The King Follett Discourse

[@PatriciaNoel-qp2ff]

Your podcast is the most educational . Keep up the good, deep instruction. 🤫

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Thanks.

[@ajboyle]

I so love these deep dives. Thorough research, thoughtful commentary, and extremely helpful.

[@justin-griffin]

This was super interesting. I learned a ton. Thank you for doing the work to put this together and present it.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Thanks. I like your content and am glad that with your endowment video you didn't just follow the narrative of "Brigham did it".

[@ChrisFBartlett]

I remember several of us on my mission in the early 90s reading the King Follet discourse and The Mission President finding out. It was forbidden. It was a confusing time for us young missionaries to learn the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith being forbidden to read.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

It is kind of silly that as a missionary for a church you are not allowed to read a talk from the person who founded the church. I can understand that the church wants you to be focused, however if it is true then isn't it a good idea to read it. If it is not true then isn't it a good idea to figure out how Joseph could have given it and it not be true?

[@hopeinHim5160]

Wow. That is so typical. They hide the truth.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

The version of the King Follet discourse I read stated that children that die as children will resurrect as children but then grow into adulthood during the Millenium after they are resurrected.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Which version is that? The idea of being perpetual children was only found in the Woodruff version, however everyone who was present understood it this way therefore it is very likely what Joseph actually said.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

​@uncorrelatedmormonism Actually, I listened to it again on KZbin and the version I heard there did say that a child that died as a child would resurrect as a child and stay a child forever. I agree with you this makes no sense. It also makes no sense if you die one day before you turn 8 you automatically inherit the Celestial Kingdom. I think this doctrine is poorly understood. It makes no sense to have a premature baby that dies resurrect as a premature baby forever. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the child resurrects as a child and then grows into an adult during the Millenium. Choosing which kingdom they want to inherit as an adult. Does one of the recordings of the discourse go that direction?

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

@@jaredvaughan1665 The Aug 15 1844 version: "Mothers you shall have your children, for they shall have eternal life: for their debt is paid, there is no damnation awaits them, for they are in the spirit.-As the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead and be forever living in the learning of God, it shall be the child, the same as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power in the same form as they laid them down." The 1855 version: "Mothers, you shall have your children, for they shall have eternal life; for their debt is paid- there is no damnation awaits them, for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow- it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother’s arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory, and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

[@jaredvaughan1665]

​@@uncorrelatedmormonism ​ Thanks for sharing. It seems like the later version added, "and it shall never grow." This makes no sense. What I think Joseph meant is that the child will resurrect as a child and "keep learning" which implies growing into an adult. And I think this includes growing into the age of accountability where they can choose which kingdom they want. Likely in the Millenium. And the scriptures talk about how the nonCelestial beings will be removed by the end of the Millenium. And if Joseph Smith said he shall remain as a child I think that means he will remain as a child. Which is a commandment we are all given. "To be ye as a little child." I think it was bad commentary for someone to add "and they shall never grow." I'd be very surprised if Joseph meant that in the physical sense. I think he meant it in the context that all Celestial beings shall be as little children in terms of humility and lack of malice. This seems to make the most sense. Do you agree?

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

@@jaredvaughan1665 It could be. The first and second are basically the same, but the second is just more explicit. If what you say is true though, then why did everyone at the time interpret it as the children would never grow? Why are they wrong, but your interpretation is right?

[@Maryel_R_R_Palmer]

No matter how one interprets the discourse, I don’t see how it could ever be interpreted as revelation one way or the other. More than once Joseph says “IF I am right….” which is indicative of someone thinking out loud or openly discussing ideas and possibilities.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

He does use if language like that more than once. I am not sure if it is a manner of speaking or him postulating. Joseph did teach these things more than once though. Human nature suggests that it is possible he could have assumed some things and then over time started teaching them as facts. I don't think anything was malicious, however it is highly unlikely that everything he taught was true.

[@stephen562]

Body of flesh a bone does not contradict spirit imo. Remember “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;” So the Fathers body may simply be “more fine or pure”

[@Maryel_R_R_Palmer]

@@stephen562 Not sure how that relates to the OP. Hope you know that the original source of what you quote is actually from Clayton’s journal and wasn’t added to the LDS D&C until 1876.

[@stephen562]

@@Maryel_R_R_PalmerSorry, meant for it to be a separate post, not in response to your OP.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

@@stephen562 Why does God have to be humanoid though?

