correct understanding of God is essential to Eternal Life. Why is that? Because we cannot truly believe in Him if we have no true conception of what kind of being He is.
Who knows what all goes into the mix to get that premium-plus upgrade package called 'exaltation'? I honestly don't know if we've got any Book of Mormon scriptures in the Savior's voice, instructing what's needed for that. I think he just talked solely about salvation, and didn't mention so much about exaltation, or what all is required to become a literal god. Maybe for that we do need to guess right on the number of hairs in his left eyebrow, who knows?
Christ did in fact speak of exaltation in the Book of Mormon. This is evident in the passages where He speaks of us possessing "all that the Father hath."

Here's an interesting video talking about where exaltation is spoken of in the Book of Mormon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rb5wYfK8ko&t=3100s
I do think there's something very strange about how the form of the Godhead alluded to in the Book of Mormon, and the description of it in the Lectures of Faith differs so strongly with the version I learned in mormon culture from sunday school on, but no, I'm still not seeing how it matters to my salvation to guess right on exactly how the Godhead works.

I'm open to being wrong though, just giving my 2 cents in response to an excellent post.
As I explained on the thread previously, the Lectures on Faith in fact also affirm that Christ's Father has a body and there is nothing in the LoF which is actually contradictory to the KFD. The idea that this is the case only exists in the minds of those who are darkened in their understanding of scripture and reality.

User avatar
jreuben
captain of 100
Posts: 896

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

Post by jreuben »

Remember: "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." Also recall that unity is one of the most profoundly important principles for both good and evil and was the provocation for the incident at the Tower of Babel.

User avatar
Redpilled Mormon
captain of 100
Posts: 664

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

Post by Redpilled Mormon »

stormcloak wrote: September 11th, 2022, 10:30 pm
Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 11th, 2022, 8:28 pm In 3 Nephi 11, we have the Savior himself telling us what is required for salvation, and also strongly saying that anything less or more is not of him but comes of evil. This is the Savior himself speaking, so imo this overrides anyone else, even Joseph Smith. (Frankly at this point I never trust anything that Joseph Smith is supposed to have been said; I've seen it demonstrated too many times that there's a ton of 'mormon myths' that were ascribed to Joseph without proof. But even if he absolutely did teach such a thing, as far as I'm concerned Christ's own words override anyone else's.)

What Christ describes in 3 Nephi 11 as his doctrine for salvation consists of only a very few things. Believe/Repent, be babtized, and at some point inevitably the Father will give baptism of fire/Holy Ghost. Really that's it.

So no, even if Joseph Smith taught it, guessing right about the nature of how the Godhead works cannot be salvific, unless we're disregarding what the Savior himself taught was salvific.
Let's take a closer look at what Jesus taught in 3 Nephi. I see these scriptures getting tossed around a lot lately, and I find it interesting because I don't think most modern folks really understand what's being said in them.

First of all, Jesus establishes the context for His statements:
And there shall be no disputations among you as there hath hitherto been, neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine as there hath hitherto been.

(3 Nephi 11:28)
Christ clarifies that what He is about to teach the Nephites is essentially the lowest common denominator for the Law of the Gospel, the things that everyone can agree upon, which are crucial to salvation. He does this in large part to do away with contention amongst His disciples. He goes on to explain why:
For verily verily I say unto you: He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, which is the father of contention. And he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger one with another.

(3 Nephi 11:29)
In other words, Christ says that one of Satan's primary goals is to stir up men to anger with one another concerning the points of His doctrine... kind of like people are doing in this thread... and everywhere else on this forum...
Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger one against another. But this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

(3 Nephi 11:30)
He now says His primary purpose is to make peace and stop men from contending with each other. How can we do this? By focusing on Him as the means of our salvation. This is the lowest common denominator of the Law of the Gospel which allows one entrance and citizenship into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So what is His oft-discussed doctrine?:
Behold, verily verily I say unto you: I will declare unto you my doctrine. And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me. And I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me. And I bear record that the Father commandeth all men everywhere to repent and believe in me.

(3 Nephi 11:31-32)
So part 1 of His doctrine here is that all men must:
  1. Repent
  2. Believe in Him
Part 2 of His doctrine is then His emphasis of baptism as part of repentance:
And whoso believeth in me and is baptized, the same shall be saved. And they are they which shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me and is not baptized shall be damned.

