Of all the sermons preached by Joseph Smith, perhaps no other sermon has been more instrumental in reshaping the doctrines of Mormonism than what is commonly known as the King Follett Discourse. Given only a few short months prior to Joseph’s murder, this talk fundamentally changed how Mormons view the Godhead and each of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In it, Joseph, introduces the notion that God the Father was once a man as we are who lived upon an earth similar to ours. Over time He was able to attain to Godhood under the direction of some other God in one eternal round of multiple Gods. This discourse introduced to the members the idea that they too could become Gods under the direction of our Father and His Son.
Following Joseph’s death, the temple theology that supports this doctrine was implemented under the direction of Brigham Young and continues in the church today. When one understands that by this time the church had already “been rejected as a church with [their] dead” (D&C 124:32) and that Joseph was providing an intercessory offering on behalf of the saints who had rejected the fulness, it is easier to understand how the Lord could use Joseph to test his people and fulfill his words in The Book of Commandments, chapter 4:
5 And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them, and I will put down all lyings, and deceivings, and priestcrafts, and envying, and strifes, and idolatries, and sorceries, and all manner of iniquities, and I will establish my church, like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old.
6 And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto satan…
What could be more apropos than for the Lord to fulfill his promise to turn them over to satan for a period of chastisement than to introduce a concept of God that is inconsistent with the scriptures and which recreates God in the image of man?
A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT
To fully comprehend just how earth shattering this doctrinal shift was you have to go back to the “doctrine” portion of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which we know today as the Lectures on Faith (“Lectures”). Despite being accepted as scripture by the church in 1835, the Lectures were removed from the canon in 1921 by a church committee without any vote of the membership. The reason the Lectures had to be removed was because they taught doctrine inconsistent and incompatible with the view of the Godhead taught by Joseph in the King Follett Discourse and which had made it into the canonized revelations as Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (D&C 130:22)
Of note is that this section (130) was placed in the D&C in 1877 under the direction of Brigham Young and it does not purport to be a revelation, rather just instruction given by Joseph in 1843.
Consider some of the teachings found in the Lectures:
- There are 2 personages in the Godhead, not 3.
- God, the Father, is a personage of spirit, glory and power.
- Jesus Christ, the Son, is in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle in the form and likeness of man and after the image of his Father. He is called the Son because of the Flesh, possessing the mind with the Father.
- The Holy Spirit is the mind of God.
If these concepts sound alien to you, it is because the Lectures describe a concept of God completely different from how you were raised in the church. However, this was what was taught in the School of the Prophets to men who had been ordained to the highest priesthood. It is an almost trinitarian view that is surprisingly consistent with the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 15).
The Lectures are also very clear that one must know the true character of God in order to exercise faith in Him unto salvation.
19 An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. For if he did not, in the first instance, believe him to be God, that is, the creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in him for life and salvation, for fear there should be a greater than he, who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfill his promises; but seeing he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting, the creator and upholder of all things, no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in him, so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering.
20 But secondly: Unless he was merciful, and gracious, slow to anger, long suffering, and full of goodness, such is the weakness of human nature, and so great the frailties and imperfections of men, that unless they believed that these excellencies existed in the divine character, the faith necessary to salvation could not exist; for doubt would take the place of faith, and those who know their weakness and liability to sin, would be in constant doubt of salvation, if it were not for the idea which they have of the excellency of the character of God, that he is slow to anger, and long suffering, and of a forgiving disposition, and does forgive iniquity, transgression and sin. An idea of these facts does away doubt, and makes faith exceedingly strong.
21 But it is equally as necessary that men should have the idea that he is a God who changes not, in order to have faith in him, as it is to have the idea that he is gracious and long suffering. For without the idea of unchangeableness in the character if the Deity, doubt would take the place of faith. But with the idea that he changes not, faith lays hold upon the excellencies in his character with unshaken confidence, believing he is the same yesterday, to-day and forever, and that his course is one eternal round. (Lecture 3:19-21)
When Joseph introduced the concept of God once being a man, he was doing so on very flimsy scriptural grounds during a time when his eyes were being covered because of the iniquity of the people (2 Nephi 27:5). This doesn’t mean that we dismiss everything he said. Rather, greater scriptural scrutiny is required to determine whether or not he is acting as the Lord’s right arm to “test” the people to see whether they will be true to His gospel or whether he is acting in the capacity of a prophet teaching a true principle. Unrealized by many is the fact that there is precedent in the Old Testament for the Lord to use prophets to test his people.
