ALarson Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 I wanted to get some input on the answer Bruce R. McConkie gave regarding a question asked to him about the King Follett Sermon. Here's the question and then his answer: Quote Question: What is the meaning of the Prophet’s language in the King Follett Discourse regarding spirits and intelligence? Answer: Footnote number 8 on page 354 of the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which was written by B. H. Roberts, is in error. Brother Roberts was one of those who propounded the idea of a pre-existence to the pre-existence. Joseph Smith’s doctrine, on the other hand, is that spirit has always existed, though spirits have not. That is, the spirit element from which the spirits of men were made has always existed, though the spirits of men have not always existed as they now do or as they did in the pre-existence. Abraham, like Joseph Smith, uses the word “intelligence” as a synonym for “spirit;” “intelligences,” then, is synonymous with “spirits.” When we say that God is our Father, or the Father of our Spirits, we mean just that. We are his begotten spirits, Christ being the Firstborn or First Begotten. Thus, when we were born in the pre-mortal sphere as spirits, we were created out of existing element called spirit (or intelligence, to use Abraham’s phrase). The B. H. Roberts doctrine was created out of speculation, and does not conform to the scriptures. When Abraham spoke of “intelligences that were organized,” he meant the spirits or souls of men, gathered in the pre-mortal council. Intelligences are spirits; intelligence is spirit, or, I assume, one might say “matter unorganized,’ to use the language of the temple. In section 93 the word ‘intelligence” is used synonymously with the word ‘spirit’ as used elsewhere. When the Lord says in section 93 (v. 30) “otherwise there is no existence,” he is summarizing in one verse, in brief and condensed form, what Lehi said in 2 Nephi 2— verses 11-12 in particular. The phrase “otherwise there is no existence” is the same as Lehi’s meaning, and we might just as well say “otherwise there is no creation.” The fundamental issue is that of agency, without which we, with Lehi, come to the conclusion that there is no God: if there is no agency, there is no God. Nothing could exist without agency, for agency is the law of opposites. This is one of the great philosophical concepts of the gospel, for from it we learn that if there were no agency there would be no life. When Brigham Roberts first published the Documentary History of the Church, Charles Penrose refused to let the King Follet Discourse be included in it, for he did not believe it. I have, or had, a copy of this early History, and it leaves the discourse out, though it left the pagination unchanged. Thus the pagination goes from something like page 415 to page 440. A large part of the King Follet Discourse has been suppressed, as it reports that the Prophet said that little children would come forth from the grave and be resurrected as children, then enter into the Celestial Kingdom and reign as children. This of course is false, and is the reason Joseph F. Smith took such labor to correct it in Improvement Era writing which has been preserved in Gospel Doctrine as well. In places, the King Follett Discourse is ambiguous, as the above note on the salvation of little children suggests. It was given in April, and the Prophet was murdered in June, without having had the opportunity to revise, review, or correct the transcription of the speech. It is a miracle, frankly, that it has been accepted by the Church today as well as it has. It is in this discourse the Joseph announced that men could become Gods, and, once you learn the plan of salvation the idea that men can become Gods is the most natural, instinctive and obvious commonplace one could expect. That is why the fellow on the Godmakers is so wicked, because it perverts such a sound and simple gospel doctrine. This doctrine that men can become Gods is the most obvious thing in the world. (MLM Journal, Feb. 26, 1984) Was BH Roberts "in error" as he believed? Was a "large part" of the discourse "suppressed"? I'd love to hear someone's thoughts on this who has done more studying on the sermon or on this topic. 3
JulieM Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ALarson said: I wanted to get some input on the answer Bruce R. McConkie gave regarding a question asked to him about the King Follett Sermon. Here's the question and then his answer: Was BH Roberts "in error" as he believed? Was a "large part" of the discourse "suppressed"? I'd love to hear someone's thoughts on this who has done more studying on the sermon or on this topic. This part of the leak was something of interest to me too! The "suppressed" part of the sermon reportedly stated "that little children would come forth from the grave and be resurrected as children, then enter into the Celestial Kingdom and reign as children"? Do we have the entire sermon or have parts been edited out or suppressed as McConkie stated here? Edited July 24, 2017 by JulieM
JLHPROF Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: Was BH Roberts "in error" as he believed? Was a "large part" of the discourse "suppressed"? I'd love to hear someone's thoughts on this who has done more studying on the sermon or on this topic. It's been quite some time since I studied this. A large part of the King Follet Discourse has been suppressed, as it reports that the Prophet said that little children would come forth from the grave and be resurrected as children, then enter into the Celestial Kingdom and reign as children. That is in one of the record of the sermon, but to call it a large part would be an overstatement.http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/7Apr44.html The part Roberts chose to leave out was: It will never grow, It will be in its precise form as it fell in its mothers arms. 3 Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory not one cubit added to their stature. The Woodruff Journal is the record that specifies it. 2
Oliblish Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: This part of the leak was something of interest to me too! The "suppressed" part of the sermon reportedly stated "that little children would come forth from the grave and be resurrected as children, then enter into the Celestial Kingdom and reign as children"? Do we have the entire sermon or have parts been edited out or suppressed as McConkie stated here? There is a similar quote in the BYU Studies amalgamated manuscript of the King Follett Discourse. I believe it is claimed that Joseph Smith disavowed this teaching before he died. Quote Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/king-follett-discourse-newly-amalgamated-text 2
CV75 Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: I wanted to get some input on the answer Bruce R. McConkie gave regarding a question asked to him about the King Follett Sermon. Here's the question and then his answer: Was BH Roberts "in error" as he believed? Was a "large part" of the discourse "suppressed"? I'd love to hear someone's thoughts on this who has done more studying on the sermon or on this topic. Who is MLM and why would he say "the Joseph"?
