Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[cinepro]

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.

If any of those publications mention Joseph Smith's polyandry, or the ages of his younger plural wives, I'll eat my hat.

[cinepro]

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.

If people are leaving the Church over it, then that qualifies as "relevant" for me.

[Bob Crockett]

"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.

I have a friend who is a blue-collar worker and failed small business owner who admitted to me that he doesn't read books or newspapers, that he dislikes it, and had to drop out of college because he didn't like to read. He has two siblings who are college professors, one of whom is extremely knowledgeable about the Church. All three are active church members. Some people read; some don't.

Even a very modest amount of reading about the Church would reveal controversies about Joseph Smith's polygamy, the blacks and the priesthood and many issues. During the Mark Hoffman affair, I learned of some new controversies merely by reading the Los Angeles Times.

Until I started buying books from Amazon, almost all of what I learned about controversies in the church came from books I bought at church bookstores, or BYU. I bought Metcalf's "New Approaches" from the BYU Bookstore. I learned that a church temple site pre-dated Kirtland from a book I bought at the BYU bookstore. (Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, etc.)

I say this to tell you that even a very modest amount of reading would have inoculuated your shocked friends and family members from basic controversies.

A close reading of the New Testament also reveals a lot of disaffection in the early church. I imagine people left after witnessing the miracles because they were shocked by the church's controversial doctrines and history; the Lord's institution of the eucharist is an example.

Further, the Doctrine & Covenants reveals that the Church has a mandate to maintain a faithful history for the world to read, but there is no obligation to intepret it through the re-telling of it. Arrington talks in his biography about the massive controversial library the Church maintains for researchers, but he seemed to have been criticized for using church resources to publish histories rather than doing the job for what he was called. I say this to indicate that the Church's preaching of the gospel does not require that it preach about teachings which are no longer relevant to know. Yet, viritually everything controversialyou want to read about may be found by visiting the Church's archives; it hides almost nothing (disciplinary, personnel and temple matters are usually withheld).

Your posts are not unusual, but I fault your friends for not being a little better read. It isn't that I lack compassion; it is that I wonder if there is a reason for books in the first place if people don't want to read them.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

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

You mean like DeMille -The Ten commandments

- The Robe

- David and Goliath

- The Greatest Story Ever Told

I am sure there are many more and then we get into all the more recent Jesus movies

[ERayR]

If people are leaving the Church over it, then that qualifies as "relevant" for me.

People have always left the church for one reason or another. Milk strippings, banking ventures, disagreements over doctrine and a myriad of other reasons.

[Tacenda]

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 skimmed through all of it and didn't see the pertinent stuff either, so much for that.

[canard78]

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.

He doesn't specifically discuss 132 in his interview. I'm sure he was probably was aware that the section talks about celestial marriage. Given the extent of Joseph's polygamy comes as a surprise he evidently didn't understand "the full implications" of the section.

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.

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

Here's the section header:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.

When you read this it doesn't tell you that:

- Joseph's first plural marriage was in 1833 to Fanny Alger (his housemaid)

- The revelation was not made public until the 1850s when they were in the Salt Lake valley

That was the point I was making when I said I wouldn't be surprised if some GAs didn't know "it was recorded 10 years after the first plural marriage and was not actually shared until the 1850s"

[canard78]

People have always left the church for one reason or another. Milk strippings, banking ventures, disagreements over doctrine and a myriad of other reasons.

Milk strippings... Now there's a good example of hidden history. Thanks for reminding me.

Probably the most misrepresented story in all of Mormon history. Marsh should be held up as a hero who opposed the Danites, not slandered as a man who got petty about milk.

[Biz]

Go ahead and send the usual Ad Hominem attacks my way.

Seminary Graduate, Two Year Mission, Institute Graduate, over a thousand dollars at Deseret Book, EQ Pres, Ward Mission Leader. I didn't find out that Joseph Smith had more than one wife till I was 28 years old.

I don't blame my failure of not knowing that fact on myself, it's a material fact in church history and I should have been exposed to it within my experience with the Church. Yes, I even took an Eternal Marriage Course in institute where we covered DC 132 and still didn't put it together.

It wasn't until I took a constitutional law course in my law school studies that I came across this information.

So long as you guys play blame the member the pews will get emptier and emptier.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Biz

[Biz]

Go ahead and send the usual Ad Hominem attacks my way.

Seminary Graduate, Two Year Mission, Institute Graduate, over a thousand dollars at Deseret Book, EQ Pres, Ward Mission Leader. I didn't find out that Joseph Smith had more than one wife till I was 28 years old.

