I'd like to see Dan lead a weekly discussion on - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SteelBlue · 12-17-2005, 05:42 AM

a church history topic of his choice. I really enjoy his religion posts here and I wish he'd show up a bit more than he does. Dan, as your first topic I'd like to see something on the King Follet sermon. Thanks in advance.

Dan · 12-17-2005, 04:32 PM

... I only wish I had more free time. I opened my law office 14 months ago and I am at the point where I have so much work and so little free time. I am at the point where I am looking into opening up another office and hiring another attorney. I am afraid that the little time I have to drop in here and at cougarboard is about all I have to give right now. :cry:

SteelBlue · 12-17-2005, 05:41 PM

Alright, so your job is more important than cougarguard. I can live with that. But at least address one question re: the King Follet sermon. There was one idea in that sermon that I don't recall ever hearing before. I quote from the sermon near its end:

"A guestion about parents receiving their children. Will mothers have their children in eternity? Yes! Yes! Mothers, you will have your children. For they will have it without price; for their debt of redemption is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them. For they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

The parts that I've highlighted are found only in one of the 4 journals used to amalgamate the 1978 version. They happen to be from the journal of Wilford Woodruff. His account is known as being the least likely to represent the words actually spoken by Joseph (because WW wrote his account after the sermon) with the others taking their notes during the sermon.

Now to my question. Has the thought expressed above, that children will not grow any more but will gain their godhood as children after they die ever been accepted in the church? The idea saddens me, and doesn't sit right with anything I've learned before. It is the only part of the sermon that doesn't feel correct to me. I'm thinking (hoping) that it was probably WW adding info that wasn't accurate. What think ye?

Indy Coug · 12-17-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Alright, so your job is more important than cougarguard. I can live with that. But at least address one question re: the King Follet sermon. There was one idea in that sermon that I don't recall ever hearing before. I quote from the sermon near its end:

"A guestion about parents receiving their children. Will mothers have their children in eternity? Yes! Yes! Mothers, you will have your children. For they will have it without price; for their debt of redemption is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them. For they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

The parts that I've highlighted are found only in one of the 4 journals used to amalgamate the 1978 version. They happen to be from the journal of Wilford Woodruff. His account is known as being the least likely to represent the words actually spoken by Joseph (because WW wrote his account after the sermon) with the others taking their notes during the sermon.

Now to my question. Has the thought expressed above, that children will not grow any more but will gain their godhood as children after they die ever been accepted in the church? The idea saddens me, and doesn't sit right with anything I've learned before. It is the only part of the sermon that doesn't feel correct to me. I'm thinking (hoping) that it was probably WW adding info that wasn't accurate. What think ye?

How much accuracy can we attribute to the transcriptions of these discourses by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Did they sign off on these records, to verify their accuracy, or are we left to be subject to the errors of men?

SteelBlue · 12-17-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How much accuracy can we attribute to the transcriptions of these discourses by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Did they sign off on these records, to verify their accuracy, or are we left to be subject to the errors of men?

Speaking only of the King Follet sermon I can give you a link that addresses your question. It is generally regarded as one of the more accurately recorded sermons as they have the journals of 4 men to compare.
https://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/PDFfiles/18.2Larson.pdf

Dan · 12-17-2005, 06:08 PM

... but I believe Benjamin Johnson (last surviving member of the Council of 50, or ytfif) seemed to indicate most thought that was one of the few doctrinal ideas that people basically rejected. I would tend to agree. I frankly, do not believe it, but my beliefs are beside the point as to whether it is true or not.

Dan · 12-17-2005, 06:12 PM

... http://www.helpingmormons.org/TLC_Ma...nsonLetter.htm

Look about a quarter of the way down the page where Benjamin discusses this topic.

il Padrino Ute · 12-17-2005, 06:24 PM

Your post reminds me of a story I heard many years ago at the convention for Funeral Directors of Utah.

A gentleman who gave the keynote speech related his experience of dying and coming back. He had been clinically dead for over 10 minutes. The story was incredible...

He told us that he and his wife had had twin daughters that had been still born 14 or 15 years previous to his experience. He saw them and recognized them as his daughters, but they were teenage girls at the time.

He also was greeted by an uncle whop had passed away when this man telling the story was a boy. It was his dad's brother and they had had a falling out and hadn't talked to each other for many, many years - not even when the man had died. His uncle was the one who told him that it wasn't his time to be there and that he needed to go back. He asked him to talk to his dad and let him know that until his brother forgave him for what had happened, the uncle would not be able to progress in the next life.

When I heard that - that not forgiving someone could hinder his progression in the next life - it made it very clear to me why the Lord teaches us in the D&C that we are required to forgive all men. Not only will I be held responsible for my own lack of progression, but being responsible for another's non-progress and having that on my head as well is enough for me to realize that I have a lot of work to do before I'm living the way I should be living.

I guess I kind of changed direction in this post - sorry 'bout that.

SteelBlue · 12-17-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

... http://www.helpingmormons.org/TLC_Ma...nsonLetter.htm

Look about a quarter of the way down the page where Benjamin discusses this topic.

