King Follett DiscourseNauvoo, 7 April 1844

About

The edition

The King Follett Discourse survives without an authorial manuscript or a stenographic transcript. This edition therefore presents five texts side by side: four eyewitness records of the sermon delivered at Nauvoo on 7 April 1844 and the first published composite made from two of them. Its purpose is not to manufacture a seamless speech, but to let readers see both the substantial agreement of the reports and the differences that affect what the discourse can be taken to say.

The sigla are B, Thomas Bullock's conference minutes; W, Wilford Woodruff's journal; R, Willard Richards's entry in Joseph Smith's journal; C, William Clayton's conference minutes; and T, the version printed in the Times and Seasons on 15 August 1844. B, W, R, and C are eyewitnesses. T is derived, not a fifth independent report: Thomas Bullock and William Clayton made it from their own notes, and its agreement with either source is therefore not corroboration. It is included because it shows how the received text began to take shape.

The edition contains 4 eyewitness reports and 5 texts in all. Their reading-text lengths are 4036 words (B), 2403 (W), 1066 (R), 2896 (C), and 4949 (T). These totals exclude page markers, editorial footnote anchors, cancellations, and other non-reading markup.

Base text and sections

Bullock supplies the lemma, or base text, because his is the fullest eyewitness record and extends through all 35 thematic sections. That choice is practical, not a claim that Bullock always preserves the best wording. His report is one fallible longhand record among four; at many loci another witness is clearer, fuller, or substantively different. The parallel texts and apparatus are therefore integral to reading the edition, not supplements to an otherwise definitive Bullock text.

The sections are editorial units made by aligning the complete reading text of each report by topic. Together they partition every text without gaps or overlaps. Where a witness moves, merges, or omits material, the alignment records that fact rather than forcing its words into Bullock's order. The section headings summarize content; they do not claim that Joseph Smith supplied an outline.

What the apparatus records

The apparatus contains 131 entries. Its governing rule is quoted from the apparatus metadata:

Record a variant when, at the same point of the discourse, the witnesses differ in a way that changes the doctrinal claim, the historical detail, the rhetorical framing, or the evidence of what was heard.

The types are likewise defined in the data:

  • Theological: “The variant changes the doctrinal claim, its scope, or its modal force (e.g. 'immortal' vs 'coequal'; 'world' vs 'worlds'; 'God' vs 'Gods'; 'suppose' vs a declarative).”
  • Historical: “The variant changes a factual detail, a name, a number, a scripture cited, or an event.”
  • Rhetorical: “An image, metaphor or framing device is present in some witnesses and absent or different in others (the ladder, the ring, the sun).”
  • Unique: “Substantive content stands in exactly one eyewitness; the others are recorded as om.”
  • Omission: “A passage present in two or more eyewitnesses is lacking in another witness that is present at that point, and the omission is more than a scribe's compression. The entry must say why.”
  • Reception: “T only. Record separately wherever T departs from all eyewitnesses in a meaning-bearing way, or sides with one eyewitness against the others at a point that shaped the received text. T's reading remains in eyewitness entries as well.”
  • Scribal: “A cancellation or an insertion in one report bears on the sense. The cancelled reading is quoted in that witness's reading as 'kept text (canc. cancelled text)'; where a scribe struck more than one span at the point, they are separated by '; '.”

The exclusions are also explicit:

  • spelling, abbreviation, punctuation and capitalisation, except where JSP itself flags them or where they carry sense, in which case the entry says why
  • synonym-level substitution or word order with no change of sense
  • a witness merely being shorter, unless the omission criterion is met

The current distribution is 46 theological, 29 reception, 26 unique, 12 rhetorical, 9 historical, 7 scribal, and 2 omission entries. Each significance note is deliberately hedged: it identifies what a difference could mean without treating an imperfect record as proof of the words spoken.

Reading the apparatus

Each entry identifies a point at which the reports differ in a meaning-bearing way. Its compact form follows this pattern:

lemma ] B reading ; W reading ; R reading ; C reading ‖ T reading

The lemma, before the closing square bracket, is normally quoted verbatim from Bullock, the base text. If Bullock has no counterpart, the entry identifies the eyewitness from which the lemma comes. After the bracket, semicolons separate the readings of B, W, R, and C. om. means that a witness has no counterpart at that point; it does not mean that an editor has deleted words.

