Talk:King Follett discourse

Untitled
Eloquence, please give me a good argument of how articles with primary source text like Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed Apostles' Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed differ from the King Follett Discourse so that it is permissible to print that creedal material, but not the creedal material in the King Follett Discourse. While it's good to have general rules, each article should be taken on a case by case basis to make sure the general rule makes sense in that case. Thank you. B 01:03, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

None of these is particularly useful in their current form, as such creeds need to be commented and put in historical context. However, the primary difference is length:
 * King Follett Discourse: 35433 characters
 * Athanasian Creed: 3938 characters
 * Nicene Creed: 2470 characters
 * Apostles Creed: 760 characters
 * Chalcedonian Creed: 1248 characters

The longer a source reproduction is the less eligible it becomes for Wikipedia. Quotations can of course be essential to illustrate certain concepts, but they are inherently POV material and need interpretation as well as balance and criticism. If Wikipedia merely reproduces text instead of explaining it, it is no longer an encyclopedia and it is no longer neutral. For example, I think that LDS is one of the silliest religions currently in existence, and that says a lot, so when I read a Wikipedia article I expect it to discuss church doctrines in depth and show their historical origins instead of merely reproducing church propaganda. Otherwise I might as well start importing atheism FAQs and anarchist manifestos.


 * It doesn't really say as much as you think it does because much more civil and intelligent people than you feel otherwise about Mormonism...but at least you're somewhat straightforward (and audacious) with your prejudice. Given your last comment, I take it you are a religion hater in general but have a particular distaste for "deluded" Mormonism. Thanks for making feel warm and fuzzy all over. B


 * Hum... I've had somewhat intense contact with a pair of Mormons about their religion, due to a big curiosity I felt. I can say it's the silliest religion I know, too. I don't pretend offending! I only intent to say that there's no prejudice in thinking so: the silly adjective in my case refers to the faith in Joseph Smith's fantastic history (jewish origin of americans despite science; i've found golden plates but an angel has taken them; ...). And I know there's no prejudice in that simply because I appreciate mormons (faith on not-scientific history doesn't harm others, and they are christians in heart). But the fact is that Eloquence is completely right when he says "when I read a Wikipedia article I expect it to discuss church doctrines in depth and show their historical origins instead of merely reproducing church propaganda". That's what everyone (should) expect when browsing wikipedia instead of www.lds.org? or www.vatican.va. --Euyyn 10:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should, of course, link to the full text whenever possible. When the full text of a source is of the length of an average quotation (one to two paragraphs), it may be appropriate to reproduce it in full. I think that Athanasian Creed already goes too far, though, and hope someone will rewrite it to summarize the most important aspects of the creed, with a reference to the full text.&mdash;Eloquence 02:04, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

Well said enough, but I doubt the current policy of not reproducing notable texts is likely to stand in perpetuity although at this point in the youthful stages of wikipedia it may make more sense to have the policy in order to focus on getting articles up. For now I'll just add an external link where folks can find the full text if they want read it. Personally, I'm glad the full text of the Athanasian Creed is reproduced...each word is important and a summary wouldn't do it justice. Length really is not a factor of primary significance ...and while quotes may be inherently POV it is non sequitor to claim that reproducing text is no longer neutral; reproducing text is no more than reproducing text and has little to do with POV and neutrality. In the case of King Follett Discourse it is not mere propogandizing, but is a substantial source of teachings that drives much of Mormon theology, but for a religion hater (or at least Mormonism-hater) that may be hard to recognize. As any good college student knows sometimes all the summation in the world can't capture what the primary source says and it simply needs to speak for itself. B 03:09, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree, I don't think that reproducing POV text is necessarily POV, provided a suitable introduction places it in context. People should be able to use the neutral introductory information to help them decide how to interpret the quoted text. On the other hand, there's some practical limit to how much we should try to import. The entire Bible is an important literary and religious text, and I think there's at least one English translation in the public domain, but I don't think the entire Bible should be reproduced in Wikipedia, just to use a more extreme example. Haven't read the King Follett Discourse, not sure how long it is, so I don't at this point have a definite opinion on whether to reproduce it in full. There should of course be at least an external link to the full text. Wesley 17:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed about neutral introduction and that at this point, the Bible doesn't need to be reproduced in Wikipedia. I anticipate that down the road there will be a supplementary website called Wikidoc (or some such) similar to Wiktionary as an online repository for documents. Wikipedia needs to link to innumerable documents reliably and the best way to do that is to have it's own repository where possible. I've added a link in the article to the text of the sermon.  B 15:40, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it would be preferable to do inline analisys and/or official interpretation of POV texts instead of an introduction. I'm not talking of explaining them line-by-line; I just think inter-introducing the NPOV data about them would balance the point of view while reading. It's just the way between quotation and complete reproduction. Euyyn 10:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Historical NPOV references needed
The article says there were 20000 people in that funeral. This is a really big number to assert it without at least one NPOV reference. If it were the correct number, I would ask by which mean did 20000 people listen to a single one in 1844 (not micros and amplifiers then, I believe).

