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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I don't think anybody said it's an unknown text.

 

By the way, I agree with you about the sealing ceremony being a marriage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

By the way, I agree with you about the sealing ceremony being a marriage.

That's OK. I can stand alone.

[JLHPROF]

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

 

General Conference?  Who cares.  Quoted in official church publications?  How about this week...

 

1. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo - new essay this week - https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng#42 - a direct footnote to the chapter containing the marriage ceremony.

 

AND ALSO

2. Preparing for an Eternal Marriage Institute Teachers Manual, (2003)

3. The Ensign - December 1984 -The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants

4. The Ensign - October 1986 - Pioneering the Gospel in Australia

5. The New Era - February 1986 - Love is Life

6. The Ensign - July 1986 - Finding Marital Unity through the Scriptures

 

and all this in spite of Orson being made to apologize for The Seer because in contradicted Brigham's own beliefs on God.

 

Yeah, the Church NEVER quotes "The Seer" by Orson Pratt.  Only apostates do that...

[theplains]

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

 

It seems like the church disowned earlier works of Joseph Fielding Smith too. Fortunately one

can still obtain those old books.  You'll also see major cuts from the old version of Teachings

of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

Regards,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

You'll also see major cuts from the old version of Teachings

of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

 

Remind me to not buy any updated versions.

That's the book I reference as much as the scriptures.

Edited October 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[KevinG]

I have a suspicion as to why those older volumes are edited down.  Unlike us apologetic hobbyists the intended audience is church members who are learning and relearning the Gospel basics.  When correlating educational materials (as opposed to comprehensive histories) sometimes the topics brought up in the Journal of Discourses and other detailed sermons do not further the principle being taught in the lesson, and indeed can distract from it.

 

This is not "faith promoting history only" rather, selection of those quotes and facts that are germane to the subject being taught.  That is understandably annoying to fans of the details of history, but a natural result of correlation committees and the bias of curricula designers.  My living is made from adult education, and it is very difficult to decide which details to include in training and workbooks, even in things as mundane as customer service, or process improvement.

 

Since Dr. Peterson has worked on curricula for the church I suppose he'd be a good person to ask about the process and how decisions are made.  But parsimony suggests a conspiracy to hide our history is one of the least likely reasons for the editors knife.  Especially when there are so many efforts to make as much source material available on line as possible. At the very least the LDS Church has done a horrible job hiding its history amid the volumes made available to historians and now the general public.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have a suspicion as to why those older volumes are edited down.  Unlike us apologetic hobbyists the intended audience is church members who are learning and relearning the Gospel basics.  When correlating educational materials (as opposed to comprehensive histories) sometimes the topics brought up in the Journal of Discourses and other detailed sermons do not further the principle being taught in the lesson, and indeed can distract from it.

 

This is not "faith promoting history only" rather, selection of those quotes and facts that are germane to the subject being taught.  That is understandably annoying to fans of the details of history, but a natural result of correlation committees and the bias of curricula designers.  My living is made from adult education, and it is very difficult to decide which details to include in training and workbooks, even in things as mundane as customer service, or process improvement.

 

Since Dr. Peterson has worked on curricula for the church I suppose he'd be a good person to ask about the process and how decisions are made.  But parsimony suggests a conspiracy to hide our history is one of the least likely reasons for the editors knife.  Especially when there are so many efforts to make as much source material available on line as possible. At the very least the LDS Church has done a horrible job hiding its history amid the volumes made available to historians and now the general public.

See my sig line about how nobody gives you all the facts at once. What you have expressed above is what I had in mind when I wrote it. And the anti-mormons really are the worst offenders about leaving out stuff that doesn't fit their chosen narrative. I wonder why those who are mad at the Church don't go after the anti-Mormons on the same principle. Instead, they are apt to swallow the whole slanted narrative and then vilify defenders (often using the term apologists as a slur) for filling in the missing essentials that the antagonists have left out.

[sethpayne]

See my sig line about how nobody gives you all the facts at once. What you have expressed above is what I had in mind when I wrote it. And the anti-mormons really are the worst offenders about leaving out stuff that doesn't fit their chosen narrative. I wonder why those who are mad at the Church don't go after the anti-Mormons on the same principle. Instead, they are apt to swallow the whole slanted narrative and then vilify defenders (often using the term apologists as a slur) for filling in the missing essentials that the antagonists have left out.

 

Scott,

 

This is an unfair caricature of Church critics and I think you are painting with far too broad a brush.  I hope you remember when Tom Phillips was up to his nonsense a fair number of critics and ex-Mormons came out in strong condemnation of his assault of Western political values.  In this case plenty of people who are "mad at the Church" went after TP relentlessly.  

 

Seth

[stemelbow]

Scott,

 

This is an unfair caricature of Church critics and I think you are painting with far too broad a brush.  I hope you remember when Tom Phillips was up to his nonsense a fair number of critics and ex-Mormons came out in strong condemnation of his assault of Western political values.  In this case plenty of people who are "mad at the Church" went after TP relentlessly.  

 

Seth

How is one connected to the other? Phillips' silly nonsense was laughable and though many a critic thought it was a worthy cause, others mocked him for it. Besides isn't he not finished? He had some other trick up his sleeve on it's way?

Scott is speaking about the critics who complain about the church hiding stuff or withholding information. In my experience most who so criticize often fail to tell the whole story themselves, which is odd.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

This is an unfair caricature of Church critics and I think you are painting with far too broad a brush.  I hope you remember when Tom Phillips was up to his nonsense a fair number of critics and ex-Mormons came out in strong condemnation of his assault of Western political values.  In this case plenty of people who are "mad at the Church" went after TP relentlessly.  

 

Seth

Maybe they were peeved at Phillips for giving them a bad name. 

