King Follett Sermon Take 2!

[Benjamin Seeker]

In a past thread on the roots of Multiple Mortal Probations, I shared George Laub's interpretation of the King Follett Sermon, which said that Heavenly Father had gone and redeemed a world in the flesh. I also shared Brigham and Heber's ordinances a year or less from JS' death where they ordained each other to be Christ's of other worlds. Another piece of evidence along these lines has come to light dating back to 1841! This is from Wilford Woodruff's notes of a December 1841 meeting: 

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."

I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:

 https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

In a past thread on the roots of Multiple Mortal Probations, I shared George Laub's interpretation of the King Follett Sermon, which said that Heavenly Father had gone and redeemed a world in the flesh. I also shared Brigham and Heber's ordinances a year or less from JS' death where they ordained each other to be Christ's of other worlds. Another piece of evidence along these lines has come to light dating back to 1841! This is from Wilford Woodruff's notes of a December 1841 meeting: 

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."

I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:

 https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999

These doctrines appear from time to time.  Adam-God, Multiple Mortal Probations, and this one, sometimes called the Grand Order of Saviors doctrine (labelled such by Tullidge).  All have their followers, mostly among fundamentalist groups.  Only Adam-God was ever taught by a prophet over the pulpit.  The other two are alluded to in quoted such as the ones you have provided.

Doesn't mean they aren't true, just that they have never been widely believed or expounded upon.

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

These doctrines appear from time to time.  Adam-God, Multiple Mortal Probations, and this one, sometimes called the Grand Order of Saviors doctrine (labelled such by Tullidge).  All have their followers, mostly among fundamentalist groups.  Only Adam-God was ever taught by a prophet over the pulpit.  The other two are alluded to in quoted such as the ones you have provided.

Doesn't mean they aren't true, just that they have never been widely believed or expounded upon.

I forgot to clarify that I just approach these from a historical angle. I'm not recommending beliefs.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

In a past thread on the roots of Multiple Mortal Probations, I shared George Laub's interpretation of the King Follett Sermon, which said that Heavenly Father had gone and redeemed a world in the flesh. I also shared Brigham and Heber's ordinances a year or less from JS' death where they ordained each other to be Christ's of other worlds. Another piece of evidence along these lines has come to light dating back to 1841! This is from Wilford Woodruff's notes of a December 1841 meeting: 

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."

I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:

 https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999

Material of this kind emphasizes yet again the need for professional historical work in the Archives (as also indicated in the By Common Consent article).  Once the true provenance of such material is established, then professional theologians might be able to help bring systematic understanding in proper & broader context.

[clarkgoble]

I'd add that this quote from Woodruff to my eyes isn't about multiple probations but rather just a normal mainstream view of regress of Gods. i.e. the Father once was on an earth like us except that unlike us he was like Jesus. This is in fact why some make a distinction between our exaltation and Christ's. Although frankly there's not a lot revealed on that. More or less it just says that the Holy Ghost will also have a chance at exaltation. It doesn't say anything about a progression from mortal → Holy Ghost → Christ →  Father as some groups think. (I think that's a doctrine of the Allred group as I recall)

The better quote on the Holy Ghost, btw, is the Aug 27, 1843 one. This is from the Franklin Richards account. "Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has."

The other one is the June 16, 1844 one from the Laub meeting. But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body. as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies for the Saviour Says the work that my father did do i also & those are the works he took himself a body & then laid down his life that he might take it up again &

One thing to always keep in mind is that I'd never ascribe too much to a single word. For sermons where there are multiple accounts we can see differences and often changes of context. (As an aside this is why some of the latter D&C sections taken out of fragmentary notes like D&C 130 are somewhat problematic) We should realize the textual problems and not assume we have some inerrant divine statement.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd add that this quote from Woodruff to my eyes isn't about multiple probations but rather just a normal mainstream view of regress of Gods. i.e. the Father once was on an earth like us except that unlike us he was like Jesus. This is in fact why some make a distinction between our exaltation and Christ's. Although frankly there's not a lot revealed on that. More or less it just says that the Holy Ghost will also have a chance at exaltation. It doesn't say anything about a progression from mortal → Holy Ghost → Christ →  Father as some groups think. (I think that's a doctrine of the Allred group as I recall)

The better quote on the Holy Ghost, btw, is the Aug 27, 1843 one. This is from the Franklin Richards account. "Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has."

The other one is the June 16, 1844 one from the Laub meeting. But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body. as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies for the Saviour Says the work that my father did do i also & those are the works he took himself a body & then laid down his life that he might take it up again &

One thing to always keep in mind is that I'd never ascribe too much to a single word. For sermons where there are multiple accounts we can see differences and often changes of context. (As an aside this is why some of the latter D&C sections taken out of fragmentary notes like D&C 130 are somewhat problematic) We should realize the textual problems and not assume we have some inerrant divine statement.

