confused on importance of KFD

[Lstinthwrld]

I am hoping someone can shed some light on the subject of the King Follet discourse for me. As an outsider looking in it seems that the KFD encompasses a lot of the teachings that are taught in the church today but I get told it is not cannon and therefore not valid as doctrine. I would like to know what are the differences between the KFD and accepted church doctrine and if it is considered as one of Joseph smiths more important sermons why isn't it doctrine?

Thank you in advance.

Steve

[Elohel]

I believe this has been covered in a recent thread, but here's my .02.

The KFD was the first time the doctrine of "man's divine potential" was taught publicly.

A man by the name of King Follet died and his eulogy was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is what we have today as the King Follet Discourse. Although the KFD teaches many things Latter-Day Saints hold true today, Joseph Smith died shortly after giving it and was unable to correct any mistakes he might have made while giving it. Since the Prophet could not verify the details of that recorded sermon (By the way, was recorded by hand by only one man) it could never be canonized.

The doctrine of 'god in embryo' so to speak was not solidified at this time. It would still be distilled from the heavens to later Prophets such as Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith - who would go on to solidify this doctrine into the integral truth we have today.

Since the Prophet could not have given it the 'rubber stamp' so to speak, it could not be accepted as Church doctrine in that form. Now if Brigham Young would have said "The King Follet discourse is completely true in it's entirety" then it would be considered doctrine, but he didn't. No Prophet has ever given it the 'rubber stamp'.

It's simply not doctrine because he didn't have the opportunity to make sure it was completely correct before the Lord. Modern Prophets today write their sermons before they are given and they take them before the Lord to make sure they are wholly true.

For further light, as well as a good reference. I would invite you to read "Religion 345, Presidents of the Church student manual" for the LDS Church's Institute of Religion pages 88-90.

I hope that answered your question!

[Lstinthwrld]

I believe this has been covered in a recent thread, but here's my .02.

The KFD was the first time the doctrine of "man's divine potential" was taught publicly.

A man by the name of King Follet died and his eulogy was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is what we have today as the King Follet Discourse. Although the KFD teaches many things Latter-Day Saints hold true today, Joseph Smith died shortly after giving it and was unable to correct any mistakes he might have made while giving it. Since the Prophet could not verify the details of that recorded sermon (By the way, was recorded by hand by only one man) it could never be canonized.

The doctrine of 'god in embryo' so to speak was not solidified at this time. It would still be distilled from the heavens to later Prophets such as Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith - who would go on to solidify this doctrine into the integral truth we have today.

Since the Prophet could not have given it the 'rubber stamp' so to speak, it could not be accepted as Church doctrine in that form. Now if Brigham Young would have said "The King Follet discourse is completely true in it's entirety" then it would be considered doctrine, but he didn't. No Prophet has ever given it the 'rubber stamp'.

It's simply not doctrine because he didn't have the opportunity to make sure it was completely correct before the Lord. Modern Prophets today write their sermons before they are given and they take them before the Lord to make sure they are wholly true.

For further light, as well as a good reference. I would invite you to read "Religion 345, Presidents of the Church student manual" for the LDS Church's Institute of Religion pages 88-90.

I hope that answered your question!

this is a site April 7, 1844 I found that shows five transcriptions of the discourse. I had always heard that more than one person recorded it.

If it was never rubber stamped why is it taught at all aside of an interesting side note to Joseph Smiths prophecy.

[Elohel]

I am so glad I was mistaken! I never knew there were more than one account of the sermon! Wonderful, I can't wait to read it! I have only read the 'Times and Seasons' account.

And to answer your question, the KFD is not taught anywhere in any chapel or meetinghouse in the world. Some of its ideas and precepts are, as they are true, but I sincerely hope nobody ever pulls out the KFD to teach from or site, as it is not official doctrine as given.

