Is This Official Church Doctrine?

[inquiringmind]

I was reading this online, and I'd like to know if it's official Church doctrine?

A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.

A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.

I know the scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost; but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself.

http://www.lds.org/e...sermon?lang=eng

If this is true, it would mean that George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and the signers of the declaration of independence (all of whom accepted the Temple work done for them) are guaranteed a place in heaven.

But is it true?

Was Joseph speaking as a prophet here, or was this just his own opinion?

Is there any way to know?

Did any other prophet and president ever comment on what Joseph said here?

(And is it possible to actually email a question like this to President Monson or the First Presidency?)

Edited April 8, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

The King Follett sermon has generally been considered good doctrine during most of the church's history, but for some reason (maybe the fact that there is no definitive transcription of the sermon) it was never canonized. It was his last great sermon, and early Mormons took it very seriously. It is also Joseph Smith's most universalistic sermon. Basically, he says that everyone will eventually be saved in the Celestial Kingdom, except the sons of Perdition who do not want to be saved. Around the turn of the 20th century, a few Mormon scholars started to have problems with this, because it conflicts somewhat with Smith's earlier teachings such as D&C 76 (which itself conflicts with the Book of Mormon, D&C 19, D&C 137, and D&C 128). But Smith's theology was continually becoming more and more universalistic. In the end, he was basically a universalist.

[SamIam]

I was reading this online, and I'd like to know if it's official Church doctrine?

http://www.lds.org/e...sermon?lang=eng

If this is true, it would mean that George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and the signers of the declaration of independence (all of whom accepted the Temple work done for them) are guaranteed a place in heaven.

But is it true?

The question you ask is difficult to answer at this point. Though I have read it and it is true to me, I do not know what you understand when you read it. Thus you must help us out by providing your intepretation of what it means to you and then we might better weigh in on the discussion.

[canard78]

The King Follett sermon has generally been considered good doctrine during most of the church's history, but for some reason (maybe the fact that there is no definitive transcription of the sermon) it was never canonized. It was his last great sermon, and early Mormons took it very seriously. It is also Joseph Smith's most universalistic sermon. Basically, he says that everyone will eventually be saved in the Celestial Kingdom, except the sons of Perdition who do not want to be saved. Around the turn of the 20th century, a few Mormon scholars started to have problems with this, because it conflicts somewhat with Smith's earlier teachings such as D&C 76 (which itself conflicts with the Book of Mormon, D&C 19, D&C 137, and D&C 128). But Smith's theology was continually becoming more and more universalistic. In the end, he was basically a universalist.

As was his Dad. I often wonder what might have been if Joseph had been given a few more years...

To the OP. Not everything published on LDS.org is Official Church Doctrine. I imagine CASteiman will be around to disagree soon.

I usually at this point paste the church definition of doctrine (definition which, by definition, if not, ahem, doctrine):

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[inquiringmind]

The question you ask is difficult to answer at this point. Though I have read it and it is true to me, I do not know what you understand when you read it. Thus you must help us out by providing your intepretation of what it means to you and then we might better weigh in on the discussion.

I understand it to be saying that you can't commit the unpardonable sin after you're dead.

[SamIam]

I understand it to be saying that you can't commit the unpardonable sin after you're dead.

What you have stated above is doctrine:

Alma 5:15

15 Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?

Edited April 9, 2013 by SamIam

[Bikeemikey]

Presumably Satan committed the unpardonable sin while disembodied. If not the identical sin to the unpardonable sin then at least a sin with an identical outcome - total incapacity to return to God's presence.

Joseph's quote there may be doctrine... however, i would suggest it must be deeper than the unpardonable sin only able to be committed while embodied.

[Stone holm]

When you say "guaranteed a place in heaven" what do you mean by that. If you mean a place in the Celestial Kingdom, I see no guarantee for that for an adult. If you mean avoiding outer darkness, that is true. We also sometimes get confused with the word hell, which normally in Mormon theology connotes a temporary abode where the residue of sin is metaphorically burned out of us. I am unclear about the authority for some of the suggestions on this thread that you can upgrade from the kingdom to which you were assigned at the time of judgment. It was always my understanding that you were stuck with whatever type of body you were resurrected to whether that be Celestial , Terrestrial , Telestial or a body of filth such as the sons of perdition. Although it is unknown what the ultimate state of the SOP is.

[CASteinman]

1. It is doctrine, because it is a teaching. Which is what doctrine is. False or true, it is nevertheless doctrine.

2. It is official or at least semi-official -- as it appears in an official organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

3. It is revelatory in that it is new and unusual and is the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

4. It is unreliable in that it was not well recorded, this particular version has variances with other versions, and Joseph Smith never had a chance to check it for accuracy. For this reason, it is impossible to say that it is true.

5. It is not scripture and has never been accepted by the Church as scripture. As a result it is not binding for members to believe or disbelieve.

To sum up: It is official or semi official doctrine that is revelatory but not to be trusted and is not scripture.

Edited April 9, 2013 by CASteinman

[Thinking]

I was reading this online, and I'd like to know if it's official Church doctrine?