I originally posted this only because it essentially proves that JS believed in regress of Gods you've described (Holy Ghost -> Christ -> Father), which was a point of argument either in the MMP thread or the regress thread before it.

However, now that you bring it up, one of the potential inferences of the quote is multiple mortal probations when combined with Joseph's commentary on the ladder of exaltation in the King Follett sermon.

 

[clarkgoble]

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I originally posted this only because it essentially proves that JS believed in regress of Gods you've described (Holy Ghost -> Christ -> Father), which was a point of argument either in the MMP thread or the regress thread before it.

I think we have to distinguish between multiple mortal probations from regress of gods. They're really different claims. One can accept one without the other. Indeed the regress of gods is the mainstream LDS view although some (like Blake Ostler) reject it. Multiple probations is more Adam/God theory in one incarnation or else the idea that those judged to telestial glory get sent back to earth in the other more reincarnation form.

More to the point, I don't think that quote establishes in the least that the Holy Ghost would become a Christ before becoming like the Father. Rather it says God the Father was once like Jesus or the Holy Ghost. i.e. not exalted Claiming it meant he was first a Holy Ghost and then a Christ just is reading far too much into the text. It just says once he wasn't exalted and now he is. It does say he was once a savior but it doesn't say he was once a Holy Ghost. I can see reading as saying everyone has to redeem a world, but what that means isn't quite clear IMO. It could well mean that the Holy Ghost would have a son and so would everyone exalted.

Edited October 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

I think we have to distinguish between multiple mortal probations from regress of gods. They're really different claims. One can accept one without the other. Indeed the regress of gods is the mainstream LDS view although some (like Blake Ostler) reject it. Multiple probations is more Adam/God theory in one incarnation or else the idea that those judged to telestial glory get sent back to earth in the other more reincarnation form.

Absolutely, They're  independent animals.

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

I think we have to distinguish between multiple mortal probations from regress of gods. They're really different claims. One can accept one without the other. Indeed the regress of gods is the mainstream LDS view although some (like Blake Ostler) reject it. Multiple probations is more Adam/God theory in one incarnation or else the idea that those judged to telestial glory get sent back to earth in the other more reincarnation form.

Would you give the potential inference that heirs of exaltation would need to be Saviors the label of MMP or some other label entirely?

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Would you give the potential inference that heirs of exaltation would need to be Saviors the label of MMP or some other label entirely?

I think the problem with talking about saviors or redeemers is the context. Short fragments don't give that context and are typically ambiguous. As to why that is important I'd merely point to Mosiah 15 and it's exegesis of Isaiah 63. We all are to be saviors and redeemers. Part of becoming a son or daughter of the savior through baptism is to become just such a savior.

Lest one thing that is acontextual I'd simply note that Joseph was emphasizing just that notion in Nauvoo up until his death. From Woodruff's account of the Jan 21, 1844 sermon.

But what is the object of this important mission or how is it to be fulfilled, The keys are to be delivered the spirit of Elijah is to Come, The gospel to be esstablished the saints of God gatherd Zion built up, & the Saints to Come up as Saviors on mount Zion but how are they to become Saviors on Mount Zion by building their temples erecting their Baptismal fonts & going forth & receiving all the ordinances, Baptisms, Confirmations, washings, anointings ordinations & sealing powers upon our heads in behalf of all our Progenitors who are dead & redeem them that they may Come forth in the first resurrection & be exalted to thrones of glory with us, & here in is the chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the Children, & the Children to the Fathers which fulfills the mission of Elijah &

 

The MMP or Adam/God theology requires that individuals not merely share in the spirit of Elijah to be saviors through what in the late 20th century we called the three missions of the church. Rather it requires that we individually become a pre-mortal God, become born as a mortal again (losing our resurrection), and be crucified to die before becoming exalted. I'd simply note that the quote you provide says no such thing. Further it's just very mainstream doctrine today as well as in the Book of Mormon that we are all saviors together with Christ. The idea in Nauvoo is much more of a community salvation rather than merely focused on the individual as happened in various ways in early Utah.

While I think the Utah era restore some extremely important doctrines, most crucially a deeper and more correct account of adoption, I think it also misunderstood some Nauvoo doctrines. I think the more reincarnation form developed with help from the spiritualists from England who had started immigrating to Utah in the 1850's. (Leading to the Godbeite problems famously) I don't doubt there were elements in Navuoo as we've discussed before. I just don't think they were fleshed out and it's not clear what people were interpreting. For the record I have zero problem with Joseph being wrong about some things. For instance his views on the resurrection of children are most likely wrong and were left out of most printings of the King Follet Discourse by the Church in official publications like lesson manuals during the correlation era.

