The King Folette Discourse

[jskains]

I find it so odd to see so much dancing. It was very clear what it was all supposed to mean. God, was a human just like us. That would be the great secret if we were to open the Vail. That God got married, has a wife (heavenly mother) and produced spirit Children, just as each worthy human will eventually do once the work of Earth has been completed.

I could go through lots of quotes and scriptures, but are we really trying to ignore this fundamental concept of LDS Theology? Why? To make the EV's happy? Why are we trying to appease EVs? I could care less what they think...

[mfbukowski]

I think it is more that Evangelicals see it is impossible (even for God) to turn a finite created being into an infinite eternal being.

We don't put caps on his generosity. But we do think certain things are impossible, even for God. For example, God can not make a stone too heavy that he can not move it. God also can not turn a finite created human into someone who has always inhabited eternity, exists outside of all creation, etc.

If you approach the LDS concept of exaltation with Evangelical presuppositions about who God is, then the idea of LDS exaltation seems like a logical impossibility (just like God making a stone too heavy to move).

Fair enough.

Of course we do not see ourselves as "finite created beings", so that initial assumption is not there.

[jskains]

Yes, Joseph said that God was once as we are now, in the same sense that Christ was once as we are now. This is clear when the entire sermon is read in its proper context, in light of what Joseph says elsewhere in the discourse. He compared the Father's mortality to Christ's for a reason. He taught from the Bible that Christ could do nothing except that which He had seen the Father do, and that He obtained the power to lay down His life and take it back up again from His Father, thus suggesting that the Father had this power as well. It's a power that we do not have because we are not God.

As I've explained, I don't believe we can become "the same kind of God as God is." God became like us so that we can become like Him, but I don't believe that means we will be exactly like Him, just as He was not exactly like us.

That is simply not true.

"Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power."

JMS

[jskains]

"First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another."

JMS

[mfbukowski]

I find it so odd to see so much dancing. It was very clear what it was all supposed to mean. God, was a human just like us. That would be the great secret if we were to open the Vail. That God got married, has a wife (heavenly mother) and produced spirit Children, just as each worthy human will eventually do once the work of Earth has been completed.

I could go through lots of quotes and scriptures, but are we really trying to ignore this fundamental concept of LDS Theology? Why? To make the EV's happy? Why are we trying to appease EVs? I could care less what they think...

I too think we worry too much about being part of the "club", when the club rests on a structure which is so incompatible with ours. We need to celebrate our differences and let THEM come around. If they never do, oh well.

[diglot]

Fair enough.

Of course we do not see ourselves as "finite created beings", so that initial assumption is not there.

Fair enough.

I briefly talked to the Bishop of the local LDS congregation about the nature of God. The subject quickly changed because it seemed like we were both just talking past each. All we could agree on was that we both approach this issue with different presuppositions in mind.

Edited November 3, 2011 by diglot

[jskains]

" For we have imag- ined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so you may see. "

Edited November 3, 2011 by jskains

[jskains]

I too think we worry too much about being part of the "club", when the club rests on a structure which is so incompatible with ours. We need to celebrate our differences and let THEM come around. If they never do, oh well.

Exactly... I mean, with all the lessons on Eternal Progression, the grand design of the universe.... The understanding of the creation story by LDS theology... I am just shocked that people would try to claim anything else. I think Joseph Smith, the Brigham Young made the entire cosmology of Mormonism very defined. it is only around the modern dancing that we seemed to have created confusion on what the Church teaches.

[mfbukowski]

" For we have imag- ined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so you may see. "

Yeah but we also have "from eternity to eternity"- multiple universes call for multiple eternities

Edited November 3, 2011 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

That is simply not true.

"Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power."

JMS

"First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another."

JMS

" For we have imag- ined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so you may see. "

I don't believe any of these quotes are in contradiction to anything I said. Joseph also taught the following:

Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.

Seems pretty clear to me. The Father dwelt on an earth with the power to lay down His life and take it up again. This is the power that He gave to His Son. This is the primary teaching of the entire King Follett sermon, which so many people overlook or don't quite understand.

I'm not "dancing" because I'm afraid of what the critics will say. They can keep doing what they're doing until they're blue in the face for all I care. I simply am not comfortable with the idea of becoming exactly like my Heavenly Father. I do not want to be, nor do I expect to be. It's out of love and respect for Him and His glory.

Edited November 3, 2011 by altersteve

[jskains]

The problem is to confirm some of this gets into sacred ordinances we can't publicly discuss, so... *shrug* At some point this discussion will have to stop, but I am just confused.. *Sigh*

[mfbukowski]

Exactly... I mean, with all the lessons on Eternal Progression, the grand design of the universe.... The understanding of the creation story by LDS theology... I am just shocked that people would try to claim anything else. I think Joseph Smith, the Brigham Young made the entire cosmology of Mormonism very defined. it is only around the modern dancing that we seemed to have created confusion on what the Church teaches.