[sethpayne]

Maybe they were peeved at Phillips for giving them a bad name. 

 

Well, that certainly could be the case because he made a certain segment of ex-Mormons look pretty silly.

[sethpayne]

How is one connected to the other? Phillips' silly nonsense was laughable and though many a critic thought it was a worthy cause, others mocked him for it. Besides isn't he not finished? He had some other trick up his sleeve on it's way?

 

 

You have proven my point.  Not all Church critics are the same and not all critics are anti-Mormons or "enemies" of the Church.  

 

Scott is speaking about the critics who complain about the church hiding stuff or withholding information. In my experience most who so criticize often fail to tell the whole story themselves, which is odd.

 

 

Wasn't that the exact nature of TPs complaint?  That the Church hid information in order to "coerce" him into paying tithing?  My point is that there were several vocal Church critics who condemned TPs silly claims.

[Calm]

His fraud case was built on 7 ideas he said were false that were being activity taught, not on the idea the Church was hiding things, fraud required that Monson and others taught those ideas to get money/gain.

Edited October 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

You have proven my point.  Not all Church critics are the same and not all critics are anti-Mormons or "enemies" of the Church.

That goes without saying. No one, as I see it, has suggested all critics are the same. If your point was that Scott said all critics were the same then you have set up a straw man, no?

 

Wasn't that the exact nature of TPs complaint?  That the Church hid information in order to "coerce" him into paying tithing?  My point is that there were several vocal Church critics who condemned TPs silly claims.

I think Cal described the case more accurately. I'm sure he complained and has since that the Church is hiding information. He is a critic and they all do that, after all. :0

[sethpayne]

That goes without saying. No one, as I see it, has suggested all critics are the same. If your point was that Scott said all critics were the same then you have set up a straw man, no? 

Maybe. But the statement was about those mad at the church.

And the anti-mormons really are the worst offenders about leaving out stuff that doesn't fit their chosen narrative. I wonder why those who are mad at the Church don't go after the anti-Mormons on the same principle.

My point was that sometimes those who are mad at the church do go after anti-Mormons for being dishonest etc...

I think Cal described the case more accurately. I'm sure he complained and has since that the Church is hiding information. He is a critic and they all do that, after all. :0

That sounds right. But to commit fraud for financial gain one must, of necessity, withhold or distort info provided to the victim.

[stemelbow]

Maybe. But the statement was about those mad at the church.

Everyone generalizes and while generalizing can get out of hand it can also be pretty helpful in conversation. I don't think he meant any offense here. I see no need to make it an issue in this case.

My point was that sometimes those who are mad at the church do go after anti-Mormons for being dishonest etc...

Not sure Scott would disagree.

That sounds right. But to commit fraud for financial gain one must, of necessity, withhold or distort info provided to the victim.

And that's why the case was tossed out.

Still I admit I remain curious what else he has in store. That whole affair was incredibly stupid. But, interestingly, many sent him donations. There was some support.

[Calm]

Maybe. But the statement was about those mad at the church.

My point was that sometimes those who are mad at the church do go after anti-Mormons for being dishonest etc...

That sounds right. But to commit fraud for financial gain one must, of necessity, withhold or distort info provided to the victim.

Phillips in the court case was more or less saying Pres Monson was withholding the information he was teaching lies.

Outside of it, he contributed extensively I believe to a website that has many claims of hiding information on it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Everyone generalizes and while generalizing can get out of hand it can also be pretty helpful in conversation. I don't think he meant any offense here. I see no need to make it an issue in this case.

 

No indeed.

 

Not sure Scott would disagree.

 

Of course not. There are nearly always exceptions to a rule.

 

But I'm not sure critics went after him because he was hiding stuff or if it was for the general wackiness of his antics. To be honest, I don't have a very clear memory of them coming after him at all en masse.

 

And that's why the case was tossed out.

Still I admit I remain curious what else he has in store. That whole affair was incredibly stupid. But, interestingly, many sent him donations. There was some support.

 

I think he's relaxing in Spain, or wherever it was he crawled off to after his legal defeat.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

And that's why the case was tossed out.

From bbc:

"He described the attempted prosecution as "tenuous", with no chance of ever making it to trial even if Mr Monson attended.

"To convict, a jury would need to be sure that the religious teachings of the Mormon Church are untrue or misleading," he said.

"No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury.""

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26666144

Edited October 29, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

But I'm not sure critics went after him because he was hiding stuff or if it was for the general wackiness of his antics. .

My memory said most were focused on it being inappropriate to use the government to essentially enforce religious beliefs...iow government dictating what beliefs can be taught and which can't (as opposed to practices). Phillips tried to sidestep that by claiming the beliefs he picked on could be and had been disproved by scientists and historians and Pres. Monson knew this and still directed the beliefs to be taught.

[6EQUJ5]

Phillips in the court case was more or less saying Pres Monson was withholding the information he was teaching lies.

Outside of it, he contributed extensively I believe to a website that has many claims of hiding information on it.

 

Now wait a minute, Cal.  MormonThink is a basitian of truth and light.

 

/sarcasm

Edited October 29, 2014 by 6EQUJ5

[6EQUJ5]

Still I admit I remain curious what else he has in store. That whole affair was incredibly stupid. But, interestingly, many sent him donations. There was some support.

 

 

I'm still waiting for the next "October Surprise"

Edited October 29, 2014 by 6EQUJ5

[6EQUJ5]

dupe

Edited October 29, 2014 by 6EQUJ5

[sethpayne]

Everyone generalizes and while generalizing can get out of hand it can also be pretty helpful in conversation. I don't think he meant any offense here. I see no need to make it an issue in this case.

 

 

Quite true.

 

And just to be clear, I don't think Scott meant any offense at all.