I'll paste it here for those who don't want to search:

"And while the Holy Ghost may not always remain upon a man, may not even a prophet to whom it was not yet all revealed, make mistakes, as in the baptism for the dead, and also in the prophet sermon at the funerals of a child of Winzor Lyon and King Follett, when he preached that children, "even infants, would sit upon thrones with dominion," which was published in the "Times and Seasons" at the time, but which, like President Woodruff, I am positive he afterwards reconsidered. "

SteelBlue · 12-17-2005, 11:51 PM

I just read that whole Benjamin document. Very interesting stuff! As I am currently studying the history of polygamy in our church I found his description of Joseph revealing polygamy to him fascinating. When he tells Benjamin that he is planning on taking Benjamin's sister as a wife. Benjamin replies:

"Brother Joseph, this is something I did not expect, and I do not understand it. You know whether it is right, I do not. I want to do just as you tell me, and I will try, but if I ever should know that you do this to dishonor and debauch my sister, I will kill you as sure as the Lord lives." And while his eyes did not move from mine, he said with a smile, in a soft tone: "But Benjamin you will never know that, but you will know the principle in time, and will greatly rejoice in what it will bring to you."

12-17-2005, 05:42 AM	#1
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	I'd like to see Dan lead a weekly discussion on a church history topic of his choice. I really enjoy his religion posts here and I wish he'd show up a bit more than he does. Dan, as your first topic I'd like to see something on the King Follet sermon. Thanks in advance.

12-17-2005, 04:32 PM	#2
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	I appreciate the sentiment ... ... I only wish I had more free time. I opened my law office 14 months ago and I am at the point where I have so much work and so little free time. I am at the point where I am looking into opening up another office and hiring another attorney. I am afraid that the little time I have to drop in here and at cougarboard is about all I have to give right now. :cry: __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

12-17-2005, 06:08 PM	#6
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Going off memory here ... ... but I believe Benjamin Johnson (last surviving member of the Council of 50, or ytfif) seemed to indicate most thought that was one of the few doctrinal ideas that people basically rejected. I would tend to agree. I frankly, do not believe it, but my beliefs are beside the point as to whether it is true or not. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

12-17-2005, 06:12 PM	#7
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Here it is ... ... http://www.helpingmormons.org/TLC_Ma...nsonLetter.htm Look about a quarter of the way down the page where Benjamin discusses this topic. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

12-17-2005, 06:24 PM	#8
il Padrino Ute Board Pinhead Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah. Posts: 15,941	Your post reminds me of a story I heard many years ago at the convention for Funeral Directors of Utah. A gentleman who gave the keynote speech related his experience of dying and coming back. He had been clinically dead for over 10 minutes. The story was incredible... He told us that he and his wife had had twin daughters that had been still born 14 or 15 years previous to his experience. He saw them and recognized them as his daughters, but they were teenage girls at the time. He also was greeted by an uncle whop had passed away when this man telling the story was a boy. It was his dad's brother and they had had a falling out and hadn't talked to each other for many, many years - not even when the man had died. His uncle was the one who told him that it wasn't his time to be there and that he needed to go back. He asked him to talk to his dad and let him know that until his brother forgave him for what had happened, the uncle would not be able to progress in the next life. When I heard that - that not forgiving someone could hinder his progression in the next life - it made it very clear to me why the Lord teaches us in the D&C that we are required to forgive all men. Not only will I be held responsible for my own lack of progression, but being responsible for another's non-progress and having that on my head as well is enough for me to realize that I have a lot of work to do before I'm living the way I should be living. I guess I kind of changed direction in this post - sorry 'bout that. __________________ "The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB.

12-17-2005, 05:41 PM	#3
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	Alright, so your job is more important than cougarguard. I can live with that. But at least address one question re: the King Follet sermon. There was one idea in that sermon that I don't recall ever hearing before. I quote from the sermon near its end: "A guestion about parents receiving their children. Will mothers have their children in eternity? Yes! Yes! Mothers, you will have your children. For they will have it without price; for their debt of redemption is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them. For they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature." The parts that I've highlighted are found only in one of the 4 journals used to amalgamate the 1978 version. They happen to be from the journal of Wilford Woodruff. His account is known as being the least likely to represent the words actually spoken by Joseph (because WW wrote his account after the sermon) with the others taking their notes during the sermon. Now to my question. Has the thought expressed above, that children will not grow any more but will gain their godhood as children after they die ever been accepted in the church? The idea saddens me, and doesn't sit right with anything I've learned before. It is the only part of the sermon that doesn't feel correct to me. I'm thinking (hoping) that it was probably WW adding info that wasn't accurate. What think ye?

12-17-2005, 11:51 PM	#10
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	I just read that whole Benjamin document. Very interesting stuff! As I am currently studying the history of polygamy in our church I found his description of Joseph revealing polygamy to him fascinating. When he tells Benjamin that he is planning on taking Benjamin's sister as a wife. Benjamin replies: "Brother Joseph, this is something I did not expect, and I do not understand it. You know whether it is right, I do not. I want to do just as you tell me, and I will try, but if I ever should know that you do this to dishonor and debauch my sister, I will kill you as sure as the Lord lives." And while his eyes did not move from mine, he said with a smile, in a soft tone: "But Benjamin you will never know that, but you will know the principle in time, and will greatly rejoice in what it will bring to you."