On the 7th April 1844 Joseph Smith gave one of the most important discourses of Mormonism. Join Tom, Mike, Glenn and John Larsen for the discussion.
The King Follet Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text
Support Mormon Expression
Subscribe
Be a part of the podcast!
Call and leave your comments for future podcasts, and you can be part of the action! 801-906-6722. You can also email comments or audio to mail@mormonexpression.com.
Friends of Mormon Expression
- A Marvelous Work and a Blunder
- Adventures in the Mormon Underground
- Cauthers Counseling
- Clobber Blog
- Cultural Mormon Cafeteria
- Happy Lost Sheep
- Irresistible (Dis)Grace
- Koda Think Tank
- LDS Revelations Blog
- Main Street Plaza
- Mild Mannered Musings (Chris Smith)
- Mormon Gulag
- Mormon Mission Stories
- Mormon Stories
- Mormon Think
- Seth Payne's Blog
- SLC Freethinking Examiner
- Stay LDS
- Swearing Elders
- The Faithful Dissident
- The River of Heraclitus
- Third-Wave Mormon
- This Week in Mormons
- _Want to be a friend of Mormon Discussions?
Useful Links
- Deseret News' Mormon Times
- Dialogue Magazine
- Exmormon.org (RFM)
- FAIR Apologetic Site
- For Those Who Wonder
- Further Light And Knowledge (The Foyer)
- LDS Church News Official Site
- LDS Church official Outreach Page
- Lds Church Official Site
- Maxwell Institute (FARMS)
- Meridian Magazine
- Mormon Apologetic & Discussion Board (MAD)
- Mormon Archipelago
- Mormon Discussions Board
- New Order Mormon
- Post Mormon
- Sunstone Magazine
Follow Us on Facebook
Mormon Expression on Facebook
I hear the comment that John made about the doctrines in the King Follet discourse being “beautiful.” I used to think the same, but I sometimes wonder, “What would this even look like?”
What will all be doing for eternity? Why do we say “families are forever”? Who will I be with — my parents or my kids? (And if my kids, why don’t they get to be with theirs?) Maybe the saying should be, “Couples are forever.” But, then, if there are widows and widowers who remarry… Oh, never mind.
I have the answer and it comes from Joseph himself: “And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.”
In other words, we’ll all be on Facebook: Celestial Version.
I find that any version of the after life only works if you don’t think about it very hard.
I’m going to out on a limb here and offer up my thoughts on what Eternity will be like and why we it generally doesn’t sound appealing.
Years ago I got divorced and spent a few years “alone”, lived in a different state then my parents and most my family at that time too. Although I got use to it on certain days like holidays and such I started to recognize the powerful effect of not being connected with others, and wished to with them more. All the normal stuff….
Forward to my life now. I’m re-married and have some kiddos and spend lots more time around my family (we lived by them last few years). But it seemed like every week there was a kids birthday party to go to, and I quickly grew sick of it. Most of time they are extremely boring. The adults sit on couches and eat pizza and drink soda. That’s basically the formula for all our family get gatherings.
One could say I idealized what the experience would be like and then the reality just didn’t meet my expectations, etc…
However, when I see pictures of those parties I feel a sense of joy and fondness about them. That I didn’t feel that at the time, but do now looking back.
OK, I’ve bored you enough with this story and am finally getting to my point. We can’t even recognize the joy in our own life very well because we’re stuck in time , but when we have those brief moments of being able to grasp eternity we “see it”. That’s what I think Eternity will be like, being able to feel the joy of our expectations of the future and joy of immediate experiences right when we are them.
Carey,
I like what you had to say here. Thanks for sharing that perspective.
Mike
As usual this was wonderful podcast. Throughout the podcast there seemed to be some question as to the venue for this speech. Joseph Smith was asked to give the address at King Follet’s funeral which was to be held with full Masonic honors. However, Joseph fell ill and was unable to give his prepared speech. Having already prepared the speech, Joseph Smith instead gave at at the April Conference of the church in 1844.
Thanks for the clarification.
That makes sense — I wondered why Joseph gave the talk a month after King died.
Mike,
A question for you bro:
When we were talking about the babies on thrones, and you said that Joseph Smith later corrected the misconception, you also said a few things that puzzled me. One was that he preached this at other times, and the second was that he was probably just reporting what he had seen in visions.
Well, if he was just reporting (on multiple occasions) what he saw in visions, why do you think he (or others) corrected it later? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
john, i snorted water not once, but twice, while listening to this episode. 1. calculus class with leroy, 2. the look on mike’s face when he sees the six-year old God.
great dynamics on this one, all of you did outstanding.
not snorted (like cocaine)… i guessed choked is the word i was looking for…
Best line of the whole second half:
“How old is a rock?”
“Depends on the rock!”