(3 Nephi 11:33-34)
He now makes a very significant statement:
Verily verily I say unto you that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father. And whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also.

(3 Nephi 11:35)
This is very important. Jesus Christ here says that whoever believes in Him, will not only believe in Christ, but in His Father also. Many Mormons today, including the new cool kids on the block which are dumping Joseph's doctrines, know nothing of Christ's Father. They have no understanding of His identity, nor of the nature of His Being. They do not understand who He is or what He does. The pinnacle of their understanding is in the basic tokens of Christianity, but this is where their knowledge stops.

Actually living in Christ and accepting His doctrine means understanding and believing in His Father as well. This is according to Christ's statement in the Book of Mormon.

The way that the modern self-styled "Doctrine of Christ" movement thinks, they are simply living as basic Christians that have accepted the tokens of Christianity. Actually living in Christ has little relationship to the more commonly accepted situation of living as a Christian, or living a Christian life. Living AS a Christian means that one has accepted the tokens of Christianity, that one agrees in the divinity of Christ, that one is a member of a Christian congregation, in a largely Christian community, in a Christian nation. Thus, one can lead a Christian life without knowing Christ and without changing one's existence in the slightest degree.

If a person leads a Christian life, and it does not transform one's existence, then one can be sure that he does not KNOW Christ, nor has he felt the Holy Spirit sent forth by Christ's Father. Knowing Christ is the only manner in which one can go beyond oneself, and the only manner in which one can go beyond one's world. In knowing Christ, one is immediately lifted out of the mechanical life of the human existence, one transcends the common existence. One is no longer a human machine, leading a hopeless, mechanical life, repeating the same meaningless motions like a robot throughout the years of one's earthly existence.

And what did Christ say? That if you KNOW Him, you will also believe in His Father and come to know Him as well. This knowledge is what Joseph Smith witnessed to us and taught in his ministry.

Jesus actually prophesied of the Gentiles rejection of the Father's Gospel right in the Book of Mormon. This can be seen from a careful commentary on 3 Nephi 16:
And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you [direct instruction from Heavenly Father; it was His message]: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel [the fulness of Heavenly Father's Gospel, rejecting His higher laws], and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth [the pride of many Latter-day Saints, like the Jews in the days of Jesus; they feel pride in their religion above all the rest, because of the Restoration], and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations [a review of things such as the Glenn Pace Memo, and the current issues with the vaccine, etc., reveal that this is not an exaggeration. The church as it is today is currently guilty of all these things.]; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them. [What gospel is this? It is not the preparatory gospel of Jesus Christ (as related in chapter 11), it is the fulness of the gospel of His Father. This includes living His higher laws as revealed through Joseph Smith (one of which was the commandment to build Zion, which we have clearly not accomplished). The Church rejected these doctrines, so He will bring it out from among them through a remnant of Ephraim, as Heber C. Kimball once said: "If we make a bad use of [the] Priesthood, do you not see that the day will come when God will reckon with us, and he will take it from us and give it to those who will make better use of it? [...] But the day will come when the Lord will choose a people OUT of this people, upon whom he will bestow His choicest blessings." (JD 6:125; JD 11:145)]

And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them. [He will not repair the extant damage to His Church (just as He did not do with the Catholic Church), because He doesn't put new wine into old bottles. He will select a new people out from the old apostasy to carry His Gospel forth. He will remember the remnant of Ephraim and the other tribes of the House of Israel, such as the Lamanites and the Lost Ten Tribes. The Jews as a whole will not accept Christ until He delivers them from annihilation upon the Mount of Olives.]

And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you [These Gentiles had the Priesthood when no one else did. They had among the choicest of the Father's blessings, but rejected it in favor of pride and wickedness.]; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel. [A key word here is to "return." How could they RETURN if they did not already have this gospel previously? These are apostates from the Father's Gospel which the Lord is talking about. So it is evident that the Lord is saying: "If the Latter-day Saints repent of their apostasy, they will be forgiven and numbered among His people." This is also evident from the fact that this prophecy is delivered in the Book of Mormon of all places. What other Christian denominations are reading this text aside from the Latter-day Saints? Is this prophecy / warning directed at them, or at other churches? What good would it be to other churches who would never read the Book of Mormon?]

And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father. [All of these statements are coming directly from the Father. He is saying that He will give them a chance to repent and not be trodden down by His chosen remnants of Israel once this apostasy is consummated in full.]

