JLHPROF Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) 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. No, because it's been my experience that Cal is one of the most well read people on here. Gosh, don't be so quick to jump down people's throats. Apparently I did something to upset you. Edited October 20, 2014 by JLHPROF
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 No, because it's been my experience that Cal is one of the most well read people on here. Gosh, don't be so quick to jump down people's throats. Apparently I did something to upset you.Well, frankly, I don't even recall now what occasioned your bringing up The Seer in the first place. So I guess it's time to lay the matter down.
Coreyb Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 By "on the shelf" do you mean literally on my bookshelf, or on the figurative shelf where I place things I don't understand or believe? Jk, I have it and have read about half of it. To help out JLHPROF, I would say The Seer is very important historically, but as far as it being very important to Mormons today, not really at all. The only publisher I can think that might still publish it is Eborn books, not exactly a big name. I doubt you would find it at Deseret or Seagull book. The irony is that most anti-Mormons I have read mostly use it to show that Mormons believe God had sex with Mary to produce Jesus. Then many apologists respond saying The Seer was disavowed by the church, but that is not the issue Brigham Young had a problem with. He actually agreed with Orson on that point. That's classic irony 3
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 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. Considering the Devil works as hard to create falsehoods by promoting folk doctrine as he does in your face opposition, I'm not finding this ironic at all. ...and I've never seen the seer. I suspect the posters on this board have a much higher likelihood of accessing that publication than the run of the mill Mormon believer. 1
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Considering the Devil works as hard to create falsehoods by promoting folk doctrine as he does in your face opposition, I'm not finding this ironic at all. ...and I've never seen the seer. I suspect the posters on this board have a much higher likelihood of accessing that publication than the run of the mill Mormon believer. Orson, Brigham and I are probably all less concerned with how God begat Jesus Christ, than why. But if it makes for salacious press, the anti-Mormons will continue to pimp this long out of print and unofficial source.
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 By "on the shelf" do you mean literally on my bookshelf, or on the figurative shelf where I place things I don't understand or believe? Jk, I have it and have read about half of it. To help out JLHPROF, I would say The Seer is very important historically, but as far as it being very important to Mormons today, not really at all. The only publisher I can think that might still publish it is Eborn books, not exactly a big name. I doubt you would find it at Deseret or Seagull book. The irony is that most anti-Mormons I have read mostly use it to show that Mormons believe God had sex with Mary to produce Jesus. Then many apologists respond saying The Seer was disavowed by the church, but that is not the issue Brigham Young had a problem with. He actually agreed with Orson on that point. That's classic irony yep. I read perhaps some ten years ago when I noticed how many attacks against the Church referenced it, and how adamantly many an LDS would pass it off as worthless junk in order to defend themselves.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 and how adamantly many an LDS would pass it off as worthless junk in order to defend themselves.Straw man alert, straw man alert. No one ever once claimed it was "worthless junk".
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Orson, Brigham and I are probably all less concerned with how God begat Jesus Christ, than why. But if it makes for salacious press, the anti-Mormons will continue to pimp this long out of print and unofficial source. Well along with plenty of other sources, including as I recall conference addresses. It'd be silly for us to deny it was ever officially sanctioned because it was found in that book, because it was found being taught by others as well.
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Straw man alert, straw man alert. No one ever once claimed it was "worthless junk". You can't be sure of that. No one ever once in the whole history of the world? I didn't mean to quote someone from over a decade ago, I only meant to give an impression that I received from some members over a decade ago.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Well along with plenty of other sources, including as I recall conference addresses. It'd be silly for us to deny it was ever officially sanctioned because it was found in that book, because it was found being taught by others as well. The critics would rather we stayed faithful to old dusty sermons than learned the truth line by line, and precept by precept. For me I prefer a changing church, learning the more of the perfect Doctrines of God each day, month and year we exist in mortality.
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 The critics would rather we stayed faithful to old dusty sermons than learned the truth line by line, and precept by precept. For me I prefer a changing church, learning the more of the perfect Doctrines of God each day, month and year we exist in mortality. Sure. The problem is many a person who is long gone, say perhaps Joseph Smith, was advanced beyond what anyone today is when it comes to knowledge of the kingdom. we learn little by little individually. perhaps in some sense our doctrines evolve as we learn more, in some cases, and perhaps in others we simply can't see all that was seen by previous people. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 The critics would rather we stayed faithful to old dusty sermons than learned the truth line by line, and precept by precept. For me I prefer a changing church, learning the more of the perfect Doctrines of God each day, month and year we exist in mortality. And yet oddly enough God and his gospel don't change. We'd better hope any changing we do is in his direction...