I don't blame my failure of not knowing that fact on myself, it's a material fact in church history and I should have been exposed to it within my experience with the Church. Yes, I even took an Eternal Marriage Course in institute where we covered DC 132 and still didn't put it together.

It wasn't until I took a constitutional law course in my law school studies that I came across this information.

So long as you guys play blame the member the pews will get emptier and emptier.

[why me]

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.

I think that polygamy has been explained by the church on its website. Also, why is it that the spiritual experiences of the women involved never taken into account? Before accepting this principle because of doubt they prayed about it and received a strong witnesses that the principle was from god. What should be said about this when discussing whether or not Joseph acted with god's approval?

[ERayR]

Go ahead and send the usual Ad Hominem attacks my way.

Seminary Graduate, Two Year Mission, Institute Graduate, over a thousand dollars at Deseret Book, EQ Pres, Ward Mission Leader. I didn't find out that Joseph Smith had more than one wife till I was 28 years old.

I don't blame my failure of not knowing that fact on myself, it's a material fact in church history and I should have been exposed to it within my experience with the Church. Yes, I even took an Eternal Marriage Course in institute where we covered DC 132 and still didn't put it together.

It wasn't until I took a constitutional law course in my law school studies that I came across this information.

So long as you guys play blame the member the pews will get emptier and emptier.

All that education and experience and you never learned the concept of personal responsibility?

[why me]

Go ahead and send the usual Ad Hominem attacks my way.

Seminary Graduate, Two Year Mission, Institute Graduate, over a thousand dollars at Deseret Book, EQ Pres, Ward Mission Leader. I didn't find out that Joseph Smith had more than one wife till I was 28 years old.

I don't blame my failure of not knowing that fact on myself, it's a material fact in church history and I should have been exposed to it within my experience with the Church. Yes, I even took an Eternal Marriage Course in institute where we covered DC 132 and still didn't put it together.

It wasn't until I took a constitutional law course in my law school studies that I came across this information.

So long as you guys play blame the member the pews will get emptier and emptier.

I don't blame you. I can understand your issues. However, I do have a question. Lets say that church leaders at this moment in time hid the facts. And of course, that would not be right. But what does this have to do with the foundation of the church? Is the book of mormon true or false? That is the question. How did the book come to be is another question. How did JS write this book with his head in a hat? And did the witnesses experience something so extraordinary that they could not deny it throughout their lives? What do you think?

[Biz]

I don't blame you. I can understand your issues. However, I do have a question. Lets say that church leaders at this moment in time hid the facts. And of course, that would not be right. But what does this have to do with the foundation of the church? Is the book of mormon true or false? That is the question. How did the book come to be is another question. How did JS write this book with his head in a hat? And did the witnesses experience something so extraordinary that they could not deny it throughout their lives? What do you think?

I don't know how to explain this very well. It's like experiencing, learning and being taught about a painting that has been painted in Black and Gray. You find out that a bunch of colors were used to create the Black and Gray painting. You have only experienced or thought about the painting in terms of two colors. Now once you discover all of the colors you are forced to reevaluate everything you learned and experienced about the painting. So you tell the teacher, you misrepresented the painting to me, now I'm going to learn on my own and see how and why I thought the painting was two colors when in reality it was many. The teacher losses his/her credibility and you go back and see how all the colors operate on your own terms. Teacher has lost their credibility.

It's not even throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water, rather, it's I'm keeping the baby and I'm finding and using my Own Water.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Biz

[why me]

Milk strippings... Now there's a good example of hidden history. Thanks for reminding me.

Probably the most misrepresented story in all of Mormon history. Marsh should be held up as a hero who opposed the Danites, not slandered as a man who got petty about milk.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that Marsh was mistreated. What would this have to do with the foundation of the church? It may have something to do with human experiences of imperfections. We are all allowed to be human at times. What I find amazing are the criticisms themselves. I can only imagine just what critics of catholicism could do with the treatment by the popes, cardinals, etc. on other people. But what would that have to do with the foundational claims of the catholic church? Not much.

However Marsh came back to the church in 1857 and this is what he said about his falling away:

After Marsh’s arrival in Salt Lake City in September 1857, Brigham Young allowed him to address the Saints. In a weakened voice, Marsh explained his apostasy and asked for forgiveness:

I have frequently wanted to know how my apostacy began, and I have come to the conclusion that I must have lost the Spirit of the Lord out of my heart.

