Spiritual atomism, food of the gods, what kind of fluid flows through God’s veins, proof that God and Jesus are polygamists, all this and more, can be found in a copy of THE SEER, which you ought to be able to pick up for $20 or so (reprints of the newspaper he published in D.C. in 1853).

Mad genius is right.

This sounds like something from Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb or some other Islamist group founder.

I’m not sure I see the genius of it.

and yes, I didn’t read Dan’s comment before posting.

It wasn’t just Brigham Young who had trouble with Pratt’s teachings. Pratt is the only Apostle whose teachings were condemned by a proclamation of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve (including O.P himself.)

Kinda like the more recent denunciation of McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, eh?

Nice one.

I’ve also seen a quote from Brigham Young saying that when someone preaches false doctrine from the pulpit it is better to ignore it and hope that it is forgotten than to draw attention to it by declaring it to be false. So it seems that there are two methods that might be used here and I would guess that the second is much more frequently used than the first.

The resolution in this is found in the temporary nature of men’s governments. Also in other scriptural (mainly N.T.) references that state, and some others imply, that man-made governments and rulers are still ordained of God, at least for the reason that God allows or permits them. After all, anything that happens under an omnipotent and omniscent God’s eye is either done by him, or he permits to happen.

So yes, they are illegal in the grand cosmic scope of things (which cosmic or universal scope Pratt actually mentions), but God “allows” all sorts of illegal and/or wicked things to temporarily exist for testing purposes.

The 12th Article of Faith is essentially temporal in nature, implicitly dealing only with temporary and worldly kings, presidents, rules, etc. Such kings and presidents will either become subject to Christ at his return, or will be removed.

Before the United States purchased the land currently known as Utah from Mexico, and before Brigham Young was replaced as territorial governor, the government of the saints there was indeed a theocracy.

Christopher (11): I seem to recall reading about Elder Pratt’s thoughts on government in my copy of THE SEER. I know he talks about how earthly marriages, indeed any marriage not sanctioned by the priesthood of God were actually not marriages at all, and how any procreation outside of Priesthood-sanctioned marriage is against the laws of God.

When I get home tonight, I will check to see if THE SEER contains these teachings on government. I do not think President Young ever specifically singled out any of Elder Pratt’s teachings, so it is unclear if BY and the Qo12 were condemning the whole of Pratt’s newspaper, or just urging caution about “some” of his teachings.

I would have to agree and disagree wuth OP on this subject. Just as Dan (#13) said, God recognizes civil marriges and respects them for what they are, God also helped the early founders of this country develop a government that was not a theocracy at all. I tend to believe that Gods government needs a little further clarification in OP case.

I do agree that on an eternal perspective, that yes, God’s government is the only government recognized by God as holding salvation and sealing powers. We must although, live by the government of God and his laws or be damned to hell. This law is plainly mande manifest to us and the spirits in prison that we must obey Gods commandments in order to be saved.

Ah, Sherpa, you caught me. I’ve been reading around on Pratt’s theory of heavenly government and found this discussion quite provocative. Again, I think assumptions about Pratt’s knowledge of the Gospel or the Scriptures (or lack thereof) are problematic at best; rather, it’s useful, I think, to consider his ideas in context, as Bookslinger does. He’s writing at a point poised between the flight from Nauvoo and the establishment of the Territory of Utah; the Saints’ relationship with the United States is perhaps at the lowest point (before the polygamy raids, that is). Theocracy thus seemed a viable alternative, and the Saints’ attempts at it (beginning with the Council of the Fifty) were just getting off the ground. Combine that with their millennialism and Pratt suddenly doesn’t seem so far out there. They could easily argue that the United States had served its purpose and the Saints could wash their hands thereof, and that the 12th AoF only applied insofar as those laws were themselves godly.

To Mormons today, firmly ensconced in Protestant religious nationalism and the civil polity, these ideas seem a bit more disturbing, but they were certainly in the air then. See, for example, John Taylor’s Government of God.

Dan:

But it isn’t. In fact, the Lord sees it as perfectly okay for even members of the church to get married civilly (not in the Temple) and have it be a perfectly valid and legal contract.

There’s some question as to whether Joseph Smith believed this. See Compton’s Sacred Loneliness, 17-18. Smith certainly felt it to be within his rights to ignore civil marriages when they proved inconvenient – he married several undivorced converts to other men (including himself), for example. Saying this amounted to a wholesale rejection of civil marriage is probably going too far, but it certainly drifts towards Pratt’s supercessionist thinking.

Bookslinger,

Such marriages are null and void after death.

I don’t question their invalidity after death, but whether or not they are valid in the here and now. Clearly the Lord thinks such marriages are perfectly valid. Plenty of Mormons are themselves married just civilly and have no problem taking the sacrament on Sundays even though they assuredly have committed sexual acts.

Both Parley and the woman are on record as saying that civil marriages had no validity, so they were free to marry. But that attitude pretty much cost Parley his life.

Plus it creates serious confusion, which is quite contrary to the will of God, as stated in the D&C. There is a reason this line of thinking was dropped with the Pratts, and not continued further. God is a God of Order. If we start going around saying this and that are not valid then what you get is chaos. Even Joseph Smith, if he indeed felt this way, was in the wrong.

