Talk:King Follett discourse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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.—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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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—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—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)