The next question is, ‘How and when did you lose the Spirit?’ I became jealous of the Prophet, and then I saw double, and overlooked everything that was right, and spent all my time in looking for the evil; and then, when the Devil began to lead me, it was easy for the carnal mind to rise up, which is anger, jealousy, and wrath. I could feel it within me; I felt angry and wrathful; and the Spirit of the Lord being gone, as the Scriptures say, I was blinded, ... I got mad, and I wanted everybody else to be mad.23

http://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-thomas-marsh?lang=eng

He returned. He repented. Lets move on.

[Biz]

All that education and experience and you never learned the concept of personal responsibility?

Funny, ERayR

All my education and professional experience has taught me that transparency and honesty is always the best practice. In my professional legal career I have learned that men hold men to higher standards of ethical integrity than God holds his Church.

[Biz]

Funny, ERayR

All my education and professional experience has taught me that transparency and honesty is always the best practice. In my professional legal career I have learned that men hold men to higher standards of ethical integrity than God holds his Church.

I guess I expected more out of my Church.

[why me]

I don't know how to explain this very well. It's like experiencing, learning and being taught about a painting that has been painted in Black and Gray. You find out that a bunch of colors were used to create the Black and Gray painting. You have only experienced or thought about the painting in terms of two colors. Now once you discover all of the colors you are forced to reevaluate everything you learned and experienced about the painting. So you tell the teacher, you misrepresented the painting to me, now I'm going to learn on my own and see how and why I thought the painting was two colors when in reality it was many. The teacher losses his/her credibility and you go back and see how all the colors operate on your own terms. Teacher has lost their credibility.

It's not even throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water, rather, it's I'm keeping the baby and I'm finding and using my Own Water.

I suppose that the lds church should teach its history. We should all have church history lessons during sunday school. And the book should be written by critic historians of the church. This way we will all get that interpretation and if our faith is still strong we will endure to the end. I am not being funny here. This is the only way that critics will be happy with the lds church teaching its history. It must give the correct interpretation according to them.

Most churches give a faith promoting interpretation to their church. The bedbugs are hidden or interpreted in a faith promoting way. But it seems that lds history needs to be known by all lds members. Why catholics and protestants can be a little ignorant of their history is beyond me and why there is no pressure for these churches to teach their history is beyond me. However, I do see why it is stressed by lds critics. History is never perfect because history deals with human relationships which usually includes conflict. And conflict can cause a problem for faith promotion. .

But here is what I know. From the foundation of the church until now, the church has lead the way in teaching values to the human species, values that can lead a person closer to god. And it is still doing so and it does take some hits now and then for doing so. I see no evil seeds being sprouted by the church. Just the opposite. When I look at church polygamy, I see human interactions between men and women. Some had happy relationships and some had unhappy relationships. And Joseph's wives did receive spiritual confirmations that the principle is true and these carried strong spiritual experiences with them which they wrote about later in life, I believe.

What more can be said? I think that the lds church can give very faith promoting interpretations of their lds history and it will be coming sooner than later. But will the critics be happy or will they attempt to lead people away with their own interpretation? I think we know the answers to this. And the church will get into a timeless history debate.

But the foundation does not change. How did the book of mormon come about and who was behind it is the question.

Edited July 24, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I guess I expected more out of my Church.

Me too. But expectations are always a problem. Look at the early saints at the time of JS. What could some members say then?

I expected the church to make me money when I invested in the bank at kirkland.

I expected Joseph never to get angry.

I expected Joseph to be perfect but look at him..far from it.

I expected the brothers to be more respectful to others. And the sisters too.

I expected Joseph to explain his polygamy more.

I expected zion's camp to be successful.

I expected more peace at Nauvoo and not more threats.

I expected the saints to treat one another better and not get involved in worldly grievances against each other.

I expected Joseph to be more Christlike. How could he boast.

We need to remember that history was just being formed at that time. How many members fall away because of lost expectations?

[why me]

Funny, ERayR

All my education and professional experience has taught me that transparency and honesty is always the best practice. In my professional legal career I have learned that men hold men to higher standards of ethical integrity than God holds his Church.

Do the Joseph Smith Papers count? They will be there for all the world to see. And more information will come forth too. Will that make you more peaceful and content? I hope so.

[Biz]

Me too. But expectations are always a problem. Look at the early saints at the time of JS. What could some members say then?

I expected the church to make me money when I invested in the bank at kirkland.

I expected Joseph never to get angry.

I expected Joseph to be perfect but look at him..far from it.

I expected the brothers to be more respectful to others. And the sisters too.

I expected Joseph to explain his polygamy more.

I expected zion's camp to be successful.