Forgot my first two sentences if "Times and Seasons" is a NPOV source: I've no access to it. The other references in the article are clearly POV. Euyyn 10:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Journal accounts, T&S and History of the Church are the sources - anti-mormons were not big attenders of LDS Church meetings so can't verify from those sources. Of course they are POV, as they are secondary sources. Every account has a POV. Don't quite understand the argument. Regardless, they are the most reliable as they are what we have available from the current time, rather than a recollection years later.


 * It was not uncommon for hundreds or thousands to come listen to Smith. Please remember he was a presidential candidate at the time and it is not uncommon for this many people to have come to listen to one of his (at the time) rare public appearances (rare due to the open threats against his life at the time - remember he was in hiding in Iowa territory for some time when he wrote about Baptism for the Dead practices in letters, etc.). 2000 people is the same to LDS folks as a very small stake, which could congregate very nicely to hear a speaker even without a microphone if they encirlced him. When seated, 2000 people would take up about the same space as an NBA-size basketball court. I don't see the issue here. -Visorstuff 23:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But you're not talking about 2000 but 20 000. That's ten times more people. Maybe there are some reports on other meetings in Smith's time (by other presidential candidates or religion leaders).... I'll try to investigate if I remember to (but it's a hard thing when not in the USA)--euyyn 00:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't think reports from any church about its own matters can be considered reliable a priori; without confirmation from a neutral source. The same stands for political parties.

There are countless examples of, say, demonstrations, in which government and demonstrators' counts of present people differed in a factor of 3, 4, ... And I'm talking about the present times, not 1800s!

I think it's clear that (despite being true or not) saying that 20,000 people congregated to listen to its leader was a benefitial propaganda for a recently born (then) religion: It makes a good impression for both members and outsiders (who were not necessarily anti-mormon). Therefore I believe Wikipedia cannot state it as a fact without a NPOV source. And so the sentence should be something like "... presented to a conference of, according to LDS' sources, about twenty thousand Latter-day Saints...".

I don't trust my own English, so I would like that someone reworded the sentence; or instead presented neutral sources. I don't like the idea of having to do it myself...--euyyn 15:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've just made a very un-founded, mis-educated argument about historical sources - which shows little understanding the historical process. Primary sources are what gives the neutral, analyzed and "NPOV" secondary source. That estimate has stood the historical argument for more than a hundred years, and this is the first time I've seen the estimate questioned to this degree - not even the Tanners question this one.

It is hard for me to believe that you would not believe, or trust an organization's official source (even if it were by a member of the church, or the official record of an organization) about its own happenings. By such, you cannot believe the outcome of the constitutional convention of the US in the late 1700s or accounts of Franklin's, Washinton's or Madison's speeches (remember it was a closed-door meeting). You cannot believe the voting record of senators as put forth by senate records. Most of these cannot be verified by "neutral sources." You cannot believe a local newspaper reporting on happenings in their own hometown, as the reporter is a resident of the community. Indeed, you must question the integrity of the USA Today and NY Times, as although they are different sources, they are both American newspapers - and promote American "propaganda." To you the Moon landing must be a hoax, as there are no third parties to prove that this took place - just NASA's word. Then there is the Holocaust and the Six million Jews that were killed - you cannot believe that that took place either, as they weren't taken from German sources, but by records obtained by the victors. Believe me, your comment has led a lot of conspiricy theorists down these paths and more. But I digress....

A good historian takes all accounts of an event and then estimates based on available sources. The available sources from multiple journals point to the number stated in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and has been revised in History of the Church. It has been the number used for 150+ years, and until it can be disproven will remain as reputable.

