
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m (→3 Nephi 21) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}} | {{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}} | ||
=={{ | =={{Question label}}== | ||
Did Parley P. Pratt make a prophecy in 1838 to La Roy Sutherland about the latter being struck dumb and coming to an untimely end? Didn't he also claim that no unbelievers would be on the American continent within 50 years? | |||
{{CriticalSources}} | {{CriticalSources}} | ||
| Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
=={{Conclusion label}}== | =={{Conclusion label}}== | ||
Parley P. Pratt is here really more (mis)reading scripture than coming up with a prophecy out of the blue. He was mistaken, but this causes no problem for believers--even apostles [[Mormonism and doctrine/Prophets are not infallible|can be mistaken]], and an isolated apostle has no right to declare binding doctrine. New revelation would [[Church_doctrine/Official_or_core_doctrine|always come to the prophet]]--which Parley likely knew, but he just thought his reading of the scripture was obviously correct, so felt no fear in making it. But, we must remember he came out of a long religious background before joining the Church in which he had a deep sense of the second coming's urgency and imminence. So, what seemed a "natural" reading to him just wasn't. | Parley P. Pratt is here really more (mis)reading scripture than coming up with a prophecy out of the blue. He was mistaken, but this causes no problem for believers--even apostles [[Mormonism and doctrine/Prophets are not infallible|can be mistaken]], and an isolated apostle has no right to declare binding doctrine. New revelation would [[Church_doctrine/Official_or_core_doctrine|always come to the prophet]]--which Parley likely knew, but he just thought his reading of the scripture was obviously correct, so felt no fear in making it. But, we must remember he came out of a long religious background before joining the Church in which he had a deep sense of the second coming's urgency and imminence. So, what seemed a "natural" reading to him just wasn't. | ||
As demonstrated in detail below, Pratt believed he was reporting the "plain sense" of the Book of Mormon—but this is not as clear as he thought it was. | |||
=== === | === === | ||
==
Did Parley P. Pratt make a prophecy in 1838 to La Roy Sutherland about the latter being struck dumb and coming to an untimely end? Didn't he also claim that no unbelievers would be on the American continent within 50 years?
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]
====
Parley P. Pratt is here really more (mis)reading scripture than coming up with a prophecy out of the blue. He was mistaken, but this causes no problem for believers--even apostles can be mistaken, and an isolated apostle has no right to declare binding doctrine. New revelation would always come to the prophet--which Parley likely knew, but he just thought his reading of the scripture was obviously correct, so felt no fear in making it. But, we must remember he came out of a long religious background before joining the Church in which he had a deep sense of the second coming's urgency and imminence. So, what seemed a "natural" reading to him just wasn't.
As demonstrated in detail below, Pratt believed he was reporting the "plain sense" of the Book of Mormon—but this is not as clear as he thought it was.
The background to this statement of Pratt's is that Sutherland (the anti-Mormon to whom Pratt is replying) is complaining that the Book of Mormon makes no predictions that can be "checked" to prove its validity. Pratt disagrees, and writes:
The Book of Mormon quotes that he provides here are by page number, since verses were not added to the text until later. The references in modern-day verses would be:
It is likely that the next quote is the one to which Parley refers. He says, of this portion, "all who will not hearken to the Book of Mormon, shall be cut off from among the people; and that too, in the day it comes forth to the Gentiles and is rejected by them. And not only does this page set the time for the overthrow of our government and all other Gentile governments on the American continent, but the way and means of this utter destruction are clearly foretold; namely, the remnant of Jacob will go through among the Gentiles and tear them in pieces. like a lion among the flocks of sheep. Their hand shall be lifted up upon their adversaries, and all their enemies shall be cut off. This destruction includes an utter overthrow, and desolation of all our Cities, Forts, and Strong Folds--an entire annihilation of our race, except such as embrace the Covenant, and are numbered with Israel."
Here's the entire chapter:
These verses are quoting the resurrected Christ. So, it seems that Parley is reading these verses about how the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is a sign, and he sees the destruction to come afterward as quite imminent: when he testifies in "the name of Jesus Christ," he is essentially citing Christ, and assuming that his interpretation of the scripture is accurate. This type of reading was very common among Mormons and non-Mormons at the time; many saw the end as near. So, it is entirely natural that Parley might take that reading.
However, it is hard for later readers to read these verses and say that it is as explicit as all that. The scripture uses the term "in that day," which is typical of Isaiah's millennial prophecies in the KJV. So, I think Parley misunderstood these verses, and assumed that this meant that the end would be very near to the Book of Mormon's publication and so saw them as a prophecy with a clear time-frame.
Unfortunately for his argument, I don't think this was not the case. The Book of Mormon simply isn't that clear or specific. And, notably, Joseph Smith (the prophet and president of the Church) made prophecies which insisted that the end would not come within the time frame that Parley offered up.
In this case that Elder Pratt was simply wrong. He had no authority to declare doctrine for the Church. What he was doing, it seems, was instead reading scripture and interpreting what he thought was a prophecy contained therein. If he had been right in his reading, then of course his prophecy would have been true, since scripture has the authority to give prophecy. But, it is hard to read the scripture and think that this is as clear-cut as he makes it out to be. It isn't.
Parley likely wanted a response to Sunderland's argument, but Sunderland was right--there is no prophecy in the Book of Mormon that is specific enough that someone in 1838 could have said, "Oh yeah, this is obviously from God, it foretold X." And, while Sunderland may think that a weakness, modern believers would probably see it as normal and expected--God does not give "signs" like that. There may well be prophecies we can appreciate, but they won't be so compelling that they will force people to believe, and we may not see them until "after the fact."
In sum, Parley is here really more (mis)reading scripture than coming up with a prophecy out of the blue. He was mistaken, but that's OK--even apostles can be wrong, and an isolated apostle has no right to declare binding doctrine. New revelation would always come to the prophet--which Parley likely knew, but he just thought his reading of the scripture was obviously correct, so felt no fear in making it. But, we must remember that he came out of a long religious background before joining the Church in which he had a deep sense of the second coming's urgency and imminence. So, what seemed a "natural" reading to him just wasn't.
It's a good reminder that what we think is really obvious about scripture may not be so; our own biases and cultural presuppositions come into it. (This article may be doing the same thing, of course, reading it with more historical distance, but a compelling case can certainly be made, nonetheless, that the Book of Mormon is not near so precise or specific as Parley thought.)
If the Book of Mormon had actually said what Parley thought it did, and did so as specifically as he thought it did, that might pose a problem. But, he's mistaken about what it says, and so the Book of Mormon stands or falls on Parley's misreading.
What Parley was likely trying to do was force Sunderland to take the Book of Mormon seriously (since this argument in itself would have proved nothing to Sunderland, since it was well in the future). Parley took the Book of Mormon text more seriously than many of his fellow Saints, and so he was probably trying to encourage his readers to give it a fair shot.
That is good advice, even if his application or reading was flawed in this case.
== Notes ==

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now