But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel. [But if they refuse to repent, they will be destroyed with the rest of Babylon. This parable is a reference to a tradition amongst the Jews regarding filthy salt. When salt is mixed with other condiments or substances (there is no other way for salt to lose its savor; it never expires or rots--it has to be mixed and mingled with other substances, which is yet another metaphor within this metaphor explaining to how the Latter-day Saints apostatized to begin with), the Jews would take this unclean salt outside (since it was no longer fit for eating) and sprinkle it on the paths they walked on, to kill weeds. And again, who else could the Father be referring to as "the salt of the earth" aside from the Latter-day Saints who had the fulness of His Gospel among them when no other people had it, and yet they rejected it?]

(3 Nephi 16:10-15)
In going back to the enunciation of His doctrine to the Nephites -- next Jesus makes an interesting statement that almost seems to contradict Himself:
And thus will the Father bear record of me. And the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me, for the Father and I and the Holy Ghost are one.

(3 Nephi 11:35-36)
Jesus has been speaking this whole time as if He and His Father are distinct personages. And yet now He declares them both (along with the Holy Ghost), to be one God? How is this possible? Most of Christendom solves the issue with nonsense like the Nicene Creed. But Jesus made the answer very clear in His dying prayer in the New Testament, as to how exactly He and His Father are "one":
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

(John 17:19-26)
Jesus makes it abundantly clear in these verses that He expects us to be "one" even as He and His Father are one. Not through sharing the literal substance of our bodies, but through perfect love and charity.

Going back to the Nephites, we now understand that Jesus was saying that each member of the Godhead bears perfect witness of each other, and that they all unify in glory and love. He was not saying He is the same personage as His Father -- just try reading the scripture again. Jesus makes it very clear He's not talking to Himself. He wants us to worship the Father in addition to Him.

All these doctrines beg the question, what kind of being is Jesus? How are we to believe in Him if we have no conception of who He is an what He is like? The knowledge which gives us more understanding about who He is only increases our ability to exercise faith in Him, and thus naturally tends to our salvation and makes us more able to affirm and teach His doctrine.

And yet, somehow people reject the message of His mouthpiece Joseph which strengthens His doctrine and clarifies these mysteries. As if somehow Joseph was an obstacle to Christ's doctrine. This is simply not the case.

Finally Jesus concludes with instruction that this is the barebones basics of His doctrine, and that these are the basic requirements for salvation:
And again I say unto you: Ye must repent and become as a little child and be baptized in my name, or ye can in no wise receive these things. And again I say unto you: Ye must repent and be baptized in my name and become as a little child, or ye can in no wise inherit the kingdom of God. Verily verily I say unto you that this is my doctrine. And whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this and establisheth it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil and is not built upon my rock, but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation; and the gates of hell standeth open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore go forth unto this people and declare the words which I have spoken unto the ends of the earth.

(3 Nephi 11:37-41)
We should bear in mind that in 3 Nephi 16, Christ spoke of "the Father's Gospel" as a distinct Gospel message, which would be given to the Gentiles in the latter days. Furthermore, in 3 Nephi 17:15 we are told that "the things which [Jesus] prayed cannot be written." We know these are not the things He set forth in 3 Nephi 11, because these were already written.

Then was Christ in violation of His own commandment? Because in 3 Nephi 17, He prayed things, of which the Nephites bore record that:
The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard before so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father. And no tongue cannot speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak.

(3 Nephi 17:16-17)
Clearly He was not giving an expanded version of His comments about baptism in 3 Nephi 11, for these things were already written.

Clearly what Christ meant was that those who declare things which are fundamentally incompatible with His doctrine are those things which we would be damned for, if we were to add them atop the structure of His doctrine as if such false doctrines belonged to Him. None of which constitutes what Joseph Smith taught. Rather, what Joseph taught falls exactly in the scope of what the Prophet Alma spoke of in the Book of Mormon:
And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

(Alma 12:10-11)
Compare this with Joseph Smith's own words:
I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.