However, I agree that this should read as "an estimate" from "eyewitness accounts" who were members of the Church.

Again in a city of nearly 24,000 residents (conservative estimates put it at a little over 20k, but non-Mormon sources tend to put the population higher - in either case it was the tenth largest city in the US at the time), I don't see why the high number of people attending a rare public appearance of Smith should be questioned that the whole town came. Let alone the nearby residents of Zarahemla, Lehi and other Latter-day Saint communities. He was a presidential candidate, mayor, leader of the Church and national celebrity - "God's chosen mouthpiece" as one account states.

Please don't feel that I'm attacking you; your argument makes no sense. Your suggested edit, however, is a very good one - feel free to make the change and others will revise the English. It should read that the estimates are by multiple LDS eyewitness accounts and available records of the Church. -Visorstuff 22:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "It is hard for me to believe that you would not believe, or trust an organization's official source (...) about its own happenings." --- I clearly said church or political party. And I would add comertial corporations. In general, the fact is that if some data would benefict the entity which brings it out, hence it has a higher probability to come out. This cannot be denied: it's just common sense. It's not a conspiracy theory to understand that not every man is honest. I (and I thougth that everybody) would give more credibility to "little Peter" when he confesses to have broke the window with his ball than when he denies to have done it... It's just a matter of probability: if some data is less probable to raise, it gives more information.


 * "you cannot believe the outcome of the constitutional convention of the US in the late 1700s" --- Don't know what this was about, but if it was some votation, everyone there (even oppositors) was witness of the outcome.


 * "or accounts of Franklin's, Washinton's or Madison's speeches" --- ...Where would be the benefit in altering their words, in such a way that nobody who listened to them could notice?


 * "You cannot believe the voting record of senators as put forth by senate records." --- Same as above: if the record was altered, the affected senators would have certainly noticed.


 * "You cannot believe a local newspaper reporting on happenings in their own hometown, as the reporter is a resident of the community." --- Honestly, has this any sense in regard of what I said?


 * "you must question the integrity of the USA Today and NY Times, as although they are different sources, they are both American newspapers - and promote American propaganda." --- I do not believe all Americans worship America. And I don't want to think you really believe that. Anyway American propaganda is not IMO benefitial for those newspapers... So they do not fit in my argument. But you suggested a good way of proving credibility: were the sources independent? If totally independent, it's not probable that they coincided when inflating the sum. But perhaps it's a difficult thing to prove...


 * "To you the Moon landing must be a hoax, as there are no third parties to prove that this took place - just NASA's word." --- As far as I know they had the technology to do it (Apollo 11 was not like the first NASA rocket), and they transmitted "real-time" video images to the whole world and took many photographs. I also believe that they brought lunar rocks... Not much like officially-saying "in a mission we were the only ones to follow, we reached the moon!". But I once read an investigation supporting that Gagarin didn't escape atmosphere he he... Don't remember the arguments.


 * "Then there is the Holocaust and the Six million Jews that were killed - you cannot believe that that took place either, as they weren't taken from German sources, but by records obtained by the victors." --- You have been very disgusting here. I think no further comment is needed after reading this.


 * "The available sources from multiple journals point to the number stated in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" --- And that is what is commonly called "references". Just what I asked for, if you remember. (Maybe you didn't mention them earlier because they are LDS-POV sources... just guessing)


 * "It has been the number used for 150+ years, and until it can be disproven will remain as reputable." --- This is the biggest fallacy here. So until JC's multiplication of breads and fishes can be disproven, History assumes it as a fact. The New Testament is aprox. 2000 years old... that's about 150 thirteen times! At least Muslims, Catholic and LDS use the Bible as a historic source... So why don't assert it in some article?


 * "Again" --- again? --- "in a city of nearly 24,000 residents (...), I don't see why the high number of people attending a rare public appearance of Smith should be questioned that the whole town came." --- This is a good and sensible argument. But unfortunatelly it doesn't make the picture of Smith crying out his (not short) speech, in a funeral, a little less odd to me. I didn't believe that there were less than 20,000 people willing to attend his speech...


