I am a ( just shy of) 32 yr convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from protestant churches. Since I grew up in a dysfunctional family and my Dad died when I was a child, I prayed one night, with the understanding I had, and asked Heavenly Father if there was a way to get my Dad back. After about a 10 yr journey, was introduced to the Church. This has been a learning curve, but has been a wonderful experience. Most of my relatives have disowned me, but I so look forward to the Day I can be sealed to my Dad. I am now 59 yrs of age.
Appreciated your comment. My question is: why has your family disowned you? I'm trying to understand this as a brother and a father. How does one stop loving and caring a sister or a child because of a worldview one chooses? I don't think I could ever do such a thing.
I grew up in the church and now my Mom and step-dad won't let my boyfriend in there home because we "live in sin." They claim they like my boyfriend but don't want to allow that behavior in there home. My biological father also died (i just turned 3 years old). I used a lawyer to get out of the church because of how difficult the bishop tried to make it to leave for me. I broke my sealings because I think it is all a lie. Shunning can go both ways. I also missed my mom's second wedding (temple civil wedding), sister, and brother's wedding. I love how the church includes those who don't believe.
The notion that God the Father was once a man, is only sensitive, controversial or "esoteric" because the majority of anglophone Church members are embroiled in a country with Calvinist Protestant Christian pre-suppositions. Take that same doctrine into a Hindu or Taoist context and the reactions would be quite different. What counts as controversial is completely culturally bounded. We shouldn't weak sauce our doctrinal affirmations for the sake of the feelings of a bunch of people that in years past would put us to tar, knife and bullet.
I think your last comment illustrates why we are like that, becasue of the remembered cultral message our ancestors were told: "Assimilate or die". We have spent so much energy trying to be "normal" americans and "normal" christians that we have lost much of what made us special in the first place, and managed to please nobody in the process.
@@HenryThomas-vc2wy I was being dramatic for effect, to be completely honest, but the sentiment remains the same. I don't think the doctrine was controversial or dimly understood from Young to Woodruff. We may reject expansions made by Young, but honestly I question the logical legitimacy of whether we should have rejected such expansions, Elder Mark E. Petersons impassioned remarks notwithstanding. I defer to the Apostles, but it is clear much has been done wrongly for the sake of our adversaries.
Or it’s because the Bible and Book of Mormon both say god is eternal, and you can’t be eternal if you were created plain and simple. It also makes god subordinate to his creation (time, gods before him, etc) rather than the other way around. It’s not because any traditional denomination decided there is one eternal, all powerful god, it’s the scriptures that say it.
I choose to leave the King Follett Discourse alone because the Prophet was martyred before he could flesh this doctrine out but even CS Lewis recognized our potential when he said, “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful, but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.” “Mere Christianity”
I was a new young convert to the Church . A beautiful conversion story that really changed my life so much for the better . I went to institute classes, loved what l was taught there and met really good friends. A happy bunch of young people One particular lesson our institute teacher invited another teacher along who started to talk about the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and mentioned that Heavenly Father had a Father. This was totally new to me this concept and l was having a hard time with the thought but l couldn't deny the feeling of the Holy Gost that was there so strong as he spoke telling me what he was saying was true. It says in the Scriptures that a time will come when all things shall be revealed but to whom much is given much is required so it's wise for the Lord to teach us line upon line. Many thanks for this video and sharing your insights. God bless you all 🙏❤️. Loved it.
Brother M, I always hope for that singular magisterial comment in Comments. It makes reading through a few worthwhile. So thank you for yours - witty, incisive, knife-edge. Cheers! 🫡
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
For me as a Latter-day Saint I converted to the faith at 20 and I'm now currently 33. I've since received a degree in philosophy from BYU. The King Follet Discourse are the main and original reasons why I joined The Church of Jesus Christ... I heard in the spirit and language of Joseph Smith Jr. something I hadn't heard before and something that 'rang true', namely his teachings that the rest of the Christian world professed a religion that underestimated man in his opinion. How wonderful was this doctrine? How clear! The reverence and freedom spoken to our potential and inherent value became a hallmark of the hope within me. I feel the same way today. Latter-day Saints should revere what is in my opinion the greatest Pearl of Great Price, man's origin and destiny.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
@@jamescano1769nah that was when Joseph Smith was doing inspired commentaries in the Old Testament and when he was “revising” in one of the 5 books of Moses, he got revelation of THE Book of Moses, youre talking about the Book of Abraham (which is also mad peak)
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
My favorite answer to this questions is: God IS a man. He is a divine, eternal, loving, heavenly FATHER. He has a body of flesh and bone. If you believe Christ is God and you believe Christ is a man, you believe God IS a man. That applies as much to the Father as much as it does the Son.
The son has a body, but the father does not. There are 0 verses in the Bible of Book of Mormon that point to the father having a body, only luke where the father is only spirit. Also, you can’t have a mortal, created god because he would no longer be eternal, which both books overwhelmingly say.
@holdenpacker8691 Is Jesus God? Did Jesus become man? Does Jesus have a resurrected glorified body? I believe God the Father does too. I do not believe our Father in Heaven is some misty illusive substance that has no form, parts or passions. Christ taught if ye have seen me, ye have seen my Father, meaning they are alike. They are of the same species and form. Christ a God did not come here to earth and take on flesh, resurrect that physical body just to trick us. He did it to show us what His Father has done and what we will do because of Christ’s sacrifice. And an eternal Being God, can take on flesh and still be an eternal Being. You have an eternal Spirit in you too. ❤️☀️
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10 KJV
Those that wanted Joseph dead were of the same cloth that had Christ crucified. Both groups felt that what they prophesied was blasphemous and they were scared of how people were flocking to them. Very similar the reason for their deaths. They were bringing drastic change.
If you read in D&C 93, God revealed to Joseph Smith that we are eternal beings like God. “Ye were also in the beginning with the Father”, and “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” So if you think about it this way the idea that God was a man just like us is or should be not that controversial. God is an eternal being, just like we are. Only He is exalted and we have the potential to be exalted. But we are the same kind of being as He is. The idea is only confusing when we look at man through a Protestant perspective that teaches that we are ‘created’ by God and we are somehow lesser beings that He is. If you believe this then the idea that God was once a lowly created person who became a God is blasphemous. But God revealed that we are and have always been the same as Him - eternal beings. We were in the beginning with Him and the whole plan of salvation is to help us to become like Him.
The Bible tells us we are gods creation. It says it in John, Genesis, etc. If we were eternal like god, there is no god in the first place. You cannot be eternal, always existing, if you were created by another god before you. Not to mention the Bible overwhelmingly says there is only one god, none before, beside, or after. In that case, did god forget all the other gods that created the world with him in Abraham 4 of the Book of Mormon? Truth is it’s completely contradictory to Genesis, changing “god created” to “the gods created”. The king follet doctrine is incoherent and unbiblical, and fails any test of logic.
@holdenpacker8691 Yes we are God's creation, but you are taking the word create as ex nihilo and that's not what it means. If you create a painting you are not making something out of nothing. You are taking materials like paint, canvas, brush, and organizing them into a picture. God created our spirit bodies by organizing our eternal intelligence into those bodies. The bible says we are his offspring. We play part of that when we have children. Our bodies are not made from nothing, but they are “of the dust” and will return to the dust. That dust is an eternal element as well. You can't be created by 2 Father's, you need a father and a mother. You will always only ever have one. Same with God. He created our spirits and we will only ever have 1. We did not have a Father in heaven before Ours nor will we after. Jesus created the earth under the direction of the Father. He was with God, and he was God also. Modern revelation is biblical because the bible is revelation, and cannot be interpreted without revelation.