[Lstinthwrld]

Your right I should have said some of the points in the KFD. The missionaries were over sunday night and they were going over some stuff I recognized from the KFD so I am a little confused on the whole issue. I have friend who is a lifelong LDS member and he said to just stick to canon but it seems to me that a lot of the stuff that is believed necessary for salvation is taught in the KFD and not found in canon. So confused! Help.

[Elohel]

The missionaries were going over points contained in the KFD? I surely hope not, that was never in Preach My Gospel!

Anyway,

There is a difference between salvation and exaltation. The idea that man is a 'god in embryo' is not necessary for salvation in any degree. The idea that man is a 'god in embryo' IS necessary for EXALTATION in the Celestial Kingdom.

The idea that we have a divine heritage and a divine potential can be found in countless Church publications. LDS.org searches can go a long way for you here.

Now why the missionaries are teaching this concept, I am not sure.

Here is a good place to start: http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/materials/gospel/Start%20Here_01.pdf

Unit 10, Chapter 47 covers most of this in basic detail. They also site a source that might be pertinent for your needs, 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p 345-348'

-----------------------

SIDE NOTE: In researching the source, I found it at BOAP, and it seems that the King Follet Discourse was republished in the book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' I was taught that the sermon itself isn't canonized scripture, but apparently some things he said in this discourse were validated by later Prophets and Apostles. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html

One correction: The book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' is just a compilation of historical documents by the Church historian at the time: Joseph F. Smith. The things contained in this publication may or may not be official "doctrine". I need to do a bit more research. My current opinion is that the King Follet Discourse contains many points of truth, but also may contain some ideas that are not completely valid doctrine. I assume that certain parts are quoted because they are accepted as truth without error.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Elohel
addendum

[Lstinthwrld]

Thank you very much. Yeah they were going over a lot of the principals with me. I have some formal theological training so I guess they figured I could handle it. We were going over the concept of eternal progression and I have to say they are very knowledgeable young men. The type that gives me hope for the future of organized religion. They brought me a copy of 'the teachings of the Prophet Joseph smith' Haven't read it yet though.

[Elohel]

I'm not far off my mission myself, and a convert too. I'm glad they're keeping you busy. I hope you get it all sorted out one day, pray until you can't and then pray some more.

[Hemidakota]

I am hoping someone can shed some light on the subject of the King Follet discourse for me. As an outsider looking in it seems that the KFD encompasses a lot of the teachings that are taught in the church today but I get told it is not cannon and therefore not valid as doctrine. I would like to know what are the differences between the KFD and accepted church doctrine and if it is considered as one of Joseph smiths more important sermons why isn't it doctrine?

Thank you in advance.

Steve

I am hoping someone can shed some light on the subject of the King Follet discourse for me. As an outsider looking in it seems that the KFD encompasses a lot of the teachings that are taught in the church today but I get told it is not cannon and therefore not valid as doctrine. I would like to know what are the differences between the KFD and accepted church doctrine and if it is considered as one of Joseph smiths more important sermons why isn't it doctrine?

Thank you in advance.

Steve

Adding to those General Authorities who received a confirmation with this little known gem by the Prophet Joseph Smith, not much have changed from the last printing of this sermon and clearly is still taught and reference throughout the church and publications.

We have members who will argue on issues of non-canonized revelations should not be taught but if that is true, even those personal revelations are just as much scripture today as it was with the former prophets. As we know, there is but one priesthood holder in the church who can receive such for the whole church. Most of it, is still not canonize for various reasons. We members who want everything to be canonize for an official seal of approval instead relying on the Spirit to be instructed and receive their own spiritual edification. Or plainer meaning here, they require, sad it may seems, “I do lack the faith to ask GOD directly and require for someone else to instruct me.” I don’t know what they would when communications become disrupted and there is no lines back to the hierarchy of the church to lead them. If we follow the Spirit with exactness, we begin to understand truths that are not written, truths that are written with a greater clarity, in meaning and feel the emotions of those who penned it. Our thoughts will become the same as the Prophet and the Apostles of the Lamb.

