Cloud of Witnesses Radio

The LDS Problem: When Prophets Teach And Doctrines Shift Where Does Truth Live? Baylie Response Vid

• Cloud of Witnesses cast and crew

Share episode

A funeral sermon reconstructed from four sets of notes shouldn’t bear the weight of an entire theology—unless it did, over time. We dive into the King Follett Discourse with clear eyes, tracing how a two-hour address in 1844 became a flashpoint for modern conversations about the nature of God, prophetic authority, and what truly counts as doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Response to  @bayliebelieves  

Two contrasting claims collide over the King Follett Discourse: a challenge that it’s non-canon and unreliable versus a rebuttal that later LDS prophets taught its themes for decades. We trace what counts as doctrine, how sermons turn into beliefs, and why splinter groups say the center changed.

• framing the LDS vs Christian critique over God’s nature
• the status of King Follett as non-canon funeral sermon
• limits of note-based reconstructions and windy-day reporting
• claims that Joseph Smith affirmed God’s eternal divinity
• the seventy-year continuity of related teachings by LDS leaders
• canon versus sustained teaching as sources of doctrine
• splinter groups alleging apostasy and doctrinal retreat
• a plea for rigorous, charitable truth-seeking and reading full sources

We lay out the core tension. On one side, you’ll hear the case for treating King Follett as non-canon, incomplete, and unreliable for defining belief, especially when listeners cherry-pick a sentence to score a point. On the other, we follow the historical thread: the ideas associated with the discourse were reiterated by successive LDS leaders for decades, shaping nineteenth-century Mormon thought and leaving a long tail that still touches today’s debates. When doctrines appear in sermons and are echoed across presidencies, do they become functionally authoritative, even without formal canonization?

Along the way, we cut through the noise: the windy-day reporting, the four accounts, the claim that Joseph Smith affirmed God’s eternal divinity, and the counterclaim that he taught divine progression from manhood. We also map why splinter groups like the FLDS say mainstream LDS leadership abandoned earlier teachings, and how that accusation reframes the question of continuity versus change. If you care about LDS doctrine, Christian theology, or how living faith communities define truth, this conversation offers a thoughtful, historically grounded roadmap for better questions and better answers.

If this resonated with you, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves religious history, and leave a review with your take: what should define doctrine—canon, sermons, or sustained teaching?


Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdh

Please prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses Radio: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnesses

Find Cloud of Witnesses Radio on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.

Please leave a comment with your thoughts!

SPEAKER_00:

Do the LDS have Christians beat on this argument?

SPEAKER_02:

Are an anti-Mormon or no an anti-Mormon?

SPEAKER_00:

I'm not an anti-Mormon, actually, Bailey. I would say I'm a pro-Mormon because I want all Mormons to come to the truth, the truth of Jesus Christ, which just happens to be found outside of the LDS faith.

SPEAKER_02:

Who uses the kingfall discourse to try to debunk Mormonism?

SPEAKER_00:

Alrighty, let's see what Bailey has in store.

SPEAKER_02:

Sit down. This video is for you. Because every time somebody pulls out the King Follet Discourse and they think it's some sort of mic drop moment, I kind of have to laugh.

SPEAKER_00:

Well, let's see if you're laughing after this video.

SPEAKER_02:

Because the Kingfall Discourse is unimportant, but because of how it's used.

SPEAKER_00:

One day I'm going to make a prediction. I believe you are going to be an ex-Mormon. You will be a Christian and you will have a relationship with Jesus the Christ closer than you've ever imagined possible, because you're searching for truth.

SPEAKER_02:

First, what even is the Kingfall Discourse? It was a funeral sermon given by Joseph Smith in 1844.

SPEAKER_00:

A sermon given by the founding prophet of your faith. Okay, let's just keep that in mind.

SPEAKER_02:

Never revelation for the whole church, never scripture, and of course not canonized doctrine.

SPEAKER_00:

Even though Joseph Smith had almost an entire year to make corrections to this sermon.

SPEAKER_02:

It was just a spoken sermon given at a public gathering. A very windy day. And this is true, you can look it up. This sermon does not teach that God was just some guy like one of us.

SPEAKER_00:

Even though Joseph Smith says exactly that.

SPEAKER_02:

King Fuller's Course is not canonized scripture.

