"orson Pratt's "the Seer" On Your Shelf At Home?

[Scott Lloyd]

It has been asserted with certainty by JLHPROF that every "member of this board" who is LDS has a copy of Orson Pratt's "The Seer" on their shelves at home. I, for one, do not. I was wondering how many do.

[6EQUJ5]

It has been asserted with certainty by JLHPROF that every "member of this board" who is LDS has a copy of Orson Pratt's "The Seer" on their shelves at home. I, for one, do not. I was wondering how many do.

 

I've got a paper copy and a digital copy.  Interesting little book.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't own one.

[JLHPROF]

It has been asserted with certainty by JLHPROF that every "member of this board" who is LDS has a copy of Orson Pratt's "The Seer" on their shelves at home. I, for one, do not. I was wondering how many do.

 

Ok, would you like me to withdraw my hyperbolic comment?

I simply meant that given how well read the majority of the members on this board are, that the Seer is almost certainly a common part of personal libraries.

Although, now that it's readily available to read and reference online, perhaps fewer people actually own it.  Maybe "have read it" would be better.

 

If I'm wrong, well, then I apologize.  (Can't believe you needed a poll for this).

Edited October 20, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, would you like me to withdraw my hyperbolic comment?

I simply meant that given how well read the majority of the members on this board are, that the Seer is almost certainly a common part of personal libraries.

Although, now that it's readily available to read and reference online, perhaps fewer people actually own it.  Maybe "have read it" would be better.

 

If I'm wrong, well, then I apologize.  (Can't believe you needed a poll for this).

If you are willing to concede that it was hyperbole, I'll be mollified -- except that I don't believe it is nearly as common a "part of personal libraries" or that there are nearly as many here who have read it as you surmise.

 

Now that you've mentioned it though, quite a few might run to Google to look it up and see what all the fuss is about.

[Silhouette]

Never heard of it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Now that you've mentioned it though, quite a few might run to Google to look it up and see what all the fuss is about.

This is interesting,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seer_(periodical)

The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Never heard of it.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It looks like the church basically disowned it.

[JAHS]

I have a first edition in my collection:

 

http://mormonhaven.com/rare_books/seer_intro.jpg

[JLHPROF]

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It looks like the church basically disowned it.

 

Actually, if you do your research it was Brigham Young that disapproved.  Orson never agreed with Brigham's Adam-God teachings or his teachings on the nature of God and published his own theories in the Seer.  That, along with publishing the marriage ceremony, earned Brigham's disdain.

It was all part of the split doctrine of the Church in the 1860's.  And ironically enough, the majority of our theology in the Church today resembles Orson's teachings, not Brigham's.

[bluebell]

I've never heard of it either.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, if you do your research it was Brigham Young that disapproved.  Orson never agreed with Brigham's Adam-God teachings or his teachings on the nature of God and published his own theories in the Seer.  That, along with publishing the marriage ceremony, earned Brigham's disdain.

It was all part of the split doctrine of the Church in the 1860's.  And ironically enough, the majority of our theology in the Church today resembles Orson's teachings, not Brigham's.

None of that matters. What we have is statements from the brotheren that condemn some of the teachings.

[JLHPROF]

None of that matters. What we have is statements from the brotheren that condemn some of the teachings.

 

Wow.  Just, wow.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a pretty good summary about The Seer from FairMormon's Lance Starr.

 

An excerpt:

 

Many anti-Mormons make extensive use of this publication in framing their accusations against the Church. Many members of the Church have not even heard of this publication, much less are familiar with its origins. The Seer was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, and he used the publication to provide a printed pulpit for his own ideas and pet speculations. It was never considered official LDS doctrine, nor was it ever published by or endorsed by the Church. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work–the Seer–together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. ..

 

[6EQUJ5]

None of that matters. What we have is statements from the brotheren that condemn some of the teachings.

 

Sure.  But isn't it interesting that the teachings of the brethren who condemned have take a bit of a back seat to some of Pratt's ideas?

 

Certainly ironic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow.  Just, wow.

Yup, is it in the scriptures some were? When was the last time it was quoted at GC?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sure.  But isn't it interesting that the teachings of the brethren who condemned have take a bit of a back seat to some of Pratt's ideas?

 

Certainly ironic.

Some of it he had right. They did not condemn it all. I never said they did. So there really is no irony here.

[Avatar4321]

Nope. I have no reason to read it.

[Duncan]

I have it and flipped through a couple of times looking for stuff and I have some of his other works or collected works. I have and enjoyed his biography by Breck England

[JLHPROF]

Some of it he had right. They did not condemn it all. I never said they did. So there really is no irony here.

 

The irony is that the book was condemned by the Church for teaching Pratt's doctrines instead of Young's but now today we teach doctrines closer to Pratts and deny Young's in the Church, even though they didn't come direct from Pratt.  Classic irony.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The irony is that the book was condemned by the Church for teaching Pratt's doctrines instead of Young's but now today we teach doctrines closer to Pratts and deny Young's in the Church, even though they didn't come direct from Pratt.  Classic irony.

Still no irony. We teach some of BY teachings too. What of it. It might help to actually discuss what was condemned and what was not. Then we can see if there is some irony there. Right now we are talking in generalities. And so far there is no irony.

[Calm]

It has been asserted with certainty by JLHPROF that every "member of this board" who is LDS has a copy of Orson Pratt's "The Seer" on their shelves at home. I, for one, do not. I was wondering how many do.

Don't have one.  Never read it.

Edited October 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Don't have one.  Never read it.

 

Ok, that actually surprises me.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, that actually surprises me.  

Because any intelligent and well-read member of the Church would be expected to have a personal copy and to have explored it thoroughly?

 

I think you greatly over-value its importance and prominence.

[mnn727]

Very few Mormons have a copy, but almost every Anti-Mormon must.