Why Wasn'T The King Follett Discourse Canonized?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Anyone know? I'm curious because I've been rereading the Doctrine & Covenants lately, and as usual, it strikes me that much of the first half of the book or so is just a collection of rather pedestrian day-to-day minutiae about running the Church, whereas the second half is often more focused on the interesting and distinctive aspects of our theology. I find the King Follett Discourse such a beautiful encapsulation of the gospel that I rather hope it might someday be included in the D&C; I know, it's a longshot, but surely if we can canonize traveling arrangements and letters to the Shakers we can canonize one of the most remarkable sermons ever preached, right?

Edited November 11, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

Would not be surprised if it was because it was a combination of inspiration/revelation and speculation and canonizing it places everything under the inspiration/revelation umbrella in many people's views. There is a reason why conference talks, sermons such as those collected in the JoD have not been canonized even if viewed as inspired.

Also, what we have is not a full official text composed by JS, but combination of various notes that may be incomplete or in error and any canonized version would, IMO, need to have been edited by JS himself, as the author of the sermon. Any teachings of the same kind would after his death need to be verified through revelation to later prophets and if this happens, then it makes better sense to publish their own revelation rather than try to retrofit it into JS's sermon.

Edited November 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

*nod* Sounds about right. Darnit, I want it in the standard works, tho.

[Calm]

Get a scripture sized version and stick it in then.

I have a friend who developed a computer program that formatted and sized patriarchal blessings to match scripture appearance so one could insert them into one's scriptures. Looked great...he did mine and my husband's for 'market testing'.

[Emerson]

Also, what we have is not a full official text composed by JS, but combination of various notes that may be incomplete or in error and any canonized version would, IMO, need to have been edited by JS himself, as the author of the sermon.

But this is also the case for D&C 130 and 131, only even more sketchy. At least the KFD received four independent transcriptions that have such resonance that they can be amalgamated into a decent reconstruction. (See Stan Larson's amalgamated text in BYU Studies.) D&C 130 was possibly an equally long sermon, yet all we have are a few summary statements that feel fragmented and disjointed when put together. D&C 131 are things written down hours after a dinner conversation. Both were in Smith's scribe's journals (which he probably never saw, let alone edited) until Orson Pratt, when going through historical documents as Church Historians and in preparation for the 1876 edition of the D&C, decided they were of immense worth (I agree) and included them.

This is not to say these two sections should not be included--especially since they are amongst my favorite passages--but because the KFD's exclusion is not merely based on its troubled textual history.

The KFD text has a long troubled position within the Church's past. BH Roberts included the entire thing in his first edition of History of the Church, but Joseph F. Smith (who was prophet at the time), pulled that section from the printed version because he deemed it too controversial and speculative. Roberts was infuriated and published the entire sermon in his own printing, and eventually it was returned to its rightful spot in HC. Later, BR McConkie attempted to get the KFD added as an appendix to the D&C, but the idea received no traction from the rest of the Quorum. Then, as everyone knows, President Hinkley seemed a tad uncomfortable with certain doctrines in the sermon in national interviews, but I think this is countered by the fact that the most important aspects of the sermon were included in the JS Priesthood/RS manuals, thereby somewhat providing a stamp of approval again.

All fascinating stuff.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

This is also the case for D&C 130 and 131, only even more sketchy. At least the KFD received four independent transcriptions that have such resonance that they can be amalgamated into a decent reconstruction. (See Stan Larson's amalgamated text in BYU Studies.)

Exactly! There are plenty of edits and pasted-together revelations in the D&C. By contrast, the KFD is remarkably well-attested. I figure if everything is to be done by common consent in this Church, then let's consent to sticking it in the Pearl of Great Price or somethin'!

Makes me want to start a Facebook page. *grin*

[Nevo]

I think this section of the sermon is a bit of a liability:

"But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory with not one cubit added to their stature."

This seems to be incompatible with the current doctrine that "All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children" (Gospel Principles [2009], 242).

Edited November 11, 2011 by Nevo

[Nevo]

The KFD text has a long troubled position within the Church's past.

Donald Q. Cannon touched on some of this in his BYU Studies article, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith’s Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective":

Available evidence indicates that some of the Brethren had become suspicious of the King Follett Discourse, maintaining that all of its doctrines might not be authentic, and expressing some concern over the accuracy of the text. In a letter to Samuel O. Bennion, president of the Central States Mission, George Albert Smith said: 'I have thought that the report of that sermon might not be authentic and I have feared that it contained some things that might be contrary to the truth. . . . Some of the brethren felt as I did and thought that greater publicity should not be given to that particular sermon.'

