Bart Burk Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 In Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon we read the following:"A question may be asked—"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."Do little babies ever get to grow up, get married, etc.? Or are they stuck in this kind of limbo as a little baby forever?
canard78 Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Firstly, the "LDS church" has never taught this.Joseph Smith starts his King Follett discource by effectively saying "I've been pondering for a while, here's some speculation."There were 4 seperate note-takers of the discource. They all have slight differences. The paragraph above only appears in (I think) 1 out of 4 of them. Joseph Smith never signed off any version as the final one - he died before he had much opportunity to. It was only given a couple of months before he died. In some ways somewhat tantalising to consider what might have come next had he not been killed by the mob.The version listed on LDS.org has cut this section. Either because of unreliable source (being only 1 or 4) or simply because the church doesn't agree with it. Take your pick. Either way, no, the church does not teach this. I don't think the church has ever taught it.https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng
Bart Burk Posted July 23, 2013 Author Posted July 23, 2013 I originally found it here:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/King_Follett_DiscourseI found essentially the same thing here:http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2LarsonKingFollett-788e0c92-f320-42a3-bccc-7bf232ab8432.pdf
MDalby Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 I think this is doctrine and anything else at this time requires further light and knowledge."As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood. Children will be enthroned in the presence of God and the Lamb with bodies of the same stature that they had on earth, having been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb; they will there enjoy the fullness of that light, glory and intelligence, which is prepared in the celestial kingdom."(Joseph Smith, TPJS, p.199)
Kevin Christensen Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 In Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon we read the following:"A question may be asked—"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."Do little babies ever get to grow up, get married, etc.? Or are they stuck in this kind of limbo as a little baby forever? I offered my take on the report with a well-supported context in my NDE essay in JBMS:For example, during a 1909 NDE an American Catholic priest met his father "looking exactly as he had in the last few years of his life," wearing the "last suit of clothes he had owned."44 Father Tucker wrote, "I knew that the clothes Father wore were assumed because they were familiar to me, so that I might feel no strangeness in seeing him, and that to some lesser extent, his appearance was assumed also."4545. Ibid.; cf. Duane Crowther, Life Everlasting (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 81, and Wilson, The After Death Experience, 155. This kind of experience may account for Joseph Smith's controversial impression (reported in the King Follet sermon) that we'd resurrect at the age we died. (Remember that Joseph reported seeing Alvin in heaven.) If so, this gives Joseph's controversial and questionable idea an experimental, rather than philosophical, basis. Perhaps on this minor interpretive point, he assumed more than the experience justified.It's not a notion on which I'd ask anyone to set up a creed, stakes and bounds to the almighty.FWIWKevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA
canard78 Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) I originally found it here:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/King_Follett_DiscourseI found essentially the same thing here:http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2LarsonKingFollett-788e0c92-f320-42a3-bccc-7bf232ab8432.pdfI agree that it's in there and Joseph may have even said it. But you asked if the church teaches it. Given they removed it from the version they published I'd say no. Even Joseph is not exempt from the official statement on what is doctrine. We used to embrace prophets speculating. King Follett/Adam-God/Alma to Corianton. I can understand why the church correlated it out. We take every darned word they say so literally. We think God is a ventriloquist and the prophet sits on his knee yapping his wooden mouth while the voice of God comes out (cleverly disguised by an American accent). Apologies if I seem flippant. I used to see it that way. That they said the exact words that God would say if He were here. They don't. They have never claimed to. They even tell us time and again that they speak "in their weakness" - that doesn't just mean they are imperfect. It means the words they speak and write are imperfect. "Writing crystallises thought," as my mission president used to say. Sometimes it's only when we've written something down (or said it out loud and someone else has written if) that we can re-examine what our fluid thoughts were. When we re-read and review what's been written we realise that as a thought it was troubling/made sense/was significant. Once written and re-read a while later we sometimes realise we don't feel that after all, but didn't realise it while it was an illusive thought. So we change our perspectives. This applies to prophets too. That's probably why Joseph went back and changed some of the D&C. His inspired thoughts, crystallised, later, on reflection, weren't exactly the way he/God had felt on the matter and changed it. I say all that as someone who still struggles with that concept. I really thought it was God speaking when the prophet speaks. That the prophet was like a town crier reading from a script given him. I've realised there is too much evidence against that idea. The prophets even teach the opposite of this idea. Instead the prophet is more like a Foreign secretary. With authority from the Premier, but speaking in his/her own words and even with some of his/her own ideas. Occasionally the FS 'misspeaks.' But a good premier usually backs them up anyway. Unless they've made a huge gaff that needs correcting.This last part, in Mormonism is usually instead done by repetition. Instead of God sending an angel PR manager to correct every talk and article, we instead have 'doctrine by consensus.' If only one person said it, even Joseph, or it's never canonised, then it's not doctrine. It's a personal opinion. It might be thought provoking or uplifting still. But it's not official. Edited July 24, 2013 by canard78
Calm Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 I agree that it's in there and Joseph may have even said it. But you asked if the church teaches it. Given they removed it from the version they published I'd say no.Even Joseph is not exempt from the official statement on what is doctrine.We used to embrace prophets speculating. King Follett/Adam-God/Alma to Corianton. I can understand why the church correlated it out. We take every darned word they so literally. We think God is a ventriloquist and the prophet sits on his knee yapping his wooden mouth while the voice of God come out (cleverly disguised by an American accent).Apologies if I seem flippant. I used to see it that way. That they said the exact words that God would say if He were here. They don't. They have never claimed to. They even tell us time and again that they speak "in their weakness" - that doesn't just mean they are imperfect. It means the words they speak and write are imperfect."Writing crystallises thought," as my mission president used to say. Sometimes it's only when we've written something down (or said it out loud and someone else has written if) that we can re-examine what our fluid thoughts were.When we re-read and review what's been written we realise that as a thought it was troubling/made sense/was significant. Once written and re-read a while later we sometimes realise we don't feel that after all, but didn't realise it while it was an illusive thought. So we change our perspectives.This applies to prophets too. That's probably why Joseph went back and changed some of the D&C. His inspired thoughts, crystallised, later, on reflection, weren't exactly the way he/God had felt on the matter and changed it.I say all that as someone who still struggles with that concept. I really thought it was God speaking when the prophet speaks. That the prophet was like a town crier reading from a script given him. I've realised there is too much evidence against that idea. The prophets even teach the opposite of this idea.Instead the prophet is more like a Foreign secretary. With authority from the Premier, but speaking in his/her own words and even with some of his/her own ideas. Occasionally the FS 'misspeaks.' But a good premier usually backs them up anyway. Unless they've made a huge gaff that needs correcting.This last part, in Mormonism is usually instead done by repetition. Instead of God sending an angel PR manager to correct every talk and article, we instead have 'doctrine by consensus.' If only one person said it, even Joseph, or it's never canonised, then it's not doctrine. It's a personal opinion. It might be thought provoking or uplifting still. But it's not official.Good summary.
The Nehor Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 I think this is doctrine and anything else at this time requires further light and knowledge."As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood. Children will be enthroned in the presence of God and the Lamb with bodies of the same stature that they had on earth, having been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb; they will there enjoy the fullness of that light, glory and intelligence, which is prepared in the celestial kingdom."(Joseph Smith, TPJS, p.199)So dying young and leaving a beautiful corpse is actually a viable strategy?
theplains Posted July 23, 2013 Posted July 23, 2013 Do little babies ever get to grow up, get married, etc.? Or are they stuck in this kind of limbo as a little baby forever? From Gospel Principles, page 242 - "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 (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32).Regards,Jim
Recommended Posts