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 And yet oddly enough God and his gospel don't change. We'd better hope any changing we do is in his direction... Good point.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 And yet oddly enough God and his gospel don't change. We'd better hope any changing we do is in his direction... I'm confident we've been heading in that direction as a people, with the occasional error. I'm not constrained by non-gospel notions of inerrancy or prophetic infallibility. Neither was Brigham. “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.”( Disc. of B.Y., p.209 / Journal of Disc. Vol. 9 p. 149-150 )
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I'm confident we've been heading in that direction as a people, with the occasional error. I'm not constrained by non-gospel notions of inerrancy or prophetic infallibility. Neither was Brigham. “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.”( Disc. of B.Y., p.209 / Journal of Disc. Vol. 9 p. 149-150 ) I find it amusing that when we talk about our "occasional errors" we always go back to the dead prophets. Isn't it just as possible that the living prophet today who changes from the dead prophet is the one making the "occasional error".It's a pure assumption that the modern prophet's doctrine is less flawed than the early prophet's doctrine. There is certainly nothing scriptural to teach such an assumption. 1
stemelbow Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I find it amusing that when we talk about our "occasional errors" we always go back to the dead prophets. Isn't it just as possible that the living prophet today who changes from the dead prophet is the one making the "occasional error". It's a pure assumption that the modern prophet's doctrine is less flawed than the early prophet's doctrine. There is certainly nothing scriptural to teach such an assumption. wow, you've nailed the comments in this thread today. Thanks. I agree.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Sure. The problem is many a person who is long gone, say perhaps Joseph Smith, was advanced beyond what anyone today is when it comes to knowledge of the kingdom. we learn little by little individually. perhaps in some sense our doctrines evolve as we learn more, in some cases, and perhaps in others we simply can't see all that was seen by previous people. Shhh.... I have a secret. "Let us be faithful and silent brethren and if God gives you a manifestation keep it to yourselves. Be watchful and prayerful and you shall have a prelude of those joys that God will pour out on that day." - Joseph Smith Jr.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) I find it amusing that when we talk about our "occasional errors" we always go back to the dead prophets. Isn't it just as possible that the living prophet today who changes from the dead prophet is the one making the "occasional error".It's a pure assumption that the modern prophet's doctrine is less flawed than the early prophet's doctrine. There is certainly nothing scriptural to teach such an assumption. A "pure assumption" based on learning from our own history, correlation between the quorum of the 12 and the first presidency, sustaining by the body of the church and personal revelation. I'm pretty good with that. ...and yes the current prophet, apostles and priesthood could be in error. It is likely that we are on specific things. That does not excuse the individual from working and counseling in a way that the Lord has established so His house is a house of order. It is like running ahead of the train while it sits refueling in the station, convinced that you will get there faster than staying on the train. Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG 1
Nofear Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) I don't doubt there are points among our current leadership where we lack of understanding or hold misconceptions. Perhaps some of the early brethren got things right and we have taken a step back, as it were, on a point here or there. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that in the aggregate our contemporary understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel are much more complete and accurate than they have been at any time in the past... 1830's to 2000's. Put it another way, I trust Pres. Monson's understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel more than Pres. Young's.Even so, it is publically confessed by the Brethren that there are many things we do not yet understand and many things, policies and behaviors, which the Church, as individuals and as an organization, can do better. Edited October 21, 2014 by Nofear
JLHPROF Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I don't doubt there are points among our current leadership where we lack of understanding or hold misconceptions. Perhaps some of the early brethren got things right and we have taken a step back, as it were, on a point here or there. Careful, I don't think we're allowed to say that. Put it another way, I trust Pres. Monson's understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel more than Pres. Young's. I am not so convinced. Brigham Young was taught by Joseph directly and recorded numerous revelations and visions directing him. He provided the evidence of the unseen to put my faith in.President Monson less so, at least to me.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Joseph is to be revered for being the vessel through which the Gospel was restored and revealed to the Latter-days. That does not mean he got everything unfiltered, complete and without error. I would shudder to think about Brigham Young trying to lead the Church in an era of satellite communication and the internet. On the other hand if Gordon B Hinkley was to lead the 19th century Saints across the plains, we might have many fewer pioneer ancestors today. I think the Lord knows what he's doing when he provides us living prophets for our day, and while human, we are assured they will not destroy the church and our ability to receive the ordinances that will help us return to our Father in Heaven. Don't let this discussion draw you into a false dichotomy between believing the words of living vs. dead prophets. In most substantive ways there is broad agreement from Brother Joseph to Brother Thomas. If there are inconsistencies, misunderstandings, or unanswered questions, we can rely on personal revelation to help us sort it out. Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG 1
JLHPROF Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Looks like 1/3 on this board have a copy. Ok, I withdraw my hyperbolic "I bet every member of this board" statement. But it's hardly some unknown text either, and can be referenced for the sealing ceremony being the same as a marriage ceremony.
Tacenda Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 No, it's not on my shelf at home but I do have a shelf, a big shelf.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 But it's hardly some unknown text either, and can be referenced for the sealing ceremony being the same as a marriage ceremony.Except its not. Oh well.
JLHPROF Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Except its not. Oh well. Well I'm glad your opinion overrules the actual words of the ceremony.
Recommended Posts