@jacksonofjohn, the issue with that argument reintroduces the atheist view. If all matter was already there but god organized it, how did the matter, or intelligence get there? Instead of being able to say that god is eternal, and is over his creation and concepts of reality, rather than subordinate to them, you no longer have an answer. You make god weak this way and introduce more unanswerable questions. Secondly, if god created male and female in exodus, how could he have already had a female counterpart? Not to mention it’s not in the Bible. We aren’t called children of god because he had spirit sex and conceived us as you would assume. We are called gods children because we are gods creation, not because he is our spirit dad. There is 0 reason to beleive any of this anyways. John 1 says all things were created by him, and the godhead is eternal. Can’t be eternal if you are created. Not to mention the clear contradictions between the king follet doctrine itself, but I digress.
@holdenpacker8691respectfully amigo, you seem to falsely equating a pre-mortal intelligence which we were in some form to hoe we are now as man, which yes God did create. We existed before this mortal trail, in a varied form, with God. The wonderful plan of salvation is for us to start off as intelligences, and then to progress to someday be as God, as the scriptures say as "joint heirs with Christ.
We are currently teaching 'The King Follett Discourse" and are half way through a 12 month course. Adult Institute Pacific Area. The Pearls and Gems from this Discourse that are largely misunderstood because most do not have the Spirit of Truth when they read or hear. In the King Follett Discourse, you do not deep dive in order to understand but to the opposite, you ascend on high to receive the witness and understand that surpassing the wisdom of men and women. Few be that find it.
I don't think a deep dive and the "ascending" to the Spirit are opposite at all. Sure, they have opposite directions in their metaphors but I think the Spirit works best when we understand all we can about a text
@@_Squiggle_ Making comparison to Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1, which is a personal experience to Daniel 2:22 "He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him".... which is being inspired/enlightened
Saying that God didn’t create intelligence does not mean that man is truly independent from God. It also doesn’t mean that agency or free will could exist independently from God. Saying that these things are co-eternal emphasizes the unity that God has with intelligence and with man because man is truly of God just as all intelligence is of God just as all truth is of God.
Watched this last night with my family (FHE for the win). Discussion lasted longer than the video afterwards, started by my oldest who is getting ready to go on his mission. The beauty of this discussion and discourse is a simple one...while we cannot understand God's true purpose beyond the 'Salvation and Eternal Life of Man' (Misquoted but you get the idea). The work might start here, expand out into the cosmos (other worlds, into other galaxies, superclusters, etc), and the greater the authority and the more like our Heavenly Father we become, the more responsibility we will have. Global, Galaxy, Universe, Universes...and there the concept gets too large to comprehend. Expand that into 'All-Time', backwards and forwards, and we will NEED eternity to do the work of salvation. Might be too deep, but again, makes you love our Heavenly Father more when you think on it.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
Hi David, just want to point out a statement Casey Griffith makes about Christians beliefs 20:23 he states “ In Christian thought…there were always been this idea that God was alone at some point and he started creating things.” Bible believing Christians believe God the Father was in full relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit from all eternity and was never alone given the understanding of the Trinity. We believe that the God who loves us is able to do so because God has always been in a loving relationship as Father, Son, and Spirit. Three persons one God.
Also, it's fascinating to compare the understanding of deification as held by early church fathers (soon to be deemed heretical) and the restored knowledge of the same as taught by Joseph Smith.
Bro Griffiths would do well to study 'Design' principles and practice as an enhancement to his theological perspective. Pres Monson once said "surely there was a grand designer". Gaining a designers perspective on the gospel and plan of salvation ads peices to the puzzles.
What good would it do to canonize King Follett? The Book of Mormon is canonized, but church members do not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and church leaders do not teach the precepts of the Book of Mormon as the key to salvation. Canonizing the King Follett sermon would just add more knowledge that the members would be condemned for not believing.
Great discussion! I enjoy the symbiosis between the doctrines of light, existence, matter, time, etc. with developments in the fields of particle physics, cosmology, astrophysics...but with caution because science can only observe and theorize that which is physically or experimentally observable or theoretically plausible within parameters that are limited by the nature of mortality... n'stuff.
This doctrine is excellent. Knowing our potential as human beings is to progress and grow in the next life has changed my life fundamentally, but more importantly- how i treat others.
There is no "fleshing out" "where God's began to be". This entire discussion went south once the presenters took a hard stance on interpreting intelligence and agency. Section 93 is so simple that even my granchildren can grasp it. The presenter has made it so mystical, or as he refers 'esoteric". My 11 year old granddaughter asked me the other day, ,"where did God come from." or when did God bein to be". Telling our children that the Lord will tell us all things once we have reached what D&C 130 teaches us about learning the laws associated with a higher kingdom. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. 9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. 10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;. It will be at this point when this truth will be understood and all who receive thiis exalted station will know " how and where God's began to be.". We are all literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents. Who brought us forth by the same process as we bring out children into mortality. This is simple basic doctrine. This gives us all something to look forward to and inspires us to live so we can inherit that urim and thummim, whereby greater mysteries will be made known.
As a father, I want my children to progress farther than I did. Why would a perfect God (who lacks jealousy) not want His children to progress as at least as far as He did?
“-for you shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-” Exodus 34:14 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.” Isaiah 42:8 So in what way does he lack jealousy? Prettty sure he’s clear that all devotion will and always belong to Him. But He knows that His glorification is where our greatest joy is found ❤️
@@emilywinslager380 Jealous is a word the translators used that came from the Hebrew word qannah, which means “possessing sensitive and deep feelings.” It doesn't mean jealous in the way we use it today. A perfect God is never jealous. We only worship our creator God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. He only wishes that we follow Jesus and become like Him.
Those closer to the time did not believe it was Joseph's words or recorded accurately which is the most likely reason why it was never canonized and isn't taught as doctrine. In 1912 George Albert Smith wrote: “Sometime ago I received an invitation, mailed from the Liahona office, to contribute to a fund for the purpose of mailing copies of King Follet’s[sic] funeral sermon. At the time I was somewhat surprised, because I have thought that the report of that sermon might not be authentic and I have feared that it contained some things that might be contrary to the truth when I knew just what it was, so I did not reply to the letter. Not being very well, I did not feel like taking the matter up, and have learned since that some of the other brethren felt as I did and thought that greater publicity should not be given to that particular sermon.” Mormon apologist Blake Ostler wrote, “The First Presidency demonstrated its opposition to the idea of man’s necessary existence again in 1912 when it removed the King Follett discourse from [B.H.] Roberts’ Documentary History of the Church. Charles B. Penrose, in particular, doubted the authenticity and correctness of the reporting of the sermon." Interesting that this isn't brought up in this video. No one should be teaching King Follet discourse as doctrine as Joseph never had the opportunity to review or approve what was written and no one in Joseph's family ever taught those doctrines.
I don’t think ordering his militia to burn down the printing press, because he didn’t like what they were writing (true or not), qualifies as “legal means to stop any violence” 😂
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also..." D&C 130:22 It is church scripture and doctrine that God the Father has a physical body of flesh and bones. How could they be a "Father and Son" if they are not the same kind of Beings? If they are an actual Father and Son then the Father must have the same kind of physical body as Jesus: a resurrected body. How can that not be identical to the doctrine that God the Father was once a mortal with a Father before Him?