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)
A reading of the discourse reveals a somewhat defiant Joseph who at one point says: “Mark it, Elder Rigdon!” with reference to the scripture Joseph is using to justify his position. Considering the fact that one of Sidney’s roles was to “call upon the holy prophets to prove his words” (D&C 35:23) and that Sidney had largely ceased to act in that capacity for many years, Joseph appears to be expressing frustration that he is not getting that support.
I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.
What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.
Although Joseph doesn’t quote the reference to the scripture he is using to draw his conclusions it appears that he is talking about John 5:
v 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
v 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
v 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
The problem is that while somewhat logical, Joseph’s reasoning is not consistent with numerous other scriptures. Also, if you think about it, his logic implies that to ascend the ladder to godhood one must become a savior, such as Jesus Christ, of another world sometime down the line because if Jesus had to do what he had seen his father do to become a god, then we must tread that same path.
Interestingly, the editors of the Nauvoo Expositor cite the plurality of Gods doctrine as one of the “many items of false doctrine” in the church:
Among the many items of false doctrine that are taught the Church, is the doctrine of many Gods, one of the most direful in its effects that has characterized the world for many centuries. We know not what to call it other than blasphemy, for it is most unquestionably , speaking of God in an impious and irreverent manner. It is contended that there are innumerable gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us; and if he varies from the law unto which he is subjected, he, with all his creatures, will be cast down as was Lucifer: thus holding forth a doctrine which is effectually calculated to sap the very foundation of our faith, and now, O Lord! shall we set still and be silent, while thy name is thus blasphemed, and thine Honor, power and glory , brought into disrepute? See Isaiah c 43, v 10; 44, 6-8; 45, 5,6, 21, 22; and book of Covenants, page 26 and 39. (Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844)
Notice how the Expositor identifies the fact that the false doctrine of multiple Gods ultimately undermines and enervates faith in God, because as the Lectures clearly demonstrate, we have to believe in his true character as an unchangeable being from everlasting to everlasting in order to have confidence and faith in him. There are a plethora of scriptures supporting the view of God described in the Lectures.
2 Nephi 27:23 For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.
Mormon 8:8 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
Moroni 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?
D&C 20:12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever.
D&C 35:1 Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever.
Deuteronomy 4:35 …the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.
Isaiah 46:9 For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.
Mark 12:29-34 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
This is an extremely small sample to verify the point — there are literally pages more if you look for them. Elder Bruce R. McConkie had this to say about the lectures:
In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language–that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true. (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Lord God of Joseph Smith,” January 4, 1972, in Speeches of the Year (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1972).
How Elder McConkie reconciles the above statement about the Lectures on Faith with the doctrines from the King Follett Discourse that have fully infiltrated the Church I have not a clue. You cannot, in my humble opinion, believe both simultaneously. They are mutual exclusive doctrines. Either you believe one or you believe the other. No amount of tortured logic gets you to a place where they are compatible.
What I believe we have done in modern Mormonism is bring God down to our level by believing in a God who was once a man. In the process we have downgraded Jesus Christ to our “elder brother” — a term never used in the scriptures and which was introduced by Joseph in the sermon. Instead we should be focused on the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh and understand the fact that “God himself [came] down among the children of men, and [redeemed] his people” (Mosiah 15:1) This is a God who condescended through His Son to take on flesh in order to save us from the effects of sin on condition of repentance. Christ is in the bosom of the Father. These things were all taught in the Lectures on Faith, belief in the God taught there was good enough for the high priests who received their calling and election — the promise of eternal life — long before a single brick was laid in the city of Nauvoo where Joseph gave the discourse.
We need to repent of changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like to corruptible men.” (Romans 1:23) Reading and understanding the true doctrine as contained in the Lectures is a first step which I highly recommend. You can access a copy online here. May the Holy Spirit (the mind of God) guide you along the way.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
1 Corinthians 8:5
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
Thanks for sharing those references. There is no doubt that the scriptures speak of multiple gods — I hope the post didn’t imply that there were not. However, when the scriptures talk of “gods many” and “lords many” it doesn’t mean that they are all equal in position, or stature. Returning to our heavenly father in his kingdom does not mean we will be equal with him, or that we will be commissioned to create worlds. These are concepts unsubstantiated by scriptural evidence. What is also completely unsubstantiated is the idea that God the Father was once a man as we are. That is pure King Follett as introduced by Joseph.
92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things–where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;
93 Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.
94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;
95 And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.
33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;
36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;
37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;
38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.