Bookslinger,

I think OP was trying to speak from God’s viewpoint as He looks down upon man’s doings, not as how we are to look upon each other.

But apparently he and his brother took it further to actually believe that it was okay to not follow man’s laws and unilaterally declare one particular marriage “invalid.” A marriage that conveniently belonged to a woman he was interested in.

I can’t just go around and say that I think this or that law of man is invalid and not follow it. There are actual church disciplinary consequences of such a belief. We believe in being subject to man’s laws. It is in our doctrine. It IS quite valid. We really should not be concerned about the bigger picture in this case. What happens to these laws in the afterlife is not our concern right now. We are bound to these laws while we live here on this earth. To say otherwise is to go against the doctrine of the church, found in the Articles of our Faith.

Your analogy of men setting up their own government on a deserted island is very apt and fitting to our situation here on earth. However, based on our scriptures and our Articles of Faith, those who form that government are bound by both the laws of the same and of God, because it seems God takes it very seriously when we covenant amongst ourselves to follow certain legal guidelines. This obviously is contingent upon those laws having some form of righteousness in them.

With regard to doctrinal disagreements between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt, I recommend Conflict in the Quorum by Gary James Bergera. It’s a bit quote-heavy, but brings the relevant material together in a clear way. Incidentally, in most cases where Orson Pratt disagreed with Brigham Young’s doctrine, the modern LDS church has come down on Pratt’s side.

With regard to the eccelsiastical “legality” of civil marriages, it’s interesting to note that in an earlier time, those men receiving their endowment covenanted not to “touch a daughter of Eve, unless she be given [to them] by the Priesthood.” Clearly, the position of the church has eased since then, but the present policy was not always in effect.

How about legal authority exists because men come together to form a government, and they get to decide what is necessary for marriage and the legal benefits thereof. If you want the Mormon benefits, go to the mormon temple (which include ugly underwear).

So let me get this straight, Pratt is legitimate but Plato Augustine & Aquinas are straw men?!? You may want to reread the classics…

There is a reason that people from all cultures and faiths rely on P/A/A for higher understanding and insight. Their works transcend time and break cultural barriers. The only people who read Pratt are the few Mormons whose curiosity about their faith extends further than faith promoting rumors – it is a small, lonely crowd (and each one of them has a blog).

Pratt’s illegal governments, celestial vegetables and spirit blood will be consigned to third rate BYU institute classes and “deep doctrine” junkies whose reality is based in little more than the ramblings, musings and hot air from old men who are more interested in running the Morg than imparting sprititual wisdom. Nobody outside the church even knows Pratt’s name.

Finally, you might try writing in complete sentences so we can all figure out what the ad hominem you are talking about! (How was that for an ad hominem)

So let me get this straight, Pratt is legitimate but Plato Augustine & Aquinas are straw men?!? You may want to reread the classics…

Nope, that’s not straight. You’re the one with the straw men; I’m the one who brought up the historic conversations about the relationship between faith and the state that Pratt, along with Plato and the gang, are all participants in. I don’t know that Mormonism’s produced anyone of Plato or Augustine’s caliber yet, but certainly there are a few Mormon figures capable of participating in these sorts of dialogues.

And yep, Pratt isn’t as well known as he should be. That’s our own fault, though. Mormons tend to be insular and inward-looking; the tradition’s young yet, though, and I think that the academy’s beginning to look at it again with the seriousness it deserves.

And, since you asked, ‘Morg’ = ad hominem.

I wasn’t attacking you, I was genuinely interested in your perspective. I really wanted to know.

I don’t even know what ad hominem means.

Nor do I know or care Orson Pratt thinks or doesn’t think. I respect the right of others to think he’s great (ie mind-blowing), just as I respect your right not to think he’s great.

But I really do think my white lacy garments are pretty, but maybe that comes from not having underwear at all when I was a child. I appreciate them all the more now, whatever they look like.

And I think anyone who understands, discusses, and implements the 12 steps in their life is, yup, wise.

True wisdom lies in courtesy and the lowliest truck driver can be wise, but not learned.

I honest to God wanted to know more about you. Do you have the stones to let us see you more clearly, aside from your tiredness, which, rest assured, you don’t have the patent on? Where in the heck are you coming from with these opinions and judgements (of my esteemed self, no less). Lucky for you, I have a sense of humor. :)

Cant take the heat then get out of the kitchen, gotcha.

Claremont is interested because of rich mormon donors willing to sponsor a chair. They also have chairs in every other religion that ponies up the money. And pointing to random journals and philophical nobodies hardly means that the academy is taking notice – and even you should admit that.

My point was that Pratt is just barely interesting to the psuedo-intellectual Mormon crowd and that the philosophical world resounds with mind blowing material – and you haven’t responded to that other than to take issue (unconvincingly as you already noted) with my minor points. What you did was change the subject from “Pratt blows my mind” to “there will be Mormon thinkers who will blow my mind in the future.”

You won’t return here and for that I am sad, but we are all so excited to see the next round of mind blowing moments from the desk of Matt B.