Why the RLDS Restoration branches reject the King Follet sermon

[BartBurk]

restored.org/lds/ldsall.htm

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 a an authoritative teaching of Joseph Smith.

What About The Sermon, “The Christian Godhead: Plurality Of Gods?”

Recorded in Vol. VI of the Utah Church’s history are some purported remarks by Joseph Smith on the subject of the plurality of gods. This is another so-called sermon which was never printed, let alone endorsed by Joseph Smith during his lifetime. An interesting quote from this document reads as follows:

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. (History of the Church, Vol. VI, p. 474)

With all of the scriptures which have been quoted in this essay from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations accepted by the Church during the life of Joseph Smith, it is nothing short of preposterous for someone, whoever that was, to represent Joseph as claiming that the Elders of the Church had endorsed the teaching of the plurality of gods since before the Church’s founding in 1830. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any Latter Day Saint minister preached on this subject with the approval of Joseph Smith or the Church at any time during Joseph’s tenure as it’s leader. All one has to do is to study the Lectures of Faith, a series of theological lectures which were included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to know where the stance of the Church rested in regard to the concept of God. Once again, unless there is additional evidence to the contrary, this supposed sermon on the plurality of gods which was reportedly preached less than one month before his death cannot in any way be classified as a true teaching of Joseph Smith.

Additionally, Mormon prophet Joseph F. Smith did not allow B.H. Roberts to publish this sermon in the first edition of the History of the Church because he had problems with it. It was not published until much later.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The RLDS also claim that Joseph Smith either a) never practiced polygamy and/or b) renounced it at the end of his life as a “mistake”.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Wow. I’d not heard that, and my mind is completely spinning.

restored.org/lds/ldsall.htm

Additionally, Mormon prophet Joseph F. Smith did not allow B.H. Roberts to publish this sermon in the first edition of the History of the Church because he had problems with it. It was not published until much later.

When – under J. Fielding Smith?

 

[NewSeeker]

The RLDS position is valid. Most of what is recorded in the published versions of Joseph Smith’s sermons was extrapolated long after the fact by church editors using very sparse source material. Much of Joseph Smith’s purported sermonizing recorded after his death in Times and Seasons, the History of the Church, etc., including the King Follett Sermon, were cobbled together by redactors long after the fact, based only on handwritten snippets of notes, recorded by attendees, with a word here and a phrase there written by this or that person who happened to be leaning against a tree taking notes that day. BYU prof Dean C. Jessee wrote a couple of papers on this issue some years back, correlating the published words of Joseph’s sermons in the HC, and books like Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, with these original lecture notes recorded by eyewitnesses. The percentage of word-to-word correspondence is extremely small. The same applies to both the King Follett sermon and the sermons contained in the official, correlated lesson manuals used in Gospel Doctrine class and priesthood/relief society classes.

It does raise an interesting question. The doctrine of the plurality of gods derived from the published version of the King Follett Sermon and was propagated over the pulpit in the LDS church for a very long time, from First Presidency statements in conference on down to published affirmation in official church lesson manuals in the hands of ordinary church members. So - if it isn’t doctrine, why couldn’t the Lord’s Anointed (except for Gordon B. Hinckley, apparently), operating under the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as church leaders, perceive that there were problems with the doctrine’s source? How exactly, can so many prophets and apostles be so mistaken about the difference between true doctrine and mere opinion? Yes, they’re just men, agreed. But why should be viewed any differently, then? If the prophet is just as potentially flawed as ordinary church members in distinguishing true doctrine from false doctrine, what use are they?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

The RLDS position is valid. Most of what is recorded in the published versions of Joseph Smith’s sermons was extrapolated long after the fact by church editors using very sparse source material. Much of Joseph Smith’s purported sermonizing recorded after his death in Times and Seasons, the History of the Church, etc., including the King Follett Sermon, were cobbled together by redactors long after the fact, based only on handwritten snippets of notes, recorded by attendees, with a word here and a phrase there written by this or that person who happened to be leaning against a tree taking notes that day. BYU prof Dean C. Jessee wrote a couple of papers on this issue some years back, correlating the published words of Joseph’s sermons in the HC, and books like Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, with these original lecture notes recorded by eyewitnesses. The percentage of word-to-word correspondence is extremely small. The same applies to both the King Follett sermon and the sermons contained in the official, correlated lesson manuals used in Gospel Doctrine class and priesthood/relief society classes.