Edited October 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the problem with talking about saviors or redeemers is the context. Short fragments don't give that context and are typically ambiguous. As to why that is important I'd merely point to Mosiah 15 and it's exegesis of Isaiah 63. We all are to be saviors and redeemers. Part of becoming a son or daughter of the savior through baptism is to become just such a savior.

I agree. That's why this more explicitly description from Woodruff ("redeemed a world"), is significant. For example, every description of the King Follett Sermon, excepting George Laub's, is ambiguous on whether the Father had "redeemed a world." Now there are two explicit witnesses to JS teaching the idea that the Father was a Christ. I know you said that this is standard Mormon doctrine, but I've seen lots of disagreements and arguments about the ambiguity of the King Follett sermon on that point.

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Lest one thing that is acontextual I'd simply note that Joseph was emphasizing just that notion in Nauvoo up until his death. From Woodruff's account of the Jan 21, 1844 sermon.

But what is the object of this important mission or how is it to be fulfilled, The keys are to be delivered the spirit of Elijah is to Come, The gospel to be esstablished the saints of God gatherd Zion built up, & the Saints to Come up as Saviors on mount Zion but how are they to become Saviors on Mount Zion by building their temples erecting their Baptismal fonts & going forth & receiving all the ordinances, Baptisms, Confirmations, washings, anointings ordinations & sealing powers upon our heads in behalf of all our Progenitors who are dead & redeem them that they may Come forth in the first resurrection & be exalted to thrones of glory with us, & here in is the chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the Children, & the Children to the Fathers which fulfills the mission of Elijah &

 

The MMP or Adam/God theology requires that individuals not merely share in the spirit of Elijah to be saviors through what in the late 20th century we called the three missions of the church. Rather it requires that we individually become a pre-mortal God, become born as a mortal again (losing our resurrection), and be crucified to die before becoming exalted. I'd simply note that the quote you provide says no such thing.

Right. I've agreed with you there. It only infers MMP when put in combination with JS' commentary on climbing up the ladder of exaltation, which if you remember, is Laub's interpretation.

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Further it's just very mainstream doctrine today as well as in the Book of Mormon that we are all saviors together with Christ. The idea in Nauvoo is much more of a community salvation rather than merely focused on the individual as happened in various ways in early Utah.

While I think the Utah era restore some extremely important doctrines, most crucially a deeper and more correct account of adoption, I think it also misunderstood some Nauvoo doctrines. I think the more reincarnation form developed with help from the spiritualists from England who had started immigrating to Utah in the 1850's. (Leading to the Godbeite problems famously) I don't doubt there were elements in Navuoo as we've discussed before. I just don't think they were fleshed out and it's not clear what people were interpreting. For the record I have zero problem with Joseph being wrong about some things.

Good. Again, I'm not trying to prescribe what people should believe. I'm just interested in what JS believed.

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

For instance his views on the resurrection of children are most likely wrong and were left out of most printings of the King Follet Discourse by the Church in official publications like lesson manuals during the correlation era.

 

[hope_for_things]

On 10/22/2017 at 2:29 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

In a past thread on the roots of Multiple Mortal Probations, I shared George Laub's interpretation of the King Follett Sermon, which said that Heavenly Father had gone and redeemed a world in the flesh. I also shared Brigham and Heber's ordinances a year or less from JS' death where they ordained each other to be Christ's of other worlds. Another piece of evidence along these lines has come to light dating back to 1841! This is from Wilford Woodruff's notes of a December 1841 meeting: 

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."

I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:

 https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999

Super interesting, thanks for sharing, I had no idea these ideas pre-dated King Follett.  I wonder if this idea was unique to Mormonism or if they were borrowing from outside sources.  Very interesting stuff.  

[DonBradley]

On 10/22/2017 at 2:29 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

In a past thread on the roots of Multiple Mortal Probations, I shared George Laub's interpretation of the King Follett Sermon, which said that Heavenly Father had gone and redeemed a world in the flesh. I also shared Brigham and Heber's ordinances a year or less from JS' death where they ordained each other to be Christ's of other worlds. Another piece of evidence along these lines has come to light dating back to 1841! This is from Wilford Woodruff's notes of a December 1841 meeting: 

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."

I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:

 https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999

This quote confirms how I've always read the other JS statements that Clark cites, and the KFD where it says that the Father had power in himself to lay down his life and take it up again. We don't have that power. We don't resurrect ourselves by the power within us but, rather, are resurrected by Christ's power. The implication, made explicit in the December 1841 quote, is that the Father "had redeemed a world"--i.e., had been a Savior.

Combining these various statements, Joseph seems to have understood that the third member of the Godhead later becomes the second, in a later Godhead, and ultimately the first. This view would also account for Joseph saying in the KFD that the Christ had seen the Father lay down his life and take it up again--Christ was then a "Holy Ghost" while the Father was a Savior.

