Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[Questing Beast]

...

It is regrettable indeed if anyone is getting the idea in the Church that learning, study, education, scholarship are unnecessary, when the scriptures clearly say otherwise.

But then, that might be one more hazard of relying on spoon feeding for one's knowledge.

Define "spoon fed". The present, and long-standing curriculum of the Church is pablum. Compared to the manuals the Church published in the 50s and into the 60s what we have had for most of my life is shallow to the point of nonexistent. The depth of the kingdom of God is indeed shallow judged by the curriculum. It has been dumbed down continually.

That isn't the problem, however, since available books of great depth are always there. The problem comes when the dumbed down education runs smack into controversy, even inconsistency, with the pablum. When scholars in the Church have introduced the "issues" with the simple history of the Church, it cannot be made to fit the information that comes through the curriculum. I don't see what else the Church leadership could have done, though, to prod the membership into greater efforts of study. But the results are inevitable: members will increase in numbers, who see a problem where they saw none before. The Net will help out there, just as the Net has increased awareness of the "issues" to the tipping point.

My problem isn't that I lacked the information (aside from JS's polyandry, nothing else I have known about him was troubling enough to move him out of the position of "prophet"), but that the information confirmed a suspicion I had fought for decades, which I have expressed somewhat before: a fundamental problem I have visualizing "God" as in any way bound by the plan of salvation. The doubt includes the concept taught by Mormonism that the Godhead is composed of glorious human beings, even those who have experienced mortality on their way to becoming "gods"; and this is supposed to answer the question of "Cause" for existence. Obviously, to me anyway, it does not begin to answer the question of Cause of existence in the first place. So the entire paradigm of Judeo-Christianity does not make sense to me. That growing awareness of my problem is what galvanized me into a much deeper study of the religion of my nativity; in the hope that I would come to know Jesus Christ through the study of his prophets and their revealed religion. Instead of coming to know Christ the God of Creation, I came to accept Jesus as mostly a historically manipulated personality, and that all religions do the manipulation of their history thing. I expect they always will.

The resulting personal religion for me is much more broad, and continually deepening. I cannot "go back" to what I tried to believe before because it isn't big enough. That probably looks very arrogant to a reader. I feel the opposite of arrogant. Along the way I picked up this mantra: "I know practically nothing about almost everything". And rather than a challenge to eradicate this condition of ignorance, it forms my perspective of my knowledge compared to "God's", therefore it will never change. No matter how much I "know", it will always be insignificant compared to "God's" knowledge.

None of us in fact "KNOWS" what s/he is talking about. We assume a great deal. Certainty is very distorting and can be dangerous....

[ERayR]

I choose to follow the evidence, pray and seek guidance. And yes this has resulted in a modification of what your refer to as my previous testimony. Do you ingore evidence over dogma when you read, pray and ponder?

A testimony based on information that was not accurate or fully disclosed or discovered can be misleading.

I prefer to weigh the "evidence" . What is its source and how it fits with what I have already weighed and proven. I prefer not to let someone else dictate my life's course.

I have learned to listen and receive personal revelation, at least at a rudimentary level, when I read, ponder and pray. It is sometime quite amazing.

A testimony should be based on your personal revelation. If you base it on anything else it simply becomes another Wal-Mart choice.

Edited July 24, 2013 by ERayR

[Questing Beast]

The whole point is that you should do what God (our Father) tells you to do, and believe what he tells you is true. If he says jump, then you should be jumping, and if he tell you that you should be dunk under some water to fulfill his command to be baptized then you should look for someone who is authorized to do the dunking. It may not look like much or make much sense to you, but it is a work of obedience and we should show that we are willing to do what he says, and without murmuring or complaining about what he tells you to do.

And don't go blaming our Father for your ignorance when you don't know who to believe. You can always talk with him and get an answer from him to assure you if someone is speaking for him or for someone else. Knowing who to blame is a matter of knowing who is responsible for what they are doing and not everybody is acting in behalf of our Father.