Now, it has already been discovered this year, even the Doctrine and Covenants is missing over 25 [i considered] important revelations, which either was prohibited by former prophets from being printed or must of felt the church as whole is not ready for it. I can still remember, even President Joseph Fielding Smith had one of them.

Those who do seek the face of GOD do not really worry over what is not canonized but rely on GOD to instruct them personally. The rely on the Spirit to help them to recognized revelations ‘between the lines’ with earlier works, which will only edified their soul unto salvation. This should be our goal. This should be our desire to seek as Peter spoke of in 2nd Peter chapter 1.

The best course for you, read it and then ask for your own confirmation from the Holy Spirit. This will be a great blessing to you as it will lead you to other truths.

[beefche]

Lst, you mention meeting with the missionaries. Have you gone to church yet? For all 3 meetings on Sunday? I think this would give you a good idea of what is being taught.

I do not remember ever being taught the King Follet discourse. I learned about it from other Mormons in casual conversations. But at church we are taught doctrines as contained in the scriptures.

I'm sure the missionaries taught about the plan of salvation. What happened to us in the pre-mortal life, this life, and the post-mortal life. Not sure if the King Follett discourse follows this or not (haven't read it in a long time). But the plan is taught in the scriptures.

[Misshalfway]

The KFD is not canon, but that doesn't disqualify it from having doctrinal value. It DOES have great value. I can't think of a sermon that opens the mind quite like this one does. But it must be understood in proper context. Understanding what is and isn't canon is an important perspective. Not all revelations from prophets are put into the canon. Not all discourses from prophets are revelations. And not everything that comes out of a prophets mouth is the mind and will of God. I think this perspective is important to understand when evaluating the KFD, among other writings.

Most of the revelations/counsel given from prophets in small group settings are generally only for the people present. In this case, the sermon was given at a funeral. It seems to me to be an opportunity for Joseph to speak his mind publically on some subjects that they Spirit was teaching him privately. I am not sure what to do with the thing other than to appreciate it as it has NOT been made official. Because it hasn't been made official, this makes me wonder if perhaps God isn't ready to open this understanding to everyone -- which is often the case with the mysteries of the eternities.

I think there may be some disagreements among many church members as to how to characterize the KFD with regards to doctrinal validity as there are many versions. Which parts were actually what Joseph said and which parts were missed or misrecorded? There is no doubt that the subject is new and paradigm shifting and incredibly ground shaking. Some think it should be considered as the revelation in the D&C for example and I have seen them argue on this forum as such. Others, such as myself, think it is tiny peek into things we just don't know enough about yet. Cool....valueable.....doctrinal.....but not fully understood. And there is room for both perspectives and lots in between as God allows us to chew on things like this as he points us back to more important ideas such as the Atonement. I think there are questions as to how much of these subjects even Joseph understood properly and I am not sure he explained himself as well as he could have. I personally think of it like maybe Ben Franklin learning a few tidbits on electricity, but perhaps only possessing a glimpse into the breadth of what he was on to and I wish that I could hear the explanation from his own lips and not thru the imperfect scribes who tried to capture it.

I think when one evaluates the KFD, one must do so with the help of the Holy Spirit to understand properly what is being taught and what is perhaps the ideas or faults of men. And I think because this discourse falls into the merky dawn of our understanding and because there have been no official revelations given to the public for official consumption, we are left to see it for what it is. The canon is over here and the KFD is over there. But valuable and helpful for the person who is ready to understand and explore the topic and one who is ready, as Hemi says to be taught from on high.

Don't worry so much about the KFD. It is what it is. And it's not what it's not.

[bytebear]

Here's the problem, I see. Has anyone actually read the whole discourse? It's fairly long (so long in fact, that the church published it in two separate Ensign issues). I would say, before you pick and choose what you think was taught, it would be wise to read the entire discourse. What's interesting is Smith doesn't just tell the congregation what is, but he tells them to search their hearts to discover the nature of God for themselves, and that only through personal revelation can we really understand the nature of God.