Where it gets a little trickier to understand Joseph's views is how all this relates to us. If Joseph believed that gods move up through these positions in successive Godheads, then he must have believed one of the following:

1) That we become "Holy Ghosts," then saviors, then Fathers;

or,

2) That "Godhead gods," as we might call them, are of a different order than us--and that we, thus, never become "Holy Ghosts," saviors, or Fathers.

The December 1841 WW Journal quote seems to say the first "& the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory." But I have trouble believing that WW is reporting the detail here closely enough to make that step. Joseph preaches elsewhere about how our bodies will rise from our graves here on this earth. If we are not resurrected until after a stint as a "Holy Ghost," this wouldn't happen on this earth, and not with these bodies.

Viewing Joseph as holding proposition #1 above would require seeing him as not really believing the doctrine of resurrection that he preached much more often than he seemingly preached this other idea. So it seems more likely that Joseph held "Godhead gods" to be a separate order from us, with the implications that 1) contrary to the evangelical critique of King Follett doctrine, God the Father never sinned, and 2) we will never be worshipped, since we will never be Godhead gods.

It's interesting to note that in the KFD Joseph appears not to have said that God the Father once dwelt on an earth the same as we do, but that He once dwelt on an earth the same as Christ did.

I'm not sure how I personally feel about all this. I certainly believe that we can be deified in a very robust sense. But I have trouble thinking we are of the same order as God the Father and Christ or desiring to be worshipped.

Also, while I don't claim to know anything here, I'm fond of Blake's idea that God the Father is the ultimate Source  or font of all divinity. I certainly worship Him as such.

In any case, Joseph's various teachings on the subject may suggest some new wrinkles or lines of interpretation for the LDS doctrine of deification.

Don

Edited October 24, 2017 by DonBradley

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 hours ago, DonBradley said:

This quote confirms how I've always read the other JS statements that Clark cites, and the KFD where it says that the Father had power in himself to lay down his life and take it up again. We don't have that power. We don't resurrect ourselves by the power within us but, rather, are resurrected by Christ's power. The implication, made explicit in the December 1841 quote, is that the Father "had redeemed a world"--i.e., had been a Savior.

Combining these various statements, Joseph seems to have understood that the third member of the Godhead later becomes the second, in a later Godhead, and ultimately the first. This view would also account for Joseph saying in the KFD that the Christ had seen the Father lay down his life and take it up again--Christ was then a "Holy Ghost" while the Father was a Savior.

Where it gets a little trickier to understand Joseph's views is how all this relates to us. If Joseph believed that gods move up through these positions in successive Godheads, then he must have believed one of the following:

1) That we become "Holy Ghosts," then saviors, then Fathers;

or,

2) That "Godhead gods," as we might call them, are of a different order than us--and that we, thus, never become "Holy Ghosts," saviors, or Fathers.

The December 1841 WW Journal quote seems to say the first "& the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory." But I have trouble believing that WW is reporting the detail here closely enough to make that step. Joseph preaches elsewhere about how our bodies will rise from our graves here on this earth. If we are not resurrected until after a stint as a "Holy Ghost," this wouldn't happen on this earth, and not with these bodies.

Viewing Joseph as holding proposition #1 above would require seeing him as not really believing the doctrine of resurrection that he preached much more often than he seemingly preached this other idea. So it seems more likely that Joseph held "Godhead gods" to be a separate order from us, with the implications that 1) contrary to the evangelical critique of King Follett doctrine, God the Father never sinned, and 2) we will never be worshipped, since we will never be Godhead gods.

It's interesting to note that in the KFD Joseph appears not to have said that God the Father once dwelt on an earth the same as we do, but that He once dwelt on an earth the same as Christ did.

I'm not sure how I personally feel about all this. I certainly believe that we can be deified in a very robust sense. But I have trouble thinking we are of the same order as God the Father and Christ or desiring to be worshipped.

Also, while I don't claim to know anything here, I'm fond of Blake's idea that God the Father is the ultimate Source  or font of all divinity. I certainly worship Him as such.

In any case, Joseph's various teachings on the subject may suggest some new wrinkles or lines of interpretation for the LDS doctrine of deification.

Don

Don, I don’t have a personal doctrinal belief here, but looking at the various pieces of the puzzle, I lean towards Joseph believing that celestial heirs would all eventually make their way through the Holy Ghost -> Christ -> Father progression. I agree that this upends Joseph’s oft taught resurrection, but in the end the resurrection is still obtained. Also, it’s not out of character for JS or for his texts to introduce a revolutionary interpretation of doctrine, particularly when framed as a mystery.

