confused on importance of KFD

[Lstinthwrld]

I am hoping someone can shed some light on the subject of the King Follet discourse for me. As an outsider looking in it seems that the KFD encompasses a lot of the teachings that are taught in the church today but I get told it is not cannon and therefore not valid as doctrine. I would like to know what are the differences between the KFD and accepted church doctrine and if it is considered as one of Joseph smiths more important sermons why isn't it doctrine?
Thank you in advance.
Steve

[Elohel]

I believe this has been covered in a recent thread, but here's my .02.

The KFD was the first time the doctrine of "man's divine potential" was taught publicly.

A man by the name of King Follet died and his eulogy was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is what we have today as the King Follet Discourse. Although the KFD teaches many things Latter-Day Saints hold true today, Joseph Smith died shortly after giving it and was unable to correct any mistakes he might have made while giving it. Since the Prophet could not verify the details of that recorded sermon (By the way, was recorded by hand by only one man) it could never be canonized.

The doctrine of 'god in embryo' so to speak was not solidified at this time. It would still be distilled from the heavens to later Prophets such as Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith - who would go on to solidify this doctrine into the integral truth we have today.

Since the Prophet could not have given it the 'rubber stamp' so to speak, it could not be accepted as Church doctrine in that form. Now if Brigham Young would have said "The King Follet discourse is completely true in it's entirety" then it would be considered doctrine, but he didn't. No Prophet has ever given it the 'rubber stamp'.

It's simply not doctrine because he didn't have the opportunity to make sure it was completely correct before the Lord. Modern Prophets today write their sermons before they are given and they take them before the Lord to make sure they are wholly true.

For further light, as well as a good reference. I would invite you to read "Religion 345, Presidents of the Church student manual" for the LDS Church's Institute of Religion pages 88-90.

I hope that answered your question!

[Lstinthwrld]

Originally Posted by Elohel

I believe this has been covered in a recent thread, but here's my .02.

The KFD was the first time the doctrine of "man's divine potential" was taught publicly.

A man by the name of King Follet died and his eulogy was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is what we have today as the King Follet Discourse. Although the KFD teaches many things Latter-Day Saints hold true today, Joseph Smith died shortly after giving it and was unable to correct any mistakes he might have made while giving it. Since the Prophet could not verify the details of that recorded sermon (By the way, was recorded by hand by only one man) it could never be canonized.

The doctrine of 'god in embryo' so to speak was not solidified at this time. It would still be distilled from the heavens to later Prophets such as Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith - who would go on to solidify this doctrine into the integral truth we have today.

Since the Prophet could not have given it the 'rubber stamp' so to speak, it could not be accepted as Church doctrine in that form. Now if Brigham Young would have said "The King Follet discourse is completely true in it's entirety" then it would be considered doctrine, but he didn't. No Prophet has ever given it the 'rubber stamp'.

It's simply not doctrine because he didn't have the opportunity to make sure it was completely correct before the Lord. Modern Prophets today write their sermons before they are given and they take them before the Lord to make sure they are wholly true.

For further light, as well as a good reference. I would invite you to read "Religion 345, Presidents of the Church student manual" for the LDS Church's Institute of Religion pages 88-90.

I hope that answered your question!

this is a site April 7, 1844 I found that shows five transcriptions of the discourse. I had always heard that more than one person recorded it.
If it was never rubber stamped why is it taught at all aside of an interesting side note to Joseph Smiths prophecy.

[Elohel]

I am so glad I was mistaken! I never knew there were more than one account of the sermon! Wonderful, I can't wait to read it! I have only read the 'Times and Seasons' account.

And to answer your question, the KFD is not taught anywhere in any chapel or meetinghouse in the world. Some of its ideas and precepts are, as they are true, but I sincerely hope nobody ever pulls out the KFD to teach from or site, as it is not official doctrine as given.

[Lstinthwrld]

Your right I should have said some of the points in the KFD. The missionaries were over sunday night and they were going over some stuff I recognized from the KFD so I am a little confused on the whole issue. I have friend who is a lifelong LDS member and he said to just stick to canon but it seems to me that a lot of the stuff that is believed necessary for salvation is taught in the KFD and not found in canon. So confused! Help.

[Elohel]

The missionaries were going over points contained in the KFD? I surely hope not, that was never in Preach My Gospel!

Anyway,

There is a difference between salvation and exaltation. The idea that man is a 'god in embryo' is not necessary for salvation in any degree. The idea that man is a 'god in embryo' IS necessary for EXALTATION in the Celestial Kingdom.