Here is the entire text:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon Part 1

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon Part 2

[Lstinthwrld]

The KFD is not canon, but that doesn't disqualify it from having doctrinal value. It DOES have great value. I can't think of a sermon that opens the mind quite like this one does. But it must be understood in proper context. Understanding what is and isn't canon is an important perspective. Not all revelations from prophets are put into the canon. Not all discourses from prophets are revelations. And not everything that comes out of a prophets mouth is the mind and will of God. I think this perspective is important to understand when evaluating the KFD, among other writings.

Most of the revelations/counsel given from prophets in small group settings are generally only for the people present. In this case, the sermon was given at a funeral. It seems to me to be an opportunity for Joseph to speak his mind publically on some subjects that they Spirit was teaching him privately. I am not sure what to do with the thing other than to appreciate it as it has NOT been made official. Because it hasn't been made official, this makes me wonder if perhaps God isn't ready to open this understanding to everyone -- which is often the case with the mysteries of the eternities.

I think there may be some disagreements among many church members as to how to characterize the KFD with regards to doctrinal validity as there are many versions. Which parts were actually what Joseph said and which parts were missed or misrecorded? There is no doubt that the subject is new and paradigm shifting and incredibly ground shaking. Some think it should be considered as the revelation in the D&C for example and I have seen them argue on this forum as such. Others, such as myself, think it is tiny peek into things we just don't know enough about yet. Cool....valueable.....doctrinal.....but not fully understood. And there is room for both perspectives and lots in between as God allows us to chew on things like this as he points us back to more important ideas such as the Atonement. I think there are questions as to how much of these subjects even Joseph understood properly and I am not sure he explained himself as well as he could have. I personally think of it like maybe Ben Franklin learning a few tidbits on electricity, but perhaps only possessing a glimpse into the breadth of what he was on to and I wish that I could hear the explanation from his own lips and not thru the imperfect scribes who tried to capture it.

I think when one evaluates the KFD, one must do so with the help of the Holy Spirit to understand properly what is being taught and what is perhaps the ideas or faults of men. And I think because this discourse falls into the merky dawn of our understanding and because there have been no official revelations given to the public for official consumption, we are left to see it for what it is. The canon is over here and the KFD is over there. But valuable and helpful for the person who is ready to understand and explore the topic and one who is ready, as Hemi says to be taught from on high.

Don't worry so much about the KFD. It is what it is. And it's not what it's not.

I dont worry about it much just trying to figure out how it fits in thats all.

By the way Misshalfway...2.5 carrots colorless platinum setting ....

[Misshalfway]

Thx, Bythebear. Every time I engage in a discussion about the KFD I alway wish I had time to go back and read. I have read two versions, and scanned a third. I appreciate your comments about Joseph's invitations to be taught by the Lord. It is that way on so much of our gospel.

y the way Misshalfway...2.5 carrots colorless platinum setting ....

LOL.....well, diamonds are a girls best friend.

[Lstinthwrld]

Thx, Bythebear. Every time I engage in a discussion about the KFD I alway wish I had time to go back and read. I have read two versions, and scanned a third. I appreciate your comments about Joseph's invitations to be taught by the Lord. It is that way on so much of our gospel.

LOL.....well, diamonds are a girls best friend.

I put up link in post #3 that goes over the 5 sources of the transcription. Kind of neat to see how each different person heard what was being said.

[Misshalfway]

One of the blessings of today is that we can get the prophets teachings word for word. We don't necessarily have the need for scribes anymore at least for GC. I love going back to the words of Neal A Maxwell for example. Talk about stuff that really makes you think.....and search your soul at the same time. I miss dear Elder Maxwell.

[Just_A_Guy]

Does the current Priesthood/Relief Society study manual (on the teachings of Joseph Smith) cite the KFD anywhere?

[Elohel]

Does the current Priesthood/Relief Society study manual (on the teachings of Joseph Smith) cite the KFD anywhere?