And I end up with a screen full of iced tea. Thanks ever so much, guys!
Excellent episodes. And I didn’t even need ibuprofen.
jax
This conversation emphasized what I have thought for a long time:
As we move away from these juicy, unique, and far out doctrines and become more palatable to the world and mainstream christianity, we lose our uniqueness, our peculiarity, and become correlated and bland. I think John said pablum.
I couldn’t agree more. This is the stuff we should be exploring in elders quorum and gospel doctrine.
Instead, I have to be satisfied with the side shows in church, because the main event bores me to tears.
If anyone wants to hear the entire King Follett sermon, there is a five-part dramatization on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xzn3Ab75pg
This was a very interesting and entertaining philosophical discussion. The depth of knowledge displayed by the contributors is sometimes astounding. I see now how ignorant of Mormon history I was when I was a member. I have learnt more in these podcasts than I ever did in seminary or church.
At times I was sure I could hear Mike’s ‘Mormon compartment’ in his mind slamming shut after he made each comment. It was interesting to note how Mike deals with the baby God part of the KF discourse. Like any good Mormon, Mike believes what the subsequent prophet, Wilford Woodruff, said on the issue, despite the assertion that Smith was misquoted being very difficult to believe.
The discussion stalled on this issue because Mike seemed to develop selective hearing. Mike later effectively stated that the issue was dead when he reiterated that Woodruff said Smith was misquoted.
Mike, wasn’t Woodruff one of those that took note of the baby-God quote originally, then said Smith was misquoted 40 odd years later? Why did it take 40 years for Woodruff to see this teaching was ridiculous? What of the other witnesses and scribes that noted the same teaching? How do you misinterpret such a unique concept anyway? Baby-Gods sitting on thrones is a very strong image, reinforced several times throughout the teaching. It wasn’t one sentence. I don’t see how anyone could believe such an extensive and detained concept could have been a misquote.
What would it take for rationality to smother an inability to conclude that anything silly or bad came from Joseph Smith?
Sorry Mike, I think you know your stuff – that is to say you know YOUR stuff – very well. I wish you could crack that door open a little and think how you would treat such evidence and your argument if the man speaking of baby-Gods was a Catholic, and the man pretending he never said it was one too.
Mike,
Please help me understand. If someone can accept that some things Brother Joseph said in addresses like this one as him speaking as a man or miss speaking. Such as the babies on thrones comment, than why on earth to you believe anything said in conference or by a GA today could also not be the same?
I guess this question is not specifically pointed at you or to the King Follet discourse, but there seems to so many examples of things declared by prophets and accepted as doctrine at the time that we Mormons do not buy today, yet most Mormons are appalled at the idea of questioning anything said by a GA of today. How does this jive? I really struggle understand how people I see as intelligent some how make this work in their head.
“This was before the veil, this is why you don’t remember…”
Cracked me up.
Good stuff, glad I found this place.
The King Follet Discourse has been printed in the Ensign in two parts; April and May 1971.
I was curious to see if they included the baby-God teaching. They didn’t. They censored those parts of the discourse, and inserted words Smith did not say that alter the teaching. The Ensign indicated these insertions only with square parentheses. They added no explanation as to why the discourse was censored or altered, and did not claim the original was misinterpreted by the scribes. Below is the extract from the May 1971 edition found at http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=8b9a945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
‘A question may be asked—“Will mothers have their children in eternity?” Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaiting 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 [in the grave]; it will still be the child, in the same precise form [when it rises] as it appeared before it died out of its mother’s arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. … ‘
Three periods indicate the subject continues, however two sentences have been censored that state children will not grow after death but will remain as infants reigning in glory on thrones. The next paragraph begins “I will leave this subject here, and make a few remarks on the subject of baptism.” This editing makes it appear that Joseph Smith had nothing more to add concerning babies who have died. This is deceptive.
BYU edits this part of the discourse further again, reducing the teaching to ” Mothers, you shall have your children, for they shall have eternal life. Their debt is paid; no damnation awaits them, for they are in the spirit….”. ( mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm ) Again, a sting of periods indicate there is something more Joseph said, which the Mormon untermenschen apparently have no right to read.
Who are these people who decide that the teachings of early prophets are too embarrassing to publish in full? I was taught to believe only a prophet contradict or add to earlier revelations and doctrine.
This was a great podcast. I’m on my third time through.
Best quote ever: John upon waking up in heaven and realizing that Joseph Smith really was a prophet, “Well, I’ll be damned.”
Keep up the good work.
On this:
“Best quote ever: John upon waking up in heaven and realizing that Joseph Smith really was a prophet, “Well, I’ll be damned.”’
All I have to both that comment and John’s is: “Ditto!”