Thank you for pointing out the “so would all the Saints” phrase. I hadn’t caught the potential significance of that, but the most obvious interpretation is that all heirs will pass through the Godhead progression.

Other worthwhile evidences include:

- The King Follett Sermon’s Teachings about the ladder of exaltation.

- George Laub’s summary of the King Follett Sermon which is often thought of the odd man out in terms of interpretation of the sermon, but as it turns out, he is corroborating Woodruff’s notes from the OP closely both in the “redeeming a world” aspect and it being the path of deification for all.

- Joseph reportedly believed in reincarnation in this period, and when Eliza Snow was questioned on this, she recalled the King Follett Sermon. Though this hypothetical path to deification isn’t traditional reincarnation, it’s like reincarnation in that another mortal existence follows an after life. So, this mortal existence -> afterlife -> (Holy Ghost?) -> Christ-type mortality -> “obtain the resurrection.”

- The endowment appears to show beings as physical that we would normally assume to only be spirits because they have mortal existences yet to live out. Their physical form is the logical conclusion if the endowment is taken literally as it only seems JS intended it to be taken indicated by his comments on it giving keys to decipher between true and false messengers in conjunction with his oft repeated instructions (before and after the endowment) that righteous spirits don’t shake hands. This infers some kind of general MMP mechanism, which is needed for all heirs to pass through the Godhead progression.

- D&C 132’s eternal lives and deaths.

- In 1846 “Brigham Young laid hands on Heber C. Kimball and "Ordained him to the Godhead, and that he would act as the Savior to a world or worlds." This was part of a long prayer. Promised wives, seed without number, be full partaker with Abraham, Isaac., and Jacob. The Godhead was a different blessing from Godhood. (Some received only Godhood.) Heber C. Kimball then did the same to Brigham Young, i.e., ordained him to The Godhead. They in turn did it by proxy for Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Other saints (W.W. Phelps) were blessed to act in Trinities (or Presidencies of worlds)." - from Hale’s MMP document.

Other evidences that are still supportive of this craziness but are much less clear include:

- Heber Kimball’s statement that JS approved of Kimball’s MMP doctrine in Nauvoo.

- An interesting account by Joseph Lee Robinson: "We also heard him (Joseph) say that God had revealed unto him that any man who ever committed adultery in either of his probations that that man could never be raised to the highest exaltation in the celestial glory and that he (Joseph) felt anxious with regard to himself and he inquired of the Lord and the Lord told him that he, Joseph, had never committed adultery (D&C 132:41). This saying of the Prophet astonished me very much. It opened up to me a very wide field of reflection. The idea that we had passed through probations prior to this and that we must have been married and given in marriage in those probations or there would be no propriety in making such an assertion and that there were several exaltations in the servants to the Gods. Be this as it may, this is what he said." (Journal of Joseph Lee Robinson, http://planetnielsen.com/joseph_lee_robinson/jlr_basic_journal.pdf, pp. 40-41) Some people have argued that JS's phrase, "either probation," could refer to our mortal probation and preexistence (1st and 2nd estates), and frankly, this seems like a plausible understanding of the quote, which in that scenario it at least infers that spirits were married in the preexistence. However, obviously Robinson understood Joseph as referring to some version of multiple mortal probations, which makes us wonder if there was more than what Robinson reported or if he was piecing together other things he'd heard Joseph say. No matter, he understood JS to mean multiple mortal probations. The date of the quote is just shy of the Woodruff notes about progression of the Godhead, being the fall of 1841.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

Most of the time when I read about early Mormonism I find it fascinating, all the moving parts, the innovations and missteps that happened as this brand new religious tradition was forming.  Its really amazing to think about and that such a strong tradition today emerged out of these wild beginnings.

Other times, I start to wonder why I'm interested at all because some of this stuff is just so crazy, a group of teenagers today wasting time and wildly speculating about the universe and religion could come up with just as compelling a theology.  And then I start to question why am I wasting my time reading about this stuff...  Why.... 

[theplains]

On 22/10/2017 at 6:36 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Material of this kind emphasizes yet again the need for professional historical work in the Archives (as also indicated in the By Common Consent article).  Once the true provenance of such material is established, then professional theologians might be able to help bring systematic understanding in proper & broader context.

Was the King Follett discourse historically true in Joseph Smith's day but false in our day?  If false, he would have to
be viewed as a deceiver because he was preaching a false god (a man who became the God and Heavenly Father of
our Earth).  As a side note, the LDS Church continues to propagate this teaching of God once being a man who became
a god.

See attached.

Thanks,
Jim

lds - teachings about heavenly father.pdf

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Was the King Follett discourse historically true in Joseph Smith's day but false in our day?  If false, he would have to
be viewed as a deceiver because he was preaching a false god (a man who became the God and Heavenly Father of
our Earth). 