It does raise an interesting question. The doctrine of the plurality of gods derived from the published version of the King Follett Sermon and was propagated over the pulpit in the LDS church for a very long time, from First Presidency statements in conference on down to published affirmation in official church lesson manuals in the hands of ordinary church members. So - if it isn’t doctrine, why couldn’t the Lord’s Anointed (except for Gordon B. Hinckley, apparently), operating under the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as church leaders, perceive that there were problems with the doctrine’s source?

Maybe he did. But to effect an official rejection is as hard as to effect an official endorsement of a doctrine. Full Quorum.

But you’re preaching to the choir, here. The “teachings” book should be trashed and anything salvageable from it, with scholarship, should be transferred to other books.

 

[BartBurk]

Wow. I’d not heard that, and my mind is completely spinning.

When – under J. Fielding Smith?

This is what I could find:

I think that such associations are the direct outgrowth of a creeping identity crisis which is gnawing at the heart of Mormondom and that such groups provide partial but salutary resolutions of that crisis. Let me explain by relating a personal anecdote. As a graduate student at Stanford University, I belonged to a study group which was inquiring into the LDS concept of deity with all the zeal one might expect of a group of devout former missionaries. We needed to locate the King Follett discourse and thought we could find it in Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, edited by B. H. Roberts. We did find the discourse listed in the table of contents of the first edition, but the pages listed in the table of contents were missing in our copy. They had been omitted at the time the volume was printed. Other copies of the volume had the same apparent defect. The page was numbered 301 on one side and 318 on the other.1
Frustrated and intrigued by this circumstance, we sent an inquiry to Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, who was then supposed to provide “Answers to Gospel Questions.” We received a reply, which [p.62] was as terse as it was prompt. The King Follett discourse was not published in the History of the Church because President Joseph F. Smith did not want it included. Of course this reply raised more questions than it put to rest, since no explanation was provided for President Smith’s decision to delete the discourse.
I have since learned that B. H. Roberts, who believed the King Follett Discourse contained “many wondrous truths,” was infuriated at the highhandedness of his publisher in deleting these pages. Roberts, who was a member of the First Council of Seventy, had been assigned to tour a mission just before the volume went to press and discovered the crucial omission quite by chance after his return. The only reason given for this action was a vague hint that “the Brethren” questioned the authenticity of the discourse. Roberts immediately had 10,000 copies of the discourse printed and distributed throughout the church at his own expense.2 It is interesting to note that after all these years, B. H. Roberts’s thirty-two-page pamphlet is still on sale at the Deseret Bookstores.3

signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=10724

There were three or four LDS scribes who claimed to have notes of the sermon and these notes were the basis of the published accounts. Perhaps this is why the LDS don’t consider it canonical – there is no way to verify the original version. So LDS really are free to accept it or reject it as doctrine. The only reason it has survived as an important document is because of the efforts of B.H. Roberts. Interestingly, B.H. Roberts eventually came to question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but was fine with this sermon!

 

[BartBurk]

Maybe he did. But to effect an official rejection is as hard as to effect an official endorsement of a doctrine. Full Quorum.

But you’re preaching to the choir, here. The “teachings” book should be trashed and anything salvageable from it, with scholarship, should be transferred to other books.

Perhaps you would be interested in this quote from Harold B. Lee:

All that we teach in this church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.

ldslastdays.com/default.aspx?page=talk_usingscript.htm

 

[BartBurk]

I found a little more info which I thought I would add:

The exclusion and inclusion of the King Follett Discourse in the History of the Church constitutes one of the most interesting episodes in the history of Church publishing. B. H. Roberts, editor of the six-volume work, decided to include the King Follett Discourse in Volume 6 of the first edition. Apparently, at the last minute, it was removed. An examination of the first edition of Volume 6 (1912) provides conclusive evidence that the King Follett Discourse was indeed removed as the book was ready to be bound, as pages 302–317 are missing. In the second edition of Volume 6 (1950), pages 302–317 are reinserted, and they contain the King Follett Discourse.60

