Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[Nevo]

I find the Mattson fellow a pitiable man indeed.

Just out of curiosity, USU78, how many of these books have you read?

• Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling
  
• No Man Knows My History
  
• Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith
  
• Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess
  
• Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
  
• Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power
  
• Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
  

Edited July 26, 2013 by Nevo

[Nevo]

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.

USU78 ascribed Hans Mattsson's ignorance of controversial Church history topics to his being "incurious" and remaining in a kind of intellectual "Primary." Apparently its now incumbent on all adult church members to research controversial history in addition to busying themselves with family and work responsibilities, church callings, home/visiting teaching, attending the temple, cleaning church buildings and/or landscaping church grounds, studying the scriptures and weekly lesson materials, doing family history research, indexing censuses, serving in the community, etc. To do otherwise, as Hans Mattsson apparently did for most of his adult life, is to be grossly negligent.

.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Nevo

[ERayR]

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.

I would say there was quit a bit of fact there after alland a whole lot more incorrect interpretations of those facts.

[ERayR]

Just out of curiosity, USU78, how many of these books have you read?

• Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling
  
• No Man Knows My History
  
• Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith
  
• Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess
  
• Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
  
• Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power
  
• Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
  

Your point being?

[Scott Lloyd]

I would say there was quit a bit of fact there after all and a whole lot more incorrect interpretations of those facts.

And I would venture to say, from past observation of antagonistic websites, a great deal of slanting in the presentation of those facts.

That's why I dare say many people decide too early that they have all the information they need to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

USU78 ascribed Hans Mattsson's ignorance of controversial Church history topics to his being "incurious" and remaining in a kind of intellectual "Primary."

Apparently its now incumbent on all adult church members to research controversial history in addition to busying themselves with family and work responsibilities, church callings, home/visiting teaching, attending the temple, cleaning church buildings/landscaping the grounds, studying the scriptures and weekly lesson materials, doing family history research, indexing censuses, serving in the community, etc. To do otherwise, as Hans Mattsson apparently did for most of his adult life, is to be grossly negligent.

Okay you have me confused now. Which way do you want it? I thought it was the responsibility of ranking Church leaders to inform the membership of all these issues and now you seem to think Bro. Mattson should be excused for not knowing it. Please, some consistency.

[Nevo]

Your point being?

I was just wondering how USU78's own curiosity about Church history stacks up against Brother Mattsson's, given his strong criticism of Mattsson on this point.

[Nevo]

Okay you have me confused now. Which way do you want it? I thought it was the responsibility of ranking Church leaders to inform the membership of all these issues and now you seem to think Bro. Mattson should be excused for not knowing it. Please, some consistency.

Where's the inconsistency?

[Scott Lloyd]

I was just wondering how USU78's own curiosity about Church history stacks up against Brother Mattsson's, given his strong criticism of Mattsson on this point.

So if it turned out that USU78 had not read any of those titles you listed but instead had encountered the same or similar criticisms from other sources -- say anti-Mormon websites or even apologetics websites where they are refuted, such as FAIR -- would you be faulting him?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Where's the inconsistency?

Mattsson was not a General Authority, but he did have a fairly high area leadership position. If you're saying that it's up to the leadership of the Church to provide this information to the members, why are you excusing Mattsson for not being aware of it so he could then inform other Church members under his charge?

[ERayR]

I was just wondering how USU78's own curiosity about Church history stacks up against Brother Mattsson's, given his strong criticism of Mattsson on this point.

Irrelevant as it doesn't seem to be causing him any problems.

[ERayR]

Where's the inconsistency?

Read post # 385

[USU78]

Just out of curiosity, USU78, how many of these books have you read?

• Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling
  
• No Man Knows My History
  
• Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith
  
• Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess
  
• Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
  
• Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power
  
• Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
  

Everything but the Rigdon book. On my to-do list, but just now I'm putting together a history of my Welsh maternal line back to the first Mormon who came over from Glamorganshire: some time I'll find the time. In the meantime, these Patient Griseldas (or Bronwens, if you like the Welsh Griselda) take a lot of my study time. I'm re-reading the Mabigonion as part of the background material.

[Nevo]

Mattsson was not a General Authority, but he did have a fairly high area leadership position. If you're saying that it's up to the leadership of the Church to provide this information to the members, why are you excusing Mattsson for not being aware of it so he could then inform other Church members under his charge?

Ah, okay. To clarify, when I stated in another thread that "the Church [is] now reaping the whirlwind from its policy of withholding uncomfortable truths and presenting a selective, sanitized history to its members", I am talking about the leaders who set that policy—i.e., high-ranking leaders at the COB, not local leaders.