[@edtalbott564]

You mentioned how Joseph's understanding evolved over time. This reminds me of the several "first vision" accounts and how they evolved over time. Some say, and I tend to believe them, that the "first vision" evolved to fit a narrative as Joseph and others were influenced by the community around them. Personally, I will stick with the first account written in Joseph's own hand.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Yes I did a video on that. I think Joseph's recollection got a bit clouded over time and he started interpreting things according to his current understanding. The 1st First Vision doesn't have as much detail, but I do think it is probably the best one as well.

[@rockzalt]

The description of the process for taking scribe notes during king's speech is rather informative. How common was the name King when used as a first name during his time period? It seems more of an oratory device, similar to numerous published authors today who use made up pen names for their messages?

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

It does seem a strange name to be sure. There is no indication though that it wasn't the given name of the individual.

[@jamescalcandis1625]

WAS JOSEPH MORE DECEITFUL THAN ANY ONE OF US.💔

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

I have never taught something and claimed it was a revelation from God when it wasn't.

[@IBNED]

Could you please give me an address where I can acquire some of these grrat pics you use in your posts? I am also an excellent audio mastering man who could clean up your podcast to sound more professional...jomo

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

I don't always get the pictures from the same place. Sometimes I search google images for far too long until I find something that makes sense. Recently I started to use bible.art/ For the audio I don't pretend like I know what I am doing. However, I am not sure what specifically you mean. It would be helpful if you could send me a before and after or something like that so I can understand what is wrong. You can get a link to my blog in the description and then find my email there. Thank you.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Isaiah 43 means that God is unique in his group. There never has been one like him and never will be one like him. I am not sure what other question you had. Isaiah 43 also seems to me that the Son will never be like the Father. I personally subscribe to the idea that the Father and the Son are two parts of the same whole. For instance, the Son is a subset of the Father. Otherwise this scripture is misleading.

[@jamescalcandis1625]

THE BIBLE SAYS THE PROPHET THAT PROPHFESIES WHAT GOD HAS NOT SPOKEN MUST BE CAST OUT.

[@CuriousThinker1776]

I was never taught that those who die a child will stay that way eternally. That doesn't even make sense. I was always taught children who die young will be raised to adulthood during the millennium. I guess I better read the discourse.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

The early church, post Joseph, certainly believed children would be children forever. However as with most thing, if we don't like the doctrine then we just change it to our liking.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

"...as there be gods many, and lords many, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things..." - From 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 Joseph Smith testified that Paul was not referring to Pagan Gods here. Also: "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." - Revelation 19:16. Also: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." -Psalms 82:6 A verse that Jesus requoted in the New Testament to highlight how he could be a son of God and a God as well. Also: Eloheim is plural. Many bible scholars see this as early evidence of polytheism in the Bible. Many early church fathers until about AD 300 emphasized how we can become as God. Which you likely already know.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Elohim is just a general category of things who are "elevated". Elohim can be true gods, false gods, and kings. We have all been created as extensions of God. Psalms 82 is about having power over others which is a representation of God. You certainly could be correct. However, it requires a stretch of logic to support the claim. To use Rev 19 it requires a very superficial reading. God is king of kings and lord of lords. This is just saying higher than anything we can produce here on earth. All earthly kings and lords will know that God is their king and lord.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

​​@@uncorrelatedmormonismThat is one interpretation. The King of Kings and Lord of Lords means: King of King Charles and King Louis, and Lord of Lord Salisbury and Lord Tennyson. But I interpret as King of heavenly Kings and Lord of heavenly Lords.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

@@jaredvaughan1665 Even kings, lords, or even gods (with a lowercase g) are different than God. To be honest with our technology today we would be consider gods to people in the past. There is a ton we don't know. I think we might progress in the future, but not really sure we will become Gods.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

​@uncorrelatedmormonism I think there are 2 classes of Gods. One Royal God line being God the Father and his direct ancestors and descendants (Jesus and the Holy Ghost being the next 2 down.) And then the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999 % of Gods that operate in a behind the scenes support cast. Similar to there being 340 million citizens of the US but only 1 president. Which explains why Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So Jesus is our God forever. We as Gods inherit all that the Father has. Meaning we dwell in the same spaces he dwells. But Jesus still presides over us.

[@hopeinHim5160]

What is your understanding of Isaiah 43.1O,11 in relation to the King Follet Discourse. I disagree with Joseph Smith. The Apostle Paul was referring to Pagan Gods as there is only One God Yahweh, and His Son Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit. The Triune God of Israel.

[@talkofchrist]

I don't claim to know whether God* was ever a human on an earth... But I find it ignorant for Christians to get so upset about this idea and then claim that Jesus Christ and God are the same being. - Don't they believe that God Jesus Christ was once a human on an earth? Does that somehow make him not God? *The Father

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

I don't understand how Jesus and the Father being the same being makes someone ignorant while believing that the Father was a human once makes then not ignorant.