They were so brusque in their criticisms of "sectarianism" and now we are worried about being politically correct. On the other hand, there is no point in offending people either- we are after all the Church of Christ. So it's a fine line we have to walk.

It's hard to say "We're right, and you're wrong" and do it nicely.

[mfbukowski]

I simply am not comfortable with the idea of becoming exactly like my Heavenly Father. I do not want to be, nor do I expect to be. It's out of love and respect for Him and His glory.

Then you will get your wish.

None of us will end up where we are not comfortable- that is the beauty of it. People who do not believe in exaltation won't achieve it. It is perfect justice.

[mfbukowski]

That's why there are many kingdoms

[altersteve]

Then you will get your wish.

None of us will end up where we are not comfortable- that is the beauty of it. People who do not believe in exaltation won't achieve it. It is perfect justice.

Of course I believe in exaltation. I simply don't think it entails becoming exactly like God and creating worlds of our own, but rather living with Him forever in families and obtaining a fullness of joy, with our Father sharing what He has with us and allowing us to assist Him in His future work. That's what I desire. I don't desire or expect to create worlds and be worshiped by my own spirit children whom I will save by the power of my "Only Begotten Son." To me that is equivalent to replacing my Father and my Savior. And I don't like that idea at all.

[shalamabobbi]

Of course I believe in exaltation..

I don't wish to intrude here, but I wish to make the following observation of altersteve's view.

Say we receive exaltation and have spirit offspring but we don't become God to them as God is to us, and these spirits go down to a world to become mortals, then their Father in heaven is us rather than God and God becomes their grandfather in heaven.

So my question for altersteve is how do you view this issue? Do you feel that as spirits we are adopted into the family of God and He is not literally our parent, or do you see the relationship we bare to God as being different in this regard from that of our future spirit offspring?

[Storm Rider]

I love the entire concept. But it seems some folks are desperate to hide the doctrine.

Joseph Smith:

"You have got to learn to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done."

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is 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 the very form as a man."

I mean, I love this doctrine. And the leadership has backed it up, but then we seem to get into years where we kinda downplay it. And I worry that the reason is because we want to appease or not deal with the arguments.

It seems rather simple. Heavenly father was like us. He did everything He had to and became a God Himself, taking on the role of running our Universe. He is the ONLY God of our universe, and the only one He knows of here. And we would carry on that tradition after the Earth goes through its phases.

I think it is not very hard to get this idea, and Joseph Smith was very active in this teaching..

And I don't see a problem with it... I think Evangelical ideologies that God was just always there is silly and nonsensical. I think Joseph Smith presented a revelation that filled a lot of theological Gaps, especially with the Hebrews being polytheistic.... and references to the Hebrew God being the God of Gods......

Sorry, I just don't see a reason to hide this one and I find it silly to do so.

JMS

For me, it is not doctrine. The Discourse is certainly not hidden from anyone; the world sees it as it wishes; however, it is not the doctrine of the Church. It remains a talk by Joseph Smith and nothing less or more. Do I believe it? No, in the sense that it is incomprehensible and not logical. BY stated it best in that we are incapable of understanding the First Cause. What Joseph did not explain is who was first; in that absence, there is not logic to the statement.

Jesus stated that he does what he saw the Father do. Jesus was always a member of the Godhead; there was never a time when he was not. The Father likewise was the God of the Universe and will always be our God....Full stop. There is nothing more to say or explain. If there is, it has not been revealed and accepted as doctrine.

I neither shy away from the Discourse or attempt to explain it. It simply is not doctrine.

[Storm Rider]

Of course I believe in exaltation. I simply don't think it entails becoming exactly like God and creating worlds of our own, but rather living with Him forever in families and obtaining a fullness of joy, with our Father sharing what He has with us and allowing us to assist Him in His future work. That's what I desire. I don't desire or expect to create worlds and be worshiped by my own spirit children whom I will save by the power of my "Only Begotten Son." To me that is equivalent to replacing my Father and my Savior. And I don't like that idea at all.

Agreed. We will do the work our Father asks of us. We will be those that assist in the creation of his worlds without number. Our role is to glorify him forever because he is our God and Father.

[TAO]

Altersteve, I don't think the creation of world is for ourselves. Rather... I think it is a service we will render to our God. The important thing is that we are utterly humbled by him. If we can get that far, it doesn't really matter what abilities we will or won't have, because we will listen to his council as a child does his Father.

I suppose, also, that, to me, the idea of continuation is a good one. A lack of progress would be boring. We must always be doing something, something worthwhile. That's why exaltation makes sense to me, I guess =P.

Just thoughts =).

-TAO

[jskains]

I could dispute you, Altersteve, but then the topic would likely cross lines, so I'll just remain confused on how one sees it your way as an active temple going LDS, but I guess agreeing to strongly disagree is best here.

JMS

[Calm]

We don't put caps on his generosity. But we do think certain things are impossible, even for God. For example, God can not make a stone too heavy that he can not move it. God also can not turn a finite created human into someone who has always inhabited eternity, exists outside of all creation, etc.