The double divider ‖ separates the four eyewitness reports from T, the derived Times and Seasons text. A T reading shows what the first published composite did with the eyewitness material. It is evidence for reception and editing, not an additional witness to the sermon. In this edition, derived means that a text was made from earlier reports: T descends from B and C, so its agreement with them is genealogical, not independent corroboration.

Each entry also has a type. Theological variants alter a doctrinal claim, scope, or force; historical variants alter facts, names, numbers, citations, or events; rhetorical variants alter an image or framing device; unique entries preserve substantive content in one eyewitness only; omission entries record a consequential absence in an otherwise present witness; scribal entries expose a meaning-bearing insertion or cancellation; and reception entries isolate a consequential editorial choice made by T.

In a scribal reading, canc. reports words visibly cancelled by the scribe. For example, had power (canc. hath) means that the manuscript retains evidence of an earlier hath, but the reading text follows the uncancelled had. Multiple cancelled spans are separated within the parenthesis by semicolons.

Worked example

V005 (S11), a theological entry, reads:

from grace to grace until the resurrection. ] from grace to grace until the resurrection. B ; from a small capacity to a great capacity to the resurrection of the dead, W ; by going from a small to great capacity. R ; from a small degree to another from exaltation to exaltation— C ‖ from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, T

Bullock's words furnish the lemma. Woodruff and Richards describe movement in “capacity,” while Clayton describes degrees and “exaltation.” T then combines Bullock's “grace to grace” with Clayton's two formulations. The divider makes the editorial act visible: no eyewitness writes T's three-part series, so it should not be cited as four reports agreeing on that wording. William V. Smith discusses this fusion in his account of the received text (Smith, pp. 31, 138, 275).

What this edition claims

This edition accepts the Joseph Smith Papers transcriptions as authoritative. It does not claim an independent examination of the manuscripts. Where JSP flags its own transcription with a “TEXT: Possibly …” footnote, the edition preserves that uncertainty in data/footnotes.json as a textual note and links it to the relevant apparatus entry when the reading bears on one.

The January 2026 site reported that an earlier AI-assisted pass had checked selected readings against JPG scans. Those images are no longer held in the repository, and the verdicts cannot be reproduced. The notes survive on the affected entries as legacy_verification for transparency, but this edition does not rely on them as evidence and does not repeat their claims of confirmation, plausibility, or legibility.

Several contested readings especially affect interpretation:

  • V017, “immortal” / “coequal.” B reads “the mind of man is as immortal as God himself”; W reads that man existed “in spirit & mind coequal with God himself”; R reads “Mind of man co-equal with God himself”; and C specifies “the intelligent part” as “coequal with God himself.” T follows B with “immortal” at this locus, then preserves “co-equal with God” a few lines later. The reports therefore support both words in the received tradition, but three eyewitnesses support coequal at the disputed locus and one supports immortal. Smith treats coequal as the likely archetypal reading and traces later editorial substitutions, including “co-eternal” (Smith, pp. 36, 139–40, 171, 279, 318).

  • V015, Clayton's “from the time he had.” B says that glory dwells in element and that elements “exist eternally”; W says elemental principles cannot be dissolved but may be reorganized; R says “no beginning no end”; C alone writes that “element had an existence from the time he had,” followed by the claim that elemental principles can be reorganized but not destroyed. T places B's indwelling-glory clause beside C's relative-duration wording, while a related reception entry, V118, notes that it omits B's and R's explicit no-beginning formulations. Read strictly, C could place God and element on the same temporal footing, but the pronoun's implication should not be converted into a claim that the report explicitly says God began. Smith quotes and discusses the Clayton passage in relation to the eternity of element (Smith, pp. 34, 248, 292 nn. 59–60, 293 n. 62).

  • V088, Richards's “Lot fell on Jesus.” R alone writes “Lot fell on Jesus”; B has “the grand council gave in for J. C.,” while W and C have no counterpart. T follows B: “the grand council gave in for Jesus Christ.” JSP capitalizes the transcribed word, but capitalization does not decide whether Richards meant the common noun lot. In context, Smith connects the phrase with a council decision or election (Smith, p. 66, 296 n. 75). The evidence supports the language of casting lots as an interpretation; it does not establish the exact procedure of the reported council.