Testifying in Washington, D.C., during the Reed Smoot hearings, Charles W. Penrose stated that 'there are some sermons published in the Journal of Discourses the authenticity of which has been disputed . . . for instance some of the sermons attributed to Joseph Smith, the Prophet. They were taken down at the time in longhand and have been published in the Journal of Discourses and there have been disputes as to their correctness.'

Whatever the reasons, the King Follett Discourse remained outside the official History of the Church for thirty-eight years. It was included in the second edition, however. The reincorporation of the sermon in the 1950 History of the Church, coupled with the fact of the numerous reprintings in other books and magazines since that time, attest to its acceptance in the mid-twentieth century.

[Storm Rider]

Anyone know? I'm curious because I've been rereading the Doctrine & Covenants lately, and as usual, it strikes me that much of the first half of the book or so is just a collection of rather pedestrian day-to-day minutiae about running the Church, whereas the second half is often more focused on the interesting and distinctive aspects of our theology. I find the King Follett Discourse such a beautiful encapsulation of the gospel that I rather hope it might someday be included in the D&C; I know, it's a longshot, but surely if we can canonize traveling arrangements and letters to the Shakers we can canonize one of the most remarkable sermons ever preached, right?

The only reason that the KFD has not been added to scripture is that the Brethren have chosen not to recognize it as doctrine. This indicates, regardless of how many times it is used, it remains a grey area. To state it in any other way is the result of personal desire and not the intent of the Church.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Anyone know? I'm curious because I've been rereading the Doctrine & Covenants lately, and as usual, it strikes me that much of the first half of the book or so is just a collection of rather pedestrian day-to-day minutiae about running the Church, whereas the second half is often more focused on the interesting and distinctive aspects of our theology. I find the King Follett Discourse such a beautiful encapsulation of the gospel that I rather hope it might someday be included in the D&C; I know, it's a longshot, but surely if we can canonize traveling arrangements and letters to the Shakers we can canonize one of the most remarkable sermons ever preached, right?

I have never read it in it's entirety, is there a link where I can do so?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[ldsfaqs]

Why would it be....? It was a "speech" in the Church, nothing more.

It's the same reason other stuff hasn't been put in, and/or were removed over the years, such as Lectures on Faith, etc.

The standard works are for direct revelations from God, not everything inspired or useful. Today, the closest thing they get to putting non revelation in is the Articles of Faith. A nice little summary of the Faith, so okay to have that little exception in there.

As well as what others have said..... It's not actually "doctrine" either.

Edited November 11, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[jskains]

I love the KFD, and would be excited if the thing was canonized to put it to rest. Much of the doctrine contained in it is scattered throughout LDS Doctrine today, and it just seems it would finalize some thoughts.

I personally just think it was timing.

"The only reason that the KFD has not been added to scripture is that the Brethren have chosen not to recognize it as doctrine"

I disagree. I see no evidence (actually evidence to the contrary) that this is not considered doctrine. It's just not in the standard works. It came from the Prophet and it had a lot of material other memebers were already familiar with.

JMS

[Emerson]

Why would it be....? It was a "speech" in the Church, nothing more.

It's the same reason other stuff hasn't been put in, and/or were removed over the years, such as Lectures on Faith, etc.

The standard works are for direct revelations from God, not everything inspired or useful. Today, the closest thing they get to putting non revelation in is the Articles of Faith. A nice little summary of the Faith, so okay to have that little exception in there.

I don't think it's that easy, either. Many of the sections in the D&C are not the same category of "Direct Revelation" that you outline above. Much of what was in the 1833 BoC, 1835 D&C, and 1844 D&C (the three editions Joseph Smith oversaw) were considered "direct revelations" (though not all of it--for instance, D&C 107 has a much different construct than what you seem to refer to as a "direct revelation" as opposed to other sections), but much that was added since, especially in Orson Pratt's editions. Pratt added a large number of editions (sections 2, 13, 77, 85, 87, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 136), several of which blur the boundaries of what is considered a revelation. Section 85 was a small segment of a number, sections 121-123 were bits and pieces of a longer narrative, and section 126 was a heavily edited journal entry. (Of course, the majority of these sections were standard revelatory texts in the traditional vein.) Most potent for this discussion, and as outlined above, there is no qualitative textual difference between the KFD and, say, D&C 130. Both are "speeches" that were recorded by those present (though the notes for KFD were much more systematized than D&C 130), yet only D&C 130 (or, more succinctly, sections of 130) were canonized. Especially in the Nauvoo era, Joseph's saw his sermons (as well as council decisions) as, for lack of a better word, replacements for his earlier "thus saith the Lord" revelations; they held equal authority, and were now the prominent venue to present doctrinal truths.

This is just a long way to say that there is no qualitative difference, contextually and formatively, between the KFD and much of the other Nauvoo-era sections of the D&C. Thus, the difference comes from the content, or doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

jskaiuns:

I disagree. The Gold standard of the Church doctrine is unanimus agreement among the upper leadership., and presentation to the Church as a whole. Whatever the merits of the KFD, and there are many, it has yet to meet that standard.

