Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[Tacenda]

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.

I agree, it's as if he's threatened by someone's disbelief.

[Calm]

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

It seems clear, however, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_eternal_marriage

[Tacenda]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_eternal_marriage

I think it was an affair, but dressed up to look like it was on the up and up.

[Calm]

I wonder why they're advised not to.

This is what Bro. Mattsson is saying, right? If so, he may have misunderstood.

[ERayR]

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.

No we could call him sidetracked so we ought to add about five more to the list that ought to be read in between each set of books Just to add a little perspective to evaluate the others by.

The Old Testament

The New Testament

The Book of Mormon

The Doctrine and Covenants

The Pearl of Great Price

Edited July 27, 2013 by ERayR

[Calm]

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?

I would like to hear the actual words used to describe the directive, whether it was all journal writing or of a specific type....such as dealing with confidential matters involving specific individuals that might end up being legally relevant, such as excommunications over criminal behaviour. Edited July 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I think it was an affair, but dressed up to look like it was on the up and up.

Surprise! Surprise! What would it take for you to take them at their word just once?

[Calm]

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.

USU can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he means prior to the faith crisis, where there would have been no need to learn more for any reason but curiosity.

I don't think such a conclusion needs to be drawn, we have no way of knowing why he didn't do research prior to encountering issues and if he started researching because of curiosity first and only later was driven to it looking for answers due to a faith crisis, then he was at least curious for a significant part (in terms of importance, not length) of his life.

[Calm]

No we could call him sidetracked so we ought to add about five more to the list that ought to be read in between each set of books Just to add a little perspective to evaluate the others by.

The Old Testament

The New Testament

The Book of Mormon

The Doctrine and Covenants

The Pearl of Great Price

Is there any reason to suppose he was not reading his scriptures while he was doing the research? Or maybe I have misread you in this case and you are just speaking generally as a preventive or aid for a faith crisis. Edited July 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Surprise! Surprise! What would it take for you to take them at their word just once?

I have major trust issues. Once burned.....

[jim_mason]

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.

I can not read it more than I have. I did not find what I read to be faith promoting.

[ERayR]

Is there any reason to suppose he was not reading his scriptures while he was doing the research? Or maybe I have misread you in this case and you are just speaking generally as a preventive or aid for a faith crisis.

Cal I have no idea my list was in response to Nevo's suggested reading list to USU78 and Canard's response.

[canard78]

I agree, it's as if he's threatened by someone's disbelief.

I think that's a good summation. When I've expressed things to people that mildly go against orthodox Mormon views (sometimes unfounded but cultural) I am often met with consternation.

A statement like "Confucius was inspired by God" or "I don't depend on Nephi being a person in history to still find value in reading the Book of Mormon."

[cinepro]

Surprise! Surprise! What would it take for you to take them at their word just once?

To be fair, he is taking Oliver Cowdery at his word.

[ERayR]

I have major trust issues. Once burned.....

So do I to some extent. It prompts me to do a little extra research not jump to unwarranted conclusions.

[jim_mason]

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.

In my opinion some of the interruptions were justified.

However, I do not find justification in leaving or reducing one activity in the Church over finding out the various translations methods, Joseph Smith was a what we would consider a polygamist and polyandrous.

Edited July 27, 2013 by jim_mason

[canard78]

This is what Bro. Mattsson is saying, right? If so, he may have misunderstood.

Yes, he says so about 10 minutes from the end of part 2 of the Dehlin interview (or possibly part 3).

[canard78]

I can not read it more than I have. I did not find what I read to be faith promoting.

Neither did the Swedes. It was a combination of lecturing on faithfulness and half answers to serious questions.

Edited July 27, 2013 by canard78

[Duncan]

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.

then again there are people in the Church who have forgotten more about LDS Church History then Mattsson, me or others will ever know, what seperates them from us? Bushman knows more about Joseph Smith then Mattsson ( I am not saying that as a cut against Mattsson) but what seperates Bushman from Mattsson?

[Calm]

Cal I have no idea my list was in response to Nevo's suggested reading list to USU78 and Canard's response.

Got it.

Too many conversations going on in one thread, lol.

Edited July 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

but what seperates Bushman from Mattsson?

10 million dollar question...and if you've got an answer that we can apply to get those who responded like Mattsson to be able to see things like Bushman or at least be like him at peace with whatever paradigm he has personally constructed, I'd give you 20 million....if I had it, that is.

[ERayR]

To be fair, he is taking Oliver Cowdery at his word.

Tacenda:

I think it was an affair, but dressed up to look like it was on the up and up.

[canard78]

then again there are people in the Church who have forgotten more about LDS Church History then Mattsson, me or others will ever know, what seperates them from us? Bushman knows more about Joseph Smith then Mattsson ( I am not saying that as a cut against Mattsson) but what seperates Bushman from Mattsson?

It's a fair question and one I've asked myself.

I had lunch with a fairly well-known "blogging apologist" once and asked him if there was anything that he thought could break his testimony. Any undiscovered piece of evidence?

He didn't answer directly but admitted there were things from church history that had no good answer and bothered him deeply. "For example, when I get to the other side I'll have some serious questions about the practice of polygamy," he said "I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph offers his apologies for some gross errors of judgement in implementing it. Or maybe in practicing it at all."

He paused in thought and then continued: "But I don't let that drive me out of the church for two reasons: first, there is simply too much evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon for me. It more than counters the possible errors of human leaders to consider this all to be one big fabrication. Second, I wouldn't want my wife to leave me because of my weaknesses and I wouldn't leave her for her few. The church is like a friend and I love being a member of it. If I left I would feel like I was stabbing it in the back."

I accept that in the end, with the same resources, we make a choice. I don't accept that if everyone has the same information as Bushman that they would all stay (or become). They would also need to share the same attitude and faith choices.

The historical information available to us, limited by the dichotomy of time, leaves us all with a choice based on spiritual experiences and faith.

I believe Mattsson is sincere when he says he has gone through that process and reached a different conclusion to you or Bushman I hope people will accept that I am also sincere when I say the same.

[Duncan]

10 million dollar question...and if you've got an answer that we can apply to get those who responded like Mattsson to be able to see things like Bushman or at least be like him at peace with whatever paradigm he has personally constructed, I'd give you 20 million....if I had it, that is.

I have an answer that I am at peace with and historical difficulties don't bother me one bit, again not saying anything against bro. Mattsson, like Joseph wives? who cares, I am trying to get one of me own, others are on their own man! hhaha!

i'll take that 10 million bucks now, I like you so i'll give you a discount

[canard78]

10 million dollar question...and if you've got an answer that we can apply to get those who responded like Mattsson to be able to see things like Bushman or at least be like him at peace with whatever paradigm he has personally constructed, I'd give you 20 million....if I had it, that is.

See my previous post. Summarised in one word... Choice.

Now where's my $20million?