 * "Your suggested edit, however, is a very good one..." --- I cannot see how my proposed edit is so unrelated to my argument, but receive well that you like it. If nobody else disagrees I will do it... Ending then this debate, isn't it?
 * --euyyn 00:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to have gone to the extreme to prove a point, but please understand that NPOV sources and primary historical records are not the same, but are the foundation of percieved fact. With the example you used, many people discount the JC fish story because it is in the "biased" bible not proven by a third, independent source (although I believe it happened), but most of the world accepts that that miracle in fact happened. No one was there when it happened, and no surviving detractor statement is found, and no one can defend it. It remains a historical theory - the same as the speeches made by Washington and Franklin mentioned above.

The bottom line is that multiple people put the figure of attendees at the funeral at such a high number. One was the official record, another the local newspaper, but others were journals of members of the church (clayton, smith, stout which had close estimates to the same figure). In any case it is an estimate by these individuals (the church today actually counts attendees at sacrament meetings, and has been highly praised for the accurate record keeping it does - although former members, and critics, often state they inflate numbers or use old equations to account for unknown deaths, etc.). I don't think you can discount a record just because of who wrote it. I disagree with your point about the church having something to gain by inflating those numbers - it wasn't a church meeting - it was a funeral of a very influential man.


 * "You cannot believe a local newspaper reporting on happenings in their own hometown, as the reporter is a resident of the community." --- Honestly, has this any sense in regard of what I said?

The figure was reported in a local newspaper. This is how it has sense in regard to what you said.

What I meant by my last statement was this: Your conclusion is good, but how you got there was flawed. Your argument is flimsy from a historian's POV, as I mentioned before. Those familiar with historical theory will laugh at this thread, but you came to the right conclusion as I mentioned before and the suggested edit is a good one. -Visorstuff 20:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen -- please note that Joseph delivered the King Follett Discourse/Sermon at the LDS General Conference shortly after Follett's death and funeral. He was evidently asked by the family to present a tribute to his late friend and colleague. I've corrected the article to reflect the mode of presentation. Conference -- for Nauvoo and the extended LDS community -- would have been a much bigger draw and the number is more easily defendable. At the time, most LDS members would have made an effort to attend such a conference. WBardwin 00:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not believe it was a "general conference" but a church conference - small but important difference. Smith was unable to attend the funeral due to being in iowa territory at the time in hiding, but promised to eulogize Follett when he returned. In this sense it was a funeral sermon, and an important one. This was the first time Smith spoke in public in some time, which is why there was such a draw. There was a scarcity of the Mormon prophet and public appearances by controversial figures and political leaders tended to create such a draw. However, evidence points to this text as a "funeral sermon" even if it was ten days after the event of this bodyguard and friend of Joseph. -Visorstuff 17:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification -- one of my sources said "conference," the other a "general meeting." Certainly, they did not have "general conference" in the modern sense.  But both sources stated that Follett's funeral was over, and he was buried, but that his family had asked Joseph to speak and he took the opportunity in "conference."  WBardwin 20:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Full Text of King Follet Discourse
I noticed that the version that is linked does not appear to be complete or exact as compared with the version I have from the Journal of Discourses version. The version linked has added some material in square brackets [] and left some material out using ellipses ...

Ellipses should be avoided or used extremely carefully by debaters lest there be suspicion that crucial material has been left out.

The offending paragraph reads: "A question may be asked—“Will mothers have their children in eternity?” Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow [in the grave]; it will still be the child, in the same precise form [when it rises] as it appeared before it died out of its mother’s arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. …" and it should read:

"A question may be asked—“Will mothers have their children in eternity?” Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life; for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaits them, for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow: it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother’s arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansion of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

--Jeff 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeffmilner. Good point. However, you probably already know that the KFD was not taken word for word. The T&S version is considered "accurate" but many portions are considered less reliable. I've seen multiple versions of the text that leave out info that were not alluded to in other versions written. The compilation that was in the T&S was compiled by Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton. It was supposedly also recorded by George D. Watts, and his version was largely different, although he was used as the primary transcriber of Journal of Discourses texts. Therefore the text in the Journal of Discourses (written by Watts) likely included the text that he felt was missing from the "official" version. But we really don't know. Anyway, for what its worth, there's the context. Different sources, trying to keep consistency, but failing due to the slowness of transcription. -Visorstuff 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello Visorstuff. I understand from the article that the KFD was "recorded using a version of Pittman Shorthand and [is] considered by scholars as accurate (near-verbatim)". If this is not correct, then the article needs updating.