[David T]

Probably the strange - and technically incorrect - exposition on the meaning of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is also one of many reasons for keeping the document as a whole taken out.

I'd be far more interested in getting each of Joseph's firsthand accounts of the First Vision canonized. Talk about taking the bite out of the old argument! Great response of, "We don't hide the different accounts, we canonized them, and refer to them all!" - plus, I think there's some significant principles in each that aren't found in an other. I personally find the earliest account the most profound.

Edited November 11, 2011 by nackhadlow

[BCSpace]

Why Wasn'T The King Follett Discourse Canonized?

You might be interested in this statement by Gordon B. Hinckley:

In March of the year he died—1844—the Prophet had amplified this doctrine in a monumental address which he delivered in the grove which was just below the temple site. The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon.

http://lds.org/ensign/1994/09/nauvoos-holy-temple?lang=eng&query=king+follett

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Probably the strange - and technically incorrect - exposition on the meaning of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is also one of many reasons for keeping the document as a whole taken out.

I'd be far more interested in getting each of Joseph's firsthand accounts of the First Vision canonized. Talk about taking the bite out of the old argument! Great response of, "We don't hide the different accounts, we canonized them, and refer to them all!" - plus, I think there's some significant principles in each that aren't found in an other. I personally find the earliest account the most profound.

Like the four gospels...I like it. The one version already is...In JST 1 & in the BoM.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Cobalt-70]

Anyone know? I'm curious because I've been rereading the Doctrine & Covenants lately, and as usual, it strikes me that much of the first half of the book or so is just a collection of rather pedestrian day-to-day minutiae about running the Church, whereas the second half is often more focused on the interesting and distinctive aspects of our theology. I find the King Follett Discourse such a beautiful encapsulation of the gospel that I rather hope it might someday be included in the D&C; I know, it's a longshot, but surely if we can canonize traveling arrangements and letters to the Shakers we can canonize one of the most remarkable sermons ever preached, right?

I think the main reason is that around 1835, Joseph Smith switched his management style from that of "revelator" to that of "teacher." Prior to 1835, almost every important change in Mormonism was introduced by a new revelation spoken in the words of God. After 1835, however, Smith only gave a handful of new written revelations, relying instead upon sermons and private teaching to introduce new doctrines and policies into the church. That made it far more difficult to capture Smith's teachings into the canon. But Mormons of that era (other than those who considered Smith to be a fallen prophet) esteemed Smith's teachings about as much as they did his earlier revelations. I think the main reason why the King Follett sermon did not make it into the canon is that nobody thought it was necessary to capture capture in the D&C every single doctrinal innovation given by Joseph Smith. The most important doctrines of Mormonism were, at that time, uncanonized, and some of them were secret.

Plus, while there existed four very good transcripts of the sermon, one of which was even stenographic, none of the transcripts was a complete transcript of the entire sermon. Even the stenographic transcript had gaps where the scribe was dipping his pen into the inkwell. So the most complete version of the sermon had to be an amalgamation of several different transcripts. It was not as simple as including, for example, Smith's written epistles, which were complete documents in themselves, and could be straightforwardly added after Smith's death. Smith's "last sermon" was at least as highly regarded as his epistles, if not far more, but were not as easy to include in the canon.

[Cobalt-70]

I have never read it in it's entirety, is there a link where I can do so?

The best reconstruction of the sermon is contained in a BYU Studies article from 1978: http://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5321

[jskains]

Probably the strange - and technically incorrect - exposition on the meaning of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is also one of many reasons for keeping the document as a whole taken out. I'd be far more interested in getting each of Joseph's firsthand accounts of the First Vision canonized. Talk about taking the bite out of the old argument! Great response of, "We don't hide the different accounts, we canonized them, and refer to them all!" - plus, I think there's some significant principles in each that aren't found in an other. I personally find the earliest account the most profound.

Why? The Lord told His Church which version was the most accurate and unfiltered.

That's good enough for me.

[Emerson]

Why? The Lord told His Church which version was the most accurate and unfiltered.

That's good enough for me.

Just to be clear: are you saying the Lord made clear with First Vision account was the most accurate and unfiltered? If so, I don't quite get how you reached that conclusion. The account canonized was just the only version in public form when Franklin D. Richards put together his "Pearls of Great Price" pamphlet in the 1850s, so it just sort of "stuck." Joseph Smith's account in 1832, mostly written in his own hand and the only one we know came directly from him (unmediated by scribes) wasn't uncovered until just over three decades ago, long after much of the canon was finalized.

The version we have canonized is great and works for our purposes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it is "the most accurate and unfiltered."