Well, Jim.  I believe the doctrine in Joseph's sermon at the King Follett funeral.  It is as correct as the day he preached that sermon, so I don't know where you get the "false in our day" nonsense.  In fact, his sermon comports with the Hebrew of Genesis 1, while the Roman Catholic and Protestant teachings on that are completely false.  LDS theology is indeed fully naturalistic and humanistic.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

As a side note, the LDS Church continues to propagate this teaching of God once being a man who became
a god............................

Correct, Jim.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Was the King Follett discourse historically true in Joseph Smith's day but false in our day?  If false, he would have to
be viewed as a deceiver because he was preaching a false god (a man who became the God and Heavenly Father of
our Earth).  As a side note, the LDS Church continues to propagate this teaching of God once being a man who became
a god.

See attached.

Thanks,
Jim

lds - teachings about heavenly father.pdf

I don't believe Robert is making an inference as to its historicity. He is saying we need the historical material to be able to properly assess the nature of God, and other teachings or doctrine of the Church. He then propounds the idea that theologians will flesh out this idea. This will not happen. The later Church GAs already rejected the idea in favor of the idea the Yeshua was the Son who saved all prior worlds and subsequent worlds with His sacrifice on this world. So to now wholly embrace the MMP teaching of the progression of the Godhead to that of being the Father will require the Church to abandon a current teaching. I pose that the two are mutually exclusive. So, any official Church theologians will not make this determination. It is tantamount to admitting the Church GAs have gone somewhat astray - an idea they have always resisted. So the truth will be foisted somewhat upon the Church which will then be required to make a choice of which to believe. Currently, the Church is simply not prepared to accept it. It involves too much departure from currently taught interpretations and precepts. 

I pose that Yeshua our Savior revealed this teaching through His earthly ministry. I also pose that this at one time was somewhat believed in early Christianity - in the form of the belief that men could also be begotten to become like our Savior - and this idea was eventually squelched by the Nicene Creed. To fully understand these ideas one must have a good grasp on many scriptural concepts, which I believe most Christians simply do not have. They do not understand the true begotten nature of the Son. They do not understand His inheritance of the holy Mountains of the Father to Himself be called the Eternal Father per Isa 9:6, because the scriptures are directly opposed by the current teaching of Nicene Creed and the doctrines of the Trinity. So, until they can get past these teachings, they will not accept the scriptural truths, and will continue to call such interpretations heresy. 

[RevTestament]

On 10/24/2017 at 11:55 AM, hope_for_things said:

Most of the time when I read about early Mormonism I find it fascinating, all the moving parts, the innovations and missteps that happened as this brand new religious tradition was forming.  Its really amazing to think about and that such a strong tradition today emerged out of these wild beginnings.

Other times, I start to wonder why I'm interested at all because some of this stuff is just so crazy, a group of teenagers today wasting time and wildly speculating about the universe and religion could come up with just as compelling a theology.  And then I start to question why am I wasting my time reading about this stuff...  Why.... 

Maybe because like others you are drawn to the idea of trying to understand God? 

I don't believe a group of teenagers today could come up with this stuff through wild speculation. It is too radical, and would have come up before, if it was so subject to speculation. I believe it is somewhat hidden in the teachings of the NT so for the idea to even come up, one must understand the spirit of the NT and Yeshua's teachings. However, I pose that it will become much more evident to the Church.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/22/2017 at 1:29 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

In a past thread on the roots of Multiple Mortal Probations, I shared George Laub's interpretation of the King Follett Sermon, which said that Heavenly Father had gone and redeemed a world in the flesh. I also shared Brigham and Heber's ordinances a year or less from JS' death where they ordained each other to be Christ's of other worlds. Another piece of evidence along these lines has come to light dating back to 1841! This is from Wilford Woodruff's notes of a December 1841 meeting: 

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."

I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:

 https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999

I am not sure that the point I am about to make will be clear to everyone but I think it will be clear to some.   I really don't feel like going into the long story, so here is the short one.  Of course this is all just my opinion

I am a compatibilist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism    on the idea that multiple probations can be seen as compatible with scriptural interpretations which lead to the conclusion that only one probation is within the generally accepted Plan of Salvation

As usual for me, it all rests on how one interprets the scriptures and the ambiguities of language.  To me there can be multiple "worlds" within one "eternity" and that there could be multiple "eternities".

The simplest way to explain it would be to think of how we use the words.  "I had to stand in line for an eternity at the DMV"  "Welcome to the Wonderful World of Stamp Collecting!"

Context is everything.  For those science minded, perhaps there are multiple "big bangs" or perhaps when stars collapse, and are re-formed, for their occupants there begins a new "eternity"

We have scriptural references for a "new heaven and earth" on this planet when it returns to its" paradaisical glory."  (spelling?)