You do realize that whatever answer you get from this board does not represent the official position of the LDS Church.

While topics of interest to members of the Church are discussed on this Board, it is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Opinions expressed are those of the individual posters rather than those of any organization.

[BCSpace]

A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.

A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.

I know the scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost; but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself.

If this is true, it would mean that George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and the signers of the declaration of independence (all of whom accepted the Temple work done for them) are guaranteed a place in heaven.

But is it true?

Sure. Even without the King Follet Sermon, it is doctrine that anyone who gives heed to the commandments and accepts Temple work will have a place in heaven. In fact, one can do with much less and still have a place in heaven unless by "heaven" you are referring only to the Celestial glory.

Was Joseph speaking as a prophet here, or was this just his own opinion?

Is there any way to know?

Did any other prophet and president ever comment on what Joseph said here?

The Church's own policy is that anything published officially is official doctrine. However there is such a thing as context and perhaps the context here is that the KFS is been published more as an historical interest than doctrine though I personally tend more towards doctrine.

I think it's possible you could find this or part(s) of this published in other Church works which should certainly confirm it as doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

We don't have the authority to determine whom does or doesn't go to Heaven, or Hell for that matter. That being said we do know that we will pay to utter most Farthing for any unrepentanted of sin.

[canard78]

1. It is doctrine, because it is a teaching. Which is what doctrine is. False or true, it is nevertheless doctrine.

2. It is official or at least semi-official -- as it appears in an official organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

3. It is revelatory in that it is new and unusual and is the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

4. It is unreliable in that it was not well recorded, this particular version has variances with other versions, and Joseph Smith never had a chance to check it for accuracy. For this reason, it is impossible to say that it true.

5. It is not scripture and has never been accepted by the Church as scripture. As a result it is not binding for members to believe or disbelieve.

To sum up: It is official or semi official doctrine that is revelatory but not to be trusted and is not scripture.

I called it

You're right of course. The dictionary definition of doctrine covers a few areas, but is (at its most basic) "something that is taught" or "a principle in a set of beliefs" - both of which apply. Etymology is from Latin doctrina "teaching, body of teachings, learning," from doctor "teacher."

But... the phrase "Official Doctrine" for most members I think conjures up a different image. If someone in church says something is doctrine or official doctrine they understand it to be 'unequivocal truth from God.' Is King Follet this? It doesn't appear to be.

[CASteinman]

But... the phrase "Official Doctrine" for most members I think conjures up a different image. If someone in church says something is doctrine or official doctrine they understand it to be 'unequivocal truth from God.' Is King Follet this? It doesn't appear to be.

Yeah, that's why I went into the full explanation. People are sort of saying "Official Doctrine" = Truth. Which is not so. There may be a connection but its not a perfect match.

Is King Follet Unequivocal truth from God? I think that it is -- or at the very least -- was. But if someone disagrees with me that is fine because this is not the least bit binding on any of us.

[tyler90az]

Not many people can commit the unpardonable sin in this life and none can in the next. To commit the unpardonable sin you must have a complete knowledge. As if you had a personal manifestation of Heavenly Father introducing his beloved Son to you. That means most are ineligable for outer darkness. Which if we believe in progress after this life means all are guarnteed a spot in Heaven. That is if their desires which dictate actions lead them to a spot with the Father.

[Freedom]

This life, not the next life, is the probationary state. We are judged according to our works in the flesh. Once we die, the test is over.

[rameumptom]

This teaching fits in with the Book of Mormon's teachings (Alma 36, Mosiah 2-5). Note: when one says "salvation" we should not immediately think of exaltation, but of rescue from death and hell. Those who receive the temple blessings will have access to all of God's blessings, depending upon how much of it they willingly accept and how willing they are to fully repent of sin.

[Stone holm]

This life, not the next life, is the probationary state. We are judged according to our works in the flesh. Once we die, the test is over.

The testing, but perhaps not the repenting.

[Freedom]

The testing, but perhaps not the repenting.

I think it depends upon your definition of repenting. One cannot live a life if wickedness and then decide to repent in the spirit world. Repenting is about changing your character to be more christ like. It may be that this process will take much longer than just mortality and the brief stay in the spirit world. So, this is the time to prepare to meet God and this time of preparing includes repenting. If you are on the right course, striving to live by every word of doctrine, then the atonement will take over where you fall short. If you reject the promptings of the spirit and never join the church, or by your own wicked choices never even make contact with members of the church, I do not believe there will be a time to make amends in the afterlife.

[Stone holm]

I think it depends upon your definition of repenting. One cannot live a life if wickedness and then decide to repent in the spirit world. Repenting is about changing your character to be more christ like. It may be that this process will take much longer than just mortality and the brief stay in the spirit world. So, this is the time to prepare to meet God and this time of preparing includes repenting. If you are on the right course, striving to live by every word of doctrine, then the atonement will take over where you fall short. If you reject the promptings of the spirit and never join the church, or by your own wicked choices never even make contact with members of the church, I do not believe there will be a time to make amends in the afterlife.

