The Seer and Orson Pratt: How Credible a Source? (An Open Letter and replies)

[D. Charles Pyle]

Mr. Elias,

Thank you for your timely response. The following is your recent e-mail,
interspersed with my comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter...@aol.com <Peter...@aol.com>
To: dcp...@linkline.com <dcp...@linkline.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Seer and Orson Pratt: How Credible a Source? (An Open
Letter)

>Hello,
>
>We are perfectly aware that much of Orson Pratt's teachings have since
>been disputed by Mormonism as erroneous. The same can also be said
>for the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, Jr.

There was absolutely nothing said about our current state of affairs in my
last e-mail. The material that I sent to you was strictly contemporary with
Orson Pratt and Brigham Young. More on this later.

>But all of these
>teachings were held out to be the doctrine of the church, at that time.

The material in *The Seer* was intended as an attempt at clarifying LDS
doctrine to the public. Unfortunately, Orson Pratt overstepped his bounds
in going beyond what had been revealed to the Church. As he admitted in his
public confession, he had never received any revelation as to the laws,
organization, structure, or any other details concerning the Celestial
Kingdom. Did you somehow miss the point of the confession? The fact that
*The Seer* was condemned contemporarily with both Orson Pratt and the
administration of Brigham Young, your protestation is a moot point and a
failure to grasp the content of my last e-mail to you.

>This was certainly the case with Pratt's teachings in The Seer. (See
>the LETTER OF APPOINTMENT below which was granted to Pratt by
>the entire First Presidency of the Church,in connection with these
writings.)
>

This certainly was NOT the case with the teachings in *The Seer*! If this
allegation were true--which it is NOT--you might have something with which
to reply logically. Unfortunately for your case, several of Orson Pratt's
writings, including *The Seer*, were publicly condemned by the First
Presidency because they contained many false teachings and speculatory
material. Orson Pratt also publicly confessed that he was in error in his
actions and teachings. Did you miss the point of my quotation of Pratt's
public confession? How so?

>" LETTER OF APPOINTMENT.
>
> This certifies that Professor Orson Pratt of the University
>of Deseret, one of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ
>of Latter-Day Saints, is appointed by us, with the sanction of
>the special Conference, convened in this city on the twenty-
>eight day of August, A. D. One Thousand Eight Hundred and
>Fifty-two, to preside over the affairs of the Church throughout
>the United States and the British Provinces in North America;
>and also to write and Publish Periodicals, Pamphlets, Books,
>&c., illustrative of the principles and doctrines of the Church,
>and to do all other things necessary for the advancement of
>the work of the Lord among all nations ELDER PRATT is
>authorized and required to receive and collect tithing of the
>Saints through all his field of labors: and we request the Elders
>and other officers and members of the Church to give diligent
>heed to his counsels as the words of life and salvation, and
>assist him to funds to enable him to travel, print, establish
>book agencies, and perform all other duties of his calling,
>and the blessing of our Father in Heaven shall rest upon them.
>BRO. PRATT is one of the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company,
>and is hereby appointed and authorized to act as Traveling-Agent
>in the United States and British Provinces in North America, and
>he is instructed to collect, and disburse and aid to promote the
>emigration of poor Saints to the valleys of the mountains.
> BRO. ORSON PRATT is too well and favorably known to
>need any testimonial further than his own presence and
>acquaintance to secure the esteem and confidence of all among
>whom his lot may be cast. His acquirements and attainments
>are of the highest order and possessing, as he eminently does
>every requisite of an honorable and high-minded gentleman, we
>take great pleasure in recommending him to the kindness and
>consideration of all good men.
>
> BRIGHAM
YOUNG,
> HEBER C.
>KIMBALL,
> WILLARD
>RICHARDS,
> Presidency of
said
>Church.
>
> Signed and sealed at Great Salt Lake City, U.T., Sept. 13, 1852."
>_______________________________________________________
>Quoted from: LDS "Apostle" Orson Pratt's The Seer, p. 2.

I am quite well aware of the status granted to Orson Pratt, as outlined by
the 2nd page of "the Seer" and by the prospectus. You have missed the
obvious fact that the year of the letter of appointment is 1852. The first
cautions issued from the First Presidency under Brigham Young's
administration (the SAME administration who granted the letter of
appointment) were from the year 1855--just 3 years later!

Another advisement of caution in using *The Seer* came in 1860 as did a
condemnation and banning of reprint of *The Seer* in *the Millennial Star*,
as well as the public confession of Orson Pratt (that he was wrong in *The
Seer* and other writings). This was repeated and sent out to the Church as
an official proclamation in 1865. How could you have missed the obvious
content of the material that I sent to you??? Did you even read it? If not
it would be typical anti-LDS behavior, in my eyes.

The original letter of appointment was issued in 1852; the condemnation,
confession, and proclamation was were issued in 1860 and 1865, under the
same administration who granted the letter of appointment! Your desire to
use *The Seer* in the manner that you have is reckless and irresponsible.
This is also typical anti-LDS behavior. It is a form of Red Herring and
Strawman, and it seems to be the general practice in the composition of your
paper.

Condemnation of *The Seer* began just three years after its publication and
came to culmination in 1860--less than a decade later! Its condemnation and
the subsequent admission of Orson Pratt that he was in error and that his
teachings in *The Seer* were not to be followed or believed reached official
status in 1865. Can you not now see the weakness of your defense of your
use of *The Seer* to illustrate the official teaching of the LDS Church?