The "seven thousand years of its mortal probation" could well be seven periods- as we see the present interpretation of the days of creation, with God "resting" on the last (does God really need to rest?)  For those more literally minded but not fundamentalists, one can see those words to mean seven thousand years from the first member of God's church (Adam &Eve) to the end of the world as humans know it- perhaps the Millenium, perhaps just a fundamental change in humanity/ the physical earth.

So yes, we go through one mortal probation which lasts for "eternity" and we are sealed for "eternity" etc, but if there are more than one "eternity" anything is possible just as there are multiple "worlds"

So as always, it comes down to language which creates the way we think about things, and leads to discussions about more words and their interpretations.  And so we generate theories about the alleged "reality" we can never really know on this side of the veil, or for atheists, that we can never really know, period.

But what the heck, it's fun. 

So yeah, if believing in multiple mortal probations makes someone's life better, I say go for it.  Just don't bring it up in Sunday School for others to argue with because no one can really possibly "know".

My dos centavos, which are less than two cents.  If those cents make sense.

Words are all we got.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Was the King Follett discourse historically true in Joseph Smith's day but false in our day?  If false, he would have to
be viewed as a deceiver because he was preaching a false god (a man who became the God and Heavenly Father of
our Earth).  As a side note, the LDS Church continues to propagate this teaching of God once being a man who became
a god.

See attached.

Thanks,
Jim

lds - teachings about heavenly father.pdf

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

The Perry Scheme.

No incompatibility here at all.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/24/2017 at 10:55 AM, hope_for_things said:

Most of the time when I read about early Mormonism I find it fascinating, all the moving parts, the innovations and missteps that happened as this brand new religious tradition was forming.  Its really amazing to think about and that such a strong tradition today emerged out of these wild beginnings.

Other times, I start to wonder why I'm interested at all because some of this stuff is just so crazy, a group of teenagers today wasting time and wildly speculating about the universe and religion could come up with just as compelling a theology.  And then I start to question why am I wasting my time reading about this stuff...  Why.... 

Maybe time to start reading other sources like philosophy etc and writing your own stuff.

Kick your study of theology into another level?  Read theologians and compare what they say with what you think. 

But honestly in my opinion "Mormonism" in the larger sense,  is the only "true and living church" largely because it is the only path to God compatible with the way you are turning, IN MY OPINION, for what it's worth.

And a church needs authority to have a consistency about it, even if it is not always consistent. 

But there is such a great flexibility here you will find nowhere else.  Just don't confuse people at church- that is the big no-no because in the final analysis they are just as "right" in their worlds as you are in yours.  Everybody gets to make their own.

Go to the scriptures and interpret them as you like.  If you want to stay within the church- as I absolutely insist upon doing for myself, stay within the bounds of the temple recommend questions and develop your own stuff and pray pray pray for inspiration and get close to God, and don't let the words get in the way.

Again, my two cents which may make sense or not.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 10/22/2017 at 8:53 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I originally posted this only because it essentially proves that JS believed in regress of Gods you've described (Holy Ghost -> Christ -> Father), which was a point of argument either in the MMP thread or the regress thread before it.

However, now that you bring it up, one of the potential inferences of the quote is multiple mortal probations when combined with Joseph's commentary on the ladder of exaltation in the King Follett sermon.

 

If you want to see it that way

But that is the greater lesson I think of this thread- that we have many many ways of interpreting scripture and we need - and do - interpret it as we need to in order to take its "matter unorganized" and organize it like unto other worlds others have created.  

But not exactly like. 

What I love about Mormonism is that you can take these words and see us as gods going down and creating worlds physically out of physical matter or you can see it symbolically or psychologically and philosophically to be your own world of interpretation which you create.

One interpretation speaks to the more  philosophical and secular side of us and the other speaks to the more tangible needs we have, in seeing it physically.   Neither is right or wrong, they are just interpretations that serve purposes in our lives within a context.

[RevTestament]

On 10/23/2017 at 11:59 PM, DonBradley said:

This quote confirms how I've always read the other JS statements that Clark cites, and the KFD where it says that the Father had power in himself to lay down his life and take it up again. We don't have that power. We don't resurrect ourselves by the power within us but, rather, are resurrected by Christ's power. The implication, made explicit in the December 1841 quote, is that the Father "had redeemed a world"--i.e., had been a Savior.

Combining these various statements, Joseph seems to have understood that the third member of the Godhead later becomes the second, in a later Godhead, and ultimately the first. This view would also account for Joseph saying in the KFD that the Christ had seen the Father lay down his life and take it up again--Christ was then a "Holy Ghost" while the Father was a Savior.