As I said above, certainty is distorting and can be dangerous. You say, God will assure me if someone is speaking for him or for someone else. You say, "If he says jump than should be jumping". Fair enough. Who could argue with that? I'm listening, and as far as I can tell, I "jumped" when he said "jump", and here I am....

[Ahab]

As I said above, certainty is distorting and can be dangerous. You say, God will assure me if someone is speaking for him or for someone else. You say, "If he says jump than should be jumping". Fair enough. Who could argue with that? I'm listening, and as far as I can tell, I "jumped" when he said "jump", and here I am....

As far as you can tell, huh. Just stop balking against outward ordinances as if you don't need them for your salvation. If you really can't tell you need them right know, maybe better you'll get better at telling.

[ERayR]

As I said above, certainty is distorting and can be dangerous. You say, God will assure me if someone is speaking for him or for someone else. You say, "If he says jump than should be jumping". Fair enough. Who could argue with that? I'm listening, and as far as I can tell, I "jumped" when he said "jump", and here I am....

Are ou comfortable where you are? Will you still be comfortable where you are if you find you were wrong and are stuck where you are?

[Questing Beast]

Are ou comfortable where you are? Will you still be comfortable where you are if you find you were wrong and are stuck where you are?

That's what I am talking about: I don't believe in "last chances", or finality in eternity. "God" is "to blame" for Creation, that means in order for "God" to not be a monster, everyone must be created as a creature of joy. To assume that we dead end short of being as joyful as our capacity allows for is a heinous doctrine. "Hell" is temporary, and only what we make ourselves. Likewise "heaven" is what we choose for ourselves. No two of us are exactly alike, and the range of intellects is literally infinite: that's Mormon scripture: "These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am ^amore intelligent than they all." So it makes no sense to assume that there is some sort of "pigeon hole" game being played here. With so much variety in sapient intellect a singular, dogmatic, religion is the creation of men, not of God....

[Ahab]

So it makes no sense to assume that there is some sort of "pigeon hole" game being played here.

We are at different stages of advancement in our progression to be like our Father, and we can classify the various stages by the particulars associated with each of the stages. That's what the "pigeon holes" are all about. People at higher stages don't do some of the things associated with the lower stages because of the fact that they have moved on to a higher stage.

With so much variety in sapient intellect a singular, dogmatic, religion is the creation of men, not of God....

A religion is simply a way of life, and even God has a way of living that he recommends that others follow because it is the way that he lives.

[ERayR]

That's what I am talking about: I don't believe in "last chances", or finality in eternity. "God" is "to blame" for Creation, that means in order for "God" to not be a monster, everyone must be created as a creature of joy. To assume that we dead end short of being as joyful as our capacity allows for is a heinous doctrine. "Hell" is temporary, and only what we make ourselves. Likewise "heaven" is what we choose for ourselves. No two of us are exactly alike, and the range of intellects is literally infinite: that's Mormon scripture: "These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am ^amore intelligent than they all." So it makes no sense to assume that there is some sort of "pigeon hole" game being played here. With so much variety in sapient intellect a singular, dogmatic, religion is the creation of men, not of God....

We are at least partially in agreement. I firmly believe that wherever we are stopped(pigeon holed if you will)will be where we are comfortable and will allow us the most happiness. Will we regret some of our choices, possibly but not for long methinks.

[canard78]

The whole point is that you should do what God (our Father) tells you to do, and believe what he tells you is true. If he says jump, then you should be jumping, and if he tell you that you should be dunk under some water to fulfill his command to be baptized then you should look for someone who is authorized to do the dunking. It may not look like much or make much sense to you, but it is a work of obedience and we should show that we are willing to do what he says, and without murmuring or complaining about what he tells you to do.

