Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[bdouglas]

See here.

And here.

And here.

This is recent, LDS.org....

[ERayR]

You know the cliche that "perception is reality". It doesn't do any good for Scott Lloyd or others like him to point out how the information was there all along, all you had to do was look, etc. The question you have to ask yourself, do I want to be right, do I want to win, or do I want to be helpful?

I am trying to be helpful. I again point out the problem is not with the information nor its availability. The problem lies with the choices one makes after they receive the information. Those that are grounded by personal revelation (the Moroni Promise) that the restoration is true and the Book of Mormon is what it is professed to be will see that all this sensational information, they were blindsided with, is really irrelevant.

I just want you to understand that the only way to help is to get everybody to the personal revelation point then it will not matter what tid bit of information comes along, they will be able to handle it.

Edited July 24, 2013 by ERayR

[teddyaware]

Let me know how that works out for you.

With humility I say it's worked out exceedingly well for me. Remember, humans have a great tendency to project their own emotions and the consequences of their own life's experiences onto others. People should be careful to not allow themselves to succumb to the temptation of assuming that just because they are jaded, skeptical, cynical and disillusioned that others who are filled with faith, hope, joy, godly knowledge and love aren't having an authentic and very real experience. Psychological projection can often be a great distorter and deceiver.

Edited July 24, 2013 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

This is recent, LDS.org....

These are online editions of Church curriculum materials that have been in circulation for decades.

[bdouglas]

Blindsided is a sensationalistic term to pass the blame to somebody else.

So what do you say when my good and faithful brother, who has been a bishop, a missionary, and has probably paid 500k in tithing over a lifetime--what do you say to this person when he says to you,

"I feel like I've been blindsided by this new info. I never had any idea about this" etc., etc.

"Blindsided is sensationalistic. You're exaggerating," you reply. "It is an inflammatory term."

He says, "But the ground feels like its gone from under my feet. I don't know what to believe anymore. My wife says she's going to leave me. I can't think of any other word but blindsided to describe the way I feel."

Not both but only one of my brothers used the word to describe the way he feels, and I have heard the word used by others. When a person comes with two fingers cut off and he is bleeding profusely and he says "I feel like I'm going to bleed to death" do you chastise him for being sensationlistic or do you set about to help him? It is nice to be in a secure perch where your faith is secure and the cosmos are all order and in their proper place, but for others who are going thru upset--

[bdouglas]

These are online editions of Church curriculum materials that have been in circulation for decades.

You are fond of CFR others so I will CFR you that these materials "have been in circulation for decades."

[Teancum]

So will I.

I have first-hand knowledge of this. I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. I know what I'm talking about. Believe me, we may well discover one day that this man had other issues.

The case of George P. Lee is a good example. He was excommunicated for "apostacy" because he argued with the Brethren over a point of doctrine and wouldn't relent. However, we later discovered he was actually a child molestor.

I'm not accusing Mattsson of such a crime, but I am saying there will be an underlying issue which has been festering for many years. His recent "epiphany" regarding the church's history is a comfort blanket for him. Especially as he has been so vocal about it.

And I beleive your obtuse position further demnstates your need to demonize an "apostate" in order to secure your own testimony. I already agreed that people become disaffected for a variety of reasons including sin. But not all become dissaffected do so in order to sin nor did sin lead to it. Only a fool or someone insecure in their own faith needs to argue such.

[Scott Lloyd]

You know the cliche that "perception is reality".

I've heard it, and I regard it as nonsense. Perception may or may not correspond with reality. "Perception" tells you that railroad tracks running parallel converge and meet at a distant point; reality is that they don't.

It doesn't do any good for Scott Lloyd or others like him to point out how the information was there all along, all you had to do was look, etc. The question you have to ask yourself, do I want to be right, do I want to win, or do I want to be helpful?

It's not being helpful to let someone believe others are to blame for his own lack of effort.

[Teancum]

Indeed, the negative baggage is probably due to misuse of or misconception of scripture. Not all judgement is to be eschewed, only unrighteous judgment.

Problem is most who use this caveat think they are judging righteously when they rarely are.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are fond of CFR others so I will CFR you that these materials "have been in circulation for decades."

I gave you the links already; all you have to do is check the copyright dates. If you can't find it online, go to a Church distribution center or perhaps a Deseret Book store, and find the print edition of the book.

[ERayR]

Problem is most who use this caveat think they are judging righteously when they rarely are.

Remember the four fingers pointing bsck snslogy.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have a GA in my family. Does that help? I know another GA, from a Latin American country, and I would be very surprised if he could tell you much about 132. The one GA in my family was a bizman and he did not know much about the scriptures compared to some. I am pretty confident in saying that I do not think he would have been able to tell you much about 132.