Calm Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 If we were organized using spirit matter as building blocks and we were not individual beings (which I believe is Roberts interpretation), then where is our agency because God made us who we are just as much as he would have ex nihilo by choosing what to collect to organize us into specific beings with specific characteristics? "The fundamental issue is that of agency, without which we, with Lehi, come to the conclusion that there is no God: if there is no agency, there is no God. Nothing could exist without agency, for agency is the law of opposites. This is one of the great philosophical concepts of the gospel, for from it we learn that if there were no agency there would be no life." 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 BRM sure was confident and bold This is a great illustration of just how messy and unclear church doctrines (or at least our understanding of them) really are. 4
JLHPROF Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: BRM sure was confident and bold This is a great illustration of just how messy and unclear church doctrines (or at least our understanding of them) really are. I think it's a great illustration of ignoring what Joseph taught: ...the Elders of this Church have preached largely upon it, without having any rule of interpretation. What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads.
Gray Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I think it's a great illustration of ignoring what Joseph taught: ...the Elders of this Church have preached largely upon it, without having any rule of interpretation. What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. Which is actually just another form of interpretation. 3
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 18 hours ago, ALarson said: I wanted to get some input on the answer Bruce R. McConkie gave regarding a question asked to him about the King Follett Sermon. Here's the question and then his answer: Was BH Roberts "in error" as he believed? Was a "large part" of the discourse "suppressed"? I'd love to hear someone's thoughts on this who has done more studying on the sermon or on this topic. For the issue of what our nature was before being organized as spirits it's not at all clear. Jonathan Stapley had a post on this over at BCC. I thin Jonathan takes the view that we were always spirits and doesn't accept Brigham Young's view that we were organized via spirit birth out of spirit element. i.e. a process analogous to how physical birth takes atoms and makes a body. McConkie largely follows Brigham Young's view. (In that post of Jonathan I argued McConkie was vaguer on this point -- but the new data clearly establishes Jonathan's position on McConkie) Others have answered on the discourse being suppressed. There definitely are parts regarding children resurrection we don't accept. 1
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Calm said: If we were organized using spirit matter as building blocks and we were not individual beings (which I believe is Roberts interpretation), then where is our agency because God made us who we are just as much as he would have ex nihilo by choosing what to collect to organize us into specific beings with specific characteristics? "The fundamental issue is that of agency, without which we, with Lehi, come to the conclusion that there is no God: if there is no agency, there is no God. Nothing could exist without agency, for agency is the law of opposites. This is one of the great philosophical concepts of the gospel, for from it we learn that if there were no agency there would be no life." More or less Brigham Young adopts either a physicalist ontology of mind (more or less what most scientists today accept). It's possible if less likely that he ends up with something like a property dualism only with the properties of spiritual matter combining to form emergent mind and agency out of its parts. i.e. you have proto-minds that aren't really conscious. It's not at all clear where Brigham got his ideas so it's hard to say much more than that. Of course Orson Pratt took his brother's more platonic conception of God and simply turned it into a material form of Stoicism using atoms. There's an argument to be made that he did this on the basis of Spinoza, Leibniz and possibly reading about Stoicism particularly Tertullian's material conception of the Trinity. And Priestly's theology seems to have undeniably influenced him. With B. H. Roberts it's tricker. I used to think he just embraced a Cartesian dualism where intelligence was a Cartesian mind. I now think that's wrong, but I'm not entirely sure how to describe Robert's views. Jonathan Stapley had a post calling Robert's view tripartite existentialism. WVS apparently has a book coming out that will deal with this. The two main texts of Roberts to look at are The Immortality of Man and the relevant section from A Seventy's Course in Theology. The main transmission of the ideas into their becoming so popular was oddly Skousen for promoting Orson Pratt's theology and Truman G. Madsen for promoting Robert's view in his book Eternal Man. Edited July 25, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
JLHPROF Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 59 minutes ago, Gray said: Which is actually just another form of interpretation. Oh, you anti-literalist you.... 1
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 20 hours ago, Oliblish said: There is a similar quote in the BYU Studies amalgamated manuscript of the King Follett Discourse. I believe it is claimed that Joseph Smith disavowed this teaching before he died. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/king-follett-discourse-newly-amalgamated-text Are original copies of the different accounts available anywhere for people to compare? It looks like this version has the key phrases in parenthesis which the author of this study indicates that it was in the Wilford Woodruff account primarily. Also, where did you hear that JS disavowed this teaching?