  • V029, Richards's “all the intelligence of a god.” R alone says that the child possesses “all the intelligence of a god.” B instead says the child's “debt is paid” and that no damnation awaits; W has no counterpart at this locus, and C's section is a clerk's summary rather than reported words. T follows B and omits Richards's phrase. Smith discusses the sermon’s teaching about resurrected children but does not specifically adjudicate this wording (Smith, pp. 41, 156, 285, 297 n. 80). It therefore remains a unique Richards reading, neither corroborated nor disproved by the other reports.

Sources

Primary sources

Joseph Smith Papers. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Thomas Bullock.” “JS, Discourse, [Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL, 7 Apr. 1844]. Featured version inscribed [ca. 7 Apr. 1844] in Thomas Bullock, Minutes, 6–9 Apr. 1844, pp. 14–22; handwriting of Thomas Bullock; Historian’s Office, General Church Minutes, CHL.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/1.

———. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff.” “JS, Discourse, [Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL, 7 Apr. 1844]. Featured version inscribed [ca. 7 Apr. 1844] in Wilford Woodruff, Journal, vol. 5, 1 Jan. 1843–31 Dec. 1844, pp. [133]–[140]; handwriting of Wilford Woodruff; Wilford Woodruff, Journals and Papers, CHL.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/1.

———. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Willard Richards.” “JS, Discourse, [Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL, 7 Apr. 1844]. Featured version inscribed [ca. 7 Apr. 1844] in JS, Journal, 1842–1844, bk. 4, pp. [67]–[71]; handwriting of Willard Richards; JS Collection, CHL.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-willard-richards/1.

———. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton.” “JS, Discourse, [Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL, 7 Apr. 1844]. Featured version inscribed [ca. 7 Apr. 1844] in William Clayton, Minutes, 6–8 Apr. 1844, pp. 11–18; handwriting of William Clayton; Historian’s Office, General Church Minutes, CHL.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1.

———. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Published in Times and Seasons.” “JS, Discourse, [Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL, 7 Apr. 1844]. Featured version published in ‘Conference Minutes,’ Times and Seasons, 15 Aug. 1844, vol. 5, no. 15, 612–617. For more complete source information, see the source note for Letter to Isaac Galland, 22 Mar. 1839.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-published-in-times-and-seasons/1.

Times and Seasons. “Conference Minutes.” 5, no. 15 (15 August 1844): 612–617.

Editions and textual studies

Cannon, Donald Q., and Larry E. Dahl. The Prophet Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse: A Six-Column Comparison of Original Notes and Amalgamations. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1983.

Ehat, Andrew F., and Lyndon W. Cook, eds. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980.

Larson, Stan. “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text.” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (Winter 1978): 193–208.

Smith, William V. The King Follett Sermon: A Biography. Newburgh, IN: By Common Consent Press, 2023.

Historical and theological studies

Benson, RoseAnn. Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith: Nineteenth-Century Restorationists. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press; Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2017.

Givens, Terryl L. Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Grey, Matthew J. “‘The Word of the Lord in the Original’: Joseph Smith's Study of Hebrew in Kirtland.” In Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges, 249–302. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015.

Hale, Van. “The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse.” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978): 209–25.

———. “The Origin of the Human Spirit in Early Mormon Thought.” Sunstone 13 (June 1989): 31–34.

Ostler, Blake T. “The Idea of Pre-existence in the Development of Mormon Thought.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (1982): 59–78.

Paulsen, David L. “The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives.” BYU Studies 35, no. 4 (1995–96): 7–94.

Pinnock, Clark H. “Annihilationism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, edited by Jerry L. Walls, 462–75. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Linguistic and contextual references

Gibbs, Josiah W. A Manual Hebrew and English Lexicon. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Hezekiah Howe, 1832.

Hahn, August. Biblia Hebraica. New York: Carl Tauchnitz, 1834.

Hayden, Amos Sutton. Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve. Cincinnati: Chase and Hall, 1875.

Hutter, Elias, ed. Novum Testamentum, Harmonicum, Ebraice, Graece, Latine, & Germanice. Nuremberg, 1602.

Seixas, Joshua. Manual Hebrew Grammar for the Use of Beginners. 2nd ed. Andover, MA: Gould and Newman, 1834.

Stuart, Moses. Grammar of the Hebrew Language. 4th ed. Andover, MA: Flagg and Gould, 1831.