39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.
JST Luke 12
49 And the Lord said, I speak unto those whom the Lord shall make rulers over his household, to give his children their portion of meat in due season.
50 And they said, Who then is that faithful and wise servant?
51 And the Lord said unto them, It is that servant who watcheth, to impart his portion of meat in due season.
52 Blessed be that servant whom his Lord shall find, when he cometh, so doing.
53 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Abraham 4:1 sure seems to be speaking of Gods being commissioned to form worlds.
I suppose I should also add that there is no apparent problem with Joseph’s logic. The conclusion is what it is; an argument doesn’t become unsound merely because we find the conclusion distasteful.
Except that his logic ignores all the scriptures about an unchangeable God from everlasting to everlasting–the same yesterday, today and forever. I will grant you that the scriptures substantiate that celestial beings will inherit all that he has and be equal in power. That still, however, doesn’t necessarily support the conclusion that God the Father was once a man. Except for Joseph’s discourse there are no scriptures to substantiate that or explain why he was suddenly introducing a concept of God that was in direct contradiction to what was had in the D&C in the form of the lectures on faith for many years. It is only within the construct of the Atonement Statute and Joseph’s role in making an intercessory offering for the saints can we understand why Joseph could introduce false teachings that could cause the saints to stumble, like celestial polygamy and idea that God was once a man.
6 The law of truth was in his [Joseph’s] mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.
9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination [celestial polygamy & masonic-based endowments] is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
12 The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.
13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Indeed Joseph (the Master) and Sidney (the Scholar) were “cut off” from among the saints, and they were cursed with false doctrines and practices for a time. The only way to make sense of this is by knowing that Joseph was taking upon himself the sins of the people as an intercessor, in like fashion as Moses did for the children of Israel.
I will say that I take these verse you cite from Malachi at face value (ie, Judah as the Jews, and so on), but that doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong. What we have got here is a failure to agree on foundational principles. Nevertheless, I think you’ll agree your position against Joseph’s teaching is not a slam-dunk, in which case we all get to believe what we will and see who’s right at the end. There’s several blog posts I don’t write simply because I can’t make the case stick beyond dispute.
I will also say that I don’t necessarily agree that those things which have reached us from Joseph are necessarily from Joseph, save it appears under his own signature, or are attested by two or three contemporaneous witnesses who agree in all things.
I like the title of this blog. I’m wondering how come you didn’t expound on it more with the scripture found in D&C 1:16?
I’ve thought about this, the apparent discrepancy between Jospeh’s instructions found in D&C 130 and the Lectures on Faith, before and came across 1 Cor. 15 where Paul talks about spiritual and natural bodies. That seems to clarify what a personage of Spirit could be.
I apologize for not having better references I’m in a rush and trying to get this out.
Also, where Jesus in Ether 3 has a spirit body, but is able to touch the stones.
Nice addition. D&C 1:16 talks about everyone walking in the his own way, after the image of his own god. If we have remade god in our own image then we are in effect worshiping ourselves instead of looking to the Father and the Son. I personally conclude that a spirit body is in the likeness of the physical body, and therefore the personage of the Father would look the same as if he were a personage of tabernacle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gordon Laurie said:
What are you doing in the church? Every thing you preach is derogatory and misleading. You mock even the primary songs as heinous. As to bringing down the living God and his FIRST BORN Lord to our blasphemous elder brother you have carefully not mentioned the resurrected Lords conversation with Magdelene. You have also not mentioned his conversation with Philip. May I add there are a great many like yourself who do stumble exceedingly and are afraid to post their names along with their agenda’s. Simply stated you people weary me, get your own shingle and buy your own building.
I am a seeker of truth in the scriptures and historical record. My purpose is not to mock. However, I have been known to get carried away at times to make a point. Where I find false doctrine, or teachings not in harmony with the word of God, I am ready to point that out. I love the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many, like you, want to defend the church at all costs. Search the scriptures and you will find that all is not as it seems. Some people don’t want to be awakened, nor cast off their blinders. That is fine, prophecy confirms that few will believe prior to the advent of the marvelous work (which has yet to occur). I write for those who are preparing to receive the fulness of the gospel (see D&C 35:12) when it is offered again.
Regarding the Lord’s conversations with Mary Magdelene and Philip I am not sure what point you are attempting to make. Please clarify.
Jared Mata said:
I think he’s referring to Jesus saying to Mary that she should not touch Him, because He hasn’t ascended yet to His Father and our Father, and to His God and our God. I’m not sure about Philip.
