To Quote LDS Prophets....

[SirThomasMore]

I agree. How anyone could read what their prophets said just a few decades ago and believe they are from God is beyond me.

 

[SirThomasMore]

these are the quotes to which I referred in the other thread.

 

[Todd520]

WOW,
Over 1/3 (39%) of the posts in this thread are from the initial poster (STM)
This makes it more of a rant than a discussion on LDS, in my eyes.

Well, I’ll stop contributing to the madness by no longer replying to STM threads.

 

[SirThomasMore]

WOW,
Over 1/3 (39%) of the posts in this thread are from the initial poster (STM)
This makes it more of a rant than a discussion on LDS, in my eyes.

Well, I’ll stop contributing to the madness by no longer replying to STM threads.

lol…considering my OP was several posts long and I have responded to other people, I am not surprised.

If providing info is a rant, then, yes, it is a rant. And if it is a rant, it is a rant against people who call themselves prophets and spew the stuff in those quotes.

And since you could never truly reply anyway, your lack of replies is not a real bother. Thanks for reading! Maybe someday the truth will sink in.

 

[Javl]

Sir Thomas, I agree with you 100%. We should all pray to the Holy Spirit to remove the veil from their eyes so that they may see clearly the heresy that they are involved in.
God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Pahoran]

“In the heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him …while yet in his mortal state.” Orson Pratt (Apostle), The Seer, p. 37.

As you already know – because it has been pointed out to you – “The Seer” was condemned by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, and repudiated by its author.

This is not only because it does not represent authoritative LDS doctrine, but because it represents teachings that are actually contrary to the doctrines of the Church.

Therefore, no honest critic of the Church of Jesus Christ quotes from it, however polemically useful it might otherwise be.

Wow.

Indeed.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

As you already know – because it has been pointed out to you – “The Seer” was condemned by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, and repudiated by its author.

 

[Pahoran]

lol…I do not blame the First Presidency for condemning it…it was too truthful.

The veil on your baseless, spiteful accusations of dishonesty is wearing thin. The First Presidency condemned it because it taught false doctrine.

Please note that “The Seer” was condemned and repudiated during Pratt’s lifetime.

And just because it was condemned, it does not mean Pratt did not say it. Nice try.

I did not say or imply that Pratt did not say it. Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but it failed. Again.

I readily acknowledge that Pratt said it. Pratt also repudiated it.

Will you ever be honest enough to admit that fact?

I won’t hold my breath…

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

The veil on your baseless, spiteful accusations of dishonesty is wearing thin. The First Presidency condemned it because it taught false doctrine

 

[Pahoran]

STM,

I previously wrote:

Will you ever be honest enough to admit that fact?

I won’t hold my breath…

And you respond:

Many have repudiated lots of newspapers or reports, but it does not mean that what was in it was false. Pratt said it. Too bad.

Good thing I didn’t hold my breath.

Let’s see: SirThomasMore disagrees with what Pratt wrote.

Pahoran disagrees with what Pratt wrote.

Pratt repudiated what he wrote.

So we have zero votes for what Pratt wrote, but STM is determined to pin it on us somehow.

You just can’t let go of something if you think it has some polemical utility, can you?

lol…so? It is like McKonkie publishing that the Catholic Church was the Great and Abominable Church. The First Presidency made him change it, repudiate it, if you will, but never said he was wrong.

Elder McConkie was not an apostle at the time he made that error. (I will grow old waiting for any of you anti-Mormons to be up front about that fact.) And since the changed version contradicts the original one, and since he wrote the changed version then yes, he said he was wrong.

Your attack fails. Yet again.

Pratt was an apostle. he said it. He meant it.

But he was wrong; so he was honest enough to admit it.

Which makes him infinitely more honest than you.

That is the kind of stuff you get from people who pretend to be apostles and prophets

Ah. A taunt intended to provoke.

