King Follett's Discourse

[Carson Weber]

I have a couple of questions for any LDS adherents who post here.

1. Do Mormon missionaries know about Joseph Smith's sermon titled "King Follett's Discourse"?

2. If so, do Mormon missionaries carry with them King Follett's Discourse?

3. Where can I get a copy of this discourse online?

4. If I can't get it online, how else can I get a copy?

[ctrups]

In order.
1.I can't answer for each individual but the discourse is a well known document.
2.They may or may not.Probably not.Only because they want to carry only what is necessary.
3. http://jon.swelter.net/king_follett_...rse.html#from3
4."The teachings of Joseph Smith" edited by Joseph F. Smith.I also have found it as a seperate pamphlet.Check any local LDS bookstore.Or go to Deseret online.
If you do a search on google for "King Follett Joseph Smith" , most of the sites that come up are anti Mormon in nature.Which may or may not be what you are looking for.
CTR

[Darth_Bill]

Just remember, there are several different versions. It was a sermon, not a rehearsed speech.

Also, it is not canonical. In other words, LDS are under no obligation to accept it as the word and will of the Lord. There is some abiguous wording and we really don't know exactly what JS meant in some phrases. I have heard several interpretations and they all have their merits.

JS was killed shortly after giving the sermon so there wasn't much elaboration on the subject. Most of what we do have is second-third hand.

BTW King Follet was a good friend of the Smiths. He died digging a well when a bracing stone killed him. In Nauvoo, IL they do a horse carriage ride that takes you by the Follet farm. If you want to see the Williamsburg of the midwest, that is where you go. They recently rebuilt the temple there. Absolutely beautiful building.

Stories on Temple

[img height=193 width=260]http://deseretnews.com/photos/1072075.jpg[/img]

[Carson Weber]

Thanks a lot guys.

Two Mormon missionaries scheduled a meeting on Tuesday of last week with a friend of mine (who, incidentally, is married to the daughter of a Baptist pastor; she came in the Catholic Church shortly before marrying my friend), and he invited me over to chat with the missionaries.

We had a wonderful talk; the meeting was cordial, and I expressed a Catholic view of salvation history and expressly criticized their 18 century jump from the Apostles to Joseph Smith, when - according to them - God has sent a prophet in every age to keep his people in check: except for, of course, when the supposed Great Apostasy occurred, which is missing from my graduate studies on ecclesial history.

When I mentioned the Follett Discourse, they acted as if they had never heard of it before, and when I elaborated upon its nature, the Mormon missionary who did most of the talking started to act like he had possibly heard of it before, and I sensed that they were lying to me.

I was also given the opportunity to explain to them the numerous accounts of Private Revelation throughout the Church's history, including revelations from Jesus and Mary to particular individuals such as St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St. Faustina Kowalska, and St. Juan Diego, including various miracles such as the cactus fiber tilma of Diego's, which had a natural life of 20 years and has been miraculously preserved for just under 500 years now in Mexico City.

In any case, this Discourse will help in our future discussion as we continue to speak upon Church history and the nature of God.

Again, Thank you.

[Darth_Bill]

We had a wonderful talk; the meeting was cordial, and I expressed a Catholic view of salvation history and expressly criticized their 18 century jump from the Apostles to Joseph Smith, when - according to them - God has sent a prophet in every age to keep his people in check: except for, of course, when the supposed Great Apostasy occurred, which is missing from my graduate studies on ecclesial history.

Just to clarify some things. We don't believe that a prophet has been present in every age, to be exact. We believe a prophet ushers in a dispensation, to be exact. Joseph Smith was the one who started the last dispensation. Others were Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus. That doesn't mean others didn't exist before and after, just that these are of note. There is a belief that there is always someone that holds the Mel. Priesthood on the earth. That doesn't make them a prophet nor that the church doesn't fall into apostacy. Just that someone holds it. However, it is fairly obscure.

As to you not getting the apostacy in your graduate class...It can, and I mention can, not must, be deduced from scripture. More importantly, it was declared by deity. The reason you didn't get it is class...well, you have a vested interest in not having one. It doesn't agree with your teachings and would put you in a very bad spot, wouldn't it? Just to let you know, I do know of a college where the apostacy is taught. Maybe you should investigate, hmmm?

