You use Brigham as an Authority in your response.
Now if I quote Brigham you will repudiate him too.
Why can't you admit LDS Doctrine is FULL of ERROR?
Still you have not identified the actual erroneous doctrine involved , what could it be?
Why does the Church still REpublish quotes from Orson Pratt?
What were the portions of the SEER that were full of error?
How was it that such ERROR got published in the Official Church publication in the first place?
What happened to the Prophet SEER and revelator? he will never let anyone lead LDS astray?
How can we be sure there is not more published error in other church materials?
DH: LDS folks sometimes make mistakes, and have been known to harbor false notions and beliefs at times. I'll even admit to having such weaknesses. Is that a problem for you, Kevin?
Yes, of course it is a problem since we are talking about man's Eternal destiny.
"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Title page Book of Mormon
an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account some person or persons have stolen and kept from me" Preface to the original Book of Mormon.
"and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record" Mormon 9:33
"I think this sacred, but if I err, excuse me" 1Nephi 19:6
"written according to my memory" Esther 5:1
"written to the best of my knowledge" Jacob 7:26
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: I don't know why/how I get sucked in to responding to your posts, Kevin. Perhaps I'm just a hypocrite at times like this.....
THE SEER that OP wrote containing most of the material quoted by anti-Mormons was about 20 issues published from the early to mid 1850s that have subsequently been republished in a single book form, as I understand the history of its origins.
The following website.........
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/publications.htm
.........gives an apologists view that answers some of the points some of the anti-Mormons make regarding OP. If you take the time to read this short site, you will notice that OP was reprimanded by BY for publishing erroneous doctrines......
t didn't take Orson Pratt long to give Brigham Young cause for concern over some of his articles in The Seer. In April 1855, Brigham Young wrote to the editor of Great Britain's official LDS Church Publication, The Millennial Star, and asked him to cease republishing The Seer in England. Brigham Young stated that while there were many beautifully written articles in it, there were also "many items of erroneous doctrines" (Messages of the First Presidency, Vol. 2, p. 214). For that reason the Saints were cautioned against accepting the magazine.
Orson Pratt continued to publish his personal views in The Seer, ideas that had neither the blessing of the brethren nor the sustaining vote of the members. In 1860, Orson Pratt, after being reprimanded, spoke in the Tabernacle and repented of some of the views that he had advanced in The Seer:
At that time I expressed those views, I did most sincerely believe that they were in accordance with the word of God . . . But I have since learned from my brethren that some of the doctrines I had advanced in The Seer, at Washington, were incorrect. So far as revelation from the heavens is concerned, I have had none in relation to those points of doctrine (Messages of the First Presidency, Vol. 2, pp. 218,219). The First Presidency attached the following statement when Pratt's remarks were printed in the Deseret News: "This should be a lasting lesson to the Elders of Israel not to undertake to teach doctrines they do not understand (Ibid, p. 233).
In the Deseret News in 1865, the First Presidency wrote again against some of the doctrine published by Orson Pratt in The Seer.
We consider it our duty, however, and advisable for us to incorporate with this which we have already written, our views upon other doctrines which have been extensively published and widely received as the standard and authoritative doctrines of the Church, but which are unsound. The views we allude to, and which we deem objectionable, have been published by Elder Orson Pratt (Ibid, p. 231).
Then in an almost prophetic manner, perhaps seeing the contention some of these quotes would cause in our day, Brigham Young stated:
We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable, creating labor and difficulties for our successors to perform and contend with, which we ought not to transmit to them .... We know what sanctity there is always attached to the writing of men who have passed away, especially to the writing of an Apostle . . . therefore we feel the necessity of being watchful upon these points (Ibid, p. 232).
Only two months after this statement, the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve again spoke out against some of the doctrines published in The Seer and The Star, as well as several other tracts. They "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" (Ibid, p. 239).
What the presiding brethren said hardly could have been any plainer, yet many detractors quote liberally and hang onto every unsanctioned and speculative word of Orson Pratt and others published in The Seer, the Journal of Discourses, and other works which have not been accepted as Standard Works of the Church.
.......That OP was an apostle does not exclude him from having opinions that are incorrect. Why some folks think LDS leaders, members of the Church....or any Christian for that matter is infallible is beyond me. LDS folks sometimes make mistakes, and have been known to harbor false notions and beliefs at times. I'll even admit to having such weaknesses. Is that a problem for you, Kevin?
Kevin Deegan wrote:Why the vacillating on Official Church Publications?The SEER was an OFFICIAL CHURCH PUBLISHED Periodical!!Seing as even current Church teaching manuals quote portions of the "SEER", it can't be all bad where are the ERRORS?Orson Pratt was an APOSTLE!!!. cd: Daveh you big cry baby-Claiming I am a liar after all the back
stabbing comments-By your standards then- when have I ever back
stabbed-show me proof or ask for forgiveness. As I understand the below-the
union between God and Mary was natural-then you say it was a genetic test
tube type babby-Then your prophet (seer)Orson Pratt whom Mormons claim are
never wrong (remember the brain washing of having to repeat over and over
"the prophet is never wrong") said she wasn't a virgin. Have you ever heard
of blasphemy(ie.accusing God of sin)?You and your cult are full of poop you
are a stench in the nostrils of God -a "fart" best describes you and your
cult.
> >
> >The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our
children;
> >it was the result of natural action
(though not necessarily sexual) whereby
> >the genetic makeup of our Heavenly Father was combined with Mary's
genetic
> >makeup to bring forth a child in as natural a fashion as science now
> >teaches.
> >
> LDS theology teaches that Mary was a virgin.
> >
> > > >considering how LDS folks think or believe.
> >
> > Probably the most extremely opinionated person quoted was Orson
Pratt
> >in The Seer, which was a highly speculative book based on OP's opinions.
> >Despite being an LDS leader, his opinions are no substitute for official
> >doctrine, which is found in the Standard Works.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