The idea that we have a divine heritage and a divine potential can be found in countless Church publications. LDS.org searches can go a long way for you here.

Now why the missionaries are teaching this concept, I am not sure.

Here is a good place to start: http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/mat...%20Here_01.pdf

Unit 10, Chapter 47 covers most of this in basic detail. They also site a source that might be pertinent for your needs, 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p 345-348'

-----------------------

SIDE NOTE: In researching the source, I found it at BOAP, and it seems that the King Follet Discourse was republished in the book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' I was taught that the sermon itself isn't canonized scripture, but apparently some things he said in this discourse were validated by later Prophets and Apostles. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html

One correction: The book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' is just a compilation of historical documents by the Church historian at the time: Joseph F. Smith. The things contained in this publication may or may not be official "doctrine". I need to do a bit more research. My current opinion is that the King Follet Discourse contains many points of truth, but also may contain some ideas that are not completely valid doctrine. I assume that certain parts are quoted because they are accepted as truth without error.

[Lstinthwrld]

Thank you very much. Yeah they were going over a lot of the principals with me. I have some formal theological training so I guess they figured I could handle it. We were going over the concept of eternal progression and I have to say they are very knowledgeable young men. The type that gives me hope for the future of organized religion. They brought me a copy of 'the teachings of the Prophet Joseph smith' Haven't read it yet though.

[Elohel]

I'm not far off my mission myself, and a convert too. I'm glad they're keeping you busy. I hope you get it all sorted out one day, pray until you can't and then pray some more.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Lstinthwrld

I am hoping someone can shed some light on the subject of the King Follet discourse for me. As an outsider looking in it seems that the KFD encompasses a lot of the teachings that are taught in the church today but I get told it is not cannon and therefore not valid as doctrine. I would like to know what are the differences between the KFD and accepted church doctrine and if it is considered as one of Joseph smiths more important sermons why isn't it doctrine?

Thank you in advance.
Steve

Originally Posted by Lstinthwrld

I am hoping someone can shed some light on the subject of the King Follet discourse for me. As an outsider looking in it seems that the KFD encompasses a lot of the teachings that are taught in the church today but I get told it is not cannon and therefore not valid as doctrine. I would like to know what are the differences between the KFD and accepted church doctrine and if it is considered as one of Joseph smiths more important sermons why isn't it doctrine?
Thank you in advance.
Steve

Adding to those General Authorities who received a confirmation with this little known gem by the Prophet Joseph Smith, not much have changed from the last printing of this sermon and clearly is still taught and reference throughout the church and publications.

We have members who will argue on issues of non-canonized revelations should not be taught but if that is true, even those personal revelations are just as much scripture today as it was with the former prophets. As we know, there is but one priesthood holder in the church who can receive such for the whole church. Most of it, is still not canonize for various reasons. We members who want everything to be canonize for an official seal of approval instead relying on the Spirit to be instructed and receive their own spiritual edification. Or plainer meaning here, they require, sad it may seems, “I do lack the faith to ask GOD directly and require for someone else to instruct me.” I don’t know what they would when communications become disrupted and there is no lines back to the hierarchy of the church to lead them. If we follow the Spirit with exactness, we begin to understand truths that are not written, truths that are written with a greater clarity, in meaning and feel the emotions of those who penned it. Our thoughts will become the same as the Prophet and the Apostles of the Lamb.

Now, it has already been discovered this year, even the Doctrine and Covenants is missing over 25 [I considered] important revelations, which either was prohibited by former prophets from being printed or must of felt the church as whole is not ready for it. I can still remember, even President Joseph Fielding Smith had one of them.

Those who do seek the face of GOD do not really worry over what is not canonized but rely on GOD to instruct them personally. The rely on the Spirit to help them to recognized revelations ‘between the lines’ with earlier works, which will only edified their soul unto salvation. This should be our goal. This should be our desire to seek as Peter spoke of in 2nd Peter chapter 1.

The best course for you, read it and then ask for your own confirmation from the Holy Spirit. This will be a great blessing to you as it will lead you to other truths.

[beefche]

Lst, you mention meeting with the missionaries. Have you gone to church yet? For all 3 meetings on Sunday? I think this would give you a good idea of what is being taught.

I do not remember ever being taught the King Follet discourse. I learned about it from other Mormons in casual conversations. But at church we are taught doctrines as contained in the scriptures.

I'm sure the missionaries taught about the plan of salvation. What happened to us in the pre-mortal life, this life, and the post-mortal life. Not sure if the King Follett discourse follows this or not (haven't read it in a long time). But the plan is taught in the scriptures.