When I mentioned the Follett Discourse, they acted as if they had never heard of it before, and when I elaborated upon its nature, the Mormon missionary who did most of the talking started to act like he had possibly heard of it before, and I sensed that they were lying to me.

That is a fairly strong charge, is it not? When I was a missionary, I wouldn't have "lied" about it. I knew about it. I am not ashamed that I know about it. You have had two knowledgable mormons here give you links and discuss it briefly. To assume that the missionaries lied about it is unwarranted. Many don't know about it. It is not referrenced in all their previous teachings. The church does not teach it as doctrine so it is very possible, indeed probable, that they don't know about it, or enough to discuss it. I wouldn't want the missionaries to discuss things that they do not know.

Also, if I was on a mission today knowing the KFD, I wouldn't discuss it. That is not my responsibility. It is not doctrine. Heck, when I was 19 I was lucky enough not to think about girls all the time, let alone discuss the finer points of LDS theosis. If you want to do the missionaries a favor and not put them on the spot, ask to talk to someone in the ward or their mission president about the KFD. I know some very knowledgable people on the topic I can get you in touch with (not myself, as I really don't pursue the topic that much, my posts here notwithstanding).

And to be kind and give the missionaries the benefit of the doubt, they might have been unnerved by the reference. While I can handle all kinds of criticism, I am married after all, if that came up in the missionary discussions, my radar would go up. I would bristle all over and prepare for all kinds of bad things. I have been "ambushed" while on my mission and it was a horrible experience. It is not that I don't believe in my church or it's doctrines but as with anything else, it can be twisted and turned. The KFD should not be viewed outside of its historical and religious context. It assumes a set of beliefs and knowledge. More than likely, a reference to the KFD during a missionary discussion would be an invitation to debate. Missionaries are not sent to debate. You can do that here. Or some other advice which I need to follow more:

3 Nephi 11

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 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.

I was also given the opportunity to explain to them the numerous accounts of Private Revelation throughout the Church's history

That's good. However, I note you say private revelation. Why is it now public?

revelations from Jesus and Mary to particular individuals such as St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St. Faustina Kowalska, and St. Juan Diego, including various miracles such as the cactus fiber tilma of Diego's, which had a natural life of 20 years and has been miraculously preserved for just under 500 years now in Mexico City.

While that is fine and good, it really doesn't do much for me and probably wouldn't do much for them. We have different views on revelation. We go from the top down while much of what I see from the catholic side is bottom up. Revelation for us occurs for our personal lives (which isn't to be divulged as we hold it sacred) or for what we have in our responsibility. Only the President can receive a revelation for the whole church. It must be revealed to the apostles also in that instance. I am unaware, and my ignorance is large, of the analogy in the RCC.

Not a point of criticism but just for information. Besides, for me a cactus isn't a sign of much of anything. I don't go looking for that kind of evidence. If God needed to tell me something, he would.

[Darth_Bill]

I want to add a link to an amateur apologist about the discourse. It has 3 subtopics which you might be interested in, even a comparison with a catholic paper on theosis.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ....shtml#follett

While JeffLindsay is just an average mormon, he does give fairly simple answers to some complicated topics. In any case, I can dig up more if you want. I don't like blasting people with links but my own knowledge in the matter is wanting.

[Carson Weber]

There is a belief that there is always someone that holds the Mel. Priesthood on the earth. That doesn't make them a prophet nor that the church doesn't fall into apostacy. Just that someone holds it. However, it is fairly obscure.

Fairly? Very. Mormon ecclesial history is an invention, which arose from the minds of Masonic Puritans.

As to you not getting the apostacy in your graduate class...It can, and I mention can, not must, be deduced from scripture.

No, I said "history." The supposed Apostasy didn't occur. It's historical fiction. Any amateur survey of ecclesial history testifies to this.

More importantly, it was declared by deity. The reason you didn't get it is class...well, you have a vested interest in not having one. It doesn't agree with your teachings and would put you in a very bad spot, wouldn't it?

And vice versa. If it didn't happen - and it didn't - then there is no need for a Joseph Smith and a restoration of the Church. If the prophet who started my religious sect preached a similar message, I would certainly keep it from discussion, obscure its significance, place doubt upon its authenticity, et cetera.

To assume that the missionaries lied about it is unwarranted.