 * The reason I would tend to believe the J of D version is more accurate, although it appears contrary to current Mormon belief, is that it matches perfectly with the T&S text that is there before it was changed using square brackets and elipses. Square brackets and elipses mean text was changed&#8212;though admittantly I am unaware of exactly why they dropped the text. The fact that they kept the paragraph at all is indicative that something close to this was said, and the fact that words added and dropped conviently changed the meaning is very suspicious, especially when a non-changed version is available with very few other differences. I believe this is what Joseph Smith taught and I believe it was whitewashed from official church history.--Jeff 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just take a moment to think about what the text actually says, "It will never grow [in the grave]". Does that sound like something you would actually hear? Why would he point out that a child would not grow in the grave? Please don't take this personally because I think it's a wide-spread problem, but for me it's hard not to feel frustrated in a religion where most everyone is so brainwashed. --Jeff 01:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One last thing: Do you know if the square brackets and elipses were used in the original T&S printing, or only in the Ensign's reprinting of that article?--Jeff 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a bound copy of the times and seasons. I tend to not like to look through it, for obvious reasons, however, I'll see if I can check. However, if I remember right, there are asterix in the printing in the T&S, as some sections could not be fully agreed upon. I think its safe to say it is is considered nearly "word for word" on those sections. And, I do not think this is an example of "whitewashed" church history, but of conflicting accounts, as stated before. Now, changes to the AofF, inserts of the first vision accounts into documents, and the peicing together of revelations from smaller ones, you can consider "revisionist," but from my own research, i think all the changes are easily seeable by whoever wants to study it out, and are justifiable. I'm sorry you feel that the church "whitewashes" its history, as I find it just the opposite. I've found that the church is very open with almost all documents. The church compiles, verfies and validates what was actually said with ALL of the sources and takes the most agreed upon and reliable versions - based on consensus. I think we have a more accurate view of church history, and when thinks were changed based on doctrinal reasons, it was publicized and printed and explained at the time. For example, Book of Mormon changes from the 1908 edition to the 1981 edition were explained not only in the introduction of the BoM, but in the Ensign, church news and more. No suprises, but enemies of the church don't reference those sources, rather then just point to the changes, and say, "see, its inconsistent and has been changed." There are reasons they are changed and they are not only traceable, but easily understood. but that's MHO from some one who reads all they can on the matter... This is what you get for being a record-keeping church. -Visorstuff 17:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You may want to take a look at Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text," BYU Studies 18/2 (1978):193–208. Larson identified all the recorded versions, described their strengths and weaknesses, and prepared a new text based on the strongest readings. See HERE. --MrWhipple 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank-you both for your sincere responses. I found the BYU article an interesting read&#8212;though it also has the missing line in that version italisized so I still don't know whether or not Joseph taught that people don't age physically after the resurrection. I guess since I wouldn't like that doctrine even if we knew one way or the other that it was taught so I shouldn't worry about it, but I don't like to base my beliefs so much upon what is nice, but what I believe to be true. --Jeff 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on King Follett discourse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826023706/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5320 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5320
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826023712/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5322 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5322
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826024132/http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321 to http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Distinction between Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s doctrines
Thanks, FyzixFighter, for the clarification that Brigham Young modified Joseph Smith’s doctrine somewhat, saying, not just that God was once a man, but that he was specifically Adam. You then explained that Smith’s version is accepted as doctrine by the LDS church, whereas Young’s version is rejected. Although nothing in my two paragraphs was erroneous, I have refined them to show the distinction. This will be important to modern readers who otherwise might think that the church has rejected both doctrines. Please add to the discussion the best reference you know of that says that the church still teaches that God was once a man like us. These nuances will help improve the article. Anytime you have a better reference to illustrate a point than I do, please supply it. Chronic2 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The paragraph was erroneous because it stated that McConkie denounced the doctrine that God was once a man. McConkie was denouncing the Adam-God doctrine specifically - there's a distinction there. This is why using reliable secondary sources instead of primary sources is important. I would still argue that large quotes from the primary sources is undue in comparison to the rest of the section. We have a whole article on Adam–God doctrine so linking to it and summarizing the doctrine, leading with it's relationship to the King Follett discourse, is more appropriate here, imo. I also find Kimball, who was president, to be the more significant recent comment on the subject. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something here? The paragraph that you deleted started with "The Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young was denounced by Apostle Bruce McConkie . . . " Yet in the above paragraph you say "The paragraph was erroneous because it stated that McConkie denounced the doctrine that God was once a man." Your statement is not true; perhaps you did not read the introductory sentence carefully. With that understanding, I think it would be in order to re-insert the paragraph, since it makes the important distinction between what Joseph Smith taught and what Brigham Young taught. I see no reason to go to another page to make this important point; readers interested in the King Follett discourse would naturally be interested in distinguishing between its doctrine and that of Brigham Young. Because you misunderstood what was written, this shows that it is important that this point be clarified, and clarified right here, on the page dedicated to the King Follett discourse. Chronic2 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as I mentioned earlier, it would add to the quality of this article if you could give a good reference stating that the LDS church holds to the doctrine of God as presented in the King Follett discourse. That is entirely relative; it's like somebody presented Fred Hoyle's cosmology but omitted any reference to whether that cosmology is currently accepted by mainstream physicists. To omit bringing things up to date like this is something that you, as a physicist, would see as unsatisfactory. In the same way, people interested in history or theology would want to know if the King Follett doctrine is presently held by the LDS church. So please add the necessary information on this, with reference.Chronic2 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the text of the second paragraph when first added, which stated "Although this doctrine that God was once a man just like us was taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, it was denounced by Apostle Bruce McConkie". That statement was erroneous, despite your claim that it was, before you refined it. As this is the article on the King Follett discourse, everything needs good sources that connect to the main topic. That was severely lacking in your original edit for both paragraphs. That's why I included the Buerger reference and reworded the sentence for context, stating the relationship, per the source, between the discourse and Adam-God doctrine - otherwise it was SYNTH to connect the discourse to the BY teaching. Imo, due weight would be to state the connection made by reliable sources, summarize the doctrine, and state the current acceptance of the AG doctrine. The long quotes (with way too many ellipsis, imo) are better handled in the specific article, again per WP:UNDUE unless they appear often in any analysis of the KF discourse. One other issue right now is that the subsection is for "Attitude of Latter-day Saint leaders", which awkwardly limits the scope of the section. Perhaps "Significance in the LDS theology" or something similar would be better and more accommodating to additional material.
 * The King Follett discourse sits in a grey area in current LDS theology - it's not part of the official canon, but is often quoted in part for some teachings. The best sources that I could find of the current Church use of the discourse, based on a quick cursory search, are here and here. As noted in the latter source, the Church currently teaches (referring to Snow's couplet related to the discourse) that "Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught". The Church claims that it continues to teach "the core doctrines that Joseph presented in the King Follett discourse", but what is "core" is subjective - while the Church's statement about its own doctrine is permissible under WP:SPS, a secondary source to evaluate and provide analysis of the claim would be more helpful. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Explanation of the importance of the King Follett Discourse in changing the ontology of the LDS Church
I am about to add material to the “Attitude of Latter-day Saint leaders” that will explain more fully what their attitude is regarding the divine nature. I had requested earlier that someone who apparently is knowledgeable about Mormon doctrine add such information, but he did not see fit to do so--even though such information would normally be expected in an article dealing with the doctrine of the King Follett sermon. So I have added the information myself, quoting the appropriate authorities. If I have misquoted anyone, please correct the quotation or offer another one that is more pertinent. However, these quotes from the leading authorities should not be deleted just because they can be challenging to someone’s point of view. I have tried to be factual and not present any biased point of view; if something is not factual, please change it. But don’t change the basic facts. I have also tried to emphasize what is important: namely, that the King Follett discourse, and Joseph Smith’s changing views that led up to it, represented a fundamental change in the world-view of Mormonism. I think this is very appropriate to the present article. It is not a matter of “point of view.” For those who wish to improve the article, what is needed is clarification, not censorship. Further, I am not bound, nor should any editor of Wikipedia be bound, by whether the LDS Church defines the King Follett doctrine as “core” or “essential;” their play on words in these matters should not obscure the fact that this is a teaching that they have never renounced, coming from the chief prophet and founder of their religion. To appeal to whether it is “core” or not, as in the above paragraphs, only shows a Mormon point of view, not one of an objective historian or theologian.Chronic2 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire text that you've added fails WP:OR. As editors, we cannot analyze, evaluate, interpret or synthesize material found in primary sources ourselves. We cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly state by any of the sources. Your text only quotes primary sources, and synthesizes several statements not found in those sources. It is like you are attempting to write a journal article. That is not what wikipedia is about. We do not write journal articles, instead we mainly summarize and attribute arguments made in reliable, secondary sources. You seem to be focusing a lot on the Adam-God doctrine of Brigham Young - as I noted before, any arguments of connection of that to this article needs to be guided by secondary sources.