I expected more peace at Nauvoo and not more threats.

I expected the saints to treat one another better and not get involved in worldly grievances against each other.

I expected Joseph to be more Christlike. How could he boast.

We need to remember that history was just being formed at that time. How many members fall away because of lost expectations?

Why Me, I appreciate your dialogue, this board needs more people like yourself. If you will, I'm in my 30's I honestly believe my generation was set up for failure. The way the curriculum has been produced for sunday school, priesthood, seminary, missions, institute has set up my generation for failure, I honestly believe that. When I look at those I have associated with in the Church over 50 percent of them are inactive or have left the church. I don't think it's a Lost Expectation issue as much as it's a Lowered Expectation issue, to the point we have become indifferent to what the Church has to offer. The Church in my view and many other has lost it's credibility to be spokesmen for God. That's just my two cents.

[Duncan]

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?

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=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.

We don't move up or down in callings, we move around, I doubt Mattsson was one step away from being a GA, it doesn't work like that. There are GAs now who weren't AA70's, even after the calling was created

[why me]

Why Me, I appreciate your dialogue, this board needs more people like yourself. If you will, I'm in my 30's I honestly believe my generation was set up for failure. The way the curriculum has been produced for sunday school, priesthood, seminary, missions, institute has set up my generation for failure, I honestly believe that. When I look at those I have associated with in the Church over 50 percent of them are inactive or have left the church. I don't think it's a Lost Expectation issue as much as it's a Lowered Expectation issue, to the point we have become indifferent to what the Church has to offer. The Church in my view and many other has lost it's credibility to be spokesmen for God. That's just my two cents.

I can agree with you to some extent. The manuals are boring and tedious. But was your generation set up for failure? Not as a human being. The manuals will make people better human beings. But they are still boring and tedious...most likely written by boring and tedious people hanging out in Utah. Has the church lost its credibility? I don't think so. Its credibility is demonstrated by what it teaches its members to do in this world and how it teaches its members to interact with other members of the human species.

But the church may have underestimated the power of the internet. Here is how I look at it:

Polygamy is faith promoting when we look at the individuals involved, even the wives of Joseph Smith.

MMM can be explained by most psychologists who deal with trauma, which was certainly experienced by these saints involved because of past persecution and the historical factors happening around Utah. But it was still a terrible thing.

Infightings and imperfections among the saints are just apart of our human nature and no one is perfect. For example, Cowdery, Marsh etc including Joseph Smith. By the way, both Marsh and Cowdery returned to the church. But the critics overlook this and tend to hide it.

Differing accounts of first vision show that it was not all rehearsed which is what most fraudsters would do. etc. Show me a verbal or written account that is word for word the same throughout the years, I will show you a fraud. (I made a judgement there)

Now I can find fault that more has not been done now. But in the past, throughout the seventies, eighties and early nineties, the Ensign was full of interesting articles about history, including first vision accounts, head in the hat, journal of discourses etc.

Something changed and I do believe the Ensign lost its way.

Edited July 24, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

For someone with 15,000 plus posts who hashes these things over and over day in and day out

Scott has been posting for 9 years on the board and he tends to come and go, focusing on some things and ignoring others so his posting behaviour is very uneven, but it works out to less than 5 posts a day....and these were probably weighted heavier early on from what I remember. He is not quite the obsessive poster that some of us are.

And I suspect he is the type of individual who takes cues for judgment not from a message board, but from face to face encounters with individuals so he can receive a fuller response from which to learn (body and tone language being a large part of how we accurately communicate experiences as opposed to the often dry bones one gets through a computer screen.

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Go ahead and send the usual Ad Hominem attacks my way.

Seminary Graduate, Two Year Mission, Institute Graduate, over a thousand dollars at Deseret Book, EQ Pres, Ward Mission Leader. I didn't find out that Joseph Smith had more than one wife till I was 28 years old.

I don't blame my failure of not knowing that fact on myself, it's a material fact in church history and I should have been exposed to it within my experience with the Church. Yes, I even took an Eternal Marriage Course in institute where we covered DC 132 and still didn't put it together.

It wasn't until I took a constitutional law course in my law school studies that I came across this information.

So long as you guys play blame the member the pews will get emptier and emptier.

It's ok, people who are well informed get this. The official Church historians get this and have been saying that there's a need for the church to be more open and not only present its best face. It's just people on this board that still feel the need to defend the church in every point possible.

They excuse the church's problems by reminding us the church and leaders are fallible generally. But any time you point out one of the church's fallibilities they reply: "No, no, no... that's not one of them, that's you."