[@talkofchrist]

@@uncorrelatedmormonism ? 🤔 What's ignorant is to argue, in essence, "The suggestion that God was once a human on an earth is blasphemous!! It degrades the God of all creation!! Everyone knows that Jesus Christ - born in a manger and crucified on a cross - is the God of all creation!!" What's not ignorant is being aware that ALL Christians believe that God was once a man who lived on an earth - and it doesn't degrade God in the slightest.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

@@talkofchrist Your logic is assuming that since Christ took a human form at one time then at one time the Father was a human. This is not logically sound at all. Taking a human form is completely different from being a human. In this conversation with you I am taking a digital form. Am I then no longer my human self? If I was to create an intelligent entity, than exactly represented me, entirely within the digital space am I then no longer my human self? You are making assumptions and then deriding those that don't agree with your assumptions.

[@talkofchrist]

@@uncorrelatedmormonism Those are not my assumptions at all. You have "assumed" my assumptions all day, and every one has been wrong.

[@talkofchrist]

@@uncorrelatedmormonism I NEVER assumed that "since Christ took a human form at one time then at one time the Father was a human."

[@zrosix2240]

This was also a time when Joseph was very much in the academic sphere of religion rather than the spiritual. It’s unsurprising if Joseph’s ego superseded his desire for actual divine truth, and he was more confident in the theories he was coming up with than he was trusting in God to reveal these truths to him. He never claimed it was revelation, but he was very confident in the fact he was right. I think Islam has had a major impact on how prophets are perceived, as being infallible spokesmen of God. However the truth is, just like you and I develop our own, often false theories on the character and nature of God and heaven, so did he. Just because God has used Joseph as an instrument to speak, does not mean joseph is always being used as an instrument of God to speak. More often than not, he’s a man coming to the same conclusions we come to. We also have the same revelations joseph received. How can we say joseph shouldn’t make these mistakes, when we ourselves make these mistakes with the very same tools he possessed? Why do we believe joseph had some secret hidden knowledge that no one else had? His revelations are published. He is not in on some secret we were left out of. So if we can forgive eachother for silly theological conclusions, we should be able to forgive him too

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Yes this is very true. Even today people flock around those who have had special experience in the past hoping that something will rub off on them. It is really like we assume that once somehow has an experience then they will always have it, which is of course not true. Based on the language it does seem that Joseph was legitimately teaching what he thought was truth, but certainly that doesn't make it truth. "that I may set forth things that are true and that can easily be comprehended and which shall carry the testimony to your hearts" " I calculate to edify you with the simple truths of heaven" "If I show verily that I have the truth of God" "I know that my testimony is true" "I have the truth and l am at the defiance of the world to contradict it."

[@SirKn1ght47]

I appreciate the research, but am still left unconvinced that this discourse is much in error regarding the history of the Father. First, I get that a lot of this doesn’t make sense (“why would God need to x y z?”), but I don’t believe it all needs to, at least not on this side of the veil. Isaiah comments that God’s ways aren’t our ways, and that the pottery has no reason to rebuke the potter; why would the pottery accuse the potter unless the potter did something unintelligible to the pottery? Second, a few of these arguments seem like they would have likewise reduced Christ’s teachings to rambling or opinions: “Eat his flesh and drink his blood? The scriptures don’t say that! In fact they say the opposite, that blood is forbidden to be eaten!” “Well from a certain point of view, in a symbolic sense-“ “Look at that mental gymnastics, that’s ridiculous! Words have meanings, and his words are blasphemous!” It’s a harsh comparison, I apologize, but it shows how I understood some of the arguments here. If it’s a new doctrine, and it came from God, then checking with God seems preferable to dismissing due to it not matching my current understanding. However, these comments notwithstanding, I still intend to re-read and research this lecture, and see if I can’t make better sense of it (or recognize it as opinion instead of doctrine). Thanks for the refresher! (And hi from Gab, it’s been a while since I’ve checked in there) XD

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Great to hear from you and your opinions. Yes I do agree that it gets a little complicated merging new revelation with existing doctrine. Essentially we have 3 choices anytime we hear something new: 1. Reject outright 2. Make existing doctrine more nuanced to fit the new idea 3. Reject the previous doctrine in favor of the new. It honestly is very complicated determining the correct choice. I don't think however that just because Joseph said something then that makes it true. Even if he really wanted it to be true.