People simply don’t understand truth. And how can they when they have been blinded by the foolish doctrines of men. Christ also said: “I am the Father and the Son.” The Father was in the beginning and so was the Son” Let that sink in with the rest of Christendom.
Good question. The church does not teach that God the Father had a god who created Him or anything of the like. As they mentioned in the video, as Joseph Smith is recorded as saying, and according to our scripture teach that God has always been God. From verses mentioned in the discourse, it is implied that God the Father was once a mortal make just like Jesus. This does not mean, however that during such a time or before that God was not God. Just like Jesus is accepted to have been God in the flesh during His moral ministry, the same is with the Father. This would also mean that the Father put down His body, and took it up again (the same as Jesus Christ) - in other words, they are both resurrected, glorified, and exalted beings. This could also be inferred from the verse you mentioned in D&C 130, as the statement of having physical bodies applies in the same way to both the Father and the Son. Therefore, your conclusion " Father must have the same kind of physical body as Jesus: a resurrected body. " is correct. If I am interpreting your use of "kinds of Beings" correctly, than they are the same kind of being. They are both eternally God, and they have been since before they were mortal, during their mortality, after, and forever more. They have never not been God. I understand that my language can be confusing because I am using the plural "they" with the singular "God" in multiple sentences at the same time. The late President Packer, who was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a good talk on this matter. I recommend it: www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1984/10/the-pattern-of-our-parentage?lang=eng Briefly circling back to your ending comment. The idea that the Father had a father before Him, who had a father before him, etc. (i.e. Infinite Regression of Gods Theory or IRGT) is purely popular speculation and is by no means doctrine. Anyone who advocates for it is literally just guessing. I personally disagree with the IRGT, but understand how many believe it to be true. Some comments in this video lightly touch on the idea, but they do not advocate for its truthfulness, saying things along the lines of "it'd be cool if it was true... I'd be first in line to give Heavenly Grandfather a big hug". IF the theory proves true, that BYU professor would have to beat me to the hug first lol. Hope this helps!
I really wanted you to cover the lesser known and never taught things in the KFD instead of theosis - which is not something that we don’t know. The other things about children who die in their youth and others were much more interesting.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
It's hard to take this professor seriously after the ease with which he dismissed lying about polygamy as the core reason Joseph Smith Jr. was killed. Excusing GBH's lies about men becoming gods also tarnishes his own integrity.
I have always loved the King Follett discourse, and the Joseph Smith that comes through as the speaker. I'm happy this interview reinforced my belief in the value and validity of this discourse. It's not suspect or spurious. It's LDS doctrine, and it's the best LDS sermon I've heard.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
Being God like doesnt mean that He started as a men, we all started as spirits, like HIM (except He was always more intelligent)… maybe He evolved more becoming a men (human) too 🤷🏼♀️ who knows… but that just means we CAN follow HiS steps like Him, is not really hard to accept/belive that! Love this kind of talk, you know, about home❤
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
They seem contradictory because most people think of time as a straight line, but it is not at all. It is more like an ever expanding ring! If one looks at that ring, he will see that there are God's all around it, just like if you looked at a wedding ring; at first glance it looks like it is just a ring and you can not see any beginning or end, but if you examine it closely, or just think without even examining it, you can discover that there is a line where the ring was put together!!!
So life here on Earth is a transition of growth…he created us to be here…but he loved us so much that in our cosmic journey when we made a decision that separated us from him, he did what any good heavenly family would do and picked us up…even though he had to put himself in pain to do it…it’s because the show goes on. We are eternal, we have always been eternal, going backwards and forwards…that’s literally what “eternal life” is…having no beginning and no end.
What’s kind of cool about all this is, that we knew all this before we came to earth and a veil was drawn that we cannot see through or remember at the moment. We are being tested to see if we will have faith in Jesus Christ through repentance, and all of the knowledge we had before will be with us again.
Hi David, I want to bring to light another statement Casey Griffith makes 21:49 “If you were created ex nilo then everything that you do was pre-program, you’re a robot that’s running a program that God placed in you and you’re not really a good person or a bad person you’re just doing what you’re programmed to do” As a bible believing Christian that believes God created ex nilo-everything out of nothing- that I am just a robot and I’m just doing what God has pre-programmed and placed in me. Christians believe that from the beginning, Adam and Eve, God gave us free will/ agency. I believe it is intellectually dishonest to assume that everyone not believing in the Joseph Smith doctrine of how God created human beings must be robots just running a program and anything good or bad we do we can blame God. This would be the most convenient way of not taking any ownership of your choices, behaviour or actions in life. So according to his theory if I went and punched you in the face I can just say God made me do it? I wonder if that would hold up in court? As it is, Christians believe in free will.
It was mentioned in passing that there are some 'bad' things in the Lectures On Faith. This surprised me, as I am not aware of anything that is bad in there. What would those be? It'd be great to do a podcast on that.
From the church history topic article on the subject: The publication of the Lectures on Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants elevated its status among Church members. In the early 20th century, however, Church leaders became increasingly concerned about some of the statements in the Lectures on Faith. For example, the fifth lecture speaks of the Father as a “personage of spirit,” which seems to contradict Joseph Smith’s teaching (expressed in 1843, several years after the lectures were given) that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22). Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who led the committee that revised the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants, felt that it would be best to “avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief.” In addition, the lectures had not been accepted by the Church as anything other than theological lessons, Talmage’s committee argued. Based on these recommendations, the Lectures on Faith were dropped from the Doctrine and Covenants.
@@uggmonster8795 In addition to these statements about the Father, IIRC it also teaches something to the effect that the Holy Ghost is not an independent personage at all, but is “the mind of God,” which is shared between Christ and the Father.
I agree, the Lectures on Faith should be brought back to put light back in the understanding of God. Anyone who says they were never official, or accepted, is just misinformed or lying. The 1835 "Doctrine and Covenants" contained two sections, the first part, "The Doctrine" was the Lectures on Faith. The second portion was "Covenants and Commandments". The current version of the D&C should really be called "Covenants and Commandments" as the doctrine was removed. Recently at least one BYU scholar went through the Lectures on Faith using modern analysis and found that Joseph Smith wrote Lecture 5, and edited the rest of the lectures of accuracy. You will find the nature and character of God in that small volume. What is truly important, as outline in the book, is that without a correct understanding of God, you cannot have faith. So if you are struggling with spiritual "results" update your definition of God with the one Joseph had, the fruits of his beliefs are well know. For some reason, you should go investigate this, the LoF were removed from cannon.
@@uggmonster8795 Who told you they are not doctrinally correct? You are obviously unaware of current investigations into those lectures, and ignorant as to their history. How do you conceive in your mind that they would be wrong, when Joseph, who outsourced almost all of his writing, made an exception for Lecture 5 and wrote it himself, a BYU professor did the work and it was quite conclusive that it was him. Joseph, in essence recorded the summation of his experience in that lecture. To add to that there is a preface with these words: "We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him." You also miss that the LoF were referred to as the Doctrine of the Church, meaning the Doctrine and Covenants was comprised of two books, The LoF as the Doctrine, and "The Covenants and Commandments" portion is what the church continued calling the D&C even though they deleted the D of the D&C. Calling the D&C the D&C is a misnomer, as the Doctrine of the church was removed to capitulate to a false doctrine put forth by subsequent presidents of the church who had no such theophany. Brigham Young attested to having not seen God, and then asserted a polygamous God, that the BoM calls an abomination. To further this point when you read the BoM you will find that this God in the LoF is the very God described in the BoM. Of course you have to have eyes to see and ears to hear. If you want a spiritual upgrade, humble yourself and seek the God therein. Read Lecture 5 including the notes and allow the spirit to deliver the truth that lies there. While challenging, the beauty and pure love is without compare. God bless.