You’re good at those.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

Articles and other material at lds.org quotes “The Seer”. For example:

** ** * How Does Our Love for God Influence Our Ability to Love Others? *** **

                                                   **                         Elder Orson Pratt                     **                 
                                  “The more righteous a people become the more they are qualified for  loving others and rendering them happy. A wicked man can have but  little love for his wife; while a righteous man, being filled with the  love of God, is sure to manifest this heavenly attribute in every  thought and feeling of his heart, and in every word and deed. Love, joy,  and innocence will radiate from his very countenance, and be expressed  in every look. This will beget confidence in the wife of his bosom, and  she will love him in return; for love begets love; happiness imparts  happiness; and these heaven born emotions will continue to increase more  and more, until they are perfected and glorified in all the fulness of  eternal love itself” (“Celestial Marriage,”*                         The Seer,                     *                     Oct. 1853, 156).

Kind of interesting for something that has been “condemned”.

Beyond that, Young’s doctrine of Adam-God was disputed by Pratt in “The Seer”, which, is the conflict that caused Young to issue the verdict that “The Seer” was to have pages ripped from its binding and burned.

Ironic, don’t you think, that this is the doctrine that caused Pratt to stop publishing “The Seer”, but today, LDS routinely deny this teachings of Young’s as opinion. While simultaneous presenting Pratt’s publication as unreliable.

He of course was the person put over the compilation of the D&C…so…the selective memory of the LDS marches on.

 

[Pahoran]

Articles and other material at lds.org quotes “The Seer”.

So it does. Your point?

We don’t have an Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Since “The Seer” was not 100% erroneous, there’s no problem with quoting it, along with other materials, when it teaches correct doctrine. The problem comes when unprincipled critics of the Church select little excerpts from it which are NOT correct doctrine, and present them as if they were.

Put bluntly: the site to which you linked quotes it in good faith. The Mormon-bashers here do not.

But then, I rather suspect you knew that already.

Beyond that, Young’s doctrine of Adam-God was disputed by Pratt in “The Seer”, which, is the conflict that caused Young to issue the verdict that “The Seer” was to have pages ripped from its binding and burned.

That was part of it.

Ironic, don’t you think, that this is the doctrine that caused Pratt to stop publishing “The Seer”, but today, LDS routinely deny this teachings of Young’s as opinion. While simultaneous presenting Pratt’s publication as unreliable.

Not really ironic, no.

You see Rebecca, there are people who study LDS history rather more deeply than merely mining for juicy tidbits. To such people, the dynamic between Elder Pratt and President Young was an interesting one, somewhat parallel to that between Peter and Paul in the ancient Church. Each of them acted as a kind of check on the other, and in the end both of their doctrinal speculations fell by the wayside.

He of course was the person put over the compilation of the D&C…so…the selective memory of the LDS marches on.

So what? What conclusion should we draw from this? Elder Pratt repudiated “The Seer,” not himself.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

Articles and other material at lds.org quotes “The Seer”. For example:

** ** * How Does Our Love for God Influence Our Ability to Love Others? *****

                                                   **                         Elder Orson Pratt                     **                 
                                  “The more righteous a people become the more they are qualified for  loving others and rendering them happy. A wicked man can have but  little love for his wife; while a righteous man, being filled with the  love of God, is sure to manifest this heavenly attribute in every  thought and feeling of his heart, and in every word and deed. Love, joy,  and innocence will radiate from his very countenance, and be expressed  in every look. This will beget confidence in the wife of his bosom, and  she will love him in return; for love begets love; happiness imparts  happiness; and these heaven born emotions will continue to increase more  and more, until they are perfected and glorified in all the fulness of  eternal love itself” (“Celestial Marriage,”*                         The Seer*,                                          Oct. 1853, 156).

Kind of interesting for something that has been “condemned”.

Beyond that, Young’s doctrine of Adam-God was disputed by Pratt in “The Seer”, which, is the conflict that caused Young to issue the verdict that “The Seer” was to have pages ripped from its binding and burned.

Ironic, don’t you think, that this is the doctrine that caused Pratt to stop publishing “The Seer”, but today, LDS routinely deny this teachings of Young’s as opinion. While simultaneous presenting Pratt’s publication as unreliable.

He of course was the person put over the compilation of the D&C…so…the selective memory of the LDS marches on.

EXCELLENT points…awesome

 

[RebeccaJ]

So it does. Your point?

We don’t have an Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Since “The Seer” was not 100% erroneous, there’s no problem with quoting it, along with other materials, when it teaches correct doctrine. The problem comes when unprincipled critics of the Church select little excerpts from it which are NOT correct doctrine, and present them as if they were.

I’m sorry, I thought you said:

The veil on your baseless, spiteful accusations of dishonesty is wearing thin. The First Presidency condemned it because it taught false doctrine.

Please note that “The Seer” was condemned and repudiated during Pratt’s lifetime.

I think you’re back peddling.

Put bluntly: the site to which you linked quotes it in good faith. The Mormon-bashers here do not.

hi the link goes to lds.org. To put it bluntly, what in the hell are you talking about?

You see Rebecca, there are people who study LDS history rather more deeply than merely mining for juicy tidbits. To such people, the dynamic between Elder Pratt and President Young was an interesting one, somewhat parallel to that between Peter and Paul in the ancient Church. Each of them acted as a kind of check on the other, and in the end both of their doctrinal speculations fell by the wayside.

Ah yes, no one has studied as hard as you, or at least, not hard enough for you.

You are making assumptions, falling back on the old tried and true ad hominem. It never takes long.

So what? What conclusion should we draw from this? Elder Pratt repudiated “The Seer,” not himself.

This sentence doesn’t make any sense, maybe the ‘not’ shouldn’t be there? If that is the case, see your own post that I quoted above.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Rebeca, I have enjoyed watching you school Pahoran. Thank you for the pleasure.

 

[lax16]

As you already know – because it has been pointed out to you – “The Seer” was condemned by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, and repudiated by its author.

This is not only because it does not represent authoritative LDS doctrine, but because it represents teachings that are actually contrary to the doctrines of the Church.

Therefore, no honest critic of the Church of Jesus Christ quotes from it, however polemically useful it might otherwise be.

Indeed.

Regards,
Pahoran

From wikipedia:

History of publication
After the LDS Church publicly acknowledged that it was teaching and practicing plural marriage at September 1852 conference of the church, Church President Brigham Young dispatched Apostle Orson Pratt to Washington, D.C., where he was asked to publish an apologetic magazine targeted at non-Mormons. The primary purpose of the magazine would be to explain and defend the principles of Mormonism.

Pahoran - If BY was a prophet, why would he choose a man to publish an apologetic magazine aimed at non-Mormons explaining and defending the principles of Mormons, only to have it condemned years later?

Wouldn’t he know (being a prophet) to choose someone whose words would not need to be condemned?

Aren’t apostles (such as Orson Pratt) prophets in the LDS religion?

Anyone can be a Monday Morning Quarterback…

 

[lax16]

So it does. Your point?

We don’t have an Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Since “The Seer” was not 100% erroneous, there’s no problem with quoting it, along with other materials, when it teaches correct doctrine. The problem comes when unprincipled critics of the Church select little excerpts from it which are NOT correct doctrine, and present them as if they were.

You see Rebecca, there are people who study LDS history rather more deeply than merely mining for juicy tidbits. To such people, the dynamic between Elder Pratt and President Young was an interesting one, somewhat parallel to that between Peter and Paul in the ancient Church. Each of them acted as a kind of check on the other, and in the end both of their doctrinal speculations fell by the wayside.

So what? What conclusion should we draw from this? Elder Pratt repudiated “The Seer,” not himself.

Regards,
Pahoran

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism
Jump to: navigation, search
See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Nelson, William O.

Twelve men ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood office of apostle constitute the **Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second-highest presiding quorum in the government **of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The highest presiding quorum is the First Presidency, three high priests who have generally been apostles who hold all keys (authority) pertaining to the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Church. The Twelve serve under the direction of the First Presidency. **Latter-day Saints sustain these fifteen men as prophets, seers, and revelators for the Church, who receive “a special **spiritual Endowment in connection with their teaching of the people…. Others of the General Authorities are not given this special spiritual Endowment and authority covering their teaching” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Church News [July 31, 1954]:9).

Several titles refer to the body of the Twelve apostles: the Quorum of the Twelve, the Council of the Twelve, or simply the Twelve. The designation Quorum of the Twelve is the scriptural title and the formal name used by the First Presidency in presenting the Twelve to Church members for their sustaining vote. The designation Council of the Twelve is used commonly in** Church publications and in communicating with persons of other faiths.**
HISTORY. The first members of the Quorum of the Twelve in modern times were ordained on February 14, 1835. This type of quorum has its roots in New Testament precedent (Matt. 10:1) and in modern revelation (D&C 18:26-39). After the Zion’s Camp expedition of 1834, the Prophet Joseph Smith called together in 1835 those who had participated and revealed that “it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives,…should be ordained to the ministry” (HC 2:182). He then directed the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) to prayerfully choose the Twelve in harmony with an earlier revelation (D&C 18:37). The Presidency then laid hands on the Three Witnesses, empowering them to make the selection (HC 2:186-87). Those chosen were Thomas B. Marsh, David W. Patten, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, William E. McLellin, Parley P. Pratt, Luke S. Johnson, William B. Smith, Orson Pratt, John F. Boynton, and Lyman E. Johnson. These twelve men were then ordained apostles by the Three Witnesses and given the keys pertaining to their holy calling. The First Presidency also laid their hands on them and confirmed these blessings and ordinations (T&S 2 [Apr. 15, 1845]:868). Oliver Cowdery then gave to the Twelve a charge to “preach the Gospel to every nation” (HC 2:195).

Pahoran - Why was Orson Pratt chosen by the Three Witnesses, ordained by them and given the ordination “to preach the Gospel to every nation” and believed to be a prophet, seer, and revelator by Mormons, only to have his writings condemned?

Not one of the many prophets involved were able to predict Orson Pratt wasn’t a good choice for the Seer?

Where did Orson Pratt get his ideas about Mormonism that were eventually condemned?

 

[Todd520]

Pahoran - If BY was a prophet, why would he choose a man to publish an apologetic magazine aimed at non-Mormons explaining and defending the principles of Mormons, only to have it condemned years later?

Wouldn’t he know (being a prophet) to choose someone whose words would not need to be condemned?
…

Actually there are much better examples than this one of Senior Church leaders exhibiting bad judgment or even outright sinning!!!

As every LDS poster here has stated in every thread it has been raised - our leaders our normal guys like the rest of us. They are not jacked in to the Holy Ghost 24/7 uttering words that are the breathe of God

You are bringing your Catholic def of what a prophet should be and applying to what the LDS label an expect from our leaders.

I’m confident they don’t meet your standards but please don’t tell us what we believe,
or … (I’ll have to ask about the 10 truely evil popes in history, an how that meshes with infallibility)

 

[scipio337]

Actually there are much better examples than this one of Senior Church leaders exhibiting bad judgment or even outright sinning!!!

As every LDS poster here has stated in every thread it has been raised - our leaders our normal guys like the rest of us. They are not jacked in to the Holy Ghost 24/7 uttering words that are the breathe of God

You are bringing your Catholic def of what a prophet should be and applying to what the LDS label an expect from our leaders.

I’m confident they don’t meet your standards but please don’t tell us what we believe,
or … (I’ll have to ask about the 10 truely evil popes in history, an how that meshes with infallibility)

Sorry, it’s not a “Catholic def” of what a prophet is, but rather, the Biblical one. You can ignoratio elenchi on about those “10 truely evil popes”, and I can point out false analogy 6 days a week, and twice on Sunday.

 

[Todd520]

Sorry, it’s not a “Catholic def” of what a prophet is, but rather, the Biblical one. You can ignoratio elenchi on about those “10 truely evil popes”, and I can point out false analogy 6 days a week, and twice on Sunday.

Actually, even the Biblical prophets pulled some doozies!
My bad, i forgot i wasn’t posting in any more STM threas