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

I am no longer certain about the first two concerning doctrines but number 3 is total BS. Children who died will be given the opportunity to grow up the same as anyone else. I would sure like to know the other 24 questionable doctrines are.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

I was afraid of making a 10 hour video. 😊 Not everything is as questionable. One of them was baptism being required. This makes sense, but it probably isn't exactly required in all cases. I could probably make a follow up with all the new points and quick for/against scriptural points.

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

@@uncorrelatedmormonism I would like very much to see a follow up. Thanks.

[@Seek_Ye_Shall_Find]

I have been wanting a video on this particular discourse. Thank you so much for taking the time! Extremely helpful information.

[@icecreamladydriver1606]

@@Seek_Ye_Shall_Find It was a good one.

[@peterhook2258]

allow me to assist. With multiple mortal probations on this or other realms, in the resurrection we will have more than one body.....now, we do not want nor can some understand having several minds or consciousnesses. Just like one hand can feel hot water while the other feels cold so can we have full being in numerous. Innumerous bodies. Now then ...I oft encountered this dilemma how is it , if there is multiple mortal probations that there can be resurrection and even relations between eternal partners....the concepts of kabbalah...soul bodies from which numerous spirits emerge and also that we have many bodies in the resurrection. To the degree we currently keep this estate will affect the level we bring this "I" into eternity. For this to work I see there must be a way to seal together or recreate new soul bodies or ....group soul body so that the relationships forged are united and acting as one....like...well like the holy spirit does for the Father , Son and Holy Spirit. In this way a child can still keep their form and bring it into the eternities and also still experience adulthood in other forms...hmmmm. This multiple body during the resurrection was confirmed by a Kabbalistic Jewish teacher and makes multiple mortal probation, different bodies in the resurrection and even different relationships in the resurrection work, as we become One as the Father and Son are one and as Yeshua prayed the apostles would be "One with me" as "I am one with thee. This fiery spirit is infinite drops of fire and no speck is smaller than any other... a part of infinity is still well...infinity. This infinite Spirit takes human form for us humans and each drop has also a human form within the drop of fire. Now when the fiery source "stamps" any portion of itself to speak and act as itself, that thing stamped is "One" with the heart mind and experience of the whole while retaining its individualistic form in the world of limits. So...we have Christ as our Father and his Father as our Father and God. Downlines have no bearing if the stamp of the Highest is upon one. And of course this stamp is removed if "a god representative" were to be disobedient and also of course the spirit would redeem all its children regardless of the success or eternal damnation of the form above one form. The issue is this....conception. Once we enter this realm, most or at least many cannot conceive of the impossible eternal mechanics of eternal life. Would we expect an ant to understand human existence and life...surely not. Peace.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

There is certainly a ton we don't know. I am not sure is MMP is real, however something like it has to be real. For instance, we are eternal beings who are going to have eternal "challenges". We are calling our current challenge a mortality, however after this is complete then it may be something else. Maybe a "mortality" of a different kind. There is no way we can learn all there is to learn from a single life. I doubt for our entire existence this is a once and done type of event.

[@Kristy_not_Kristine]

I'm suspicious of any "record" from Clayton, Richards, or Woodruff... seeing how they have changed the documents to "fit the new order of things" under Brigham. I didn't recognize the other guys name, the one who was a professional recorder from England.... did he follow Brigham to Utah and become a plyg?

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

I understand what you mean. However this is exactly like saying I will only accept something if it came through "approved" sources. Bullock did follow Brigham. Numerous publications were critical of the discourse though, while Joseph was alive. So either Brigham made it all up and Joseph was a complete idiot or Joseph gave the discourse. The more I think about the "It's all Brigham's fault" concept. The more I think that if it is true then Joseph must have been completely oblivious along with the rest of the church.

[@zrosix2240]

I think the 20,000 witnesses attests to the fact it was a real talk

[@DangerMountain]

To call it the King Follett Discourse is a real disservice. I submit that it would be more accurate to be called, Becoming your own Lucifer (god of this world). After all, it's why we ware Satan's apron over the "priesthood" robes, right? I believe that by this time, Joseph had fully embraced kabbalahism, like his father before him, and was teaching a form of it to his ignorant followers.

[@uncorrelatedmormonism]

Certainly the Nauvoo Joseph was totally different from the Kirtland or Palmyra Joseph.

[@ajboyle]

Remember how God/Moses offered to the children of Israel to see his face and sanctify them...and they refused? After that, God gave the law of Moses through Moses, which was a lower law and to their damnation. Because they asked for it. Moses delivered that lower law, from God. And nobody faults Moses personally for doing that. Even though the initial offering was to give them a fullness. If you can see that, can you see how this latter day "restoration" was a repeat of the same thing? Jacob 4:14