Mormonism: Orson Pratt Revelation of "Ahman"

[Toms777]

Orson Pratt gave this revelation as part of an open air sermon titled "THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE GODHEAD", later published in the Journal of Discourses 2:334.

Could someone show how this can be harmonized with scripture?

"There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in, the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman-the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man."
This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? It is, that these intelligent beings are all parts of God, and that those who have the most of the parts of God are the greatest, or next to God, and those who have the next greatest portions of the parts of God, are the next greatest, or nearest to the fulness of God; and so we might go on to trace the scale of intelligences from the highest to the lowest, tracing the parts and portions of God so far as we are made acquainted with them. Hence we see that wherever a great amount of this intelligent Spirit exist, there is a great amount or proportion of God, which may grow and increase until there is a fulness of this Spirit, and then there is a fulness of God."

 

[Miles Peterson]

Orson Pratt gave this revelation as part of an open air sermon titled "THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE GODHEAD", later published in the Journal of Discourses 2:334.

Could someone show how this can be harmonized with scripture?

"There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in, the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman-the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man."
This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? It is, that these intelligent beings are all parts of God, and that those who have the most of the parts of God are the greatest, or next to God, and those who have the next greatest portions of the parts of God, are the next greatest, or nearest to the fulness of God; and so we might go on to trace the scale of intelligences from the highest to the lowest, tracing the parts and portions of God so far as we are made acquainted with them. Hence we see that wherever a great amount of this intelligent Spirit exist, there is a great amount or proportion of God, which may grow and increase until there is a fulness of this Spirit, and then there is a fulness of God."

Well, why don't we get all the scripted pro-LDS answers out of the way first....

• Orson Pratt never taught that.
• Orson Pratt's speech was misquoted by the Journal of Discourses.
• *My* copy of the Journal of Discourses doesn't say that.
• Orson Pratt was not a prophet. This is not revelation. These are just Pratt's "speculations"
• This isn't the doctrine of the LDS Church. Members do not "have" to accept this.
• You read that on a hate-filled, "anti-Mormon" board, didn't you? What's the URL, so I can go set them straight!
• Our critics make up stuff like this all the time. If we weren't the true church, you wouldn't be persecuting us
• Have you prayed and asked God to give you a testimony about the Book of Mormon yet?

There - now that we have those out of the way, we can get on with some serious discussion.

 

[Toms777]

Deleted message after reading subsequent comments.

 

[Wrigley]

I got this from the Journal of Discourses, a Mormon publication. Before attacking, why not read it yourself. If it was a speculation, did Orson Pratt misrepresent the truth in calling it a revelation?

I have a testimony about the Book of Mormon - I have read it from end to end twice and will give a testimony upon request. please advise.

Miles forgot the [sarcasm] tag.

 

[Toms777]

Miles forgot the [sarcasm] tag.

I should never respond to messages before my morning coffee (grin).

 

[fatboys]

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE GODHEAD.
A Discourse by Elder Orson Pratt, Delivered in the open air,
on the Temple Block, Great Salt Lake City, February 18, 1855.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.334, Orson Pratt, February 18, 1855
I presume that the people who are now before me feel, with myself, somewhat disappointed in their expectations this morning. We met together here for the purpose of hearing an address from our beloved President, in regard to the views of this people respecting the Government of the United States, and our relations and connection with that Government as a people.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.334, Orson Pratt, February 18, 1855
It is certainly a disappointment to me, and I have no doubt but it is to all who are under the sound of my voice, but you see that the house is insufficient to accommodate us all, and in consequence of this, being requested by some of the First Presidency, I have come out into the open air for the purpose of addressing you, according to the strength of my lungs and the wisdom which God may be pleased to give me.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.334 - p.335, Orson Pratt, February 18, 1855
Let us all lift up our hearts in faith before the Lord, that in our disappointment in not hearing the President, the Lord may still be merciful, and pour out from on high the Holy Ghost upon us, that we may be instructed and edified, and have our minds strengthened by the gifts, and power, and wisdom thereof; for without the gifts and strength of the Holy Spirit to inspire the hearts of those who speak and of those who hear, our remarks will be in vain, and our hearing will be in vain; but keep that Spirit with us, and then, notwithstanding the circumstances under which we are placed, all will be well; and never let the Saints feel discouraged, neither forget to pray for the Holy Spirit to rest down upon them, and upon those who speak to them, that each and all may be directed to act at all times by that Spirit that is able to guide into all truth. This certainly is the object for which we are gathered out from the nations of the earth; this is the object for which we are assembled here to-day; at least, it ought to be. We ought not to have any other thing in view only to be blessed, edified, and strengthened in the Lord.