Yes, it does. See my earlier posts. 'Gospel Principles' cites 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' which contains the full KFD from which it directly quotes.

[NeuroTypical]

Side note, but this thread helped me come to understand that the King Follett Discourse, and the Wentworth Letter, are two different things.

(I probably should have know that years ago, but I'm a bit thick in the skull...)

LM

[Elohel]

We have members who will argue on issues of non-canonized revelations should not be taught but if that is true, even those personal revelations are just as much scripture today as it was with the former prophets. As we know, there is but one priesthood holder in the church who can receive such for the whole church. Most of it, is still not canonize for various reasons. We members who want everything to be canonize for an official seal of approval instead relying on the Spirit to be instructed and receive their own spiritual edification. Or plainer meaning here, they require, sad it may seems, “I do lack the faith to ask GOD directly and require for someone else to instruct me.” I don’t know what they would when communications become disrupted and there is no lines back to the hierarchy of the church to lead them. If we follow the Spirit with exactness, we begin to understand truths that are not written, truths that are written with a greater clarity, in meaning and feel the emotions of those who penned it. Our thoughts will become the same as the Prophet and the Apostles of the Lamb.

-------

Those who do seek the face of GOD do not really worry over what is not canonized but rely on GOD to instruct them personally. The rely on the Spirit to help them to recognized revelations ‘between the lines’ with earlier works, which will only edified their soul unto salvation. This should be our goal. This should be our desire to seek as Peter spoke of in 2nd Peter chapter 1.

I wanted to thank you personally, Hemidakota, for helping me to understand better how to see these modern revelations. I will be sure to ask God for better understanding as I read these types of discourses and lectures, even though I fear I might get mixed signals and think something is true that really isn't, which is more common than I would like^_^

[rameumptom]

Doctrine is teaching that is well understood and is accepted and openly taught by the current Brethren. One discourse, even as good as the KFD, just leaves many open questions about what it means. This is especially true with a discourse where there are five differing versions.

We also have teachings, which are open to the members to consider and to use with wisdom. But these are not binding upon the Church, nor upon the members. Each member is encouraged to seek personal revelation, and if the Spirit witnesses a teaching to that person, he/she is bound to live by it. However, it isn't binding upon others who have not received such a witness.

Doctrine, OTOH, IS binding upon the Church. This is one of the cool things about Mormonism. We aren't boxed in by a bunch of creeds and teachings. We have a few clear and core doctrine that all are expected to believe and follow (see the baptismal questions), and the rest is based upon individual revelation in regards what is binding upon the individual.

[bmy-]

It's the defining piece of mormon literature and I like to call it 'quasi-doctrine'. It's been quoted by prophets, apostles, general authorities, seen in the Ensign, Church news letters, handbooks (priesthood!)

To put it simply: If it did not cover such a broad spectrum of challenging subjects it would be binding doctrine. Besides.. the Church has a firm 'milk before meat' policy.. even if I disagree with it It's much like the Apocrypha I think -- you can learn alot -- but you're on your own and the Church isn't going to hold your hand through it.

Edited August 27, 2009 by bmy-

[lilered]

Joseph Smith taught:

We gain knowledge of eternal truths a little at a time; we can learn all things as fast as we are able to bear them.

“It is not wisdom that we should have all knowledge at once presented before us; but that we should have a little at a time; then we can comprehend it.”22

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.”23

Joseph Smith and his counselors in the First Presidency gave the following instructions to the Saints who were gathering to Nauvoo: “To those who … can assist in this great work, we say, let them come to this place; by so doing they will not only assist in the rolling on of the Kingdom, but be in a situation where they can have the advantages of instruction from the Presidency and other authorities of the Church, and rise higher and higher in the scale of intelligence until they can ‘comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge.’ [Ephesians 3:18–19.]”24

“God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him … from the least to the greatest [see Jeremiah 31:34].”25

[Hemidakota]

I truly marvel on how this great prophet - Joseph Smith.

[HiJolly]

How?

HJ