It is not uncommon to see critics (e.g., the Tanners) quote uncritically from Orson Pratt’s (often speculative and/or esoteric) periodical, The Seer, and use such as examples of (1) “official Mormon theology” and/or (2) how “Mormon theology” has radically changed. However, they are guilty of many things, including (1) demonstrating how little they know about how “Mormon” doctrine is formulated and defined and (2) deception in their uncritical appeal to The Seer. I recently shared the following on a facebook discussion group which should add food for thought on this and related issues:
Some of the more speculative publications in *The Seer* by Orson Pratt was condemned by the Church. BH Roberts mentioned that:
*As early as April,1855, President Brigham Young wrote the editor of the Millennial Star, who was republishing The Seer in England, not to republish any more numbers of it; that while it was admitted that there were many beautifully written articles in it, there were also many items of erroneous doctrines; and for this reason the saints were cautioned against accepting The Seer. (Millennial Star, vol. xvii, p. 298). Ten years later the matter was considered in counsel and The Seer, with some other writings of Elder Pratt, namely an article on The First Great Cause (see Pratt's Works, Liverpool edition, 1851); and an article on The Holy Spirit Millennial Star, vol. xii, No. 20), with these the first presidency and twelve could not agree, and they were condemned, Elder Pratt acquiescing in the action of his brethren. (See Deseret News, Aug. 23rd, 1865).* (Comprehensive History of the Church, 4:61-62, note 16.)
The First Presidency issued an official 1865 proclamation about several other of Orson Pratt's publications together with "The Seer." After quoting several of the items and referring to others without quotation, they write:
...But the expounder of these points of doctrine acknowledges that he has not had any revelation from the heavens in relation to them, and we know that we have had no revelation from God respecting them, except to know that many of them are false, and that the publication of all of them is unwise and objectionable. They are mere hypotheses, and should be perused and accepted as such, and not as doctrines of the Church. Whenever brother Orson Pratt has written upon that which he knows, and has confined himself to doctrines which he understands, his arguments are convincing and unanswerable; but, when he has indulged in hypotheses and theories, he has launched forth on an endless sea of speculation to which there is no horizon. The last half of the tract entitled "The Holy Spirit," contains excellent and conclusive arguments, and is all that could be wished; so also with many of his writings. But the Seer, The Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star of October 15th, and November 1, 1850, on the Holy Spirit, and the first half of the tract, also on the Holy Spirit, 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; with proper care this can be done without much, if any, injury to the volumes. (Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 2:238 -239)
Orson Pratt himself(!) later gave a confession about some of the things in *The Seer*:
There are a few things which have been a source of sorrow to myself, at different times, for many years. Perhaps you may be desirous to know what they are. I will tell you. There are some points of doctrine which I have unfortunately thrown out before the people. At the time I expressed those views, I did most sincerely believe that they were in accordance with the word of God. I did most sincerely suppose that I was justifying the truth. But I have since learned from my brethren that some of the doctrines I had advanced in the "Seer," at Washington, were incorrect. . . in this thing I have sinned; and for this I am willing to make my confession to the Saints. I ought to have yielded to the views of my brethren. I ought to have said, as Jesus did to his Father on a certain
occasion, "Father, thy will be done." "You have made this confession," says one; "and now we want to ask you a question on the subject: What do you believe concerning those points now?" I will answer in the words of Paul--"I know nothing of myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord." So far as revelation from the heavens is concerned, I have had none in relation to those points of doctrine....But, when I reflect upon the subject, I have very little knowledge concerning many things....What do I know about many things in relation to the celestial kingdom? Has the celestial kingdom been opened to my mind? No. Have I gazed upon it in vision? No. Have I seen God sitting on his throne, surrounded by his holy angels? No. Have I knowledge of the laws and order and government and rule which regulate that kingdom? No. If the revelations seem to apparently convey this or that idea, still I may be entirely mistaken in regard to the meaning of those revelations.... "But," inquires one, "have you not felt anxious that the Church should follow your ideas as laid down in the Seer?" I have not. If I had, I should have preached them; I should have tried to reason with you to convince you of their apparent truth. (Journal of Discourses, 7:374-375 | 29 January 1860)