The King Folette Discourse

[LeSellers]

When I was investigating Mormonism, I read through the TPJS, including the KFD. I was astounded at the depth and breadth of what I read, and the Spirit of God witnessed to my heart and my mind that Joseph was a true prophet of God.

For what it's worth.

Quite a bit.

Lehi

[KevinG]

My complaint is not that critics will use the Journal of Discourses, Joseph Smith Journals or other sermons and discourses. It is that they take them out of context and pound away at more speculative or less concrete knowledge and present them as core Mormon beliefs in order to mock them.

Many of these things are best understood in the context of our Savlation through Jesus Christ and His Gospel. #1 with a bullet point is our belief in God, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It all stems from there.

I belive this is directly related to why our critics fail to call us by our proper name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and obfuscate our other core beliefs. It is the easier path to scare investigators and shake the faith of members by portraying us as strange and unChrisitan.

[Cobalt-70]

Your claim here is largely true if you include only the Book of Mormon. However, the Book of Abraham introduces some of the key elements of the LDS theology that are radically opposed to Trinitarian theology. Furthermore, Joseph Smith's revelations in D&C moved Mormonism away from Trinitarianism at a rapid clip. As early as 1833 Joseph was proclaiming that man was in the beginning with God. That was a clear indication that Joseph's theology was morphing into something highly unorthodox. I'm afraid your claim here is so overstated that it cannot stand.

No, in 1833, he was saying something more like that each human has a "spark of God" (i.e., intelligence, or the Light of Christ) that was uncreated. This very gnostic idea is also taught by many Evangelicals. I guess the main non-traditional element from the Book of Abraham would be the reference to "the Gods," though that in itself does not outline any particular theology. (Smith had recently learned that the Hebrew word Elohim was a plural form, and was evidently at least toying with the idea of multiple gods.) But I could see somebody still interpreting these verses in the context of trinitarianism, which many contemporary Mormons in fact did.

[Storm Rider]

Technically true but potentially an inaccurate result. Neither you nor I is qualified to look at the scriptures and tell someone else what official LDS doctrine is without confirming it by looking at something the Church itself has published. Therefore, the published doctrine in the form of manuals etc. superceeds the scriptures as to the question of what is official LDS doctrine.

I disagree. The prophet interprets scripture for the Church. Manuals are not scripture and never have been; they do not equate with scripture. The Church has never taught the members to lean on the manuals for inspiration or guidance. That is strictly the realm of scripture. The Church teaches us that there is no greater teacher of truth than the Holy Spirit. I would never counsel anyone to put manuals inbetween them and the Holy Spirit.

[Storm Rider]

Senator,

You wrote:

Responsible critics -- like me -- do point out the diversity of LDS opinions on such matters. However, we also point out that the LDS Church does officially teach certain things, whether some apologists acknowledge it or not.

I hope you realize what a field day a LDS could have with that statement when criticizing EV theology. Yes, Rev. X says this, but Y has stated this, and Z this. If this was the standard to use, we could have a field day. Rob, you know that is a weak position; I don't understand why you would use it.

[Storm Rider]

Honestly, guys, Bowman is generally polite long after I would have exploded. Just because he disagrees with us and publishes his stuff does not make him The Enemy. He is obviously sincere, and has genuine issues with the Church. If half of our "enemies" - heck, if half of our members - were as informed as he is, the world would be a better place. I can't remember the last time I agreed with his arguments, but he usually comports himself well here unless poked with a sharp stick. Give the guy a rest.

I agree. Some of his critics here ignore his position and attack him personally, which is unworthy of being a LDS. I think the problem is not how he acts here, but how he discusses the Church elsewhere. That long trail of evidence taints his current actions and may cause some to doubt his sincerety. Regradless, we can agree to disagree in a Christ-like manner.

[Rivers]

The King Follet discourse is quoted from in the new Joseph Smith Sunday school manual. Doesn't that make the KFD official?

[Log]

No.

