Trib article about the church's recent changes of it's polygamy cartoons for Primary children.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Not sure I follow...

Really?  Who is responsible for downplaying the doctrine taught in the KFD?  Who has been at the forefront of doing this. When I was young we were pretty proud of the doctrine of becoming gods and creating worlds. Now, the LDS web site says the idea of humans creating planets is not a doctrine. Well, they say the idea that "We will get our own planet" is not LDS doctrine. So who is responsible for downplaying the doctrine?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Really?  Who is responsible for downplaying the doctrine taught in the KFD?  Who has been at the forefront of doing this. When I was young we were pretty proud of the doctrine of becoming gods and creating worlds. Now, the LDS web site says the idea of humans creating planets is not a doctrine. Well, they say the idea that "We will get our own planet" is not LDS doctrine. So who is responsible for downplaying the doctrine?

The correlation committee? IDK

I'm sincerely trying to figure out the point you are trying to make and how it relates to my comment that you were responding to.

[Teancum]

On 2/24/2025 at 6:41 PM, Injeun said:

Brought to its natural conclusion, either the Church is in apostasy if it was ever true, or you are heading to that end by your own divergence, if you ever had a testimony that it is Gods true Church. If the Church is only as true as the doctrines with which we agree, then it isn't Gods restored Church, but is our built Church, and there is no God in it. 

Just because others don't have what seems to be your black and white thinking does not make them wrong.

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The correlation committee? IDK

I'm sincerely trying to figure out the point you are trying to make and how it relates to my comment that you were responding to.

Maybe I misunderstood you but you indicated that the church has downplayed the doctrine of the KFD. I think the primary culprits were the leaders themselves, the correlation committee and also LDS apologists.

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2025 at 12:38 PM, Injeun said:

That it is the only true Church, restored by the living God thru Joseph Smith, is the Church's claim to fame or it's only divine foundation. If that isn't true, then it is a lie, and is just another man made religion, borrowed from this and that.

Occam's Razor....

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Maybe I misunderstood you but you indicated that the church has downplayed the doctrine of the KFD. I think the primary culprits were the leaders themselves, the correlation committee and also LDS apologists.

There is good reason to be cautious imo.

One of the problems with claiming we are now downplaying the KFD is which version do we take as most authoritative so we know what is downplayed and what is being treated as likely inaccurate?  Are we obligated even if we believe it is very inspired to accept all that those who took notes (and often paraphrasing rather than trying to quote so often what we have is interpretation, not original thought) wrote down given how we know errors occur in communication.  

Apparently the most common version was created by some random Church Historian clerk who wasn’t even there who decided what was important and what wasn’t and adding his own ideas to fill in gaps.  Is that really something that should be treated like a section from the D&C?  Or be treated as a source of original LDS doctrine?

The creators of our modern scriptures were not shy about taking this stuff here and this stuff there and combining them into one section as if given at one time in the D&C.  I think it’s important to ask why didn’t those who were there at his sermon, who would be most familiar with its content and likely most comfortable with accepting new teachings as revelation because it was frequently being given to them, turn it into official scripture?  There had to be a reason they didn’t.  

Sec 131 was based on William Clayton’s notes about 3 separate occasions Joseph talked about related ideas within a short time.  If all one needed to be assured of value were William Clayton’s notes, why didn’t they just use his notes of the KFD?  Something had to leave them less confident or interested in those notes than the 131 notes.

Instead it appears from what I read there wasn’t much attention paid to the Discourse to begin with (maybe as long as 68 years until BH Robert’s started looking at them).  So maybe we aren’t downplaying it now, but restoring some of it to the place it held originally while keeping the ideas that have the strongest support in our content (the Gospel Topic Essay “Becoming Like God” contains ideas taught in the KFD, for example, including a bit of the history behind them, it includes the ladder analogy that I use all the time and I see in quite a few of the official website’s articles/talks/lessons).