The truths restored by the prophet Joseph are sublime! “In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life.” (The Family Proclamation) God wants us to return to Him and become inheritors of eternal life, the truth has been restored! God wants to exalt the eternal family. These truths were restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. I am thankful for the knowledge the Gospel brings and for the opportunity Christ has given all of us to become partakers of eternal life and exaltation.
It didn't say he was as old as God. It only said that in the beginning, or in other words, when the world was created, the word was with God and so were we.
There have been some extremely confusing teachings about this that seem to be contradictory, but they are not. Brigham Young stated that there never was a time when they were not God's, but he also stated that it would be easier for an ant to count all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world than for us to be able to find out the great first cause of all things! These statements only seem contradictory, but in reality they are not! Continued ..
I’m so grateful for the blessed opportunity to become like our Heavenly Father. I love this excerpt from Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s The Millennial Messiah: “How glorious is creation! How wondrous the eternal plan of the Father! If there had been no creation, we would not be, and all things would vanish away into a primordial nothingness, having neither sense nor insensibility. If there were no plan of progression and advancement, none of the spirit children of the Father would be able to attain the exalted state he possesses and receive the eternal life he gives to all the obedient. Can we extol too highly the fact of creation and the ordaining of the great and eternal plan of salvation?”
In a separate podcast, an emeritus Apostle from the Community of Christ said that the founders of their church felt that Joseph Smith had become a fallen prophet. Is the King Follett discourse one of the reasons they felt he was a fallen prophet?
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
The King Follet Discourse is not cannonized so its not doctrine! Please provide a answer do we believe everything from the KFD to take it as doctrine or do we not? Because alot of Latter Day Saints give different answers or is it monolithic or is it not?
Let me add a little to this professor. Only elementary things can exist.eternally, and those are matter/energy, space, and intelligences in infinite amount and number, and at some point, or in may or infinite points, some great intelligences were able to foresee a perfect plan of beauty and happiness, and they worked together to form perfect bodies, both make and female spirits and then they inhabited those bodies, and then they formed glorious physical bodies which they inhabited, and gave them the ability to reproduce spirits in an exciting, pleasurable, and beautiful way, and that started the great cycle of Godhood. Continued...
The doctrine that God the Father was once a man bridges the dichotomy on the 'Christological' controversies between Christ's 'dual nature' which caused a lot of schisms and debates in the 2nd and 4th century councils.....if God was once a man then there is no 'dual nature' rather 'one nature'...were God is an 'archetype' of full human potential and Christ is the preeminent revelation of what human nature is and can be...
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon? The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates: You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614) There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states: 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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556) The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that: I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37) When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10 KJV
Alma 8 79-82, 104 RLDS (11:26-29 LDS) And Zeezrom saith unto him: "Thou sayest there is a true and a living God?" And Amulek saith: "Yea, there is a true and a living God." Now Zeezrom saith: "Is there more than one God?" And he answered: "No."
@ “This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?” Galatians 3:2-3 NKJV
I am a ( just shy of) 32 yr convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from protestant churches. Since I grew up in a dysfunctional family and my Dad died when I was a child, I prayed one night, with the understanding I had, and asked Heavenly Father if there was a way to get my Dad back. After about a 10 yr journey, was introduced to the Church. This has been a learning curve, but has been a wonderful experience. Most of my relatives have disowned me, but I so look forward to the Day I can be sealed to my Dad. I am now 59 yrs of age.
I also love getting to listen and learn from Bro Griffiths and all the other teachers every time I have opportunity to do so.
Appreciated your comment. My question is: why has your family disowned you? I'm trying to understand this as a brother and a father. How does one stop loving and caring a sister or a child because of a worldview one chooses? I don't think I could ever do such a thing.
I grew up in the church and now my Mom and step-dad won't let my boyfriend in there home because we "live in sin." They claim they like my boyfriend but don't want to allow that behavior in there home. My biological father also died (i just turned 3 years old). I used a lawyer to get out of the church because of how difficult the bishop tried to make it to leave for me. I broke my sealings because I think it is all a lie. Shunning can go both ways.
I also missed my mom's second wedding (temple civil wedding), sister, and brother's wedding. I love how the church includes those who don't believe.
The notion that God the Father was once a man, is only sensitive, controversial or "esoteric" because the majority of anglophone Church members are embroiled in a country with Calvinist Protestant Christian pre-suppositions. Take that same doctrine into a Hindu or Taoist context and the reactions would be quite different. What counts as controversial is completely culturally bounded. We shouldn't weak sauce our doctrinal affirmations for the sake of the feelings of a bunch of people that in years past would put us to tar, knife and bullet.
I think your last comment illustrates why we are like that, becasue of the remembered cultral message our ancestors were told: "Assimilate or die". We have spent so much energy trying to be "normal" americans and "normal" christians that we have lost much of what made us special in the first place, and managed to please nobody in the process.
@@HenryThomas-vc2wy I was being dramatic for effect, to be completely honest, but the sentiment remains the same. I don't think the doctrine was controversial or dimly understood from Young to Woodruff. We may reject expansions made by Young, but honestly I question the logical legitimacy of whether we should have rejected such expansions, Elder Mark E. Petersons impassioned remarks notwithstanding. I defer to the Apostles, but it is clear much has been done wrongly for the sake of our adversaries.
Amen to your comments
Just asked a Hindu friend about it. He said this nonsense hahahaha
Or it’s because the Bible and Book of Mormon both say god is eternal, and you can’t be eternal if you were created plain and simple. It also makes god subordinate to his creation (time, gods before him, etc) rather than the other way around. It’s not because any traditional denomination decided there is one eternal, all powerful god, it’s the scriptures that say it.
I choose to leave the King Follett Discourse alone because the Prophet was martyred before he could flesh this doctrine out but even CS Lewis recognized our potential when he said, “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful, but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.” “Mere Christianity”
A martyr doesn't have a gun and shoot people, and could have possibly killed them,,, Thats NOT a martyr,,
It amazed me that we take more to heart the words of writer. than the words of a prophet call by the living GOD. Would you agree?
@ the writer is there to teach those who don’t yet have the Restored Gospel.
I was a new young convert to the Church . A beautiful conversion story that really changed my life so much for the better . I went to institute classes, loved what l was taught there and met really good friends. A happy bunch of young people
One particular lesson our institute teacher invited another teacher along who started to talk about the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and mentioned that Heavenly Father had a Father. This was totally new to me this concept and l was having a hard time with the thought but l couldn't deny the feeling of the Holy Gost that was there so strong as he spoke telling me what he was saying was true. It says in the Scriptures that a time will come when all things shall be revealed but to whom much is given much is required so it's wise for the Lord to teach us line upon line. Many thanks for this video and sharing your insights. God bless you all 🙏❤️. Loved it.
I love studying things like King Follet and a metric ton of uncannonized revelations.