Uh-uh. Supposition does not answer a CFR.

[Teancum]

Remember the four fingers pointing bsck snslogy.

Sure. But I was simply pointing out observations.

[canard78]

I have a GA in my family. Does that help? I know another GA, from a Latin American country, and I would be very surprised if he could tell you much about 132. The one GA in my family was a bizman and he did not know much about the scriptures compared to some. I am pretty confident in saying that I do not think he would have been able to tell you much about 132.

Mattsson was one step from being a GA. He evidently didn't fully understand the full implications of D&C 132.

This is all going off conjecture of course. Unless we asked them, there's no way of knowing if all GAs understand that 132 is a command for Joseph to practice polygamy.

I wonder how many GAs know that it was recorded 10 years after the first plural marriage and was not actually shared until the 1850s.

Be that as it may. The fact remains that we practiced polygamy, the doctrine of it remains and there are male Mormons alive today who are sealed for eternity to more than one wife (including two or more living ones if they civilly divorced the first)... And yet... It is hardly mentioned in our lessons.

Bushman says it's not been spoken of as a matter of policy. Do you agree or disagree with his conclusion?

Mr. Bushman said in a telephone interview: “You would be amazed at the number of Mormons who don’t think Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It just wasn’t talked about. It was never mentioned in church periodicals. That was policy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us/some-mormons-search-the-web-and-find-doubt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Bushman has probably discussed Joseph's polygamy with far more Mormons than you or I and he says we'd "be amazed at the number of Mormons who don’t think Joseph Smith practiced polygamy." Why are there still people on this thread who don't accept what he is saying.

[canard78]

Remember the four fingers pointing bsck snslogy.

Dude... What happened to your 'a' key?

[Scott Lloyd]

Lol!

You do make me laugh sometimes Scott. I presume that was your dry humour, made dryer by leaving off the 'smiley'

Wasn't it.... ?

Oh...

Thing is, canard78, I don't like it when someone with an ill-founded supposition takes an unprovoked and irrelevant cheap shot at the publication I work for for doing what newspapers do: informing and entertaining with a variety of content. Sometimes, I get irritated enough to say so.

But what say we refrain from derailing this thread by hashing it over?

[omni]

Cold.

Have you seen the movie? Cold is trying to cash in on the "Mormon Cinema" craze by making a shoddy movie about sacred scripture.

[bdouglas]

It's not being helpful to let someone believe others are to blame for his own lack of effort.

Amazingly uncharitable. My brother's faith crisis is due to a "lack of effort."

My brother: "Does two years on a mission, 6 months of which were spent as an assistant to the MP count? How about 500k in tithing--and that is a conservative estimate, it may be much more. And then I served for 5 years as a bishop in Utah, and twice on a high council, and misc other callings. I have sent one son on a mission, and I have gone to church every week and done my home teaching every month" etc., etc.

"Lack of effort"--

This particular brother has never been a reader. He is an engineer and of course read his textbooks in college but I'm not aware of any other books he has read since college outside of church publications like the Ensign, maybe thumbing through a priesthood manual during priesthood. We all have our strengths and scholarship and reading is definitely not one of him.

"Lack of effort"....."Sorry, Brother, but you have failed the faith test."

I am grateful you are using your real name here on this forum. You are someone I would like to keep far from my brother. If he does come back to the church one day, it will be no thanks to "faithful" like yourself.

[bdouglas]

I gave you the links already; all you have to do is check the copyright dates. If you can't find it online, go to a Church distribution center or perhaps a Deseret Book store, and find the print edition of the book.

You are asking me to do the work on your CFR, that's not how it works. But even if this is true and this info was in the lessons of decades past, where is the info on the polyandry, the young wives, all of the stuff that people like my brother and Elder Mattson find disturbing? My brother knew about polygamy. He is descended from polygamists on both sides of his family.

Edited July 24, 2013 by bdouglas

[Scott Lloyd]

Mattsson was one step from being a GA. He evidently didn't fully understand the full implications of D&C 132.

I've not been closely following the events regarding Mattsson. But are you saying you don't think he knew what was in D&C 132? I doubt that's the case.

This is all going off conjecture of course. Unless we asked them, there's no way of knowing if all GAs understand that 132 is a command for Joseph to practice polygamy.

My conjecture is as good as anyone's I suppose, and I find it beyond odd to think that a man could get to be a General Authority and not understand that very clear message.

I wonder how many GAs know that it was recorded 10 years after the first plural marriage and was not actually shared until the 1850s.

You mean you're wondering how many of them never bothered to read the header to the section?