FB: You need to check your references before you post them. I assume you wrote this from the copy you have in your library.

 

[Wrigley]

I should never respond to messages before my morning coffee (grin).

Coffee and waking up. Two important morning needs.

 

[Miles Peterson]

FB: You need to check your references before you post them. I assume you wrote this from the copy you have in your library.

Hey FB, why'd you stop the citation after the third paragraph? You've left out about 95% of Pratt's speech. The JoD has almost 9,000 words credited to Pratt for this one entry. The portion Tom cited lies about twenty pages, or to be more precise about 5500 words past where you cut off your citation. Why sidetrack the discussion, debating the page numbers? I'm sure the difference lies merely in one of you using a later printing than the other - I doubt the page numbers have been kept consistent between every edition published during the 150 years the Journal Of Discourses has seen print.


If you have something substantial to say, please address the content of Pratt's sermon. Let's not quibble about page numbers and print editions.

 

[fatboys]

Miles I printed the whole page so you could not say that I left any of it out on that page. I did not say that Orson Pratt did not say it, but that the reference was wrong.

I was not quibbling. The reference was wrong. I wanted him to find the correct one. You have and yet did not post the correction, why? When I look up a reference I would like it to be at least close. As you said it was 5000 words past. When I see a text taken from a sermon I want to read the whole thing before I make a judgement as to its importance.

 

[Toms777]

Miles I printed the whole page so you could not say that I left any of it out on that page. I did not say that Orson Pratt did not say it, but that the reference was wrong.

I was not quibbling. The reference was wrong. I wanted him to find the correct one. You have and yet did not post the correction, why? When I look up a reference I would like it to be at least close. As you said it was 5000 words past. When I see a text taken from a sermon I want to read the whole thing before I make a judgement as to its importance.

As Miles said, address the content. Regardless of what the specific reference is for your copy of the JoD, you know enough aboput the reference to find it, so please address the content rather than argue over page numbering.

 

[Miles Peterson]

Miles I printed the whole page so you could not say that I left any of it out on that page. I did not say that Orson Pratt did not say it, but that the reference was wrong.

I was not quibbling. The reference was wrong. I wanted him to find the correct one. You have and yet did not post the correction, why? When I look up a reference I would like it to be at least close. As you said it was 5000 words past. When I see a text taken from a sermon I want to read the whole thing before I make a judgement as to its importance.

Why should Tom "have to provide a correct reference" first? You obviously were able to find the whole sermon, despite protestations otherwise. You've already demonstrated that YOU HAVE THE SERMON IN FRONT OF YOU. You were able to provide the updated page numbering used in your edition. You knew where to find it, and you were able to liberally quote from it. It's only fair to assume, then, that you've already read it. Thus, we can presume that any further protests are just delaying tactics, intended to change the subject away from Orson Pratt's actual words.

So why won't you address the actual content?



Oh, by the way - I just checked. I don't think there's been a FAIR article addressing Pratt's sermon yet. Without a source to crib a response from, I guess that means you're on your own. You might want to ask at their message boards for help in forming a response. I'll be watching for your post.

 

[fatboys]

Why should Tom "have to provide a correct reference" first? You obviously were able to find the whole sermon, despite protestations otherwise. You've already demonstrated that YOU HAVE THE SERMON IN FRONT OF YOU. You were able to provide the updated page numbering used in your edition. You knew where to find it, and you were able to liberally quote from it. It's only fair to assume, then, that you've already read it. Thus, we can presume that any further protests are just delaying tactics, intended to change the subject away from Orson Pratt's actual words.

FB: The point is that the reference was wrong. He cut and pasted it from a anti mormon website, and many times the references from these sites are not only at times wrong, many times they don't even get the quote correct. Also if the quote was misrepresented, there are many who do not have access to these books and journals. They have to take the posters word for it.