Brother M, I always hope for that singular magisterial comment in Comments. It makes reading through a few worthwhile. So thank you for yours - witty, incisive, knife-edge. Cheers! 🫡
@Glen.Danielsen 🫡
You should check out the new book, “Joseph Smith’s Uncanonized Revelations” published by BYU Religious Studies Center.
@@bpassant5452 Not sure bpass, I think for now I may read Writ itself. The more sure word! Thanks though, valued friend. 🫡💛
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
For me as a Latter-day Saint I converted to the faith at 20 and I'm now currently 33. I've since received a degree in philosophy from BYU.
The King Follet Discourse are the main and original reasons why I joined The Church of Jesus Christ... I heard in the spirit and language of Joseph Smith Jr. something I hadn't heard before and something that 'rang true', namely his teachings that the rest of the Christian world professed a religion that underestimated man in his opinion. How wonderful was this doctrine? How clear! The reverence and freedom spoken to our potential and inherent value became a hallmark of the hope within me. I feel the same way today. Latter-day Saints should revere what is in my opinion the greatest Pearl of Great Price, man's origin and destiny.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
Brother Griffiths is my religion professor at BYU right now and his classes are brilliant! Great video
@@ermkayyy he is too absolute on things that are not lds doctrine
"This is My Work and my Glory, to bring to pass the Eternal life of Man."
Moses 1: 39
The book copied from a tablet that had to do with burying ritual and nothing to do with Moses lol.
Every Christian believes in eternal life. But not every Christian thinks God “became God” because that isn’t eternal.
The book of Moses was received through revelation. You're thinking of the book of Abraham @@jamescano1769
@@jamescano1769nah that was when Joseph Smith was doing inspired commentaries in the Old Testament and when he was “revising” in one of the 5 books of Moses, he got revelation of THE Book of Moses, youre talking about the Book of Abraham (which is also mad peak)
Thank you, David, for dealing with this topic AND inviting the immensely knowledgeable, talented , and enriching brother Griffith.
This doctrine is beyond beautiful. It highlights how truly loving God is and dismantles the problem of evil!
This discussion brought a lot of clarity about difficult topics. Thank you!
These are not truths of God. God was a man in Christ. But the father didn’t have a God because that creates 2 untenable problems
Griffiths is a beast!! best religion professor at BYU
This video is so good! I rarely watch a video twice, but am watching this one again now
One of the best videos on the internet! I love it. Such deep thoughts.
King Follett sermon is among the greatest. Joseph Smith was truly a unique Prophet.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
David calling Danny Devito Robert Deniro is KILLING me
Supports his assertion that he's not a big fan of Sunny. :-)
Thanks!
John Candy interview, I’m all for it!
😂😂😂 No wonder he looked familiar!
I was about to say it and restrained myself 😂
Thank you.
Always love your discussions! ❤️☀️
I feel like your content is becoming more substantial in a very good way. This was very good. I'd recommend more quality like this!
My favorite answer to this questions is: God IS a man. He is a divine, eternal, loving, heavenly FATHER. He has a body of flesh and bone. If you believe Christ is God and you believe Christ is a man, you believe God IS a man. That applies as much to the Father as much as it does the Son.
@@davidjanbaz7728- Jesus is God. Jesus has a resurrected body. Therefore, God has a body. Where did we lose you?
The son has a body, but the father does not. There are 0 verses in the Bible of Book of Mormon that point to the father having a body, only luke where the father is only spirit. Also, you can’t have a mortal, created god because he would no longer be eternal, which both books overwhelmingly say.
@holdenpacker8691 You do realize we don't believe in the Bible and in the BoM *_alone_* right?
@holdenpacker8691
Is Jesus God?
Did Jesus become man?
Does Jesus have a resurrected glorified body?
I believe God the Father does too.
I do not believe our Father in Heaven is some misty illusive substance that has no form, parts or passions.
Christ taught if ye have seen me, ye have seen my Father, meaning they are alike. They are of the same species and form.
Christ a God did not come here to earth and take on flesh, resurrect that physical body just to trick us. He did it to show us what His Father has done and what we will do because of Christ’s sacrifice.
And an eternal Being God, can take on flesh and still be an eternal Being.
You have an eternal Spirit in you too. ❤️☀️
@holdenpacker8691 “There are 0 verses…” - Incorrect.
In its simplest form…you have no limitations. I love it!!!
I just wanted this video to be longer. So many great thoughts, thank you.
"As man is, God once was; As God is, man can become"
We are literally a Family.
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
Isaiah 43:10 KJV
@@storozha777 Neat prooftext. We have a living prophet. You're welcome to upgrade.
@@truthfromearthhooooooooooooo!!!!!!! Clock that tea!!!!!!!!! No way
🤣 lol
That’s crazy I just got that “ you’re welcome to upgrade” is crazy😂
Exodus 34:14
"Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God".
Those that wanted Joseph dead were of the same cloth that had Christ crucified. Both groups felt that what they prophesied was blasphemous and they were scared of how people were flocking to them. Very similar the reason for their deaths. They were bringing drastic change.
Love Casey and his input!
If you read in D&C 93, God revealed to Joseph Smith that we are eternal beings like God. “Ye were also in the beginning with the Father”, and “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”
So if you think about it this way the idea that God was a man just like us is or should be not that controversial. God is an eternal being, just like we are. Only He is exalted and we have the potential to be exalted. But we are the same kind of being as He is. The idea is only confusing when we look at man through a Protestant perspective that teaches that we are ‘created’ by God and we are somehow lesser beings that He is. If you believe this then the idea that God was once a lowly created person who became a God is blasphemous. But God revealed that we are and have always been the same as Him - eternal beings. We were in the beginning with Him and the whole plan of salvation is to help us to become like Him.
The Bible tells us we are gods creation. It says it in John, Genesis, etc. If we were eternal like god, there is no god in the first place. You cannot be eternal, always existing, if you were created by another god before you. Not to mention the Bible overwhelmingly says there is only one god, none before, beside, or after. In that case, did god forget all the other gods that created the world with him in Abraham 4 of the Book of Mormon? Truth is it’s completely contradictory to Genesis, changing “god created” to “the gods created”. The king follet doctrine is incoherent and unbiblical, and fails any test of logic.
@holdenpacker8691 Yes we are God's creation, but you are taking the word create as ex nihilo and that's not what it means. If you create a painting you are not making something out of nothing. You are taking materials like paint, canvas, brush, and organizing them into a picture. God created our spirit bodies by organizing our eternal intelligence into those bodies. The bible says we are his offspring. We play part of that when we have children. Our bodies are not made from nothing, but they are “of the dust” and will return to the dust. That dust is an eternal element as well. You can't be created by 2 Father's, you need a father and a mother. You will always only ever have one. Same with God. He created our spirits and we will only ever have 1. We did not have a Father in heaven before Ours nor will we after. Jesus created the earth under the direction of the Father. He was with God, and he was God also. Modern revelation is biblical because the bible is revelation, and cannot be interpreted without revelation.
@jacksonofjohn, the issue with that argument reintroduces the atheist view. If all matter was already there but god organized it, how did the matter, or intelligence get there? Instead of being able to say that god is eternal, and is over his creation and concepts of reality, rather than subordinate to them, you no longer have an answer. You make god weak this way and introduce more unanswerable questions. Secondly, if god created male and female in exodus, how could he have already had a female counterpart? Not to mention it’s not in the Bible. We aren’t called children of god because he had spirit sex and conceived us as you would assume. We are called gods children because we are gods creation, not because he is our spirit dad. There is 0 reason to beleive any of this anyways. John 1 says all things were created by him, and the godhead is eternal. Can’t be eternal if you are created. Not to mention the clear contradictions between the king follet doctrine itself, but I digress.