You were not present during our discussion.

Also, if I was on a mission today knowing the KFD, I wouldn't discuss it.

I wouldn't either - if I were in the shoes of an LDS adherent - considering the blasphemous nature of Smith's message.

That's good. However, I note you say private revelation. Why is it now public?

Private revelation does not mean that it is not or cannot be made known publicly. Private, as a qualifier, means that it is only binding upon the individual to whom it is revealed. Public revelation is termed "public" because it is binding upon all of humanity. This deposit of faith was delivered once and for all unto the apostles and prophets (Jude 3).

[ctrups]

I'm sorry I was under the mistaken assumption that this was a debate free zone.If I had known that all answers were only to serve as a chance to be attacked I wouldn't have answered.


CTR

[Forum Admin]

Discussion moved from Denominational perspective on specific issues to Reasoned Debates by Forum Administrator.

[Darth_Bill]

Carson,

Much anger you have. Patience you need.

>Mormon ecclesial history is an invention, which arose from the minds of Masonic Puritans.

Masonic Puritans? Pray tell where I can find information on Masonic Puritans. That also begs the question that if Masonic Puritans exist, what makes them so wrong? (Also, many have expressed that the BOM is an anti-masonry tome. I wish the critics would settle on something.)

The idea of an apostacy is a minority idea, I will grant. However, it is implicit within the protestant ideology and to some extant in EO. It is up to question as to timeline and scale. Indeed, it is even part of catholic belief, is it not. Don't you view all those protestants as apostates of some degree?

>The supposed Apostasy didn't occur. It's historical fiction. Any amateur survey of ecclesial history testifies to this.

That is your opinion. The LDS concept of apostacy is based on a proclamation of deity (Jesus pretty much said the same of jewish sects during his mortal ministry). It is not up to me that said declaration occurred. It has been revealed to me that it had. Now, you can reject the hypothosis or not. Does not matter to me.

> If it didn't happen - and it didn't - then there is no need for a Joseph Smith and a restoration of the Church.

Correct. But I think it did happen. I think history shows that it did. It is all in your assumptions and interpretations. It is just a matter of how you want to view history. You choose to view it one way, I another. I doubt we will convince each other.

>If the prophet who started my religious sect preached a similar message, I would certainly keep it from discussion, obscure its significance, place doubt upon its authenticity, et cetera.

Not exactly sure what you are saying here. I think you are leaving out a negative somewhere. If you are referring to my caveats about the KFD you have to understand the nature of LDS revelation through JS. The revelations contained within the D&C had review and oversight from JS. The revelations were usually recorded in a precise manner. Once published, JS again reviewed to make sure it was correct. The KFD did not have any such safeguards. It was performed by several men writing longhand and comparing notes afterward. JS never reviewed the resulting manuscript as it was published after his death. My caveats are well within LDS and historical methodology.

>You were not present during our discussion.

I quote: "and I sensed that they were lying to me."

I gathered that there was some doubt here as you could not read their minds nor know their hearts. When you convince me that you can do that, or that they admit to me that they did indeed lie, then I'll gladly repent of my words and give you the most humble of apologies. Until then, I think that my explanation is quite reasonable.

>I wouldn't either - if I were in the shoes of an LDS adherent - considering the blasphemous nature of Smith's message.

Don't twist my words. There are some things that I would shout from the housetops. I know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and performed the atonement that allows us to return to God. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the priesthood was restored through him. The veracity of the KFD, however, is not one of them. I think there is some incredible information there but I don't view it as scripture. I don't even know on how to interpret some of it. I do not view it vital to my salvation.

BTW, this is one of those things that as a missionary, I would leave from. As soon as the "blasphemy" word is proffered, the spirit of contention is present. I uphold your right to use the word. It may be part of your vocabulary. However, it is not part of mine.

>Private revelation does not mean that it is not or cannot be made known publicly. Private, as a qualifier, means that it is only binding upon the individual to whom it is revealed.

Yeah, but doesn't the public declaration of it intended to change activities or actions of others? If I publicly declare that God told me to eat crackers on Tuesdays, isn't that in even a slight way to influence others that maybe they should eat crackers then too? If not, why even mention it at all? LDS realize that revelation does occur but if it is private, then keep it so. Bad feelings and false teachings can arise by over zealousness.