[mfbukowski]

I hope you realize what a field day a LDS could have with that statement when criticizing EV theology. Yes, Rev. X says this, but Y has stated this, and Z this. If this was the standard to use, we could have a field day. Rob, you know that is a weak position; I don't understand why you would use it.

I have an entire book written by an EV about using personal revelation for every aspect of your life.

You have given me an idea.

Interesting stuff. As far as I can tell there is no such thing as a consistent belief set for "Evangelicals".

Here is an interesting set of quotes including some of the infighting one sees:

http://www.apologeti...ex.org/b64.html

Edited November 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

No.

Agreed.

[Lightbearer]

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!

That quote according to some in this thread is not "doctrinal" in fact I get a different point of view from this scripture:

"O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!"

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 28:15)

[Senator]

That quote according to some in this thread is not "doctrinal" in fact I get a different point of view from this scripture:

Meh, I don't listen to those "some".

Do you suppose you might be mixing apples to oranges in trying to trump Joseph's other quote with this scriptue? I think so.

[Storm Rider]

I have an entire book written by an EV about using personal revelation for every aspect of your life.

You have given me an idea.

Interesting stuff. As far as I can tell there is no such thing as a consistent belief set for "Evangelicals".

Here is an interesting set of quotes including some of the infighting one sees:

http://www.apologeti...ex.org/b64.html

EV and Catholics believe in personal revelation except when talking with LDS; then it becomes a distant belief that is bured behind reason, scripture, and Tradition. I find it dishonest, but it is also not our problem.

[Rob Bowman]

Cobalt-70,

I had written: "As early as 1833 Joseph was proclaiming that man was in the beginning with God." You replied:

No, in 1833, he was saying something more like that each human has a "spark of God" (i.e., intelligence, or the Light of Christ) that was uncreated.

Sorry, that is incorrect. What I said was in fact an exact quotation: "Man was also in the beginning with God" (D&C 93:29). Note: Man, not merely a spark of divinity, was in the beginning with God. That is what Joseph Smith said, in 1833.

You wrote:

This very gnostic idea is also taught by many Evangelicals.

False. CFR that many evangelicals teach that an uncreated spark of deity is in every human being.

You wrote:

I guess the main non-traditional element from the Book of Abraham would be the reference to "the Gods," though that in itself does not outline any particular theology. (Smith had recently learned that the Hebrew word Elohim was a plural form, and was evidently at least toying with the idea of multiple gods.) But I could see somebody still interpreting these verses in the context of trinitarianism, which many contemporary Mormons in fact did.

I have no idea why you are doing what you are doing here, but in any case you are muddying the waters. There was and is no plausible way to interpret the Book of Abraham's theology to be compatible with Trinitarianism, as Mormons recognized then and recognize now.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

I had written:

"Responsible critics -- like me -- do point out the diversity of LDS opinions on such matters. However, we also point out that the LDS Church does officially teach certain things, whether some apologists acknowledge it or not."

You commented:

I hope you realize what a field day a LDS could have with that statement when criticizing EV theology. Yes, Rev. X says this, but Y has stated this, and Z this. If this was the standard to use, we could have a field day. Rob, you know that is a weak position; I don't understand why you would use it.

You are injecting yourself into an exchange without first understanding what the exchange is about. Senator, who is evidently LDS, had told me that it would be better if evangelical critics of LDS doctrine acknowledge the diversity of opinions on theology among Mormons. I was simply pointing out that I do just that. Do you disagree with Senator?

[Lachoneus]

No, in 1833, he was saying something more like that each human has a "spark of God" (i.e., intelligence, or the Light of Christ) that was uncreated.

Sorry, that is incorrect. What I said was in fact an exact quotation: "Man was also in the beginning with God" (D&C 93:29). Note: Man, not merely a spark of divinity, was in the beginning with God. That is what Joseph Smith said, in 1833.

