Posted on 09/20/2010 4:23:53 PM PDT by Colofornian
American Fork » Former LDS seminary principal Michael Jay Pratt will spend at least five years in prison for sexually abusing a student 20 years younger than himself.
Fourth District Judge Christine Johnson imposed concurrent sentences of five years to life in prison for first-degree felony forcible sodomy and two object rape charges, and one to 15 years for forcible sexual assault, a second-degree felony. Johnson said it was a sentence that best balanced the needs of justice and mercy in a case that carried heavy religious overtones.
Pratt pleaded guilty to the crimes in June as part of an agreement in which prosecutors dropped 11 other charges.
Pratt’s attorney, Stephen McCaughey, sought to get Pratt two years in the Utah County Jail followed by a lengthy probation. He said Pratt had no prior criminal record, and the case did not involve violence or physical force. McCaughey argued Pratt would likely serve about six years in prison on the charges.
Pratt said he was sorry for what he had done, and was given enough time to hug his wife before he was escorted from the courtroom by sheriff’s deputies.
Johnson said Pratt’s position as a teacher and spiritual adviser at Lone Peak High School placed him in a position of trust which he abused.
The victim and her family also told the court how Pratt had gained their trust as a dedicated, popular teacher and church leader who was helping the victim through a rough spot in life. He then manipulated the victim into going along with his sexual fantasies.
“Justice was served, but it is a tragedy,” the victim’s stepfather said after the hearing.
He states: Latter-day Saints believe in Christ as the Savior, the Redeemer, the Son of God, the Creator of the earth, and the only source of salvation. (I used bold to point a particular part.)
However, B. Young and J. Smith among other lds leaders have said:
“If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]” - (as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142)
There is “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God” - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190
You (lds) believe in salvation "after all you can do" and passing by with the permission of Joseph Smith into heaven.
Which do you believe? Do you believe that salvation comes after all you can do and the permission of Joseph Smith (which is what lds teach) or in the Grace of Jesus Christ for Salvation (which is the Word of God)?
As a member of the LDS faith, I can tell you our religion is centered around the worship of Christ. I know the Michael Moore-like religious propaganda you’re subjected to tells you otherwise, but it is quite true that we worship Christ as our Savior. The tactics of those who smear our faith are little different than the tactics used by Michael Moore and other leftist fever-swamp types in smearing Republicans and in smearing the Bush presidency during the Bush years.
YOUR interpretation of the Christ of the Bible. The LDS faith worships Christ. Just because he isn’t the illogical embodiment of Christ you worship, where he is also God the father despite God the Father testifying of him when John the Baptist baptized him and the Holy Ghost came down in the form of a dove, thus showing they are 3 separate and distinct personages, doesn’t mean we don’t worship Christ. Also, check the Mount of Transfiguration...God and Christ were clearly present there IN SEPARATE FORMS. Who was running the universe while Christ was in the womb and a baby if he is also God the Father? They are one God in purpose, not one in body. If anything, it is you lot that do not worship the Christ portrayed in the Bible, but one illogical form of Christ concocted by man. See the Nicine Counsel.
Yes, because others aren’t getting “a touch personal” in attacking the sacred beliefs of others on here. Please. I call a hater a hater. See his screaming, all caps post for proof.
misses -
If you are going to present the doctrine of the Trinity as an arguement - please have your terms and definitions correct. Your arguements - such as “Who was running the universe while Christ was in the womb and a baby if he is also God the Father?” is what is called modalism, and your presentation falsely tries to overlay it onto Trinitarianism. Please do some research - modalism does not equal Trinitarianism. To represent it as such is bearing false witness.
lds worship a created christ
I worship an eternal Christ
By your own admission, you are disregarding the clear rules of the religion forum concerning “Open Threads” of which this is one - but I guess you think you are “entitled.” Quite typical of Mormonism in my experience.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
If you do not specify the type of thread, it will be considered “open.”
Wow. Looks like they switched it up here the new word/phrase for the fall is “Michael Moore like hater”. I suppose that’s is better that whore of Babylon.
You know to outright accuse someone as if you knew all of what was inside of them not only goes against the Bible (1 Samuel 16:7 says that ONLY God -- and not man -- knows what's on the inside of man) but also goes vs. your personal standard just expressed.
You want OO to supposedly "stop your bashing of others." But who then gave you a license for bashing OO about him supposedly being "full of hate" and lacking anything of Christ???
Do you actually know Osage Orange that well to give the world a full conclusion that he lacks "everything" of Christ? And this is a person who Mormons would call their "spirit brother" from the pre-existence? And yet this is how you treat him?
So please tell us -- and show us -- which standard are we supposed to adhere to?
Option A: Your personal "all-talk" standard of not "bashing" others?
Option B: Or your personal model standard of "go ahead & bash non-Mormons" standard by accusing them of 100% replacing Christ with "hate?"
(Please choose one or the other; otherwise, it's quite confusing to us)
Why are you able to mount your bashing soapbox to accuse others, yet simultaneously you attempt to squelch the critiques of others in the same anti-Free Republic spirit that roamed Nauvoo in June, 1844 -- when the criminal-mayor Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor's means of publishing!???
Some criminals (like Smith) were vandals through and through. Other contemporary Mormons are often vandals "of the spirit" -- and would seemingly (& often) violate the First Amendment like Smith did if they could only get away with it!
Critiques & bashing for "thee, but not for thine?"
You know nothing about me. But I know much about your religion. It's a religion built on a lie..and a liar.
I actually love you...and care about you. And I hate to see you fall for a lie.......
Thank you for JUDGING!
Seriously? Am I on candid camera or something?
All you have to do is reference the Joseph Smith Translations of the clarified and/or corrected parts.
There do not exist.
Your ‘links’ are useless.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Plain as day and easy to find if you actually look.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents
Wow you are really stretching it now eh? Gonna get me on capitalization of pronouns?
It wouldn’t matter if he was “employed” by Walmart. His actions would have no reflection on Walmart. You prove me right in that you are trying to make something out of nothing.
I’ll try to remember to ping you. I have no problem with that. I assumed you would read all of my comments so I was not intending to talk behind your back. Maybe I can’t say it here but I know exactly what you are and what you are doing here. Your “issues” are fantasy fueled by your obsession.
Indeed.
I've probably appealed dozens of times on these threads for posters to be specific in their return critiques of us. My concern: They are broad & generic in their concerns & accusations!
I'll say something like, "Didn't your momma or your papa ever teach you to be specific when you criticize?"
The generic bashers resort to name-calling & personal insults.
I then typically ask a poster if they were a parent, and if they were trying to halt the specific behavior of a teen-ager, if they would be "generic" in their comments to the teen about the behavior.
I mean, come on. If I'm a teen & my parent can't tell me exactly what I'm doing wrong & be extremely specific about it, then how would I ever correct such behavior if we can't discuss specifics?
I sometimes wonder if some posters have either (a) never been parents; or (b) never been children with parents; or (c) ever disciplined their kids or gave them negative feedback on anything.
They can not be specific because if they are they reveal that what we have posted is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.