Someone did a textual analysis in 1969 of the king follet discourse and D&C 132 and various talks by apostles of the time, and the author concluded that Brigham Young doctored it [King Follett discourse], she also had an interesting conclusion about D&C 132’s author.
Craig Morris said:
What of the first vision? Joseph saw two personages and the first introduced the second as the Son from which we infer the first was the Father and therefore the Father has a body.
Hi Craig. There are various versions of the 1st vision. In the first version Joseph only talks about seeing the Lord. I believe he saw two personages as he claimed in a subsequent version. Joseph very well could have seen Jesus in his resurrected physical body and the Father in his spirit body. Again, the Lectures on Faith teach that the Father is a personage of Spirit. Recall that the Brother of Jared saw the Lord’s spirit body (see Ether 3) which was in exact likeness of a physical body. Joseph would not be able to distinguish between a spirit body and a resurrected body just by looking at them. I think we err in drawing the conclusion that the Father has a physical body just based on the first vision.
A great post on the background as to how we received D&C section 130 can be found here: http://latterdaywitnesses.com/you-ought-to-have-to-choose/
To quote directly from that post — “where did section 130 come from?”
Elder Orson Pratt and Elder Orson Hyde added it to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876. It came from a series of talks that Orson Hyde gave in the presence of Joseph Smith in 1842. Some of the items that Orson Hyde spoke on were not accurate, such that it required a private correction by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 2 page 324, on April 2, 1842, Joseph recorded:
“Elder Hyde I am going to offer some corrections to you. Elder Hyde replied – they shall be thankfully received. – When he (Christ) shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he (Christ) is a man like ourselves. – (Parenthesis added).
This is consistent with the Lectures on Faith. The Son (Christ) is a man, a ‘tabernacle of clay’. Just like us. However, later on, Joseph records the following on page 326:
“There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven. Before the foundation of the world upon which all blessings are predicted and when we obtain a blessing it is by obedience to the law upon which that blessing is predicated. Again reverted to Elder Hyde’s mistake. &c the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. – and a person cannot have the personage . It may descend upon him but not to tarry with him.— (Bold and Italics added)
“So the clincher here, the way Joseph Wrote in his Journal is he elaborated on “Elder Hyde’s mistake”, by writing. “&c”. I had to look this up, but &c is another way to write Etc. Normally we would write this after the sentence. However, Joseph Used it before the sentence, in fact it starts the sentence, listing Elder Hyde’s mistake. What was Elder Hydes mistake? Amongst other things (&c): the Father having a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans the son also and the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit. I assert that Joseph was trying to lay out to Elder Hyde, that to know God, you must know correctly about God. Then preceded to correct his errors, which errors, he listed for us in his Journal.”
“In Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith Clearly states that God is a SPIRIT OF GLORY AND POWER, and further that the HOLY SPIRIT IS THE MIND OF GOD.”
the Joseph Smith Papers captures this incident with Joseph correcting Elder Hyde on the Godhead: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/50
Section 130:22 was one of the things at odds with those brethren on the committee that decided to remove the Lectures on Faith from the D&C in 1921 without a vote. They felt that the description Joseph gave of the Father in lecture on Faith chapter 5 (?) was at odds with what was in section 130:22, which apparently was added to the D&C sometime after Joseph and Hyrum were slain.
This is really awesome and really shows just how easy it is to inadvertently mistake notes from Joseph correcting Orson and how it literally can change the entire trajectory of belief of all of us!
Thank you for sharing these amazing references. They bring great clarity to how we have redefined God.
Pingback: Notable Emails #31- “Joseph was actually correcting the false doctrine taught by Orson Hyde, namely that the Father has a body of flesh and bones” | Because I am Watching
Joseph Dewey said:
Here is a treatise on the reality of God which proves that both the Lectures on Faith and the King Follett discourse are both correct.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about God. This was an interesting read. However, I don’t see how it proves that God can be both an exhalted man with a body of flesh and bones (as taught in the King Follett discourse) and a personage of Spirit (as taught in the Lectures on Faith). Also, if God is everywhere and can be in us and has always existed (as taught in the Bible), then how can one justify or explain the teaching of Joseph that God was once a man on an earth and that he is continuing to learn — something that is implied / taught in the King Follett Discourse? I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to share it. Given the fact that Joseph’s eyes were covered because of the iniquity of the Saints, his teachings during the Nauvoo years require, in my view, much greater scrutiny.