Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[rongo]

Ok, did any of you that listened to the OP's podcast, hear that the prophet is advised not to keep a journal?

Advised by whom? Shadowy and nebulous handlers?

He's the prophet, for crying out loud.

[Rivers]

Mattson said he studied Bushman, etc. did he not?

He did. I think Mattson biggest problem is that he learned about all these difficult issues so late in his life. Considering how long he had been serving in the church, I don't blame him for feeling like he had been deceived. The shock of learning all of these things was probably such a huge blow to him that very few answers will be satisfying.

As for myself, I learned about the difficult issues relatively early in my life. So the shock factor wasn't quite as high as it is for many others.

The church is certainly becoming more open about its history but are coming into the game a little too late. The damage caused by Boyd K. Packer and others has already been done.

[Calm]

But these supplements to the "available Swedish-language Church resources" didn't resolve his doubts or remove the feeling that he'd been lied to.

But at least in his case we can remove any doubt about English issues.

[Calm]

Advised by whom? Shadowy and nebulous handlers?

He's the prophet, for crying out loud.

The lawyers and business execs who really run the Church, of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

The lawyers and business execs who really run the Church, of course.

Ooh, I'm getting a sinister, star-chamber sort of feel from this exchange.

And thus, another conspiracy theory is born.

[cinepro]

Ooh, I'm getting a sinister, star-chamber sort of feel from this exchange.

And thus, another conspiracy theory is born.

Is that not the kind of thing the legal counsel to the Church might suggest? There are many theoretical situations in which the Prophet having a detailed journal might not be a good thing for legal defenders of the Church.

Edited July 26, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Stay with me: Swedes speak English at the rate of 86% of the population. Accordingly, they don't need to limit themselves to available Swedish-language Church resources for their education in Church matters. To claim, as my correspondent did, that dreck was being peddled instead of good, rigorous, historicicistical treatment of historical sources in the available Swedish resources ignores that Swedes aren't limited to Swedish-language resources, but also may reasonably be expected to peruse English-language resources . . . and there's also this thing called the Internet, which has been around since no later than the early '90s, with stuff being available and talked about since no later than that era.

In short, the assertion was ludicrous.

The problems in Sweden are that the members didn't limit themselves to the correlated materials and did read other English language publications and websites. If they couldn't speak English, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion and no "rescue" would be needed.

In other words, reading uncorrelated English materials isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem.

In case anyone has been having trouble following along, here's the sequence of events:

1. LDS members learn about Church history and doctrine from official LDS correlated sources, including missionaries, talks, and official publications and curriculum.

2. These members then read other publications or websites that also discuss Church history and doctrine. These other publications present information that either presents new information, or contradicts or "re-contextualizes" the correlated version they're familiar with.

3. Some degree of discomfort, doubt, cognitive dissonance, or other negative emotion enters the picture.

4. In seeking resolution, the answers presented by "The Church" (whether through official channels or via unofficial defenders or publications) are unsatisfactory and unable to negate or resolve the problem.

The Church needs to address #1 and #4, because #2 and #3 aren't going away.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that not the kind of thing the legal counsel to the Church might suggest? There are many theoretical situations in which the Prophet having a detailed journal might not be a good thing for legal defenders of the Church.

It occurs to me that notes, meeting minutes, schedules, agendas, logs, itneraries, etc. kept by secretaries, aides, administrative assistants and the like are apt to be far more detailed overall than any diary or daybook the Church president might personally keep. If the theoretical legal counsel is worried about the Church president recording potentially sensitive or damaging information, wouldn't the lawyers be just as concerned or more concerned about records kept by ancillary staff?

In a Church that so strongly emphasizes history and record-keeping, I find such alleged paranoia rather odd.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The problems in Sweden are that the members didn't limit themselves to the correlated materials and did read other English language publications and websites. If they couldn't speak English, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion and no "rescue" would be needed.

In other words, reading uncorrelated English materials isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem.

I submit that merely reading uncorrelated English materials perhaps isn't the problem so much as uncritically consuming certain uncorrelated material, combined with the choices and judgment one makes about whom to trust and how much credence to give a particular source and concluding too early that one has all the information one needs to come to an informed conception.

And let's keep this in perspective: Are we seeing mass defections among the membership in Sweden or is it just among a certain rather vocal segment? I wonder how many there are whom we are not hearing about who had questions, did some further reading and study, prayed about it and came to a positive resolution.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jim_mason]

No matter the language there isn't a satisfactory answer for question people have about the lives of people long gone from the earth.

I read part of what is claimed to be a transcript from the meeting with the Swedish Saints who had concerns; I forced myself to stop reading and concluded that attempts by "intellectuals" to "answer" questions is more damaging, to me, than the issued raised. There are issues which do not have adequate or reasonable explanations, and to try and "intellectually" explain them away is futile.

[Johnnie Cake]

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 kif 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.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.

CFR that it was recorded 10 years after his first pural marriage. There is no record that he was ever married to his house maid Fanny. That's just post relationship apologetics

[Scott Lloyd]

No matter the language there isn't a satisfactory answer for question people have about the lives of people long gone from the earth.