(Jan. 20, 1844; TPJS 331)
So was Alma "adding to Christ's doctrine" in this above scripture? He taught of mysteries regarding the Resurrection, and yet in this same record they teach of the Plan of Redemption. It is clear that Joseph Smith taught doctrines in the same manner as Alma did. He only expounded upon those hidden things which are necessary components of Christ's doctrine to "believe in Him" and "repent." In order for us to sufficiently believe in Him to repent, we must first understand His plan of salvation and all the things inherent unto that doctrine.
That said, we might be just be confusing terms, since in mormonism we have this whole other thing from salvation, which we call 'exaltation'. It's sort of the upgraded package apparently, for the really, really good boys and girls.
This is incorrect. Eternal Life is equivalent with salvation. Go and read the Lectures on Faith for proof of that. Joseph Smith taught us that a correct understanding of God is essential to Eternal Life. Why is that? Because we cannot truly believe in Him if we have no true conception of what kind of being He is.
Who knows what all goes into the mix to get that premium-plus upgrade package called 'exaltation'? I honestly don't know if we've got any Book of Mormon scriptures in the Savior's voice, instructing what's needed for that. I think he just talked solely about salvation, and didn't mention so much about exaltation, or what all is required to become a literal god. Maybe for that we do need to guess right on the number of hairs in his left eyebrow, who knows?
Christ did in fact speak of exaltation in the Book of Mormon. This is evident in the passages where He speaks of us possessing "all that the Father hath."

Here's an interesting video talking about where exaltation is spoken of in the Book of Mormon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rb5wYfK8ko&t=3100s
I do think there's something very strange about how the form of the Godhead alluded to in the Book of Mormon, and the description of it in the Lectures of Faith differs so strongly with the version I learned in mormon culture from sunday school on, but no, I'm still not seeing how it matters to my salvation to guess right on exactly how the Godhead works.

I'm open to being wrong though, just giving my 2 cents in response to an excellent post.
As I explained on the thread previously, the Lectures on Faith in fact also affirm that Christ's Father has a body and there is nothing in the LoF which is actually contradictory to the KFD. The idea that this is the case only exists in the minds of those who are darkened in their understanding of scripture and reality.
I've pondered your excellent post for a few days now, and much of it I agree with, but I'm coming down with just a few (but fundamental) disagreements.

First, the bit about contention. I believe strongly that Christ is stating that the contention to be done away with is simply contention over what does and does not constitute his doctrine. He is not saying to do away with all contention writ large, upon every subject. That's an illogical position, as to satisfy such a condition he would have to abandon every position on every subject the moment that anyone voiced disagreement. General Moroni is not condemned for contending against Amalickiah, for example.

The language in the way that part is written seems very clear that he is addressing the contention of true believers disputing what is and is not part of Christ's doctrine. He's saying, no more need to argue about this, because I'm about to tell you. Listen up, here it is. Super-clear, nothing more and nothing less, and so all contentions between followers of Christ should be done away with on this subject forever more.

I don't believe he's saying 'never contend ever on any subject, no matter what', as that would be tantamount to saying 'just give in to evil, because it's better not to contend'. At least that's my read on it.

I realize you touched on that bit only lightly, and it may not be super-important to the main thrust of your argument (as I perceive it) but still I wanted to point out a potential difference of opinion on that bit.

However I also find myself disagreeing with what I perceive as your main argument though. Again, don't let me 'straw-man' you if I've misunderstood please correct me, but to give a recap in broad strokes of what I think you're saying it would be something like:

- Yes, Christ's doctrine as outlined in 3 Nephi 11 is indeed what's needed for salvation, which consists of Belief, Repentance, Baptism, Fire & Holy Ghost, however

- The 'Belief' part of the equation somehow necessarily requires 'knowing' Jesus (otherwise how do you know what you're believing in') which we can then extrapolate out to a need to know Jesus, and then a need to know God the Father, therefore you must have a perfect knowledge of the Godhead structure and how it functions before you can even begin to truly believe.

- therefore you have to sort of 'guess right' on the Godhead before you can start racking up those much needed 'belief' points to get a toe in the door to take advantage of Christ's doctrine.

I submit this is backwards though, and I think it also leads to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy (that you never really know for sure if you 'know' Jesus well enough to actually qualify).

The reason I think it's backwards, is that if we follow Christ's doctrine as he states it (with out presupposing unstated prerequisites) then as we practice faith by believing and repenting, then we will naturally come more and more to know him (and ultimately to know the Father). But it is not a stated requirement, and I think for a very good reason.