[USU78]

I was just wondering how USU78's own curiosity about Church history stacks up against Brother Mattsson's, given his strong criticism of Mattsson on this point.

Your trap was indeed easily seen, easily sprung.

Some folks never learn to be able to hold two thoughts in their head at the same time: "JSJr was a true prophet" & "JSJr was a frequent screw-up and could be a jerk at times." At one point in my life I had trouble holding both of those thoughts in my head at the same time. Now I don't. Mattsson apparently can't. Can you?

[canard78]

As a missionary to Sweden in the mid-'70s, I can attest from experience to what USU78 says here. All of the missionaries I knew from Sweden were fluent in English, as were nearly all of the Church members.

There were many Swedish-language curriculum materials and periodicals translated into Swedish, but many of the members simply used the English-language versions.

I had the opportunity to return to Sweden for Seatrek 2001. It would have been a perfect opportunity for me to brush up on my rusty Swedish. But though they raved about my facility with their language, I quickly realized it was far less trouble -- for the Swedes as well as me -- to spend most of my time communicating in English.

I know Swedes can (almost) all speak English. I have very good friends from Sweden and Norway.

My point was that your "correspondent" hasn't said anything about the limitations of Swedish language resources but the limitations of the LDS resources which didn't answer their questions, meaning instead they needed to go to other sources for answers. I don't think he mentioned the Swedish language.

[canard78]

Delete dupe

Edited July 27, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Ok, did any of you that listened to the OP's podcast, hear that the prophet is advised not to keep a journal? And just the other day I listened to a podcast about the Mark Hoffman case where the investigators ask Pres. Hinckley if he keeps a journal or day planner, and he said he didn't have one. So maybe true, but that's odd, since for a long time we've been told to keep a journal.

I did. I was sad to hear it.

Many of the great lessons and insights we've gained about the prophets have not been through their public speeches, but through their private writings (letters and journals).

President Kimball's belief that the priesthood ban was an "error" for example.

Or even the experience of President Snow being visited by Christ in the temple (which was never discussed publicly while he was alive).

I wonder why they're advised not to.

[canard78]

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.

So do you presume that the GAs of the church are not told to discard journal writing and that Elder Mattsson misunderstood the directive he has been given?

[canard78]

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.

Keep reading. It's not a "claimed transcript, "it's a transcript. The mp3 is available online, with Elder Jensen's recognisable voice leading the meeting.

There are about 15 questions asked, but very few satisfactory answers given.

[canard78]

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

Funny. Or is that a real CFR? Just in case (and I hate to leave them hanging):

Search for Fanny Alger on LDS.org and you get this result that list their marriage as "about 1833."

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/SGY7-GFL

Hales moves the date back to 1835 with the following sources:

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSWives/FannyAlger.html

D&C 132 was (according to History of the Church v5) recorded in 1843 and made public in 1852:

It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii).

The Prophet consented and told William Clayton to get some paper to write; but to his brother’s “urgent request” that the Prophet use the Urim and Thummim to recall the exact revelation, Joseph replied that he did not need it, “for he knew the revelation from beginning to end” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii). When he had finished dictating, William Clayton read it back slowly, and Joseph said that it was exact.

"The revelation was not made public until Elder Orson Pratt, under the direction of President Brigham Young, announced it at a Church conference on 29 August 1852. The revelation was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876."

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng

[canard78]

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.

Or people who wanted straight answers instead of obfuscation.

[canard78]

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

Whose incuriosity? Mattsson's? He's been studying this for 8 years and has read countless books. I know some people who are incurious about church history? Mattsson's not in that category.

[canard78]

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.

You're doing a fine job of discrediting the work of the apologetic response to Mattsson.

The more you make your arguments a character assassination the less interested I am in what you have to say. So now we have 3-4 more ad hominem items for our growing list:

- Childish/a kid

- Limited intellect/unable to hold two thoughts in his mind

- Pitiable (adjective: evoking or deserving contemptuous pity; miserable; contemptible)

- Weak/Lacking broad shoulders

This coupled with the previous suggestions from others of him being:

- A fraud

- Manipulative

- A liar

- Naive

- Ignorant

- A yokel

Like I said, you undermine those would respond to the issues raised in this episode when you instead try to discredit the person who raised them in the first place.

It's an old tactic. And it doesn't work. In fact it does the opposite.

[canard78]

Your point being?

That someone who has waded through that reading list for 8 years can hardly be called "incurious" or lacking in intellect as USU78 wishes to.