King Follett Sermon Take 2!

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

D&C 19 tells us what Joseph envisioned about Jesus.  Again, if you believe Joseph's articulation about Jesus applies to the Jesus of history, then that is a proposition of faith entirely.  I personally believe Joseph's thoughts about Jesus tell us only about the theological Jesus that Joseph perceived.  

I don't like saying the words "made it all up" because that sounds too pejorative to me, but thats pretty much what happened.  Every author that writes narratives is making it up.  Even those that study history imbue their narratives about history with a certain creative license. 

Do you believe Joseph was just a conduit for the words of God, just a passive receptacle like a receiver on the end of a telephone?  

I believe that Joseph was both at times a conduit and at times was inspired to use "a certain creative license".

Having experienced myself both being such a conduit (in my own personal affairs) and being inspired with "a certain creative license" in regard to communicating gospel principles (as an instructor in church classes, for example), I am myself completely able to envision Joseph Smith being the same, but for a larger audience.

You're entitled to believe that Joseph made it all up. It's your privilege, at least until you know different.  I don't think that "making it all up" is all that pejorative, if it expresses what you feel.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I believe that Joseph was both at times a conduit and at times was inspired to use "a certain creative license".

Having experienced myself both being such a conduit (in my own personal affairs) and being inspired with "a certain creative license" in regard to communicating gospel principles (as an instructor in church classes, for example), I am myself completely able to envision Joseph Smith being the same, but for a larger audience.

You're entitled to believe that Joseph made it all up. It's your privilege, at least until you know different.  I don't think that "making it all up" is all that pejorative, if it expresses what you feel.  

I don’t think the evidence of Joseph’s life gives reason to believe he was a conduit.  It reminds me of that quote from Brigham Young about if he were to translate the BoM over again it would be very different.  

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would ask you this question.  How do you determine which things are divine and which are not.  It sounds like you believe that some of what Joseph created was inspired, and others weren't or at least you are questioning about their inspiration.   Do you think for those things that are divinely inspired that they are at the same time perfectly correct or inerrant?  For example, is a particular teaching either 100% inspired and 100% reflects the will of the divine, or could it be there are degrees of inspiration, in which case I wonder how you would determine which teachings are inspired and to what degree they are inspired.  

I judge things by what I accept as scripture. If it seems to conflict, I ponder and pray about it. There is no scripture to support the exaltation through temporal polygamy idea. I believe that to be promoted by BY. While I am sure the Lord may be pleased with a happy polygamous family, I don't find any scripture granting higher exaltation for it, and that belief has caused lots of misguided stuff, unhappiness, and even plain evil. I am not convinced it is a good fruit.

Quote

Scripture isn't something I elevate as writings from God.  I think there are elements that I find inspirational, but I recognize that the authors of scripture were humans just trying to reflect their beliefs, who had different motivations and context unique to their time and circumstances.  I find inspiration in many writings.  None of it is dictated by God.  The earliest passages in the D&C about the process of how the BoM was translated even says that Joseph had to study things out in his mind, indicating some level of creativity in the process.  At any rate, everything that ever was written by a human came through the mind and context of that human.  I see no evidence that any human was possessed by some kind of supernatural entity and that human produced text was somehow appeared independent of the knowledge and circumstances of that human's brain.  

Revelation is one of the worst books in the canon, it was kept out of the canon for many years and its very place in the canon has been controversial throughout the history of the Christian tradition.  Its so bad because it is misunderstood and used as a proof text for modern events when it has no relationship to modern events.  I wish we'd get rid of it.  

Interestingly the number of American's that view the bible as inerrant continues to decline, only 24% in this recent poll.  I consider myself in the 26% that believes scriptures are moral tales recorded by man.  

I didn't claim that the Bible is inerrant. It is not. I believe it is mostly inspired, and contains many words given directly from God. I am not a "God-breathed" fanatic either. I recall your basic feelings about scripture and scholarly analysis. I will probably never agree with you. I certainly do not agree with you that Revelation is one of the worst books in the canon. Ether clearly references it as a book which will unfold. It is not my fault many people misunderstand it or misuse it. But that time is about to be past us. It was written essentially for the seventh seal.

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by RevTestament

[Kenfo]

On 10/25/2017 at 12:13 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

I also know there are many scriptural references throughout the standard works that can be interpreted to support MMP theory but one in particular that stands out to me is Abraham 3. Abraham is shown the Noble and Great ones in the pre-earth life. Somehow these individuals (including Abraham) were able to progress and obtain status worthy of being in the presence of the Father before they entered this probation. We also learn that there was "one among them that was like unto God". I know in primary we learned that we were all in the presence of God before we were born but I haven't come across any scriptural evidence of this. We only learn from these versus that the Noble and Great ones and Jehovah were in the presence of God. How did they attain this level of glory? It seems that they lived up to the fullness of their previous probation and now were ready to descend back down to earth for the rest of us to have a chance to attain Godhood such as they had received already. God chose the new Savior for this probation and his leaders to help bring more of His children into His glory.

Also one additional thought I have had studying this topic is about Lucifer. I think in light of the MMP theory one can find his argument much more compelling. Who knows which number Probation we currently are on (ex. 1,00,000,000,000....) but Lucifer tries to bring up a new plan that would get everyone out of the "loop". Having done this an eternal amount of times and yet majority of us have not made it to Godhood yet so why not change the plan and get us all there in one go eh? That would be much more tempting for 1/3 of the host of heaven to follow in light of the concept that they had tried God's plan X amount of times already and failed.

Just a few thoughts with a lot of personal presumptions and ideas.

 

 

[janderich]

There are other interesting areas to consider.

What of the sealing ceremony and mirrors that reflect husband and wife both forward and back from a given moment in time. Could it be that that moment is a focal point of eternity for all that has gone on before and all that will go on in the future?

Consider baptism and the re-birth, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God". Perhaps the need to be re-born was what Nicodemus was questioning, not that he was completely ignorant of the need for baptism. 

What of the second death, wherein we are cut off as to things pertaining unto righteousness? Could it be that the first death is those who are willing to repent and be resurrected to try again, and the second death are those who cut themselves off from regeneration, never to be born again (see Helaman 14:15-18)? 

What if the real vital progression we all need can only be found when we are separated from God? How then can we really progress in the Celestial realm? "For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God". 

On and on the symbols and hints continue.