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/researching-the-king-follett-discourse?lang=eng

 

Edited February 28, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2025 at 3:22 PM, Injeun said:

That the living God restored his true Church thru Joseph Smith is a basic tenet of his Church. If we don't believe that, then we have no foundation on which to build. Without Joseph Smith, whom God chose along with the Prophets and Apostles who followed, the Church would not be. And we'd all be left to ourselves and to our lives alone. The Prophet Joseph is at the nexus of it all. Either it is of God, or it is all fantasy and cosplay like the bible based religion parading as Christianity. Christianity, with its kaleidoscope of doctrines and gospels drove Joseph Smith to his knees to seek Gods wisdom as to which Church of them to join. And of course, God told him to join none of them. So here we are. Is there a God. Is he real. Does he answer prayers. Do boys have questions. Is God a respecter of persons. Are prophets real human beings, or unleavened words on pages of ancient script without heart and soul.

Occam's Razor.

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2025 at 10:06 PM, Injeun said:

God is God, regardless what anyone thinks. We find our realization or true life in him, not he in us, or we in our own lives and selves.

Which God is God?

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is good reason to be cautious imo.

One if the problems with claiming we are now downplaying the KFD is which version do we take as most authoritative so we know what is downplayed and what is being treated as likely inaccurate?  Are we obligated even if we believe it is very inspired to accept all that those who took notes (and often paraphrasing rather than trying to quote so often what we have is interpretation, not original thought) write down given how we know errors occur in communication.  

Apparently the most common version was created by some random Church Historian clerk who wasn’t even there who decided what was important and what wasn’t and adding his own ideas to fill gaps.  Is that really something that should be treated like a section from the D&C?  Or be treated as a source of original LDS doctrine?

The creators of our modern scriptures were not shy about taking this stuff here and this stuff there and combining them into one section as if given at one time in the D&C.  I think it’s important to ask why didn’t those who were there at his sermon, who would be most familiar with its content and likely most comfortable with accepting new teachings as revelation because it was frequently being given to them, turn it into official scripture?  There had to be a reason they didn’t.  

Sec 131 was based on William Clayton’s notes about 3 separate occasions Joseph talked about related ideas within a short time.  If all one needed to be assured of value were William Clayton’s notes, why didn’t they just use his notes of the KFD?  Something had to leave them less confident or interested in those notes than the 131 notes.

Instead it appears from what I read there wasn’t much attention paid to the Discourse to begin with (maybe as long as 68 years until BH Robert’s started looking at them).  So maybe we aren’t downplaying it now, but restoring some of it to the place it held originally while keeping the ideas that have the strongest support in our content (the Gospel Topic Essay “Becoming Like God” contains ideas taught in the KFD, for example).

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/researching-the-king-follett-discourse?lang=eng

Well LDS prophets and apostles were fairly explicit and clear on how they understood the KFD as can easily be illustrated by a plethora of talks and wiritings from Joseph Smith to Gordon Hinkley.  And  then they were not. Such is the ever moving goal posts of Mormonism.  

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2025 at 1:34 PM, Injeun said:

Where is MY break? I didn't challenge anyone. I merely made a post justifying the doctrine of polygamy, directed at no one And my assertion has been challenged by the unbelief of MS, you, and others. What these challenges exhibit is a potpourri of unbelief in the Church, in Joseph Smith, in the general authorities, in doctrine, and in the first vision, as if the divinity of God is that which we bequeath to him, rather than an observation of his rightful place as the most high God. I'm nobody to be saying these things. But if all things work to the good of those who believe, then belief must be the start.

Ones testimony isn't built by unbelief or challenging the testimony of others, but by prayer and spirit, believing. It is personal, not a math equation. You can't form God from doctrine, like Adam from the dirt, and worship the work of your hands or of your own construct.

Paul said that studying scriptures is good for the man of God. He didn't say that studying scriptures will make you a man of God. One must first be a man of God for scriptures to be of proper effect. For instance, if it is said that raw meat is good for a lion. It doesn't mean that eating raw meat will make you a lion. One must first be a man of God or a lion for scripture or raw meat to be of proper effect. So to attempt to approximate one or the other by roaring and pontificating is nothing more than an act. It is fake, and gives rise to Matthews counsel not to be tricked into following false Christs or falsehoods from any angle in the latter days. People of the world say this and that. But who cares what they say. Who are they. What is their righteousness. Where is their proof.