We do not know exactly why the sermon was removed or who ordered its removal, but available evidence indicates that some of the Brethren had become suspicious of the King Follett Discourse, maintaining that all of its doctrines might not be authentic, and expressing some concern over the accuracy of the text. In a letter to Samuel O. Bennion, president of the Central States Mission, George Albert Smith said: "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. . . . Some of the brethren felt as I did and thought that greater publicity should not be given to that particular sermon.”61

Testifying in Washington, D.C., during the Reed Smoot hearings, Charles W. Penrose stated that: there are some sermons published in the Journal of Discourses the authenticity of which has been disputed . . . for instance some of the sermons attributed to Joseph Smith, the Prophet. They were taken down at the time in longhand and have been published in the Journal of Discourses and there have been disputes as to their correctness.’”62

This information was taken from the following article:

byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2Cannon.pdf

 

[BartBurk]

And here is even more information:

contrarianmormon.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/bh-roberts-saves-the-king-follett-discourse-from-obscurity/

All in all it seems to me the King Follet sermon is even controversial within the LDS Church itself as are many of the doctrines surrounding it.

 

[BartBurk]

Just sending this to the top.

 

[Stephen168]

restored.org/lds/ldsall.htm

Additionally, Mormon prophet Joseph F. Smith did not allow B.H. Roberts to publish this sermon in the first edition of the History of the Church because he had problems with it. It was not published until much later.

Are the RLDS trinitarians?

 

[BartBurk]

Are the RLDS trinitarians?

Yes. And no. The Community of Christ is certainly trinitarian. Restoration branches tend to be non-creedal, but believe in the Trinity from everything I have been able to gather.

restored.org/HearYeHim/HYH002_OurBeliefInGod.pdf

restored.org/HearYeHim/

 

[PaulDupre]

Whether or not JS preached the KFD as we have it today is, IMHO, interesting but not important since we will likely never know for sure. What is bothersome is that the LDS church in 2011 is still teaching it and leading her members away from the truth by doing so.

I hope that more and more thoughtful LDS will doubt the KFD as a source of legitimate beliefs and begin to question the inspiration of their leaders.

 

[BartBurk]

Whether or not JS preached the KFD as we have it today is, IMHO, interesting but not important since we will likely never know for sure. What is bothersome is that the LDS church in 2011 is still teaching it and leading her members away from the truth by doing so.

I hope that more and more thoughtful LDS will doubt the KFD as a source of legitimate beliefs and begin to question the inspiration of their leaders.

I don’t know that they are teaching it as much as they used to. It seems to have been de-emphasized to some extent.

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t know that they are teaching it as much as they used to. It seems to have been de-emphasized to some extent.

The KFD is still quoted in the teaching manuals that are still in use. You remember Gospel Principles, chapter 47, don’t you? Those references attest to the correctness of the KFD teachings as the LDS leadership sees it.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Kentucky-Fried Doctrine?

 

[mwok]

Kentucky-Fried Doctrine?

 

[PaulDupre]

Original wings with cole slaw please!

 

[BartBurk]

The KFD is still quoted in the teaching manuals that are still in use. You remember Gospel Principles, chapter 47, don’t you? Those references attest to the correctness of the KFD teachings as the LDS leadership sees it.

You mean this quote I assume:

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

I am noticing the LDS are very careful not to mention the idea that God the Father had a Father. It simply says God lived on an earth and gained a body. And perhaps I am concentrating on the wrong sermon by Joseph Smith. King Follet doesn’t really talk about the plurality of Gods. That is discussed in this sermon:

emp.byui.edu/jexj/courses/sermon_in_the_grove.htm

That supposed speech was only a little over a week before Joseph Smith was killed. I’d love to know how that speech was recorded. And you will never find a direct quote from Joseph Smith regarding the LDS belief regarding a Heavenly Mother. I guess I would have to say there is a lot of room for LDS to wiggle out of some of their teachings, and I’m happy to encourage them to wiggle out of them.

 

[lax16]

That supposed speech was only a little over a week before Joseph Smith was killed. I’d love to know how that speech was recorded. And you will never find a direct quote from Joseph Smith regarding the LDS belief regarding a Heavenly Mother. I guess I would have to say there is a lot of room for LDS to wiggle out of some of their teachings, and I’m happy to encourage them to wiggle out of them.

Mormon encyclopedia says about Heavenly Mother:

As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, “O My Father,” by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62). In the heav’ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I’ve a mother there. When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]

Unfortunately, there are no references to his “several accounts from that period.”