And don't go blaming our Father for your ignorance when you don't know who to believe. You can always talk with him and get an answer from him to assure you if someone is speaking for him or for someone else. Knowing who to blame is a matter of knowing who is responsible for what they are doing and not everybody is acting in behalf of our Father.

I agree. And with God's great ability to create personalised a curriculum I also believe he wants some people to light three sticks of incense and bow while offering their wishes and thanks.

Or wail at a wall or dunk oneself in a river.

I believe God is a pragmatist. He say things that are "more express" (D&C 19:7) and for effect. He is less interested in 'Human Doings' and more interested in 'Human Beings.' What we do is what we become. We all need to become like God. But there are many ways of doing that.

[canard78]

Define "spoon fed". The present, and long-standing curriculum of the Church is pablum. Compared to the manuals the Church published in the 50s and into the 60s what we have had for most of my life is shallow to the point of nonexistent. The depth of the kingdom of God is indeed shallow judged by the curriculum. It has been dumbed down continually.

That isn't the problem, however, since available books of great depth are always there. The problem comes when the dumbed down education runs smack into controversy, even inconsistency, with the pablum. When scholars in the Church have introduced the "issues" with the simple history of the Church, it cannot be made to fit the information that comes through the curriculum. I don't see what else the Church leadership could have done, though, to prod the membership into greater efforts of study. But the results are inevitable: members will increase in numbers, who see a problem where they saw none before. The Net will help out there, just as the Net has increased awareness of the "issues" to the tipping point.

My problem isn't that I lacked the information (aside from JS's polyandry, nothing else I have known about him was troubling enough to move him out of the position of "prophet"), but that the information confirmed a suspicion I had fought for decades, which I have expressed somewhat before: a fundamental problem I have visualizing "God" as in any way bound by the plan of salvation. The doubt includes the concept taught by Mormonism that the Godhead is composed of glorious human beings, even those who have experienced mortality on their way to becoming "gods"; and this is supposed to answer the question of "Cause" for existence. Obviously, to me anyway, it does not begin to answer the question of Cause of existence in the first place. So the entire paradigm of Judeo-Christianity does not make sense to me. That growing awareness of my problem is what galvanized me into a much deeper study of the religion of my nativity; in the hope that I would come to know Jesus Christ through the study of his prophets and their revealed religion. Instead of coming to know Christ the God of Creation, I came to accept Jesus as mostly a historically manipulated personality, and that all religions do the manipulation of their history thing. I expect they always will.

The resulting personal religion for me is much more broad, and continually deepening. I cannot "go back" to what I tried to believe before because it isn't big enough. That probably looks very arrogant to a reader. I feel the opposite of arrogant. Along the way I picked up this mantra: "I know practically nothing about almost everything". And rather than a challenge to eradicate this condition of ignorance, it forms my perspective of my knowledge compared to "God's", therefore it will never change. No matter how much I "know", it will always be insignificant compared to "God's" knowledge.

None of us in fact "KNOWS" what s/he is talking about. We assume a great deal. Certainty is very distorting and can be dangerous....

I thoroughly enjoyed this post. The idea of "going back" holds no appeal to me. But the prospect of "going forward" in a Mormon context remains a possibility. In my growing universalism I still see Mormonism as an effective environment, for me.

[canard78]

As far as you can tell, huh. Just stop balking against outward ordinances as if you don't need them for your salvation. If you really can't tell you need them right know, maybe better you'll get better at telling.

Ah... So as long as QB's truth contradicts yours, he must be wrong?

Outward ordinances are not what brings salvation. The covenants made lead to behaviour to keep them. This creates habits which in turn moulds character and who we become.

They are saving ordinances only when we keep them and allow them to create a "being" not a "doing." If you can become that way with a different ordinance or no ordinance at all it doesn't matter. The ordinances are needed Mormons. But only because of what we become by doing. And the grace of the Lamb is always what saves in the end.