@holdenpacker8691respectfully amigo, you seem to falsely equating a pre-mortal intelligence which we were in some form to hoe we are now as man, which yes God did create. We existed before this mortal trail, in a varied form, with God. The wonderful plan of salvation is for us to start off as intelligences, and then to progress to someday be as God, as the scriptures say as "joint heirs with Christ.
Ooh... I like this insight!
We are currently teaching 'The King Follett Discourse" and are half way through a 12 month course. Adult Institute Pacific Area. The Pearls and Gems from this Discourse that are largely misunderstood because most do not have the Spirit of Truth when they read or hear. In the King Follett Discourse, you do not deep dive in order to understand but to the opposite, you ascend on high to receive the witness and understand that surpassing the wisdom of men and women. Few be that find it.
I’m also in the pacific area, how can we join this adult institute?
I side with the BoM & Bible that the KFD contradicts.
I don't think a deep dive and the "ascending" to the Spirit are opposite at all. Sure, they have opposite directions in their metaphors but I think the Spirit works best when we understand all we can about a text
@@_Squiggle_ Making comparison to Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1, which is a personal experience to Daniel 2:22 "He revealeth the deep and secret things:
he knoweth what is in the darkness,
and the light dwelleth with him".... which is being inspired/enlightened
What a wonderful discussion!!! Thank you Bro Griffiths and David.
Saying that God didn’t create intelligence does not mean that man is truly independent from God. It also doesn’t mean that agency or free will could exist independently from God. Saying that these things are co-eternal emphasizes the unity that God has with intelligence and with man because man is truly of God just as all intelligence is of God just as all truth is of God.
independent but dependent for development. we are interdependent beings
@@curtcrowley6659 No
@@lifetaketwo7662 Thanks for your input
God made all things. No reason to reduce His power to exclude intelligences besides that you were told you should
@@Psuedo-Christian-Cult Because I was told I should? As opposed to ex nihilo creationism which is based on the “real” science? Give me a break.
Had Prof. Griffiths for Foundations of the Restoration, what a brilliant scholar. Good to see you again prof!
I kind of wish David Snell would get a history degree haha. I’d definitely read his books and listen to his lectures
Let me know if you'd like to pay for it!
@ haha, good point 😅
You should have Jared Halverson on an episode like this. Name the controversy and he can debunk it. You do a phenomenal job yourself
I love that "Heavenly Grampa hug!"
I thought this was inappropriate and I’ve seen several examples where church leadership have harshly put down using diminutives in describing deity.
@@natedawg2020 Is Grandpa a diminutive? Would you prefer Heavenly Grandfather?
@@_Squiggle_ Yes.
Watched this last night with my family (FHE for the win). Discussion lasted longer than the video afterwards, started by my oldest who is getting ready to go on his mission. The beauty of this discussion and discourse is a simple one...while we cannot understand God's true purpose beyond the 'Salvation and Eternal Life of Man' (Misquoted but you get the idea). The work might start here, expand out into the cosmos (other worlds, into other galaxies, superclusters, etc), and the greater the authority and the more like our Heavenly Father we become, the more responsibility we will have. Global, Galaxy, Universe, Universes...and there the concept gets too large to comprehend. Expand that into 'All-Time', backwards and forwards, and we will NEED eternity to do the work of salvation. Might be too deep, but again, makes you love our Heavenly Father more when you think on it.
This is profound and wonderful! Even better, it is true!!!
This means the plan of salvation is one giant fractal. It gives added meaning to the statement, "God's course is one eternal round."
Joseph also implies (in the KFD) that God progresses and may be relying on us for his (through our) progression.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
Hi David, just want to point out a statement Casey Griffith makes about Christians beliefs 20:23 he states “ In Christian thought…there were always been this idea that God was alone at some point and he started creating things.” Bible believing Christians believe God the Father was in full relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit from all eternity and was never alone given the understanding of the Trinity. We believe that the God who loves us is able to do so because God has always been in a loving relationship as Father, Son, and Spirit. Three persons one God.
Two of my favorite church historians! 🤯
Indeed. It’s like one of those old tv crossovers😂
Also, it's fascinating to compare the understanding of deification as held by early church fathers (soon to be deemed heretical) and the restored knowledge of the same as taught by Joseph Smith.
Theosis
thank you for covering this topic!
Love David and Dr. Casey
Bro Griffiths would do well to study 'Design' principles and practice as an enhancement to his theological perspective. Pres Monson once said "surely there was a grand designer". Gaining a designers perspective on the gospel and plan of salvation ads peices to the puzzles.
What good would it do to canonize King Follett? The Book of Mormon is canonized, but church members do not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and church leaders do not teach the precepts of the Book of Mormon as the key to salvation. Canonizing the King Follett sermon would just add more knowledge that the members would be condemned for not believing.
Love hearing Casey wherever he utters. He uses his craft to bless the Faith. Thanks so much, both of you brothers! 🫡🫡
Thank you for this. This video answered many of my questions.
Excellent episode!! Bravo!
Great discussion! I enjoy the symbiosis between the doctrines of light, existence, matter, time, etc. with developments in the fields of particle physics, cosmology, astrophysics...but with caution because science can only observe and theorize that which is physically or experimentally observable or theoretically plausible within parameters that are limited by the nature of mortality... n'stuff.
This doctrine is excellent. Knowing our potential as human beings is to progress and grow in the next life has changed my life fundamentally, but more importantly- how i treat others.
OUTSTANDING!!! 👏🏻✊🏻👏🏻
There is no "fleshing out" "where God's began to be". This entire discussion went south once the presenters took a hard stance on interpreting intelligence and agency. Section 93 is so simple that even my granchildren can grasp it. The presenter has made it so mystical, or as he refers 'esoteric". My 11 year old granddaughter asked me the other day, ,"where did God come from." or when did God bein to be". Telling our children that the Lord will tell us all things once we have reached what D&C 130 teaches us about learning the laws associated with a higher kingdom. The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. 9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. 10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;. It will be at this point when this truth will be understood and all who receive thiis exalted station will know " how and where God's began to be.". We are all literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents. Who brought us forth by the same process as we bring out children into mortality. This is simple basic doctrine. This gives us all something to look forward to and inspires us to live so we can inherit that urim and thummim, whereby greater mysteries will be made known.
As a father, I want my children to progress farther than I did. Why would a perfect God (who lacks jealousy) not want His children to progress as at least as far as He did?
“-for you shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-”
Exodus 34:14
“I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.”
Isaiah 42:8
So in what way does he lack jealousy? Prettty sure he’s clear that all devotion will and always belong to Him. But He knows that His glorification is where our greatest joy is found ❤️
@@emilywinslager380 Jealous is a word the translators used that came from the Hebrew word qannah, which means “possessing sensitive and deep feelings.” It doesn't mean jealous in the way we use it today. A perfect God is never jealous. We only worship our creator God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. He only wishes that we follow Jesus and become like Him.
brilliant interview. So inspiring !
Wow wow wow. I enjoyed this a lot. Deep deep down enjoyment.
Fantastic discussion!