[Scott Lloyd]

You are asking me to do the work on your CFR, that's not how it works. But even if this is true and this info was in the lessons of decades past, where is the info on the polyandry, the young wives, all of the stuff that people like my brother and Elder Mattson find disturbing? My brother knew about polygamy. He is descended from polygamists on both sides of his family.

I have a couple of them here at my desk:

Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-43 student manual, copyright 1989.

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Religion 324-325, copyright 1981.

I don't have the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual at my desk, and I have to run, so I can't look it up now, but I'll try to provide it tomorrow. If you're still interested, that is.

[Scott Lloyd]

Amazingly uncharitable. My brother's faith crisis is due to a "lack of effort."

My brother: "Does two years on a mission, 6 months of which were spent as an assistant to the MP count? How about 500k in tithing--and that is a conservative estimate, it may be much more. And then I served for 5 years as a bishop in Utah, and twice on a high council, and misc other callings. I have sent one son on a mission, and I have gone to church every week and done my home teaching every month" etc., etc.

"Lack of effort"--

This particular brother has never been a reader. He is an engineer and of course read his textbooks in college but I'm not aware of any other books he has read since college outside of church publications like the Ensign, maybe thumbing through a priesthood manual during priesthood. We all have our strengths and scholarship and reading is definitely not one of him.

"Lack of effort"....."Sorry, Brother, but you have failed the faith test."

I am grateful you are using your real name here on this forum. You are someone I would like to keep far from my brother. If he does come back to the church one day, it will be no thanks to "faithful" like yourself.

I'm not condemning your brother or anyone else. Just saying each of us should take some measure of personal responsibility, and if we find our knowledge deficient in some respect or another, not to cast around for others to blame.

[bdouglas]

I have a couple of them here at my desk:

Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-43 student manual, copyright 1989.

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Religion 324-325, copyright 1981.

I don't have the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual at my desk, and I have to run, so I can't look it up now, but I'll try to provide it tomorrow. If you're still interested, that is.

I have a couple of them here at my desk:

Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-43 student manual, copyright 1989.

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Religion 324-325, copyright 1981.

I don't have the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual at my desk, and I have to run, so I can't look it up now, but I'll try to provide it tomorrow. If you're still interested, that is.

Yes, I am still interested. I went through 4 years at BYU, I graduated, and never once in any religion class was polygamy talked about, and I do not recall every hearing it talked about in any official church venue--no matter what it says in the manuals. But still, where in any manual is the real story of JS's polygamy told, where in any manual is Brig Young shown as other than happily monogamous? For my part, I like to read. I read B H Roberts church history when I was in my 20s, and several other church histories not read by the average member. But when "Sacred Loneliness" came out--well, here were things I'd never known! And then there were other books, including Bushman. I processed all of this, I'm still a believer, and if anything my faith is stronger today than it was before. To me, our history is simply the way real history always is, i.e., messy.

But others don't see it this way, and they are disturbed, and to write them off as "lack of effort" bothers me, it touches me personally.

But, enough. I'm sorry for being--well, I haven't been very nice to you, and I'm sorry. I'm sure you're right about church manuals, etc., so don't bother about your CFR.

Edited July 24, 2013 by bdouglas

[ERayR]

Yes, I am still interested. I went through 4 years at BYU, I graduated, and never once in any religion class was polygamy talked about, and I do not recall every hearing it talked about in any official church venue--no matter what it says in the manuals. But still, where in any manual is the real story of JS's polygamy told, where in any manual is Brig Young shown as other than happily monogamous? For my part, I like to read. I read B H Roberts church history when I was in my 20s, and several other church histories not read by the average member. But when "Sacred Loneliness" came out--well, here were things I'd never known! And then there were other books, including Bushman. I processed all of this, I'm still a believer, and if anything my faith is stronger today than it was before. To me, our history is simply the way real history always is, i.e., messy.

But others don't see it this way, and they are disturbed, and to write them off as "lack of effort" bothers me, it touches me personally.

But, enough. I'm sorry for being--well, I haven't been very nice to you, and I'm sorry. I'm sure you're right about church manuals, etc., so don't bother about your CFR.

Why does polygamy have to be discussed in an official church venue? It is not relevant to today. If SCOUS declares it legal then it would be relevant.

[Teancum]

Why does polygamy have to be discussed in an official church venue? It is not relevant to today. If SCOUS declares it legal then it would be relevant.

With defenses like this is it any wonder many founder?

Let me explain it to you. If polygamy was really an invention of Joseph Smith and not of God then casts a question on whether Joseph was really the prophet he claimed to be. In and of itself it may not be the deciding factor. But this, along with other problems can lead one to reasonably conclude that Joseph may have invented a lot of what he taught.