Actually to a certain extent you can, and eventually must -- it may not get you where you would have been had you not delayed, yet it does have some efficacy. Hell in the Mormon sense is a temporary place where one finishes an incomplete repentance.

[Freedom]

Actually to a certain extent you can, and eventually must -- it may not get you where you would have been had you not delayed, yet it does have some efficacy. Hell in the Mormon sense is a temporary place where one finishes an incomplete repentance.

Although it is true that we must all repent of our sins eventually in order to come before the judgement bar of the Godhead, there is a difference between repenting to be like Jesus and repenting because you have no choice. It is a matter of definitions. I follow the laws of the land and consequently I will never end up on prison. Prisoners obey the laws of the land because they have no choice. They are not physically capable of robing a bank, burning down a house, or embezzling funds. Assuming, that is, that the prison is working as it should. I understand that prisoners still carry on their criminal activity behind bars, but I am making an analogy to the spirit prison. Perhaps a better example is paying taxes, and not paying taxes until you get arrested. Yes, the courts will force you to pay, but I would not consider that person an honest contributor to the public purse. I think it is a matter of semantics. The type of repentance the disciple of christ has the opportunity to perform in mortality is very different from the repentance the enemy of God will be forced to perform in the next live.

[Stone holm]

Although it is true that we must all repent of our sins eventually in order to come before the judgement bar of the Godhead, there is a difference between repenting to be like Jesus and repenting because you have no choice. It is a matter of definitions. I follow the laws of the land and consequently I will never end up on prison. Prisoners obey the laws of the land because they have no choice. They are not physically capable of robing a bank, burning down a house, or embezzling funds. Assuming, that is, that the prison is working as it should. I understand that prisoners still carry on their criminal activity behind bars, but I am making an analogy to the spirit prison. Perhaps a better example is paying taxes, and not paying taxes until you get arrested. Yes, the courts will force you to pay, but I would not consider that person an honest contributor to the public purse. I think it is a matter of semantics. The type of repentance the disciple of christ has the opportunity to perform in mortality is very different from the repentance the enemy of God will be forced to perform in the next live.

You may be right. We do talk rather like a prison. But, I have always pretty much seen Spirit prison as something where the bars are in our own minds and we are basically inflicting the misery on ourselves. And that kind of prison sounds an awful lot like repentance here on Earth. For example many believe that during the millennium that there will only be one Church, namely our own. That is not my understanding. Even then The Lord will not be compelling us. So I do not exactly know what hell is like will we be compelled to submit? Maybe, but I don't think so. Every knee shall eventually bow , but I don't think anyone will be compelled to do so like in some medieval scene of a prisoner forced to kneel before a king.

[canard78]

Yeah, that's why I went into the full explanation. People are sort of saying "Official Doctrine" = Truth. Which is not so. There may be a connection but its not a perfect match.

Is King Follet Unequivocal truth from God? I think that it is -- or at the very least -- was. But if someone disagrees with me that is fine because this is not the least bit binding on any of us.

Unequivocal truth? I'm not even Joseph claimed it to be such. He said he wanted to "offer you my ideas..." but hoped the spirit would carry the truth of it to the hearts of the listeners. I consider a lot of it to be brilliant speculation. It makes sense and paints a beautiful painting of Joseph's theology and view of the universe.

But I'm not sure that it's all unequivocal truth. What about:

"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 awaits 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: it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.

http://pt.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/6/1

I see the LDS.org same section has been annotated about a fair bit and deleted completely the last couple of sentences.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

By the way, how does "it is -- or at the very least -- was" work? It was true... now it's not?

[CASteinman]

By the way, how does "it is -- or at the very least -- was" work? It was true... now it's not?

Well, it was delivered one way and exists another way.

[inquiringmind]

Presumably Satan committed the unpardonable sin while disembodied. If not the identical sin to the unpardonable sin then at least a sin with an identical outcome - total incapacity to return to God's presence.

So is anyone ever safe?

From an LDS point of view, Joseph Smith was a faithful Prophet.

He answered God's call, was baptized, made covenants, kept them, and died a martyr

Is he safe now?

Will he be safe when he receives his exaltation (assuming he hasn't already)?

Will he be safe after the resurrection?

Or could he (even then) turn around and commit the unpardonable sin?

What about God Himself?

Is he safe (or could God actually cease to be God at some point)?

Does scripture say anything about this?

Joseph's quote there may be doctrine... however, i would suggest it must be deeper than the unpardonable sin only able to be committed while embodied.

So what does it mean?

When (if ever) is anyone safe from the danger of committing this sin?

Is one always in danger of committing a sin that results in "total incapacity to return to God's presence," but never secure in His presence?

Also, if it's impossible to commit this sin after death (as I'd like to believe), what makes it impossible?

From what I've read of LDS views on this subject, the more knowledge one has, the more danger their in.

(But Joseph also said that knowledge saves.)

Are the dead (who never committed the unpardonable sin in this life) safe, or are they in more danger (because they now know there's life after death)?

There's a lot I don't understand here.

If anybody does understand these things, please reply.

(And if it's possible to submit a question like this to the first presidency, please tell me how.)

Thank you.

Edited April 11, 2013 by inquiringmind