Those closer to the time did not believe it was Joseph's words or recorded accurately which is the most likely reason why it was never canonized and isn't taught as doctrine. In 1912 George Albert Smith wrote: “Sometime ago I received an invitation, mailed from the Liahona office, to contribute to a fund for the purpose of mailing copies of King Follet’s[sic] funeral sermon. At the time I was somewhat surprised, because I have thought that the report of that sermon might not be authentic and I have feared that it contained some things that might be contrary to the truth when I knew just what it was, so I did not reply to the letter. Not being very well, I did not feel like taking the matter up, and have learned since that some of the other brethren felt as I did and thought that greater publicity should not be given to that particular sermon.”
Mormon apologist Blake Ostler wrote, “The First Presidency demonstrated its opposition to the idea of man’s necessary existence again in 1912 when it removed the King Follett discourse from [B.H.] Roberts’ Documentary History of the Church. Charles B. Penrose, in particular, doubted the authenticity and correctness of the reporting of the sermon."
Interesting that this isn't brought up in this video. No one should be teaching King Follet discourse as doctrine as Joseph never had the opportunity to review or approve what was written and no one in Joseph's family ever taught those doctrines.
Casey you are wonderful person that gives different insights
I don’t think ordering his militia to burn down the printing press, because he didn’t like what they were writing (true or not), qualifies as “legal means to stop any violence” 😂
Me encantan estas entrevistas, muy interesante!! gracias .
Wow fantastic episode
Best seminary teacher I ever had!
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also..." D&C 130:22
It is church scripture and doctrine that God the Father has a physical body of flesh and bones.
How could they be a "Father and Son" if they are not the same kind of Beings? If they are an actual Father and Son then the Father must have the same kind of physical body as Jesus: a resurrected body.
How can that not be identical to the doctrine that God the Father was once a mortal with a Father before Him?
People simply don’t understand truth. And how can they when they have been blinded by the foolish doctrines of men. Christ also said: “I am the Father and the Son.” The Father was in the beginning and so was the Son” Let that sink in with the rest of Christendom.
Good question. The church does not teach that God the Father had a god who created Him or anything of the like. As they mentioned in the video, as Joseph Smith is recorded as saying, and according to our scripture teach that God has always been God. From verses mentioned in the discourse, it is implied that God the Father was once a mortal make just like Jesus. This does not mean, however that during such a time or before that God was not God. Just like Jesus is accepted to have been God in the flesh during His moral ministry, the same is with the Father. This would also mean that the Father put down His body, and took it up again (the same as Jesus Christ) - in other words, they are both resurrected, glorified, and exalted beings. This could also be inferred from the verse you mentioned in D&C 130, as the statement of having physical bodies applies in the same way to both the Father and the Son. Therefore, your conclusion " Father must have the same kind of physical body as Jesus: a resurrected body. " is correct.
If I am interpreting your use of "kinds of Beings" correctly, than they are the same kind of being. They are both eternally God, and they have been since before they were mortal, during their mortality, after, and forever more. They have never not been God. I understand that my language can be confusing because I am using the plural "they" with the singular "God" in multiple sentences at the same time. The late President Packer, who was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a good talk on this matter. I recommend it: www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1984/10/the-pattern-of-our-parentage?lang=eng
Briefly circling back to your ending comment. The idea that the Father had a father before Him, who had a father before him, etc. (i.e. Infinite Regression of Gods Theory or IRGT) is purely popular speculation and is by no means doctrine. Anyone who advocates for it is literally just guessing. I personally disagree with the IRGT, but understand how many believe it to be true. Some comments in this video lightly touch on the idea, but they do not advocate for its truthfulness, saying things along the lines of "it'd be cool if it was true... I'd be first in line to give Heavenly Grandfather a big hug". IF the theory proves true, that BYU professor would have to beat me to the hug first lol.
Hope this helps!
As an edit: If you want to visit the link, copy and paste it directly into the search bar!
Casey was my bishop for a few pivotal years of my life. always respected and appreciated his council
Really enjoyed this video, thank you!
I really wanted you to cover the lesser known and never taught things in the KFD instead of theosis - which is not something that we don’t know. The other things about children who die in their youth and others were much more interesting.
A lot of Christians find this doctrine blasphemous, and it's the reason why many of them don't consider the church a true Christian denomination.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
It's hard to take this professor seriously after the ease with which he dismissed lying about polygamy as the core reason Joseph Smith Jr. was killed. Excusing GBH's lies about men becoming gods also tarnishes his own integrity.
I love the King Follet Discourse
We take whats best with us into the next life that includes relationships and connections with our loved ones
Great discussion!
Fantastic. Thank you
I have always loved the King Follett discourse, and the Joseph Smith that comes through as the speaker.
I'm happy this interview reinforced my belief in the value and validity of this discourse. It's not suspect or spurious. It's LDS doctrine, and it's the best LDS sermon I've heard.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
Being God like doesnt mean that He started as a men, we all started as spirits, like HIM (except He was always more intelligent)… maybe He evolved more becoming a men (human) too 🤷🏼♀️ who knows… but that just means we CAN follow HiS steps like Him, is not really hard to accept/belive that!
Love this kind of talk, you know, about home❤
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
They seem contradictory because most people think of time as a straight line, but it is not at all. It is more like an ever expanding ring! If one looks at that ring, he will see that there are God's all around it, just like if you looked at a wedding ring; at first glance it looks like it is just a ring and you can not see any beginning or end, but if you examine it closely, or just think without even examining it, you can discover that there is a line where the ring was put together!!!
So life here on Earth is a transition of growth…he created us to be here…but he loved us so much that in our cosmic journey when we made a decision that separated us from him, he did what any good heavenly family would do and picked us up…even though he had to put himself in pain to do it…it’s because the show goes on. We are eternal, we have always been eternal, going backwards and forwards…that’s literally what “eternal life” is…having no beginning and no end.
Great job, guys! Enjoyed this entire video.
What’s kind of cool about all this is, that we knew all this before we came to earth and a veil was drawn that we cannot see through or remember at the moment. We are being tested to see if we will have faith in Jesus Christ through repentance, and all of the knowledge we had before will be with us again.
If our Father did not start out like we did, then from whence He came???
Hi David, I want to bring to light another statement Casey Griffith makes 21:49 “If you were created ex nilo then everything that you do was pre-program, you’re a robot that’s running a program that God placed in you and you’re not really a good person or a bad person you’re just doing what you’re programmed to do” As a bible believing Christian that believes God created ex nilo-everything out of nothing- that I am just a robot and I’m just doing what God has pre-programmed and placed in me. Christians believe that from the beginning, Adam and Eve, God gave us free will/ agency. I believe it is intellectually dishonest to assume that everyone not believing in the Joseph Smith doctrine of how God created human beings must be robots just running a program and anything good or bad we do we can blame God. This would be the most convenient way of not taking any ownership of your choices, behaviour or actions in life. So according to his theory if I went and punched you in the face I can just say God made me do it? I wonder if that would hold up in court? As it is, Christians believe in free will.
It was mentioned in passing that there are some 'bad' things in the Lectures On Faith. This surprised me, as I am not aware of anything that is bad in there. What would those be? It'd be great to do a podcast on that.
From the church history topic article on the subject: The publication of the Lectures on Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants elevated its status among Church members. In the early 20th century, however, Church leaders became increasingly concerned about some of the statements in the Lectures on Faith. For example, the fifth lecture speaks of the Father as a “personage of spirit,” which seems to contradict Joseph Smith’s teaching (expressed in 1843, several years after the lectures were given) that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22). Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who led the committee that revised the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants, felt that it would be best to “avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief.” In addition, the lectures had not been accepted by the Church as anything other than theological lessons, Talmage’s committee argued. Based on these recommendations, the Lectures on Faith were dropped from the Doctrine and Covenants.