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) Best discussion I've seen on the issue is these BCC posts by WVS and JStapley https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/04/13/the-resurrection-of-children/ https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/24/children-who-pass-away/ Edited July 25, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Oliblish Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Are original copies of the different accounts available anywhere for people to compare? It looks like this version has the key phrases in parenthesis which the author of this study indicates that it was in the Wilford Woodruff account primarily. Also, where did you hear that JS disavowed this teaching? I don't know where to find any original copies of each account. I was referring to a footnote in the History of the Church Volume 4 Chapter 32. It is a third (or maybe fourth) hand account decades after the fact so I can understand if some question how accurate it is: Quote 7. It must be remembered that the above report of the Prophet's remarks, as also the report of the King Follett sermon (preached in April, 1844, and which will appear in Volume V of this history), where the same matter of infants being enthroned in power while remaining of the same stature as when on earth, and at the time of their death, is mentioned—were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. This matter of children after the resurrection remaining of the same stature as at their death is well known to be such an error. The writer of this note distinctly remembers to have heard the late President Wilford Woodruff, who reported the above sermon, say, that the Prophet corrected the impression that had been made by his King Follett sermon, that children and infants would remain fixed in the stature of their infancy and childhood in and after the resurrection. President Woodruff very emphatically said on the occasion of the subject being agitated about 1888-9, that the prophet taught subsequently to his King Follett sermon that children while resurrected in the stature at which they died would develope to the full stature of men and women after the resurrection; and that the contrary impression created by the report of the Prophet's King Follett sermon was due to a misunderstanding of his remarks and erroneous reporting. In addition to this personal recollection of the writer as to the testimony of the late President Wilford Woodruff, the following testimony of Elder Joseph Horne and his wife, M. Isabella Horne, on the same subject is important. The statements here copied were delivered in the presence of President Angus M. Cannon, of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion, and Elder Arthur Winter, at the residence of Brother Horne, in Salt Lake City, on November 19, 1896, and were reported stenographically by Arthur Winter, the Church official reporter. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-4-chapter-32 1
Alan Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 Personally, if I had to make a choice I'd go with B H Roberts on this.
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, Oliblish said: I don't know where to find any original copies of each account. I was referring to a footnote in the History of the Church Volume 4 Chapter 32. It is a third (or maybe fourth) hand account decades after the fact so I can understand if some question how accurate it is: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-4-chapter-32 Ahh, very late reminiscences like this I tend to discount. Interesting, thanks for sharing. It would be nice if we had access to all the Follet discourse notes via JSP or somewhere.
theplains Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 On 24/07/2017 at 5:30 PM, ALarson said: Was BH Roberts "in error" as he believed? Was a "large part" of the discourse "suppressed"? I think no one really had the courage to confront Joseph Smith even if they believed his teachings were evil. One thing overlooked in the KF discourse was that he taught Heavenly Father was once a man who became a god. This teaching continues unabated to this day. - April 1971, New Era, People on other Worlds - April 1971, Ensign, The King Follett Discourse - May 1976, New Era, How to Gain a Testimony - July 1979, Ensign, Line Upon Line - February 1982, Ensign, I Have a Question - January 1989, Ensign, The Restoration of Major Doctrines Through Joseph Smith - February 2002, Ensign, The Origin of Man - January 2005, Liahona, Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female - October 2008, General Conference, God Loves and Helps all His Children - 2008, Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, chapter 2: God the Eternal Father - February 2012, Liahona, Our Father in Heaven. Jim 1
Recommended Posts