(And if you weren't talking about the FV account, forgive my misreading.)

[mapman]

Probably the strange - and technically incorrect - exposition on the meaning of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is also one of many reasons for keeping the document as a whole taken out.

I'd be far more interested in getting each of Joseph's firsthand accounts of the First Vision canonized. Talk about taking the bite out of the old argument! Great response of, "We don't hide the different accounts, we canonized them, and refer to them all!" - plus, I think there's some significant principles in each that aren't found in an other. I personally find the earliest account the most profound.

I don't know if you've read this article, but it suggests that Joseph Smith didn't butcher the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 as bad as has been supposed.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

'But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms.'

I think a note detailing how Smith later retracted this bit would suffice to clarify the doctrinal import - think of some of the header notes in the D&C "correcting" interpretations, like 81's statement about how the revelation "should be regarded" in light of the transfer of Presidency duties from Gause to WIlliams and Gause's later excommunication. There are plenty of contradictions in the Standard Works already; I don't think it has to be doctrinally perfect to be useful.

"The only reason that the KFD has not been added to scripture is that the Brethren have chosen not to recognize it as doctrine. This indicates, regardless of how many times it is used, it remains a grey area. To state it in any other way is the result of personal desire and not the intent of the Church."

Well, yeah; I personally desire that the intent of the Church change towards this awesome sermon. *grin* Since we're all a part of the Church, it's not like we have no say in what gets accepted as Scripture by common consent.

Why would it be....? It was a "speech" in the Church, nothing more.

It's the same reason other stuff hasn't been put in, and/or were removed over the years, such as Lectures on Faith, etc.

The standard works are for direct revelations from God, not everything inspired or useful. Today, the closest thing they get to putting non revelation in is the Articles of Faith. A nice little summary of the Faith, so okay to have that little exception in there.

As well as what others have said..... It's not actually "doctrine" either.

But as others point out, many of the current "direct revelations" were even more weakly attested than the KFD. As Emerson said:

There is no qualitative textual difference between the KFD and, say, D&C 130. Both are "speeches" that were recorded by those present (though the notes for KFD were much more systematized than D&C 130), yet only D&C 130 (or, more succinctly, sections of 130) were canonized.

I'd be far more interested in getting each of Joseph's firsthand accounts of the First Vision canonized. Talk about taking the bite out of the old argument! Great response of, "We don't hide the different accounts, we canonized them, and refer to them all!" - plus, I think there's some significant principles in each that aren't found in an other. I personally find the earliest account the most profound.

Now this I could also get behind. Kinda sheepish that it's never crossed my mind before, actually. Man, that'd be awesome.

Plus, while there existed four very good transcripts of the sermon, one of which was even stenographic, none of the transcripts was a complete transcript of the entire sermon. Even the stenographic transcript had gaps where the scribe was dipping his pen into the inkwell. So the most complete version of the sermon had to be an amalgamation of several different transcripts.

I'm aware of this - I was actually the first person to link to Larson's paper in this thread, but it appears no one clicked on it *grin* - but again, it's actually better-attested than some of the other "direct revelations" we use.

Why? The Lord told His Church which version was the most accurate and unfiltered.

This actually touches on why I'd like the KFD put in as well. I'd like all the different versions of the First Vision canonized because not only is it the most important event in the history of the Restoration (and therefore, the more information we have collected, the better - like the different versions of the Gospels) but also, as has been noted, it takes so very much of the bite out of the critical argument that the Church "hides" its history. There is some very blunt phrasing in the KFD; though most of the concepts are found throughout the Standard Works, it's just such a powerful consolidation of implications which are otherwise rather diffuse. Indeed, I think a lot of Joseph's ministry consisted of re-stamping authoritative Prophetic emphasis on certain ideas in the scriptures which had ceased to have much currency in his day. ("Ye are Gods", etc)

[Programmer]

Well maybe we could if we had a recording of it, and Joseph Smith was able to edit it, and fix any grammatical errors.

As it is when you read it, you will find the written record of it as found in the book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' is fragmentary, not flowing, and just is really excerpts from the real thing. It is incomplete which is too bad.

[altersteve]

Well maybe we could if we had a recording of it, and Joseph Smith was able to edit it, and fix any grammatical errors.

As it is when you read it, you will find the written record of it as found in the book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' is fragmentary, not flowing, and just is really excerpts from the real thing. It is incomplete which is too bad.

I agree. I would love to have the actual text of what Joseph actually said. All we have are notes compiled from listeners who probably had to skip some parts in order to keep up with Joseph as he was speaking. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the King Follett discourse canonized, but doing so is not proper if we don't have the original author around to oversee its publication.

I'd love to have all of Joseph's First Vision accounts canonized, though. That's a fantastic idea.