When they say Joseph Smith was a conman, they betray their own deceitfulness. When they say he was a gold digger, they betray their own greed. When they say Polygamy is lustful, they betray their own lust. They are projectionists, laying their sins on the behavior of the upright as if they could divine the intentions of the heart. But it's the sins within their own hearts which they betray. The Church's accusers are themselves guilty of their every fault levied against the Church. Is the Church and its members perfect? No. But it is on the covenant path. It is Gods true Church. And like Jesus himself, it is whipped and flogged unto the overcoming of all things. So we are to bear it. I laugh at and mock the mockers, not by my own strength, but because God has already borne it. He is with us. It is his work in which we are allowed the luxury of participation in whatever our circumstance and capacity. 

I gleefully align myself with Joseph Smith, because without him I wouldn't know that God lives and that my true life is in him or in his spirit rather than in myself and my life alone. So as God is our God, then Joseph Smith is his instrument to bring about his purposes. Among men, all the good the Church does is because of Joseph Smith.

I do not know whether you are new here or a former poster under a new name. But you may want to tone down your high and mighty dogmatic approach. There are good solid believers here that may be nuanced in their approach to Mormonism in order to make it work for them.  Cut then some slack and try to get to know them a bit.  

You can be dogmatic with me as much as you want. I am a disaffected member who was not all that different from you most my life and I was even a hobby apologist. I think it is pretty clear Mormonism is a fraud and Joseph was as well. I think he and our current president have much in common. Both are/were narcissistic conmen born with natural talents to con people and do it well. They also both are/were womanizers who used their power with women and other men.  Alpha males to the max they conned their way though life and built their success and wealth be bilking others.  I could be wrong but doubt that I am, and I am still sad about that, at least as far as Smith is concerned.  Trump not so much.  If he fell over dead tomorrow I would dance in the streets and the world would be better off for it.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You can be dogmatic with me as much as you want. I am a disaffected member who was not all that different from you most my life and I was even a hobby apologist

I remember your posts and you were never that dogmatic.

[Injeun]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Which God is God?

There is only one most high God, whom you would know had you a place in him and he in you.

[blackstrap]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 current president

For a minute there I thought you were talking about President Nelson , and was preparing the torches and pitchforks. 

[blackstrap]

If we are dealing in versions, which version of the gospel should be considered as definitive ?

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

For a minute there I thought you were talking about President Nelson , and was preparing the torches and pitchforks. 

I did too. I thought it odd he would say "our" when he doesn't believe,  but then I find myself doing that sometimes.  Then I was trying to see that description in Nelson and don't see it.  Finally, I realized who he meant!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well LDS prophets and apostles were fairly explicit and clear on how they understood the KFD as can easily be illustrated by a plethora of talks and wiritings from Joseph Smith to Gordon Hinkley.

I don’t see this as any more accurate than the claim the KFD is being downplayed. I don’t believe the KFD was ever treated as a whole very much (maybe by Roberts, I need to study his approach) but rather some ideas were taken and became major themes, some of which are still used and other parts not so much.  To talk about it as if its entirety was embedded into LDS thought is like claiming we follow/live the Word of Wisdom when we just follow a small part of it generally speaking.  And maybe not even as originally interpreted (mild drink).

For example, when have you ever heard taught from the pulpit the idea that those who die as children will remain as children for eternity?  How exactly are they suppose to achieve exaltation if they never become adults.  Are we seeing babies getting married in the eternities?  Somehow I think not.  There is a good reason this didn’t become doctrinal at any level that I am aware of.

https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/article_pdfs/18-2_Article_Larson_TheKingFollett.pdf

 

Better to say there are parts of the KFD that have been ignored, discussed, obsessed over and/or faded some over time and others that have stayed consistently in the shadows snd still others being enshrined.  It would be interesting to identify the individual aspects and trace each in its popularity over the years including if there was additional revelation claimed for an idea or if it was/is doctrinal solely based on the tradition of the KFD.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Injeun said:

There is only one most high God, whom you would know had you a place in him and he in you.

But there are many sects who believe in God and would saw you have the incorrect God.  Really I just believe in one less god than you do.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

For a minute there I thought you were talking about President Nelson , and was preparing the torches and pitchforks. 

Ha!  I would not blame you! 🙃

[Injeun]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do not know whether you are new here or a former poster under a new name. But you may want to tone down your high and mighty dogmatic approach. There are good solid believers here that may be nuanced in their approach to Mormonism in order to make it work for them.  Cut then some slack and try to get to know them a bit.  