> Note: According to Andrew Jensen's "Church Chronology," p. x, Orson
>Pratt was an "Apostle" of the LDS church from 1835 until 1881.
>
> This newsletter was merely intended to demonstrate the dangers of
>relying upon the teachings of men. When a man ignores Scripture to follow
>a course designated by other men, he will always be in error. Consider
>the fate of those who died while still worshiping Adam as their Father and
>God (which was taught as the "word of God" by Brigham Young and many
>of his contemporaries).
>

Unfortunately for you again, to my knowledge Brigham Young never at any time
stated or taught that Adam was to be worshipped as Father by the LDS people.
That is something that you have contrived from your habitual, noncontextual
misreading of the historical materials at your disposal. Brigham Young
taught:

<<
We believe in God our Father. This leads me right to another point that I
have not much time to talk about. I recollect preaching once in the old
bowery with regard to our Father and God, the Being we worship and whom we
think so much of...."You have read it frequently, and you can hardly read
the Bible at all without reading precisely what kind of a being our Father
is."..."you must believe that Adam was created in the exact image of the
Father."
(Journal of Discourses 12:69-69)
>>

This was an allusion to earlier statements he made in 1852-53. He again
taught:

<<
"I cannot believe that, for he is a God without body, parts, or passions; He
has no person, therefore, I must disagree with you, brother Mormon." I
believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ. Mr.
B. believes He has no tabernacle. I believe He has a tabernacle, and begat
Jesus Christ in His express image and likeness, because the Bible expressly
declares it. You disbelieve it, because your priest and your mother have
taught you it is not so. When your mothers first read this Scripture, it
was so plain to their understandings and to their children, that they
understood it as an angel would, but deacon Jones must be called in to
explain, and he explained it away. So I disagree with you, Mr. B., in the
first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and
parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His
likeness, precisely, He created Adam.
(Journal of Discourses 1:238)
>>

Do these statements advocate the worship of Adam as Father??? Both imply
that God the Father CREATED Adam. The former quotation plainly excluded
Adam as an object of worship and reiterated the fact that Adam was created
in the image of the Father. If any misunderstood Brigham Young's other
teachings to indicate that Adam is to be worshipped, they were plainly in
error and ignored many other teachings of Brigham Young to the same effect
as the two quotes that I have given you. This is tragic, as is your
mishandling of the facts.

> And, despite Pratt's obvious proclivity for errors in doctrine, he
>continued
>to provide "leadership" to the Mormon people for nearly 30 years after
>publication of The Seer.
>

Yes, it is true that he continued in his office. However, the errors in the
*The Seer* were made in 1852-53. His confession that he was in error on
several points of doctrine relating to his writings on the preexistence of
man and others occurred in 1860. He obviously learned from his mistakes did
he not? Had he continued his course, he would have jeopardized his
priesthood. So was the warning of the official proclamation of 1865 to all
those who would make speculation appear as revelation in the course of the
teaching of new doctrines not revealed to the Presidency and Church.

> Lastly, we apologive if you have been offended by our latest
newsletter.

I was not offended; I only sought to save you from further embarrassment.
It is unfortunate for you that you wish to continue in your methodology of
deceit.

>We understand that the doctrines professed by Pratt were little more than
>the imaginings of his own mind. The sheer absurd nature of such works by
>celebrated Mormon theologians are the very reason why they are chosen for
>presentation in our newsletters. They very clearly illustrate the dangers
of
>relying upon the teachings of men. We contend that any teachings which
>are not based in Scripture represent little more than distractions from the
>truth of God's Word. That is why we urge our readers to only Trust The
Truth,
>...to only trust God's Word, as it is recorded in the Holy Bible.
>
> We hope this provides additional insight into our motivation for
>presenting
>material that was subsequently rejected by Mormonism, as false doctrine.
>

I agree with you on this point. Nevertheless, we must also accept the
officially accepted writings of these men when they function as prophets.
As men, they are indeed prone to error. But when they function in their
prophetic office, we listen to them and try to obey--as is required by 2
Chronicles 20:20 and Hebrews 13:17!

In short, let us keep in mind what Joseph Smith said: "A prophet was only a
prophet when he was acting as such" (TPJS, p. 278). Joseph Fielding Smith
also taught:

<<
The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great
Price including the Articles of Faith, have been received by the vote of the
Church in general conference assembled as the standard works of the Church.
On this platform we stand. The Church is not responsible for the remarks
made by any elder or for the numerous books that have been written. The
authors of the words or books must be responsible for their own
utterances....If I should say something which is contrary to that which is
written and approved by the Church generally, no one is under obligation to
accept it. Everything that I say and everything that any other person says
must square itself with that which the Lord has revealed, or it should be
rejected....I realize that we are all weak, and at times may place false
interpretations upon the written word.
(Doctrines of Salvation, 1:322-323)
>>

If you cannot take these things into account that is a shame. You must deal
with your loss of credibility and, perhaps, the loss of your soul
(Revelation 21:8; 22:15).

>God bless and best wishes,
>
>Peter Elias
>Trust The Truth Association

-----

D. Charles Pyle
http://www.linkline.com/personal/dcpyle/gri/
______________________________________________