I read part of what is claimed to be a transcript from the meeting with the Swedish Saints who had concerns; I forced myself to stop reading and concluded that attempts by "intellectuals" to "answer" questions is more damaging, to me, than the issued raised. There are issues which do not have adequate or reasonable explanations, and to try and "intellectually" explain them away is futile.

I read most of it as well, and somewhat of the feeling I got was a torches-and-pitchforks mentality from people who wanted to talk more than they wanted to listen.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Mattson said he studied Bushman, etc. did he not?

[USU78]

He did. I think Mattson biggest problem is that he learned about all these difficult issues so late in his life. Considering how long he had been serving in the church, I don't blame him for feeling like he had been deceived. The shock of learning all of these things was probably such a huge blow to him that very few answers will be satisfying.

As for myself, I learned about the difficult issues relatively early in my life. So the shock factor wasn't quite as high as it is for many others.

The church is certainly becoming more open about its history but are coming into the game a little too late. The damage caused by Boyd K. Packer and others has already been done.

So . . . his incuriousity is the issue here, and not the availability of resources.

[cinepro]

I submit that merely reading uncorrelated English materials perhaps isn't the problem so much as uncritically consuming certain uncorrelated material, combined with the choices and judgment one makes about whom to trust and how much credence to give a particular source and concluding too early that one has all the information one needs to come to an informed conclusion.

And let's keep this in perspective: Are we seeing mass defections among the membership in Sweden or is it just among a certain rather vocal segment? I wonder how many there are whom we are not hearing about who had questions, did some further reading and study, prayed about it and came to a positive resolution.

That's certainly one possibility. Obviously, the Church needs to correctly identify the problem (or if there even is a "problem") before they can attempt to address it.

Based on the transcript of the Swedish fireside and your post above, I can only offer my opinion that the Church and some LDS have totally missed the boat on this. I would never underestimate the Church's ability to realize a mistake and improve in the future, but for now, in July 2013, watching the Church try to deal with the issue is like watching a slow motion train wreck.

[USU78]

The Church needs to do this, after which we'll all eat peaches and cream.

The Church needs to do that, after which we'll all eat peaches and cream.

The Church needs to do the other, after which we'll all eat peaches and cream.

So much arrogance.

[Scott Lloyd]

So . . . his incuriousity is the issue here, and not the availability of resources.

And if that's the case, he is certainly not unique.

[WmLaw]

So . . . his incuriousity is the issue here, and not the availability of resources.

Don't you think this is typical with the majority of members?

I can tell you that I wasn't curious about many of those same things until I first heard about them on an internet comment board. I set off to research at that point so that I could dispute those rabid 'anti-mormons'... turns out there was quite a bit of truth there after all.

[WmLaw]

I read most of it as well, and somewhat of the feeling I got was a torches-and-pitchforks mentality from people who wanted to talk more than they wanted to listen.

I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that they were willing to listen and get answers, but they were continually told we need to move along - we're running out of time.

[USU78]

I can tell you that I wasn't curious about many of those same things until I first heard about them on an internet comment board. I set off to research at that point so that I could dispute those rabid 'anti-mormons'... turns out there was quite a bit of truth there after all.

The question then becomes, are one's shoulder's broad enough to endure the burden of adult perspective.

Primary is fine for Primary kids.

At some point, it's time to grow into our adult faculties. Most of us can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time.

I find the Mattson fellow a pitiable man indeed.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that they were willing to listen and get answers, but they were continually told we need to move along - we're running out of time.

My understanding is they were told that because they had posed so many questions, which were in turn recorded on a chalkboard or a white board or otherwise displayed, to be answered in turn within a reasonable time frame. Then, when the answers were being given, some in the audience kept interrupting with their quarreling. Also, I got the impression that a handout was provided with references -- presumably to apologetics sources -- but that some in the audience resisted this. I wondered why. Were some of the references to FAIR and FARMS sources, and have the disaffected people's minds been poisoned toward these sources?

It's hard to really know from a transcription what things were like, but the general tone I got from it was similar to city council meetings I've attended where an angry crowd has been present who are not disposed to listen.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

I suspect they keep a personal journal like some of us or not...hahaha! but maybe they don't keep a day to day journal of the incomings and outgoings of the office i.e. "met with Robin Banks, former Burglar extraordinaire, wanting to donate some of his ill gotten gain to the Church. Told him we appreciate his offer but to kindly and quietly buzz off"

[Nevo]

So . . . his incuriousity is the issue here, and not the availability of resources.

Yes, of course, Mattsson was "incurious" because he didn't second-guess everything the Church taught him. Yes, how "pitiable", how hopelessly naive of the poor man to have swallowed the Church's version of things hook, line, and sinker. How pathetic his misplaced faith in the institution and its leaders.

[Duncan]

I am wondering if this Elder Perry manuscript bit is a joke someone told that one document has all the answers to all these questions, it would be a huge document and probably wouldn't even fit into a briefcase! and who carries briefcases anymore? I though the apostles were all digital now

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, of course, Mattsson was "incurious" because he didn't second-guess everything the Church taught him. Yes, how "pitiable", how hopelessly naive of the poor man to have swallowed the Church's version of things hook, line, and sinker. How pathetic his misplaced faith in the institution and its leaders.

It's a sad state indeed when being curious is equated with second-guessing. I've never heard a Church leader give out such a notion. No reason why a rank-and-file member ought to think that.