[canard78]

We are at different stages of advancement in our progression to be like our Father, and we can classify the various stages by the particulars associated with each of the stages. That's what the "pigeon holes" are all about. People at higher stages don't do some of the things associated with the lower stages because of the fact that they have moved on to a higher stage.

A religion is simply a way of life, and even God has a way of living that he recommends that others follow because it is the way that he lives.

I would agree to a certain extent if your definition extends beyond the boundaries of Mormonism. I have met more people outside of Mormonism than inside of it who are at greater "stages of advancement in our progression to be like our Father."

Religion is indeed only a way of life. There are many of them. The church of the Lamb of God is the way towards godliness. But Mormonism is not the church of the Lamb. It is far bigger than that and existed long before Mormonism.

This is why, to check back into the tread's topic (!!), I don't consider the Mattssons to have stepped off the path towards godliness or to have left the church of the Lamb. They may have changed their 'vehicle' on the path, but are still heading 'up' the path, not 'down' it.

Edited July 25, 2013 by canard78

[bdouglas]

I don't read Scott's comment that way. He is speaking generally about only those whose faith crisis is due to a lack of effort, not all who have faith crisis. And it may be due only in a limited way...not making enough of an effort to find enough information out about a troubling problem prior to making a decision about it.

And if they were not committed to research and study enough to find out the level of details that they now want to know, then I would agree it does them no favours to help them think that such level of learning needs to be self directed if it is ever to be accomplished in a well done and informed manner rather than just relying on what others have predigested for you, both in and out of the faith community.

Then how is it helpful to pretend to him that he won't need to make any changes in his reading process if he truly wants to improve his knowledge?

I learn best by reading or seeing, not by hearing. My Spanish teachers still insisted I just do the same oral lessons that the rest of the students did, lessons that I did well on because by the time I was done with them I knew them by rote....but this was useless for me when presented with a new combination of words that would again sound more like someone was talking backwards than anything that made sense to me. I got an A in the course because I did so well on one thing, it balanced out the other....but I should have gotten a F on the verbal stuff if they had been intent on really teaching me because I wasn't committed enough to figure out a way to learn that worked for me. No favours done there.

Perhaps you are right and I have mis-judged him (Scott). Thanks for your comments.

[Teancum]

I prefer to weigh the "evidence" . What is its source and how it fits with what I have already weighed and proven. I prefer not to let someone else dictate my life's course.

I have learned to listen and receive personal revelation, at least at a rudimentary level, when I read, ponder and pray. It is sometime quite amazing.

A testimony should be based on your personal revelation. If you base it on anything else it simply becomes another Wal-Mart choice.

And what if my personal revelation has led me to where I am at now?

[canard78]

And what if my personal revelation has led me to where I am at now?

Unfortunately, for some Mormons, if where you are contradicts where they are - you're wrong.

[Teancum]

Unfortunately, for some Mormons, if where you are contradicts where they are - you're wrong.

Indeed.

[jim_mason]

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

You should, for your sake, get used to experiencing what you perceive as uncharitable. People like to paint a picture of other with a broad brush, especially those they know nothing about.

Edited July 25, 2013 by jim_mason

[Calm]

People like to paint a picture of other with a broad brush, especially those they know nothing about.

That's rather uncharitable!

[ERayR]

And what if my personal revelation has led me to where I am at now?

You don't have to answer to me and you are responsible for your choices so don't ask me follow it.

[ERayR]

I guess I expected more out of my Church.

What did you expect?

[Ahab]

I would agree to a certain extent if your definition extends beyond the boundaries of Mormonism. I have met more people outside of Mormonism than inside of it who are at greater "stages of advancement in our progression to be like our Father."

No you haven't. I'm sure you think you have, but that shows how little you know about what Mormonism really is.

Religion is indeed only a way of life. There are many of them. The church of the Lamb of God is the way towards godliness. But Mormonism is not the church of the Lamb. It is far bigger than that and existed long before Mormonism.