So why won't you address the actual content?



Oh, by the way - I just checked. I don't think there's been a FAIR article addressing Pratt's sermon yet. Without a source to crib a response from, I guess that means you're on your own. You might want to ask at their message boards for help in forming a response. I'll be watching for your post.

FB: Because if find the quote unnecessary. Orson Pratt stated his opinion on a matter. I don't know enough about what he said to make a response about it. I don't agree with his conclusions and that is not unusual. I have my own opinions about God and our divine role we play in his great plan for our progression. I am not sure what you mean by Fair articles and my or anyone elses response to this quote. I have spent many years in study, I think I have my own personal beliefs about what the church teaches. But then that is just my own personal opinion.

 

[Toms777]

FB: The point is that the reference was wrong. He cut and pasted it from a anti mormon website, and many times the references from these sites are not only at times wrong, many times they don't even get the quote correct. Also if the quote was misrepresented, there are many who do not have access to these books and journals. They have to take the posters word for it.



FB: Because if find the quote unnecessary. Orson Pratt stated his opinion on a matter. I don't know enough about what he said to make a response about it. I don't agree with his conclusions and that is not unusual. I have my own opinions about God and our divine role we play in his great plan for our progression. I am not sure what you mean by Fair articles and my or anyone elses response to this quote. I have spent many years in study, I think I have my own personal beliefs about what the church teaches. But then that is just my own personal opinion.

I beg to differ. I don't even know where there is an "anti-mormon" website. Instead of making false accusations, you'd be more effectiv e at dealing with the issue.

I asked for someone to explain what he meant. If you did not know the answer, then it would have been adequate to have said so or not to have said anything at all.

 

[fatboys]

I beg to differ. I don't even know where there is an "anti-mormon" website. Instead of making false accusations, you'd be more effectiv e at dealing with the issue.

I asked for someone to explain what he meant. If you did not know the answer, then it would have been adequate to have said so or not to have said anything at all.

FB: I did not put forth any opinion about it because I have none. My point was that the reference was wrong. And that he got it from an anti mormon website who many times print the wrong reference. My point was to check your reference if you are going to give one. If you can't check, list where you got the quote from. This would help in tracking down where a mistake was made. Your opposition in me correcting a mistake is blatant stab at trying to make a mountain from a mole hill. As for anti mormon websites, there are thousands. Anti means against. Anyone who teaches negative ideas about the LDS church is against the LDS church. That makes them "anti".

 

[CCWoody]

I don't even know where there is an "anti-mormon" website. Instead of making false accusations, you'd be more effectiv e at dealing with the issue. ~ Toms777

FB: ... he got it from an anti mormon website....

I see you are really paying attention!

Anti means against. Anyone who teaches negative ideas about the LDS church is against the LDS church. That makes them "anti".

So, anti-LDS church is the same as anti-Mormon.

Alrighty then....

Please explain to me why you Mormons hate Christians. You see, as you have made opposition to MormonISM the same as anti-Mormon, every statement which your leaders have expressed and which Mormons have believed which are against Christianity is the same as anti-Christian.

So, explain why you hate Christians since your prophets has spoken such horrid things against us! I await the spin....

 

[Toms777]

FB: I did not put forth any opinion about it because I have none. My point was that the reference was wrong. And that he got it from an anti mormon website who many times print the wrong reference. My point was to check your reference if you are going to give one. If you can't check, list where you got the quote from. This would help in tracking down where a mistake was made. Your opposition in me correcting a mistake is blatant stab at trying to make a mountain from a mole hill. As for anti mormon websites, there are thousands. Anti means against. Anyone who teaches negative ideas about the LDS church is against the LDS church. That makes them "anti".

Anti means against. The dictionary definition of "Mormon" means the character of Mormon in the BoM or a person who is a member of the LDS church. So if you say ant-Mormon, you are saying that the person is against the people who are Mormons rather than the religion/doctrine.

Further, it is name-calling because you are labelling the person rather than dealing with the issue.

Lastly, I got my JoD from a Mormon source, so instead of trying to get into name-calling and labelling others, deal with the content.