I felt like I was suffocating for a while listening to this podcast. John, I felt you weren’t calling the sh*t out enough but then you made the calculus class crack. An hour of frustration released into hysterical laughter. Finally, some rational perspective was placed on this subject. How Mike really believes this is the one true god’s one true prophet spewing the one true doctrine is beyond comprehension.
A 6yr old God sure would explain why God acts the way he does in the Old Testiment.
Jake, that is an excellent point. It would explain a whole lot.
NOTE: Nothing to do with the discussion above.
I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed these two episodes and just wanted to say one of my favorite parts were the rare and occasional mentions of the Catholic Church, even disregarding the flippant (and full of incorrect understanding) mention of Papal Infallibility. I have been a listener since day one and have always been curious why all comparison and thoughts on other religions were based on the evangelical/Protestant faith traditions. I think that Catholicism has much more “meat” as you call it and could provide a fascinating comparisons, etc… much more so than evangelicalism, which you guys called anemic in these podcasts. Just my thoughts.
Thanks for all the work you put into this!
In addition to Elder Woodruff’s testimony is that of a few other witnesses that straighten out the “child God” misunderstanding:
Sister M. Isabella Horne said: “In conversation with the Prophet Joseph Smith once in Nauvoo, the subject of children in the resurrection was broached. I believe it was Sister Leonora Cannon Taylor’s house. She had just lost one of her children, and I had also lost one previously. The Prophet wanted to comfort us, and he told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers. he said that children would be raised in the resurrection just as we laid them down, and that they would obtain all the intelligence necessary to occupy thrones, principalities and powers. The idea that i got from what he said was that children would grow and develop in the Millennium, and that the mothers would have the pleasure of training and caring for them, which they had been deprived of in this life.
This was sometime after the King Follet funeral, at which I was present.”
Brother Joseph Horne said:
“I heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say that mothers should receive their children just as they laid them down, and that they would have the privilege of doing for them what they could not do here, the Prophet remarked: “How would you know them if you did not receive them as you laid them down?” I also got the idea that children would grow and develop after the resurrection, and that the mothers would care for them and train them.”
In the Improvement Era for June, 1904, President Joseph F. Smith in an editorial on the Resurrection said:
“The body will come forth as it was laid to rest, for there is no growth or development in the grave. As it is laid down, so will it arise, and changes to perfection will come by the law of restitution. but the spirit will continue to expand and develop, and the body, after the resurrection will develop to the full stature of man.”
This is what Joseph Smith taught, and anything contrary to this is false. Children will come forth in the resurrection as they died, and then over time receive a fulness to their stature.
Regarding Gordon B. Hinckley’s public “dodge” on exaltation, there’s an interesting passage in “Mormon America” by Richard & Joan Ostling ( http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-America-Revised-Updated-Promise/dp/0061432954 ) that’s especially enlightening since Richard Ostling experienced the “dodge” first hand on two separate occasions:
“Educated Mormons are well aware that their doctrine concerning God the Father, particularly the idea that he was once a mortal man and has a literal body, is offensive to traditional Judeo-Christian believers. President Gordon B. Hinckley sidestepped this question in two 1997 interviews. Queried on that point by the San Francisco Chronicle religion writer Don Lattin – “Don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?” – Hinckley responded, “I wouldn’t say that …. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.”
Hinckely’s response was almost identical when the same question was posed by Richard Ostling (this book’s coauthor) during an interview for the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and for Time magazine.
(“Mormon America – Revised and Updated Edition: The Power and the Promise”; p. 296)
And I agree with the panelist (Glenn, I believe) who suggested that Gordon B. Hinckley’s public “dodges” would be an interesting topic for a future podcast. For example one reviewer of this book noted – as the panel did:
“President Hinckley’s artful dodges became readily apparent a short time later when he addressed an all-Mormon audience at their semi-annual General Conference. In what the Ostlings see as a pointed reference to those interviews, Hinckley assured his listeners, “None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine.” He added, “I think I understand them thoroughly.” The Ostlings note that the audience laughed understandingly. (p. 296)
In a recent conversation I had with two young Mormon missionaries on this subject, they candidly admitted, “Of course we cannot talk openly about our teaching that God was once a man like us. If we started out with that at the door, no one would let us in.” When I questioned the honesty of such an approach they replied, “We have to give people milk before meat.”‘
(see http://www.irr.org/mit/mormon-america-br.html )
I think that you all could do a wonderful job on this subject and there’s certainly enough such examples of GBH’s public “spinning” to fill an hour podcast with vigorous, thought provoking, discussion.
this episode gave me nightmare images of babies being resurrected looking just as they did when they were put in the ground. It doesn’t take a wholly morbid imagination to consider the innumerable ways people(including babies) have died in the last few thousand years. so the morning of the 1st resurrection doesn’t look as good now does it?