Mormonism includes being part of the church of the Lamb of God, and how to get into it.

Mormonism includes ALL that is good and true. That's what Mormonism really is.

This is why, to check back into the tread's topic (!!), I don't consider the Mattssons to have stepped off the path towards godliness or to have left the church of the Lamb. They may have changed their 'vehicle' on the path, but are still heading 'up' the path, not 'down' it.

That's why you think that way, yes, but you're not thinking correctly and completely about what Mormonism really is.

[USU78]

Something I've noticed over the more than 3 decades I've been paying attention to this sort of thing:

The Godbeite ilk are all too happy to fete and promote somebody, so long as that somebody's notoriety or position serves their overarching purpose. It is useful for such folks to seize upon an opportunity in the form of a flesh-and-blood human and flatter their vanity in such a fashion, while gaining, as they see it, public relations points for their views.

After they have drained maximum advantage, however, they tend to drop their now former favorite . . . who is left now to wonder what the h3ll just happened.

Our Swedish friend is going to be a lonely bird, and very soon as these things go. Co-opting his personal doubts for the Godbeite ilk's purposes won't last forever, or even for a very long time. Those who lionized him don't care a bit about him.

It's a very sad story to watch. I grieve for his pain . . . and the pain that will surely come, an even worse one.

[cinepro]

Our Swedish friend is going to be a lonely bird, and very soon as these things go. Co-opting his personal doubts for the Godbeite ilk's purposes won't last forever, or even for a very long time. Those who lionized him don't care a bit about him.

You're not describing a character flaw among doubters and/or apostates. You're describing a universal aspect of human behavior. It's no different than when someone joins the Church with an interesting conversion story, and they are insta-celebrities and are asked to speak in Church meetings and firesides (I've even seen a Stake Conference where several recent converts where lined up to speak one after another). And then, suddenly, they become regular members and no one cares.

It's not because we're mean and malicious. It's just the way things happen.

Edited July 25, 2013 by cinepro

[USU78]

It's not because we're mean and malicious. It's just the way things happen.

Years ago, I saw this happen with a former bishop who outed himself to a Trib reporter, with his all-so-supportive wife in tow. The end results were so very unhappy.

The wife, who chose to go and appear with him at conclaves where he was feted and pushed into the flashing cameras, kept getting to hear how disgusting her body was to him, and how he needed to free himself from the lie that was his consecrated and covenanted life. On some level she believed him, ultimately succumbing to the self-hate, as her body ate her womanhood, annihilating it and her.

The children? Neither daughter, now pushing 40, will ever marry, one son's succumbed to drugs and despair, while the "good" son, the one who went on a mission while all this was happening, spends his time trying to solve the world's problems (but none of his own) as a substitute for the family whose destruction Dad's narcissism wrought.

It's very glib and oh so worldly wise to say "that's just the way folks are," yet it is a cowardly approach to a very real and very destructive problem.

The Godbeite ilk have a lot to answer for.

[ERayR]

No you haven't. I'm sure you think you have, but that shows how little you know about what Mormonism really is.

Mormonism includes being part of the church of the Lamb of God, and how to get into it.

Mormonism includes ALL that is good and true. That's what Mormonism really is.

That's why you think that way, yes, but you're not thinking correctly and completely about what Mormonism really is.

Ahab Ahab can you only see in terms of black and white. Canard78 unless you don't have access to many LDS people I would say this (I have met more people outside of Mormonism than inside of it who are at greater "stages of advancement in our progression to be like our Father.") is a bit of hyperbole used for your own purposes. Whatever that may be. I have met and know a lot people who are not Church members who at advanced stages of being like the Father but they number comes nowhere close to outnumbering LDS members.

On the other hand I have met a few, albeit a very few, LDS members who are about as far from the Father as they can get. To paraphrase what Brigham Young once said: Nobody can outdo the Mormons. We have the best and we have the worst.