SPEAKER_00:

So, Bailey, your argument here, if you allow me to summarize briefly, you're basically saying, look, this was a sermon, it was given on a windy day, we don't even know if it's really what he said. So, you know, it's not actual doctrine, so we can't use it to debunk LDS faith, right? Now, Bailey, hear me out here. This is super, super important. This would be a pretty decent argument if the next 70 plus years of LDS history didn't exist. You see, Bailey, and please hear me out here. Your argument has a massive, massive problem. And that is the doctrines that are espoused by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse were continued to be taught for the next 70 plus years by the presidents, by the prophets of your church. They continued on the teachings. You can look it up by Brigham Young, by John Taylor, by Woodruff, by Lorenzo Snow. It wasn't until Herbert Grant in the 1920s and 30s where he began to soften the language into more of what the LDS faith currently teaches, Bailey, and what you currently believe. Your argument here only works if the Joseph Smith Kingfall discourse was just a once-and-done, weird oddity that never got brought up again, was never taught or never proliferated in the LDS faith ever again. But that's not the reality. Bailey, this should be scary for you to hear. 19th century Mormonism was very, very different from the LDS, from the Mormon faith that you currently hold today in 2026. Bailey, I beg you, find a sweet old man or old woman in your church, maybe over the age of 80, preferably. Ask them if they so easily dismiss 70 plus years of LDS prophets teaching the same theology that Joseph Smith expounded in the King Fall discourse. Ask them if they didn't believe that God the Father was once a man just like you and me, and that he he became God just like you and I can do. Furthermore, I challenge you. Speak to an FLDS, speak to one of the splinter groups of the Mormon faith. There are many. You probably have heard of the Apostolic United Brethren, the Church of the Firstborn, and the Latter-day Church of Christ. You realize, Bailey, please hear me here. These groups splintered because they view the Mormon modern leadership as apostatizing from the faith. They think your current LDS Church apostatized. Why? Because it abandoned the teachings of Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young, teachings they held dearly and they do to this day. You claim to be upholding truth. You claim to be a critical thinker, Bailey. Ask yourself, has the LDS faith ever repudiated these teachings? And ask yourself, why do these splinter groups look at your current modern LDS leadership as having apostatized from the faith? So I ask you in closing, Bailey, if the teachings of the King Fallet Discourse are so dismissible, why did prophets of your church continue to teach the same thing for the next 70 plus years? Answer me that question, please. And genuinely I ask that God bless you.

SPEAKER_01:

If you are an anti-Mormon or know an anti-Mormon who uses the King Fallout Discourse to try to debunk Mormonism, sit down, this video is for you. Because every time somebody pulls out the Kingfalla discourse and they think it's some sort of mic drop moment, I kind of have to laugh. Not because the kingfollet discourse is unimportant, but because of how it's used. First, what even is the Kingfall Discourse? It was a funeral sermon given by Joseph Smith in 1844. Never revelation for the whole church, never scripture, and of course not canonized doctrine. It was just a spoken sermon given at a public gathering. Which brings me to point number two. Did you know that when Joseph Smith spoke at the sermon, it took over two hours? And if you read the Kingfall Discourse in its entirety, it takes people about 20 minutes. And that should immediately tell you something very important. We clearly don't have the full sermon. What we have is a reconstruction based on notes. Number three is that it was a windy day. And why is this important? Because four different men were assigned as note takers. That is why we have four accounts of the Kingfallet Discourse. And obviously there were no audio recordings. So what we have from the sermon is four men's accounts of them doing their best to write down a two-hour sermon outdoors on a very windy day. And this is true, you can look it up. So when people quote one line or a cherry-picked section as if it's a verbatim theological statement, that is already pretty shaky ground. And four, which is the part that really gets me. The Kingfall Discourse is arguably the most cited Joseph Smith sermon on the internet. And yet it is the most unread. People love citing it or bringing it up, but they don't read the entire thing. Because if they actually read it all the way through, they would notice something very inconvenient to their argument. You know, the part where Joseph Smith continuously teaches of the eternal nature of God. This is in the same sermon where people argue that Joseph Smith is teaching that God was fully man, not God at all. This sermon does not teach that God was just some guy like one of us, but that God is eternally divine and eternally existent. And that nuance matters. And obviously nuance disappears as soon as people cherry pick. But finally, and this is the bottom line, the King Fullet Discourse is not canonized scripture. Nor is it binding doctrine. And it doesn't define LVS belief. So using it to debunk Mormonism doesn't really work. And trust me, it says more about the type of critical thinker you are when your criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests solely on uncanonized scripture and doctrine from the Church. And trust me, if you're wanting to truly criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is plenty of canonized scripture to engage with. But the King Follow Discourse, it's not the slam dunk people think it is.

SPEAKER_00:

I commend your search for the truth. I commend your looking into these things. Please keep doing so. After all, the truth will set you free.