If you approach the LDS concept of exaltation with Evangelical presuppositions about who God is, then the idea of LDS exaltation seems like a logical impossibility (just like God making a stone too heavy to move).

I have found that many LDS don't get full significance of the concept of the infinite separation between the Creator and the created, that while some things of the divine can be shared, others cannot in traditional Christianity and to attempt to do so is blasphemy....much like how the Jews viewed Jesus saying he was the Son of God so is the view of many traditional Christians in regards to LDS believing we are the same divine species as the Father and Christ....and rightly so if we are wrong in our belief.

Edited November 3, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I also think the in my experience common misperception that the source of a claim of literal familyship is arrogance is due to a lack of understanding how LDS deal with the concept of being one with the Lord and the Father. It seems to me that most Christian theologies begin looking at the relationship of man and God by first 'defining' what/who God is and then who man is (the Creator and the created) and then examine all further interaction between man and God from that premise while LDS tend to skip all that, we look first at the promise of the Atonement, at the concept of God inviting man to become one with him and because we start there, there are no inherent limits placed on that relationship due to prior assumptions. Thus the revelation that we are literally of the family of God can flow from that concept also without limitations of prior assumptions.

This is only a superior position if the revelation that started us there is true, if it isn't even if it is a logically satisfying solution to the oneness with God, the promised inheritance of all that he has, then the concept is extremely problematic. LDS don't claim to rest their beliefs on what is intellectually satisfying in the end, but revelation....and I do believe we should be very cautious not to take our belief further than what has been revealed simply because it appears to be logical, we've seen what can happen with that in the history of the ban of the priesthood for those of African lineage.

[Lightbearer]

I love the entire concept. But it seems some folks are desperate to hide the doctrine.

I think it is not very hard to get this idea, and Joseph Smith was very active in this teaching..

And I don't see a problem with it... I think Evangelical ideologies that God was just always there is silly and nonsensical. I think Joseph Smith presented a revelation that filled a lot of theological Gaps, especially with the Hebrews being polytheistic.... and references to the Hebrew God being the God of Gods......

Sorry, I just don't see a reason to hide this one and I find it silly to do so.

JMS

I agree 100% I do not see this as a "problem doctrine" or a "deep dark secret" of the Church. It sickens me when I read or hear so called Latter-day Saints who try to disown the KFD because it is not a part of the "canon" or not made scripture! It has been quoted so much by LDS prophets and apostles and recorded in Seminary and Sunday School and even Primary manuals that I find it unbelievable that anyone who is a member of the Church could possibly deny the teachings! The first time I heard of the doctrine was in Seminary (rather it was even before that!) The first time I read the KFD in it's entirety is on my Mission in the book Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith... instead of being "shocked" I was amazed at the beauty and truth of this wonderous doctrine... I wanted to "shout for joy" (just as we did in the pre-mortal life) and thought that it was the greatest teaching of the Church, in fact that is what makes Mormonism TRUE! Without it we are no better off than our sectarian friends who blindly worship the "unknown God"! I could recount the hundreds of scriptures that agree with the Prophet Joseph, but that would be in vain because if the people could not see the truth when Joseph declared it, who am I to try to show them? Little wonder that this sermon was one of his last, that is when the traitors and apostates cried for his blood! It was the same excuse the Jews had when they crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, because "He being a man... made Himself God!" That is why the Anti-Mormons cry "cult" or "another Jesus" or blasphemey! They cannot abide the truth, it is too much for them as it is in all ages, Lucifer from the very beginning denied the power of the atonement of Christ. He has always said that it is not possible for Christ to make us "pure even as He is pure" and to make us holy and without spot. It is the first cry of the apostate that we cannot "overcome and sit with Him in His throne, even as He overcame and sat down with His Father in His throne."

The truth is God, angels, and men are all of the same species, we are His children and we are co-eternal with Him. It does not "rob God" to make ourselves "equal with God" if we do it by the blood of Christ, if we indeed overcome by the "blood of the lamb" and thus all sinfulness is burned out of our being. Nobody ever said that a sinful man will ever become as God is, in fact no unclean thing can enter into His kingdom, much less sit on His throne... but those who have had their garments washed white in His blood can!

But getting back to the OP, as far as the KFD ever being included in the scriptures, it will not probably be, but the doctrines taught in it are already there if one has ears to hear and eyes to see. If not then the mist of darkness will forever blind them to this beautiful and wonderous teaching.

[Senator]

It sickens me when I read or hear so called Latter-day Saints who try to disown the KFD because it is not a part of the "canon" or not made scripture!

While in your sickness, try and remember this:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." -JS

I wouldn't want you to be considered a "so-called" Latter-Day Saint!

[thesometimesaint]

Childen grow up to be like their parents, in that they will become parents in their own right.

God the Father is our Father, we will grow to be like him, but he will always be our Father.