john doe Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Lattelady, Yes, this exchange is almost surreal. Why did you assign the word 'offended' to some of us here? Why are you assigning my response that I was not offended to mocking you? Why are you and Desirexnoel picking on me? Can't we all just get along? Seriously, I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas with you, it has been most enlightening. Unfortunately I won't be able to play with you for a while since I am going camping. If you like, we can pick this up where we left off in a couple days. Come on people, only 26 posts left to hit 300, remember, if we hit 300 by midnight, everyone gets a prize! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawazu Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Lattelady,Yes, this exchange is almost surreal. Why did you assign the word 'offended' to some of us here? Why are you assigning my response that I was not offended to mocking you? Why are you and Desirexnoel picking on me? Can't we all just get along? Seriously, I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas with you, it has been most enlightening. Unfortunately I won't be able to play with you for a while since I am going camping. If you like, we can pick this up where we left off in a couple days.Come on people, only 26 posts left to hit 300, remember, if we hit 300 by midnight, everyone gets a prize!Prize? For free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirexnoel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Lattelady,In post #249 I responded to your claim that I (and others) seem to be offended. I responded that I'm not. Would you like me say say it again? Lattelady,In post #245, you said that I and others seem to be offended. I responded that I am not offended. Would you like me to say it again? Lattelady,I have stated before, and 3 times now in this post alone that I am not offended. I can't speak for all people here, but I am not offended.To the board,I am not, let me repeat, not offended by Lattelady. Carry on. Let's see if we can hit 300 posts on this thread by the end of the day.Mee-OwReligion is a touchy subject. It is good to be careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirexnoel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Lattelady,Yes, this exchange is almost surreal. Why did you assign the word 'offended' to some of us here? Why are you assigning my response that I was not offended to mocking you? Why are you and Desirexnoel picking on me? Can't we all just get along? XD This feels like High School again. *sigh*Seriously, I've enjoyed this exchange of ideas with you, it has been most enlightening. Unfortunately I won't be able to play with you for a while since I am going camping. If you like, we can pick this up where we left off in a couple days. Have fun! I never myself did like camping... Come on people, only 26 posts left to hit 300, remember, if we hit 300 by midnight, everyone gets a prize!What is the prize? Can I eat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I was wondering if it was accepted as true. It's not part of the scriptures, I know, because it was a sermon. But it was preached by the founder of the Church and a Prophet. Is the doctrine/teaching taught within accepted as true by the majority of members?I accept it as true, and so do most of my LDS friends. HiJolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 John doe, no need to pick up a conversation. It's not profitable. But I hope your camping trip is fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawazu Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 But, does the LDS church consider the King Follett Sermon scripture?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generally_Me Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Just getting my word in, for the prize.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I'm on board for a prize. I really, really want a pony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirexnoel Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Just getting my word in, for the prize....Lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 No.If that was the case, I highly doubt any of the former prophets would quote it but that is not the case here. Not being canonize doesn't mean it was not revelation to those in the audience or inspiring to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) bmy, this King Follett Sermon that you've posted, I've seen arguments about it not being canonized. Beyond that question, is this sermon by Joseph Smith widely accepted by the majority of Members? I'm not asking if it's accepted as canonized, but if it's accepted as true.It's quoted frequently in General Conference by the Prophet, Apostles, and GAs, LDS handbooks (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith), and the LDS website. It was given as revelation and binding doctrine by Joseph Smith and I think that qualifies it as doctrine if not 'scripture'. Edited August 22, 2009 by bmy- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 It's quoted frequently in General Conference by the Prophet, Apostles, and GAs, LDS handbooks (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith), and the LDS website. It was given as revelation and binding doctrine by Joseph Smith and I think that qualifies it as doctrine if not 'scripture'. I need to find the reference that I was reading just recently that mentions we shouldn't take the JOD as doctrine. I will search for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 What is the JOD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 It's the Journal of Discourses..and I apologize to bmy..I read King Follett Sermon and thought of the JOD. I truly need a vacation. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawazu Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 It's quoted frequently in General Conference by the Prophet, Apostles, and GAs, LDS handbooks (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith), and the LDS website. It was given as revelation and binding doctrine by Joseph Smith and I think that qualifies it as doctrine if not 'scripture'.Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992)Author: Cannon, Donald Q.The King Follett Discourse is the name given to an address the Prophet Joseph Smith delivered in Nauvoo, Illinois, on April 7, 1844, at a general conference of the Church. It was a commemorative oration for a Church member named King Follett, who had died in an accident on March 9, 1844. The discourse may be one of the Prophet's greatest sermons because of its comprehensive doctrinal teachings. It was his last general conference address, delivered less than three months before he was martyred. Key doctrinal topics in the sermon include the character of God, man's potential to progress in God's likeness, the Creation, and the tie between the living and their progenitors.Joseph Smith delivered the sermon to several thousand people in a grove west of the Nauvoo Temple in a natural amphitheater, where benches and a rostrum had been placed. He spoke for two hours and fifteen minutes. Four experienced scribes took synoptic notes: Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, and Thomas Bullock.The spring of 1844 was a time of tension and turmoil in the Prophet's life. On the one hand, the Church was flourishing in Nauvoo and abroad, construction of the Nauvoo Temple was proceeding apace, and generally men and women were serving in the