The King Follet Discourse As A Neglected Hammer In Mormon Apologetics

[Ntrw]

I have a blatantly apologetic interest in the King Follet Discourse. From this perspective, the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham both have transmission issues. You cannot have a conversation about these texts without getting side tracked into discussions about gold plates, angels, seer stones, translation theory, Kirtland Egyptian Papers and papyri. Almost always, these side issues become the main objects of discussion, as opposed to the texts themselves. The King Follet Discourse doesn't have these transmission issues; everyone knows and agrees that Joseph gave it and that it's modern.

Aside from very powerful ideas about God's origin and the destiny of man, Joseph also makes very specific claims about ancient Israelite religion:

1)There exists a plurality of Gods that meet in a council presided over by a Head God,

2)This view is the oldest view,

3)The oldest view was lost, in part, because ancient scribes altered the scriptures.

These three claims can be tested and verified WITHOUT getting side tracked by transmission issues. Btw, I'm stealing this argument from Hugh Nibley, who made a similar argument for the Book of Moses, in Enoch The Prophet.

[Calm]

removed as not now relevant...

Edited April 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

everyone knows and agrees that Joseph gave it and that it's modern.

Everyone agrees he gave some sermon as to what exactly he said, I remain very skeptical. God having a god having a god having a god is very sketchy for me. Although I think there's truth to that, doctrinally-speaking the LDS do not worship or believe in such a thing so far as their official fiath and worship are concerned. I relegate what we have today reported as having been said in the King Follett Discourse as speculation.

Aside from very powerful ideas about God's origin and the destiny of man, Joseph also makes very specific claims about ancient Israelite religion:

1)There exists a plurality of Gods that meet in a council presided over by a Head God,

2)This view is the oldest view,

3)The oldest view was lost, in part, because ancient scribes altered the scriptures.

As forthe ultimate destiny of man, it's sound and clear doctrine. Becoming exalted by the grace of the Most High God is a glorious doctrine and one which testifies of the Father's greatness and benevolence. The existence of the divine council has been reported on by several scholars during the last few decades or so. Here's two from LDS scholars.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=46&chapid=258

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=644

[Darren10]

This is the Social Forum which really isn't the forum for the discussion you want to have on this, likely won't go very far. You will be able to start new threads in the main forum once you get up to 25 so I would suggest for a quick and easy way to do this going into the three word story thread and posting quite a few there if you don't have other threads you would like to make comments on...though such comments do help us get to know you better.

Lol - I did not even check what forum this was placed in. I always admire your perception, calmoriah.

[Ntrw]

I'll repost this in another section and discuss, when I'm allowed to.

[Calm]

removed as not now relevant

Edited April 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

1)There exists a plurality of Gods that meet in a council presided over by a Head God,

2)This view is the oldest view,

3)The oldest view was lost, in part, because ancient scribes altered the scriptures.

1) Yes.

2) Probably, but we cannot say for certain.

3) To a certain extent, yes, but it is far more an issue of oral teachings than text-based.

Those are the simple answers. Things are actually a lot more complex. Daniel Boyarin reconstructed some of the history of the defeat of binitarian doctrines in their respective faiths by Jewish and Christian groups whom he termed heresiologists. It is germane here. However, some sort of belief in a divine council was held (through various evolutions) until the 19th century. http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2012/05/council-of-souls.html

[canard78]

I have a blatantly apologetic interest in the King Follet Discourse. From this perspective, the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham both have transmission issues. You cannot have a conversation about these texts without getting side tracked into discussions about gold plates, angels, seer stones, translation theory, Kirtland Egyptian Papers and papyri. Almost always, these side issues become the main objects of discussion, as opposed to the texts themselves. The King Follet Discourse doesn't have these transmission issues; everyone knows and agrees that Joseph gave it and that it's modern.

Aside from very powerful ideas about God's origin and the destiny of man, Joseph also makes very specific claims about ancient Israelite religion:

1)There exists a plurality of Gods that meet in a council presided over by a Head God,

2)This view is the oldest view,

3)The oldest view was lost, in part, because ancient scribes altered the scriptures.

These three claims can be tested and verified WITHOUT getting side tracked by transmission issues. Btw, I'm stealing this argument from Hugh Nibley, who made a similar argument for the Book of Moses, in Enoch The Prophet.

Looks like this has been moved to GenDisc.

I find the KFD fascinating. I wish we'd had an approved version.

As it is, there's always two issues to any discussion like this:

1) Multiple versions (4 I think) that have minor contradictions/omissions. Who made the right version? Joseph never approved a final version.

2) Joseph says he is speculating and sharing his own ideas, not sharing revealed doctrine.

As a result the whole thing can't really be held up as prophetic evidence for or against his prophetic call.

Stories of babies on thrones not growing? Dismiss as bad recording.

Speculation about the origins of Gods? Speculation, nothing more.

But assuming around 80% is a fair reflection of what he actually said, I still consider it to be an interesting reflection of where his ideas were progressing towards in his later years. Who knows how much he might have canonised of this had be been able to live for longer.

[Storm Rider]

For me the concept of God having a God etc. just does not make sense. All it does is beg the question of what is the First Cause. This speculation offers only complexity to the reality that God is our Father in Heaven, that he sent his son, Jesus, to save us, and that he leads us and reveals truth to us by the Holy Spirit. I have no problem if other LDS like to support this speculation, but for me it causes more problems than it answers. I also freely admit that I am a simple man and like to keep things simple.

[Questing Beast]

"Necessary Cause" is better than "first cause", imho, because if you have a "first" anything then you have subsequent "causes". And what was going on before "first" got started? Necessary Cause is better because the term exists without any reference to time and space, no "before and after" about it, it just Is.