A person doesn't have to 'know' their car in order to operate it. 99.9% of people don't. They believe it will work, without really knowing any of the principles involved. In order to drive a car you don't have to be able to build an engine and a transmission etc from scratch, or even have the faintest clue how it operates.

Instead you have to know the absolute basics. The brake is here and the gas pedal is there, this is the steering wheel, etc.

Almost every driver on the road currently could be accurately described as not really 'knowing' their car.

But if we had the requirement that you have to 'know' your car before you can drive it, well then that begs the question of 'exactly how much' knowledge is enough to qualify as 'knowing'?

The guy who took a few classes and knows the fundamental systems by which a car drives, does he truly 'know' the car? Even if he doesn't have a clue what the subcomponents are or how they are made?

What about the guy who studies cars all his life and can literally tell you every nut/bolt/gear/belt in every part of the car and can build it from scratch. Does he truly 'know' the car, or can we cross him off the list too because he doesn't have a full picture of how the atoms that make up the components are held in place by universal forces, etc.

And we could spiral down into an infinite regression of 'no true knowledge' that goes on forever, and is insurmountable. Thus, 'no true scotsmen' becomes 'no true believers' and the whole doctrine of Christ is null and void, since we can never be certain we have enough knowledge to qualify.

So I believe it's exactly the opposite, we don't have to know the first thing about the nature of the Godhead to qualify to take advantage of Christ's doctrine and his atonement. Instead, we simply act in faith, by believing and repenting, and the knowledge will be added to us as we go along. And hence it's totally ok to guess wrong about the nature of the Godhead. I believe that since the Holy Ghost testifies to the truth of all things, then naturally we'll be led to the truth of things by and by if we simply follow the simple doctrine that Christ speaks plainly about in 3 Nephi 11, no hidden prerequisites or knowledge needed.

User avatar
stormcloak
captain of 100
Posts: 373
Location: Windhelm
Contact:

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

Post by stormcloak »

Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 13th, 2022, 7:06 pm I've pondered your excellent post for a few days now, and much of it I agree with, but I'm coming down with just a few (but fundamental) disagreements.

First, the bit about contention. I believe strongly that Christ is stating that the contention to be done away with is simply contention over what does and does not constitute his doctrine. He is not saying to do away with all contention writ large, upon every subject. That's an illogical position, as to satisfy such a condition he would have to abandon every position on every subject the moment that anyone voiced disagreement. General Moroni is not condemned for contending against Amalickiah, for example.
Well, you wanted to go for Christ's pure doctrine. And simply put, it says:
For verily verily I say unto you: He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, which is the father of contention. And he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger one against another. But this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

(3 Nephi 11:29-30)
I don't disagree with you. I think there are valid instances of conflict, such as between Moroni and Amalickiah. But even so, Christ's Beatitudes contain some hardcore pacifist statements in them as well:
But I say unto you that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [...] And behold, it is written also that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But behold, I say unto you: Love your enemies! Bless them that curse you! Do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.

(3 Nephi 12:39-44)
This doctrine reminds me of the poignant reflections of Benjamin F. Johnson, who served in the Missouri War and was a personal friend and confidant of Joseph Smith who witnessed his intense persecution firsthand:
The Prophet Joseph laid the foundation of our Church in a military spirit and as the Master taught his disciples, so he taught us to "sell our coats and buy swords." But never did the sword fully prevail with us, not even with the Indians. And never before were we apparently so safe from them or our outside enemies, as since the Lord through the government permitted us to be robbed of armed self protection. And even our mission martyrs have generally been murdered after a show of resistance. And are we not beginning to see that charity is the life and core of our religion and that love is the great life spring and centripetal power of the universe. And in our gospel there appears no place for hate or resentment, not even towards those who would nail us to the cross--yet neither in Kirtland, Missouri, or Nauvoo, did we fully comply with this rule. And even in Utah many were left to cherish towards our poor Lamanite brethren vindictiveness and hate. And in Missouri by Apostle Lyman Wight we were taught to "pray for our enemies", "that God would damn them" and "give us power to kill them".

(Benjamin F. Johnson letter to George F. Gibbs, April 1903, Church Archives)
I personally have not fully reconciled myself to what appears to be the hardline pacifism in the Beatitudes, and yet I cannot deny that the Savior appears to have taught this principle quite explicitly.
Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 13th, 2022, 7:06 pm The language in the way that part is written seems very clear that he is addressing the contention of true believers disputing what is and is not part of Christ's doctrine. He's saying, no more need to argue about this, because I'm about to tell you. Listen up, here it is. Super-clear, nothing more and nothing less, and so all contentions between followers of Christ should be done away with on this subject forever more.