Actually, both Mr. Bowman and Cobalt-70 are partially correct. The next sentence after the "exact quotation" by Mr. Bowman expands upon and clarifies the quotation. It reads, "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29). In the beginning it was man's intelligence, that light of truth that is man, that was with God. This is the part of man that is eternal because it cannot be created. This is why the Lord says that man was also in the beginning with God.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Lachoneus

[Rob Bowman]

Lachoneus,

You wrote:

Actually, both Mr. Bowman and Cobalt-70 are partially correct. The next sentence after the "exact quotation" by Mr. Bowman expands upon and clarifies the quotation. It reads, "Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29). In the beginning it was man's intelligence, that light of truth that is man, that was with God. This is the part of man that is eternal because it cannot be created. This is why the Lord says that man was also in the beginning with God.

Is it your view that this intelligence was impersonal? Later, Joseph Smith made it explicit that the spirits of human beings were uncreated. I think this is probably what he meant in 1833, but I'm aware of some diversity of opinion even among Mormons on these issues. The fact is that what Joseph said in 1833 was not that part of man was in the beginning, but that "man" was in the beginning with God. Obviously this does not refer to his physical body, but nor does it seem to refer to some eternal yet impersonal spark of divinity.

[thesometimesaint]

Lechoneous:

Partially correct; We are literal children of God from before the foundations of the world.

[altersteve]

Lachoneus,

You wrote:

Is it your view that this intelligence was impersonal? Later, Joseph Smith made it explicit that the spirits of human beings were uncreated. I think this is probably what he meant in 1833, but I'm aware of some diversity of opinion even among Mormons on these issues. The fact is that what Joseph said in 1833 was not that part of man was in the beginning, but that "man" was in the beginning with God. Obviously this does not refer to his physical body, but nor does it seem to refer to some eternal yet impersonal spark of divinity.

Latter-day Saints do not view intelligences as "impersonal spark of divinity." Regardless, I think you're just looking for a contradiction in Joseph Smith's teachings when there are clearly other ways of looking at it.

Edited November 6, 2011 by altersteve

[TAO]

Lachoneus,

You wrote:

Is it your view that this intelligence was impersonal? Later, Joseph Smith made it explicit that the spirits of human beings were uncreated. I think this is probably what he meant in 1833, but I'm aware of some diversity of opinion even among Mormons on these issues. The fact is that what Joseph said in 1833 was not that part of man was in the beginning, but that "man" was in the beginning with God. Obviously this does not refer to his physical body, but nor does it seem to refer to some eternal yet impersonal spark of divinity.

Uh, I'd have to disagree here. He made it clear that intelligences were uncreated. As far as I know, he didn't say anything about the spirits being uncreated. There are some who think the spirits are intelligences, and there are some who think intelligences are encapsulated inside of spirits. I lean towards the latter, but have no personal knowledge, so I am just making a guess when I presume it. Either way, it doesn't matter as much as other things do. Life is much more than debate XD.

Edited November 7, 2011 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

Life is much more than debate XD.

Heresy!!

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Latter-day Saints do not view intelligences as "impersonal spark of divinity." Regardless, I think you're just looking for a contradiction in Joseph Smith's teachings when there are clearly other ways of looking at it.

You are mistaken about what I was saying. I was agreeing that LDS do not view intelligences as impersonal sparks of divinity. I was also stating that it appears to me that this was never Joseph Smith's view, as cobalt-70 was suggesting. So I was neither looking for nor claiming to have found a contradiction in Joseph Smith's teaching in this context.

Even when I'm saying something that most Mormons should have no trouble accepting, I get this sort of criticism. It's wearying.

[mfbukowski]

Even when I'm saying something that most Mormons should have no trouble accepting, I get this sort of criticism. It's wearying.

I know exactly how you feel when I go to your website, or even hear from you here.

[LeSellers]

Even when ..., I get this sort of criticism. It's wearying.

You are capable of retiring. While there is an open invitation for one and all to participate, no one is here without his own permission.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Bukowski and Lehi,

How about addressing my complaint directly and fairly, instead of engaging in diversionary comments? Or you could just leave it alone.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Rob Bowman