 * Examples of original research/synthesis in your edits: "Joseph Smith’s King Follett sermon, and his teaching that immediately preceded it, were responsible for a change in the theology and worldview of the LDS Church", "Because the foundations of the Mormon religion had been released from the moors of any written document by Smith’s later ideas, Brigham Young felt free to improve...", "This would mean that, since the King Follett doctrine of God, now accepted by the Church, contradicts the teachings...".
 * My soon removal of your OR is not censorship, this is adherence to a core content policy of wikipedia. Per WP:BRD, though not a requirement, please discuss here before reinserting this text. There are numerous dispute resolution options if you feel that you and I are at an impasse. If you feel that I am not following wikipedia policy, please report me to the appropriate Administrators' noticeboard (though be prepared for the possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG). --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, FyzixFighter, for explaining these things. I think, however, that you will agree with the point I was making that the King Follett discourse represented a basic change in Mormon theology. Further, this point is important enough that it should be brought out in this article, which is the proper place for it. The change brought about by the Follett discourse was that theology was no longer to be based on the Bible or the Book of Mormon, but it was to be based instead on the words of the living prophet, whose word superseded whatever was said or written before. You can try to phrase that in some other way, but however it is phrased, this represented a fundamental change from what Joseph Smith taught right after the Book of Mormon was published when he said “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.” And, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get neare to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book . . .”
 * Since you deleted these important sentences on the grounds that I was not quoting a secondary source, I have a request to make that will show your impartiality in this matter. You are more knoweldgeable about Mormon doctrine and theology than I am, and probably have a better knowledge of “secondary sources” in these matters than I do. Please research some of these secondary sources and use them to update the present article by bringing out the importance of the King Follett sermon in changing the fundamental approach to theology and revelation by the LDS movement. Once again, I think you will agree that this is an important observation to make, and the proper place to make it is on the King Follett page, and maybe elsewhere as in the God in Mormonism page. Use the best, and most objective, source you can find on this. In my own searching just now I located a book that, according to its title and the reviews it received, will provide just the secondary source needed. But I leave it to your discretion to use whatever secondary source you want to provide this information that the page sorely needs. Yours, Chronic2 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me first make sure I'm understanding the first part of your argument. You believe that the following conclusion is important and needs to be in the article: The King Follett discourse represented a distinct change in Mormon theology, specifically that the theology was no longer based on written scripture (Bible and Book of Mormon) but on revelations to the living prophet. Please correct me if I am wrong. Personally, I would say I disagree with such a conclusion. I would argue that the discourse is actually consistent with a theology that accepts an open scriptural canon and continuous revelation, in which case it is more a case of supplementing the accepted scriptural canon than superseding it. As early as 1832, the Church was collecting the reported revelations of Joseph Smith and compiling them into a book of scripture (Book of Commandments and later Doctrine and Covenants) that was equal to the Bible and Book of Mormon in defining the church theology. I have a few sources in mind that might support the counter-argument that places the discourse within the context of continuous revelation and therefore not unusual, but I would like to see secondary, reliable sources for the original argument first. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree with on this one. Its not so much about the content that you uploaded. I myself have strong feelings, discoveries, and observations in Latter Day Saint history that I would love to put in Wikipedia, but its just not the place for my own research, no matter how good it is. It's why I also maintain a blog. I would recommend looking for secondary sources that discuss the King Follet discourse, and faithfully present what scholars say on the subject. I would also agree with FyzixFighter's analysis that the King Follet discourse does NOT represent a distinct change in Mormon theology, or that the theology was no longer based on written scripture. Finally, please don't be scared off from bold editing. We NEED a lot of good editors, and there is a lot of information that needs to be added and refined in the Latter Day Saint section and you are most welcome. Epachamo (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)