I don't believe he's saying 'never contend ever on any subject, no matter what', as that would be tantamount to saying 'just give in to evil, because it's better not to contend'. At least that's my read on it.

I realize you touched on that bit only lightly, and it may not be super-important to the main thrust of your argument (as I perceive it) but still I wanted to point out a potential difference of opinion on that bit.
That was my point in bringing up the doctrine as well. I believed Christ was mainly addressing the contention concerning "points of His doctrine." I didn't mean to imply hardline pacifism, although I cannot deny that there are other scriptures which seem to teach that principle.
Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 13th, 2022, 7:06 pm However I also find myself disagreeing with what I perceive as your main argument though. Again, don't let me 'straw-man' you if I've misunderstood please correct me, but to give a recap in broad strokes of what I think you're saying it would be something like:

- Yes, Christ's doctrine as outlined in 3 Nephi 11 is indeed what's needed for salvation, which consists of Belief, Repentance, Baptism, Fire & Holy Ghost, however

- The 'Belief' part of the equation somehow necessarily requires 'knowing' Jesus (otherwise how do you know what you're believing in') which we can then extrapolate out to a need to know Jesus, and then a need to know God the Father, therefore you must have a perfect knowledge of the Godhead structure and how it functions before you can even begin to truly believe.
Correct. This fact is echoed in the Lectures on Faith:
Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, The idea that he actually exists.

Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Lectures on Faith 3:3-5)
So, even the Lectures on Faith teach that a correct idea of God's character is necessary to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.
Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 13th, 2022, 7:06 pm - therefore you have to sort of 'guess right' on the Godhead before you can start racking up those much needed 'belief' points to get a toe in the door to take advantage of Christ's doctrine.
Nope. You don't have to guess. The Lectures on Faith teach that you must exercise faith until you grow perfect in knowledge (Lecture 7:18). And thankfully, Joseph Smith figured out a lot of the hard parts for us, and put them into words.
Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 13th, 2022, 7:06 pm I submit this is backwards though, and I think it also leads to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy (that you never really know for sure if you 'know' Jesus well enough to actually qualify).

The reason I think it's backwards, is that if we follow Christ's doctrine as he states it (with out presupposing unstated prerequisites) then as we practice faith by believing and repenting, then we will naturally come more and more to know him (and ultimately to know the Father). But it is not a stated requirement, and I think for a very good reason.

A person doesn't have to 'know' their car in order to operate it. 99.9% of people don't. They believe it will work, without really knowing any of the principles involved. In order to drive a car you don't have to be able to build an engine and a transmission etc from scratch, or even have the faintest clue how it operates.

Instead you have to know the absolute basics. The brake is here and the gas pedal is there, this is the steering wheel, etc.

Almost every driver on the road currently could be accurately described as not really 'knowing' their car.

But if we had the requirement that you have to 'know' your car before you can drive it, well then that begs the question of 'exactly how much' knowledge is enough to qualify as 'knowing'?

The guy who took a few classes and knows the fundamental systems by which a car drives, does he truly 'know' the car? Even if he doesn't have a clue what the subcomponents are or how they are made?

What about the guy who studies cars all his life and can literally tell you every nut/bolt/gear/belt in every part of the car and can build it from scratch. Does he truly 'know' the car, or can we cross him off the list too because he doesn't have a full picture of how the atoms that make up the components are held in place by universal forces, etc.

And we could spiral down into an infinite regression of 'no true knowledge' that goes on forever, and is insurmountable. Thus, 'no true scotsmen' becomes 'no true believers' and the whole doctrine of Christ is null and void, since we can never be certain we have enough knowledge to qualify.
I believe you're taking my point to an extreme. You keep pointing things out like, "guessing how many hairs the Lord has on His left eyebrow." I never stipulated this as a requirement for salvation. To know that God was once a man, is a very simple fact. It's actually simpler than being able to drive your vehicle, as that actually takes hours of practice when just starting out. But this realization can come to you in a single moment, without any practice at all. You don't have to know all the intimate details of His life as a man, just as you don't have to know all the intimate details of your car engine. But you do have to know a few basic facts.