Where it gets a little trickier to understand Joseph's views is how all this relates to us. If Joseph believed that gods move up through these positions in successive Godheads, then he must have believed one of the following:

1) That we become "Holy Ghosts," then saviors, then Fathers;

or,

2) That "Godhead gods," as we might call them, are of a different order than us--and that we, thus, never become "Holy Ghosts," saviors, or Fathers.

The December 1841 WW Journal quote seems to say the first "& the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory." But I have trouble believing that WW is reporting the detail here closely enough to make that step. Joseph preaches elsewhere about how our bodies will rise from our graves here on this earth. If we are not resurrected until after a stint as a "Holy Ghost," this wouldn't happen on this earth, and not with these bodies.Viewing Joseph as holding proposition #1 above would require seeing him as not really believing the doctrine of resurrection that he preached much more often than he seemingly preached this other idea.

I do not understand why you say an interpretation of #1 contravenes the doctrine of resurrection he taught. Is that because he taught the "permanency" of the resurrection with such words as "eternal" or "forever"? If so that does not preclude a future MMP by choice or until "the end."

Quote

So it seems more likely that Joseph held "Godhead gods" to be a separate order from us, with the implications that 1) contrary to the evangelical critique of King Follett doctrine, God the Father never sinned, and 2) we will never be worshipped, since we will never be Godhead gods.

It's interesting to note that in the KFD Joseph appears not to have said that God the Father once dwelt on an earth the same as we do, but that He once dwelt on an earth the same as Christ did.

Did God say he never sinned? Hmm. I thought Gen 3:22 says that through the fall Adam and Eve became even as "us" knowing good and evil?

The scriptures seem to present God in His present form since "the beginning" as one who will not lie as a man, and is the same eternally. As someone who became the Father even as Christ does infer an eternal inheritance and knowledge. I believe this is something one would inherit through priesthood - even as Melchizedek became without father or mother.

[RevTestament]

46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure that the point I am about to make will be clear to everyone but I think it will be clear to some.   I really don't feel like going into the long story, so here is the short one.  Of course this is all just my opinion

I am a compatibilist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism    on the idea that multiple probations can be seen as compatible with scriptural interpretations which lead to the conclusion that only one probation is within the generally accepted Plan of Salvation

As usual for me, it all rests on how one interprets the scriptures and the ambiguities of language.  To me there can be multiple "worlds" within one "eternity" and that there could be multiple "eternities".

The simplest way to explain it would be to think of how we use the words.  "I had to stand in line for an eternity at the DMV"  "Welcome to the Wonderful World of Stamp Collecting!"

Context is everything.  For those science minded, perhaps there are multiple "big bangs" or perhaps when stars collapse, and are re-formed, for their occupants there begins a new "eternity"

We have scriptural references for a "new heaven and earth" on this planet when it returns to its" paradaisical glory."  (spelling?)

The "seven thousand years of its mortal probation" could well be seven periods- as we see the present interpretation of the days of creation, with God "resting" on the last (does God really need to rest?)  For those more literally minded but not fundamentalists, one can see those words to mean seven thousand years from the first member of God's church (Adam &Eve) to the end of the world as humans know it- perhaps the Millenium, perhaps just a fundamental change in humanity/ the physical earth.

So yes, we go through one mortal probation which lasts for "eternity" and we are sealed for "eternity" etc, but if there are more than one "eternity" anything is possible just as there are multiple "worlds"

So as always, it comes down to language which creates the way we think about things, and leads to discussions about more words and their interpretations.  And so we generate theories about the alleged "reality" we can never really know on this side of the veil, or for atheists, that we can never really know, period.

But what the heck, it's fun. 

So yeah, if believing in multiple mortal probations makes someone's life better, I say go for it.  Just don't bring it up in Sunday School for others to argue with because no one can really possibly "know".

My dos centavos, which are less than two cents.  If those cents make sense.

Words are all we got.

Oh, contrare my dear Watson. We will have example, and visible confirmation. 

"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. As many were astonished at thee - his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men - so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Verily, verily, I say unto you, all these things shall surely come, even as the Father hath commanded me. Then shall this covenant which the Father hath covenanted with his people be fulfilled; and then shall Jerusalem be inhabited again with my people, and it shall be the land of their inheritance." 3 Nephi 20:43-6. "And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place - that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion;... Therefore, when these works and the works shall be wrought among you hereafter shall come forth from the Gentiles, unto your seed which shall dwindle in unbelief because of iniquity; For thus it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel; And when these things come to pass that thy seed shall begin to know these things - it shall be a sign unto them...." 3 Nephi 21:1-7. "For in that day, for my sake shall the Father work a work, which shall be a great and a marvelous work among them; and there shall be among them those who will not believe it, although a man shall declare it unto them. But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet, I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil. Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles, and shall give unto him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles, (it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant." 3 Nephi 21:9-11.