Church with dedication and effectiveness. On the other hand, apostates, political factions in Illinois and Missouri, and other groups were conspiring against Joseph Smith.Of the kinship between God and man, Joseph Smith taught, "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves" (TPJS, p. 343). "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another" (TPJS, p. 345). Echoing his first vision, the Prophet taught what he called the "great secret": "If the veil were rent today, and…God…[were] to make himself visible,…if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man" (TPJS, p. 345).Creation, he taught, was not by mere fiat or ex nihilo. God's role was to bring harmony to primal, unorganized elements and to "institute laws" whereby weaker intelligences might have the privilege of advancing like himself (TPJS, p. 354).Of man's potential, the Prophet said that even as God is eternal and self-existent, so the intelligence of man is also eternal. The Father has become what he is through eternities of progress. Christ, who did nothing but what he had seen the Father do (cf. John 5:19), followed identical paths and patterns. Since all mankind have a divine Father, they are potential "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ" (TPJS, pp. 346-47; cf. Romans 8:17). In this sense, all the children of God are embryonic gods or goddesses. Obedience to the fulness of the gospel is the perfecting process through which they may go "from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation…until [they] arrive at the station of a God" (TPJS, pp. 346-47).On the link between the living and their progenitors, the Prophet asked, "Is there nothing to be done?-no preparation-no salvation for our fathers and friends who have died without having had the opportunity to obey the decrees of the Son of Man?" (TPJS, p. 355). He answered, "God hath made a provision that every spirit in the eternal world can be…saved unless he has committed [the] unpardonable sin" (TPJS, p. 357). He explained these provisions as they apply both in mortality and in the world beyond. To the mourners, the Prophet testified, "We have reason to have the greatest hope and consolations for our dead of any people on the earth; for we have seen them walk worthily in our midst, and seen them sink asleep in the arms of Jesus; and those who have died in the faith are now in the Celestial Kingdom of God" (TPJS, p. 359).The Prophet indicated some of his concerns: threats on his life, his love of the Saints, the loneliness of leadership ("You never knew my heart"), the wonderment he felt in retrospect ("I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself" [TPJS, p. 361]). He finished with a plea for peace and invoked God's blessing on the assembly.BibliographyCannon, Donald Q. "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective." BYU Studies 18 (Winter 1978):179-92.Cannon, Donald Q., and Larry E. Dahl, eds. The Prophet Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse: A Six-Column Comparison of Original Notes and Amalgamation. Provo, Utah, 1983.Hale, Van. "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse." BYU Studies 18 (Winter 1978):209-225.From: King Follett Discourse - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lstinthwrld Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 BibliographyCannon, Donald Q. "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective." BYU Studies 18 (Winter 1978):179-92.Cannon, Donald Q., and Larry E. Dahl, eds. The Prophet Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse: A Six-Column Comparison of Original Notes and Amalgamation. Provo, Utah, 1983.Hale, Van. "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse." BYU Studies 18 (Winter 1978):209-225.From: King Follett Discourse - The Encyclopedia of MormonismThis is interesting. Is the King Follet discorse mormon doctrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawazu Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 This is interesting. Is the King Follet discorse mormon doctrine?It is not one of the Standard Works. If indeed it is so influential, why hasn't the King Follett Discourse been canonized? I am curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robcaldwell Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 If a person makes it to the Celestial Kingdom, he/she will become a God/Goddess. Not to take the place of Father or Christ, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lstinthwrld Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 It is not one of the Standard Works. If indeed it is so influential, why hasn't the King Follett Discourse been canonized? I am curious.Me too. I run into this being quoted often and when I use some of the information in it I am told it isn't valid as canonized doctrine. This is one of the issues that confuses and frustrates me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens" -- Joseph Smith (spoken with authority)If God is a man.. how could he create His race?It isn't anymore confusing than how God could exist as God since eternity by himself. Either way, you have the issue of what the beginning was for either one God, or a family of Gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 It is not one of the Standard Works. If indeed it is so influential, why hasn't the King Follett Discourse been canonized? I am curious.Because LDS are not interested in canonizing everything. Terryl Givens gave a great discourse on Joseph Smith during the 2005 Library of Congress Symposium on Joseph Smith. In it, he explained how most other religions use creeds to box themselves into a specific set of beliefs. For Joseph Smith, it was all open to be changed by new revelation, except for the core doctrines revealed by God.We have very few core doctrines that are well defined. Most of the teachings are left uncanonized, in order to leave them non-binding upon the members, so they can choose what to believe via their own personal revelation on topics.In this way, both the person who believes in the KFD, and those who do not, are all in equal standing in the Church. So are those who believe in theories of evolution and Creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I wouldn't really say a "family of Gods" as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all one God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 rameumptom, you mention most other relions who use creeds to "box them in" to a specific set of beliefs. [the Articles of Faith are creeds of some kind, aren't they?] I believe in the importance of ABSOLUTE truth. If you leave many things open to members' own interpretation, and it's not based on a foundation of absolute truth, it can go in dangerous directions. And I'm not sure that every member would agree on your take of canonized/non-canonized scripture. But truth is truth, and there's no way around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) It isn't anymore confusing than how God could exist as God since eternity by himself. Either way, you have the issue of what the beginning was for either one God, or a family of Gods.He has not been a God for all eternity. Not if you take the KFD as doctrine at least. Unless by God you mean 'man'? If that were the case then -we- would also have been Gods for all eternity (using 'God' as our species).When I say "he has not been a God" I mean he has not always been at the station of a God. Edited August 22, 2009 by bmy- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts