Comments on: Orson Pratt, The Seer and spiritual atomism

By: Tod Robbins

Tod Robbins — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:12:27 +0000

Nevermind. It’s in your post. Ha.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:03:35 +0000

Tod, see Clark’s Messages of the First Presidency, 2:235-240.

By: Tod Robbins

Tod Robbins — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:54:56 +0000

J. do you know the reference for Orson Pratt’s renunciation of The Seer?

Thanks in advance.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:31:39 +0000

Ron V., you may consider being less judgmental of people and matters you know little about. Pratt wasn’t ever officially excommunicated and when he died Joseph F. Smith declared that he was one of the greatest heroes of the Restoration.

By: Ron V

Ron V — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:31:53 +0000

I think all you guys need to stick to pure church doctrine! You are too concerned about matters that have nothing to do with your own salvation. Speculation, that all this all is! Read the Book of Mormon, that will teach you more about your salvation than a book written by an apostle that was excommunicated!! You have missed the mark, as the New Testament describes.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:04:39 +0000

I think though one must ask what an eternal identity is. What do we mean by it? Does it naturally entail an atomistic view? (Either of the sort Pratt espouses or the Cartesian sort that Roberts later does)

I’d also say, that while Pratt’s atomism wasn’t really condemned by Young, Young was very distrustful of the philosophizing Pratt was doing. Young’s view could probably be characterized as a pragmatic one: what practical difference can we find in Pratt’s claims? Typically one can’t and further Pratt has no basis for his interpretations.

I’d say as well that I think Pratt’s views on worship and the attributes of deity – the things he was censured for – tend to flow out naturally from his atomism. He has that whole spiritual fluid view, which I think really de-personalizes the attributes of God.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:36:05 +0000

I agree with J — we are well aware of the equivocations on the definitions of the word “intelligence” in the revelations and teaching from Joseph. This discussion is well beyond that and deals with the question of if our identities are essential and eternal or if they are contingent and emergent. J. believes the former, I believe the latter.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:08:05 +0000

I very much agree, Clark. However, I really think there is a strong case for eternal identities from the latter Nauvoo discourse.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:57:13 +0000

I’ve not had time to contribute. I’d just suggest that people beware of the danger of equivocation. I think Joseph used some terms expansively. Especially terms like intelligence and spirit. Assuming that they always mean the same thing in all contexts will mislead one, (IMO).

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 03:35:17 +0000

Thanks, Levi. This is something that has been brewing for sometime now. Perhaps it is time to commit some resources for a systematic analysis.