You already believe that God was once a mortal man in the form of Jesus. In order to more fully believe in Jesus Christ and His Father, you have to understand that His Father was once a mortal man as well. This is not a huge leap in logic. But to Christians, for some reason they treat it as anathema, simply because they get confused, or more often, angry. I don't really understand this resistance. The idea is very simple. There's nothing in it which is hard to understand. Little children can understand the idea just fine, as well as people who aren't very smart. It's about as simple as the whole Atonement or Plan of Salvation. I know this because I've taught it to many individuals, of widely varying intellects. The only real reason I can come up with as to why people on this thread seem to have a problem in grasping this doctrine is because it runs at odds with your own preferred theology.

If you don't understand these facts, you'll find that you don't truly believe in Christ (or at least not His Father), and thus you will not be truly fulfilling His doctrine.
Redpilled Mormon wrote: September 13th, 2022, 7:06 pm So I believe it's exactly the opposite, we don't have to know the first thing about the nature of the Godhead to qualify to take advantage of Christ's doctrine and his atonement. Instead, we simply act in faith, by believing and repenting, and the knowledge will be added to us as we go along. And hence it's totally ok to guess wrong about the nature of the Godhead. I believe that since the Holy Ghost testifies to the truth of all things, then naturally we'll be led to the truth of things by and by if we simply follow the simple doctrine that Christ speaks plainly about in 3 Nephi 11, no hidden prerequisites or knowledge needed.
I believe that everyone who receives salvation will eventually come to this understanding, whether in this life or in the next. D&C 137:8 testifies to that point. But I believe the people who are attacking the KFD are doing a very dangerous thing. When you come to the truth of God in the next life, your spirit will have a very hard time accepting this truth—that God was once a man. It will be because you nurtured a tradition in your mind during mortal life which your spirit will find hard to overcome. You will receive a cognitive dissonance more intense than any you've felt here on earth. And you'll realize that you squandered your opportunity to come to know the truth, right here in your mortal probation, so you can't expect God to do the legwork for you now, once you get over there. Joseph Smith taught the truth to you in a plain and accessible manner. Nothing he taught contradicts what Christ taught, but only strengthens and clarifies it. Your rejection of that testimony actually offends the Holy Ghost and prohibits you from receiving further light and knowledge from the Father. Remember what Christ said?:
For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth my Father.

(D&C 84:36-37)
By that same token, if you reject His servants, you reject Him:
And that I may visit them in the day of visitation, when I shall unveil the face of my covering, to appoint the portion of the oppressor among hypocrites, where there is gnashing of teeth, if they reject my servants and my testimony which I have revealed unto them.

(D&C 124:8)
Your rejection of the testimony of His servant already is offensive to the Holy Spirit (one of the members of the Godhead which you're saying it's fine to know nothing about), and prevents you from receiving further light and truth. Oftentimes, the Holy Spirit witnesses and testifies the truth to you, through the voice of God's servants. The Lord tests to see how humble you truly are by seeing if you'll believe His servants. This is not easy for many people to do, as it's easier to cling to their own traditions and inward notions of how things work. But by rejecting that testimony, you're rejecting the testimony and influence of the Holy Spirit as well:
What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

(D&C 1:38)
Remember also what the Lord said about scripture:
And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

(D&C 68:4-5)
Joseph Smith testified as to the importance of knowledge in our salvation:
Add to your faith knowledge, etc. The principle of knowledge is the principle of Salvation. This principle can be comprehended, for any one that cannot get knowledge to be saved will be damned. The Principle of Salvation is given to us through the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Salvation is nothing more or less than to triumph over all our enemies and put them under our feet, and when we have power to put all enemies under our feet in this world and a knowledge to triumph over all evil spirits in the world to come, then we are saved. As in the case of Jesus, he was to reign until he had put all enemies under his feet and the last enemy was death.

(Words of Joseph Smith, 14 May 1843 (Sunday). Yelrome, Hancock County, Illinois.)
All that he said here is perfectly congruent with the LoF and the BoM. Moreover, all of this is perfectly consistent with the KFD. If we lack a sufficient knowledge of God's character to exercise real faith in Him, we cannot be saved. This includes both Christ and His Father, as per His statement in 3 Nephi 11:35. We can deny the actual implications of this all day long, but in doing so, we offend the Holy Spirit and actually stop an integral part of His doctrine from taking place in our lives.

Post Reply