Now, to the OP: the part of Joseph Smith's thinking that got into scripture is his physically embodied God the Father. Before the Follett discourse GtF was a being of spirit, and only the Son had a body of "tabernacle", i.e. flesh. The rest of the Follett discourse is too weird for words and does not answer anything about why Existence Is what it Is.

And I agree with the objection that we don't have a singular statement here, because it was recollection, not dictation, ergo fraught with the difficulties of human memory....

[rameumptom]

First Cause? It is turtles all the way down....

KFD not having transmission issues? How about Brigham Young's expansion of it: Adam as God....?

[cdowis]

For me the concept of God having a God etc. just does not make sense.

I am a father. My father brought forth a father, and I brought forth a father.

Now, does that make sense? Just think about it.

[TAO]

Storm, you are right, it just is speculation. But why need a first cause? Why not have an infinitely long chain?

[Calm]

Storm, you are right, it just is speculation. But why need a first cause? Why not have an infinitely long chain?

The infinitely long time exists into eternity past whether it is an infinitely long chain or an infinitely long existing being/First Cause.

[theplains]

doctrinally-speaking the LDS do not worship or believe in such a thing

Do you worship a God who was once a man who progressed into becoming a God?

Jim

[mfbukowski]

First causes only exist in a pool game.

It's called the cue ball. Or is it the cue? Or is it the muscles of the person making the first shot- or is it that person's parents who conceived him, or perhaps his grandparents 22 generations ago- or the first strand of self-replicating DNA.

The whole problem is that what is and is not a "cause" is subject to anyone's interpretation- Hume proved that 400 years ago.

If you think a pool game is a good analogy for the universe, good for you, but I think it's a little more complex than that.

So is the first cause God or his father? Was it God's thought to create the universe? Or was it his sudden motivation to make people after an eternity of floating around?

It's gotta be turtles all the way down- no beginning, no end.

If there was a first cause, then it can all end the way it began. Something doesnt' come out of nothing, nor does something become nothing.

The King Follette position is that there was no first cause- so choose your theology wisely. You have a choice of Aquinas or Joseph Smith. For me, I'll stick with good old Joe, my buddy.

[mfbukowski]

The rest of the Follett discourse is too weird for words and does not answer anything about why Existence Is what it Is.

Which of course implies that you DO know why "existence is" (which is redundant).

Please tell us the secrets of existence!

[TAO]

The infinitely long time exists into eternity past whether it is an infinitely long chain or an infinitely long existing being/First Cause.

True true. But motion and matter of some sort have to always exist.

And I just gotta say this... I don't think it means everything has happened since there is many powers to the infinity of possibilities in terms of things happening. So I still think the amount of things that would happen, though infinite, would not consist of everything, ironic as that is.

[Storm Rider]

Do you worship a God who was once a man who progressed into becoming a God?

Jim

No. I worship a God who has always been God and did not personally progress into anything. He has created a way for me to progress through Christ to become like him.

[canard78]

Do you worship a God who was once a man who progressed into becoming a God?

Jim

If they read their Gospel Principles manual they do.

My answer is. Maybe. I worship God. It may turn out that he is the first and only or the latest in a long chain. I've no idea really. It doesn't matter a lot to me either way. Given there's only one I have much to do with it doesn't make much of a difference if we do or don't.

[Bikeemikey]

No. I worship a God who has always been God and did not personally progress into anything. He has created a way for me to progress through Christ to become like him.

Attend LDS Sunday school much?

That's not what the handbooks say.

[telnetd]

Attend LDS Sunday school much?

That's not what the handbooks say.

What handbooks?

Gail

[canard78]

What handbooks?

Gail

Umm... how about the one we use to teach our investigators and new members? And the one the whole church used for Priesthood/RS as a refresher of our basic doctrines:

Gospel Principles Chapter 47: Exaltation

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

[Questing Beast]

...

If there was a first cause, then it can all end the way it began. Something doesnt' come out of nothing, nor does something become nothing.

The King Follette position is that there was no first cause- so choose your theology wisely. You have a choice of Aquinas or Joseph Smith. For me, I'll stick with good old Joe, my buddy.

Words like beginning and end and before and after are meaningless without space-time. So, yes, "God" does nothing and Is Void, and also fecund, infinite creation. There is obviously no such thing as Nothing. But there is non creation, which from our apprehension appears to be nothing, or Void, but obviously is not either state, since Intelligence Exists in either state. As space-time is a creation of "God's", it follows that the bigger concept allows both states, void and creation, it isn't a choice of one or the other. We exist inside of creation. "God" Exists and is the Necessary Cause of our existence. (I do not like "first cause" because it requires a state before it becomes the first cause. Only Cause is even more accurate. But Necessary Cause is best, because existence requires explanation; it is necessary to me.) How exactly does Joseph Smith's string of "God the Fathers" answer the question of existence in the first place? Rather, his cosmology opens that question and makes it even bigger, i.e. even less answered, by trying to place GtF on a human scale we can comprehend, and then asserting "that's it, that's all there ever has been"....

[Storm Rider]

Attend LDS Sunday school much?

That's not what the handbooks say.

Hello Mikey. Yup, in the few days I have spent on earth I, once or twice, attended Sunday School, but no more. Unless you count those teachings callings, once or twice or so. Let's start with the simple one: When Jesus was on earth, did he stop being a member of the Godhead? I am going to assume that you think he remained the Son of God, the second member of the Godhead and never forfeited that position. Now, tell me if God was a man like Jesus, was he ever not God? As someone who has been a member for a little while, served in a few positions, taught a little bit I can tell you that there is no required belief or required doctrine of LDS in this regard. If you disagree, I would appreciate a CFA to support that position.