You can be dogmatic with me as much as you want. I am a disaffected member who was not all that different from you most my life and I was even a hobby apologist. I think it is pretty clear Mormonism is a fraud and Joseph was as well. I think he and our current president have much in common. Both are/were narcissistic conmen born with natural talents to con people and do it well. They also both are/were womanizers who used their power with women and other men.  Alpha males to the max they conned their way though life and built their success and wealth be bilking others.  I could be wrong but doubt that I am, and I am still sad about that, at least as far as Smith is concerned.  Trump not so much.  If he fell over dead tomorrow I would dance in the streets and the world would be better off for it.

I'm not like you were. I'm not a creature of dogma. I converted to the Church, sight unseen so to speak, from a strictly secular life. I chose to do so according to the interposition of Gods spirit, who awakened me to a remembrance of him, to know he is real, that he lives and is divine. By his knowledge of me, I know that my true life is in him or in his spirit rather than in myself or in my life alone. His spirit also showed me in vision that the LDS Missionaries are his servants. Consequently, I know the Church is true. And every fault levied against it is utterly meaningless to me or to my testimony, rolling off my back like the sea off a breaching whale. The existence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is a revelation and a miracle, showing forth the arm of God. And by and by the world will awaken to it,  like the scriptural thief who comes in the night, made dark by a drunken and unbelieving world.

I know you aren't here to bolster the weak, but to  undermine the truth at every turn by the same spirit that made wormwood of your former upbringing. It gives me no joy to say it.  

[Injeun]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But there are many sects who believe in God and would saw you have the incorrect God.  Really I just believe in one less god than you do.

Then your loyalties are divided, and I am reconciled to the truth.

[Injeun]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But there are many sects who believe in God and would saw you have the incorrect God.  Really I just believe in one less god than you do.

Then your loyalties are divided, and I am reconciled to the truth.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Injeun said:

the interposition of Gods spirit

I am curious as to what you have studied besides LDS writings.  Not criticizing it, just wondering about your background.

Edited March 1, 2025 by Calm

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do not know whether you are new here or a former poster under a new name. But you may want to tone down your high and mighty dogmatic approach. There are good solid believers here that may be nuanced in their approach to Mormonism in order to make it work for them.  Cut then some slack and try to get to know them a bit.  

You can be dogmatic with me as much as you want. I am a disaffected member who was not all that different from you most my life and I was even a hobby apologist. I think it is pretty clear Mormonism is a fraud and Joseph was as well. I think he and our current president have much in common. Both are/were narcissistic conmen born with natural talents to con people and do it well. They also both are/were womanizers who used their power with women and other men.  Alpha males to the max they conned their way though life and built their success and wealth be bilking others.  I could be wrong but doubt that I am, and I am still sad about that, at least as far as Smith is concerned.  Trump not so much.  If he fell over dead tomorrow I would dance in the streets and the world would be better off for it.

Did you really have to go there? Whatever you may think of Joseph Smith, I believe he did a lot of good and he sincerely cared about people. It’s doubtful Trump has ever done anything for anyone unless it benefitted him. 

Edited March 1, 2025 by Peacefully

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do not know whether you are new here or a former poster under a new name. But you may want to tone down your high and mighty dogmatic approach. There are good solid believers here that may be nuanced in their approach to Mormonism in order to make it work for them.  Cut then some slack and try to get to know them a bit.  

You can be dogmatic with me as much as you want. I am a disaffected member who was not all that different from you most my life and I was even a hobby apologist. I think it is pretty clear Mormonism is a fraud and Joseph was as well.

<Insert testimony of Joseph Smith and the Restored Gospel>

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think he and our current president have much in common. Both are/were narcissistic conmen born with natural talents to con people and do it well. They also both are/were womanizers who used their power with women and other men.  Alpha males to the max they conned their way though life and built their success and wealth be bilking others.

Joseph Smith was wealthy?

I think being tall is about the only thing those two have in common.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

  I could be wrong but doubt that I am, and I am still sad about that, at least as far as Smith is concerned.

You are.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Trump not so much.  If he fell over dead tomorrow I would dance in the streets and the world would be better off for it.

I guess if you reject God the command to love your enemies no longer applies. (Not saying we always do a great job at following it.)

Edited March 1, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Joseph Smith was wealthy?

Joseph had periods of great poverty and great wealth.

Like Paul he could have said:

Phil 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. 12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.