@@uggmonster8795 In addition to these statements about the Father, IIRC it also teaches something to the effect that the Holy Ghost is not an independent personage at all, but is “the mind of God,” which is shared between Christ and the Father.
I agree, the Lectures on Faith should be brought back to put light back in the understanding of God. Anyone who says they were never official, or accepted, is just misinformed or lying. The 1835 "Doctrine and Covenants" contained two sections, the first part, "The Doctrine" was the Lectures on Faith. The second portion was "Covenants and Commandments". The current version of the D&C should really be called "Covenants and Commandments" as the doctrine was removed. Recently at least one BYU scholar went through the Lectures on Faith using modern analysis and found that Joseph Smith wrote Lecture 5, and edited the rest of the lectures of accuracy. You will find the nature and character of God in that small volume. What is truly important, as outline in the book, is that without a correct understanding of God, you cannot have faith. So if you are struggling with spiritual "results" update your definition of God with the one Joseph had, the fruits of his beliefs are well know. For some reason, you should go investigate this, the LoF were removed from cannon.
@@AFallenMan no one is saying they weren't once official part of the canon. They aren't doctrinally correct though.
@@uggmonster8795 Who told you they are not doctrinally correct? You are obviously unaware of current investigations into those lectures, and ignorant as to their history. How do you conceive in your mind that they would be wrong, when Joseph, who outsourced almost all of his writing, made an exception for Lecture 5 and wrote it himself, a BYU professor did the work and it was quite conclusive that it was him. Joseph, in essence recorded the summation of his experience in that lecture. To add to that there is a preface with these words: "We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him." You also miss that the LoF were referred to as the Doctrine of the Church, meaning the Doctrine and Covenants was comprised of two books, The LoF as the Doctrine, and "The Covenants and Commandments" portion is what the church continued calling the D&C even though they deleted the D of the D&C. Calling the D&C the D&C is a misnomer, as the Doctrine of the church was removed to capitulate to a false doctrine put forth by subsequent presidents of the church who had no such theophany. Brigham Young attested to having not seen God, and then asserted a polygamous God, that the BoM calls an abomination. To further this point when you read the BoM you will find that this God in the LoF is the very God described in the BoM. Of course you have to have eyes to see and ears to hear. If you want a spiritual upgrade, humble yourself and seek the God therein. Read Lecture 5 including the notes and allow the spirit to deliver the truth that lies there. While challenging, the beauty and pure love is without compare. God bless.
The truths restored by the prophet Joseph are sublime! “In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life.” (The Family Proclamation) God wants us to return to Him and become inheritors of eternal life, the truth has been restored! God wants to exalt the eternal family. These truths were restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. I am thankful for the knowledge the Gospel brings and for the opportunity Christ has given all of us to become partakers of eternal life and exaltation.
It didn't say he was as old as God. It only said that in the beginning, or in other words, when the world was created, the word was with God and so were we.
This was awesome! Get Casey on for more interviews. Great job. I like this format.
There have been some extremely confusing teachings about this that seem to be contradictory, but they are not. Brigham Young stated that there never was a time when they were not God's, but he also stated that it would be easier for an ant to count all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world than for us to be able to find out the great first cause of all things! These statements only seem contradictory, but in reality they are not! Continued ..
If Joseph was just a great improviser, I'm pretty sure he would have found a way to live to a ripe old age.
I’m so grateful for the blessed opportunity to become like our Heavenly Father. I love this excerpt from Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s The Millennial Messiah: “How glorious is creation! How wondrous the eternal plan of the Father! If there had been no creation, we would not be, and all things would vanish away into a primordial nothingness, having neither sense nor insensibility. If there were no plan of progression and advancement, none of the spirit children of the Father would be able to attain the exalted state he possesses and receive the eternal life he gives to all the obedient. Can we extol too highly the fact of creation and the ordaining of the great and eternal plan of salvation?”
Eastern orthodoxy absolutely does not teach you can become a God nor does it teach God the father was once a man
In a separate podcast, an emeritus Apostle from the Community of Christ said that the founders of their church felt that Joseph Smith had become a fallen prophet. Is the King Follett discourse one of the reasons they felt he was a fallen prophet?
Why the cringe at the mention of Kleon Skousen? What’s that all about?
The KFD is great, as is The Sermon in The Grove. I tend to show them off to nonmembers when I can.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
I thought he looked and sounded familiar... I took one of his classes at BYU
The King Follet Discourse is not cannonized so its not doctrine! Please provide a answer do we believe everything from the KFD to take it as doctrine or do we not? Because alot of Latter Day Saints give different answers or is it monolithic or is it not?
Let me add a little to this professor. Only elementary things can exist.eternally, and those are matter/energy, space, and intelligences in infinite amount and number, and at some point, or in may or infinite points, some great intelligences were able to foresee a perfect plan of beauty and happiness, and they worked together to form perfect bodies, both make and female spirits and then they inhabited those bodies, and then they formed glorious physical bodies which they inhabited, and gave them the ability to reproduce spirits in an exciting, pleasurable, and beautiful way, and that started the great cycle of Godhood. Continued...
The doctrine that God the Father was once a man bridges the dichotomy on the 'Christological' controversies between Christ's 'dual nature' which caused a lot of schisms and debates in the 2nd and 4th century councils.....if God was once a man then there is no 'dual nature' rather 'one nature'...were God is an 'archetype' of full human potential and Christ is the preeminent revelation of what human nature is and can be...
Important to remember that this discourse has not been canonized.
“What About The King Follett Funeral Sermon?
The report of this sermon by Joseph Smith has long been the source of controversy for two reasons. The first has to do with Joseph purportedly teaching the concept of many Gods, as the following extract demonstrates:
You have got to learn how to be gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to god, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Times and Seasons, Vol. V, p. 614)
There are several problems surrounding this sermon. The first is that the excerpt just quoted is contrary to the established word of God in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations approved by the church during the life of Joseph Smith. The second problem has to do with when the sermon was first published. Joseph was to have preached this sermon on April 7, 1844. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844, and the first printing of this sermon occurred in August of 1844, two months after Joseph’s death. As a result, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny its contents. The third problem centers around a statement found in the history as recorded by the Utah Church which states:
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)...were reported in long hand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions. (History of the Church, Vol. IV, p.556)
The fourth and final problem has to do with the testimony of James Whitehead, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary who was in the congregation when this sermon was preached. He testified that:
I heard what is known as the "King Follett" sermon preached. That sermon was published. Joseph Smith did not in that sermon teach the plurality of gods. (Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, Herald Publishing House, Lamoni, IA, 1893, p. 37)
When all of this information regarding the King Follett is considered, it would be suspect at best to consider this an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.”
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
Isaiah 43:10 KJV
Alma 8 79-82, 104 RLDS (11:26-29 LDS)
And Zeezrom saith unto him: "Thou sayest there is a true and a living God?"
And Amulek saith: "Yea, there is a true and a living God."
Now Zeezrom saith: "Is there more than one God?"
And he answered: "No."
@ “This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?”
Galatians 3:2-3 NKJV
Anyone know where I can find the podcast that they mentioned? That Prof Griffths just finished?
As Danny Devito once was, Robert Di Nero now is.