Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[Calm]

Duncan and canard....see the condition attached at the end of the offer.

When I get it, I'll be sure and remember this commitment to you two.

[Glenn101]

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.

Actually my opinion of how sincere you and Brother Matteson are is irrelevant. Both you and he know. However, I will take your word for it, and I think your words on this board tend to bear out your sincerity. Of course, that does not mean I agree with your conclusions.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

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?

I know what Kevin C would say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perry

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

[Duncan]

I know what Kevin C would say:http://en.wikipedia....illiam_G._Perry

http://www.cse.buffa....positions.html

most interesting!

[mfbukowski]

most interesting!

There was recently a whole thread on this and personality types- and I know Calmoriah was a prominent participator in that thread, and I also know she is much better than I am at digging up old threads.

Maybe if we asked really nicely.....

[canard78]

Actually my opinion of how sincere you and Brother Matteson are is irrelevant. Both you and he know. However, I will take your word for it, and I think your words on this board tend to bear out your sincerity. Of course, that does not mean I agree with your conclusions.

Glenn

Thank you.

I don't expect anyone to agree with my conclusions. I am mainly here to test my own. And participating on this board has helped me change and remould them both towards and away from 'orthodoxy.' Or at least my old perception of orthodoxy.

Where I tend to get most heavily involved in conversations like this one is where people (and I'm not saying you) say things that cast asspertions on those who are heterodox. Not only for their sake, but also for my own.

Oh, and one more. I participate because I enjoy it. And of all the vices available, a mild addiction to the mormondialogue.org message board is unlikely to get me into too much trouble.

[canard78]

There was recently a whole thread on this and personality types- and I know Calmoriah was a prominent participator in that thread, and I also know she is much better than I am at digging up old threads.

Maybe if we asked really nicely.....

This one you mean?

Genuine game changer for me.

And thanks for the links.

[Duncan]

There was recently a whole thread on this and personality types- and I know Calmoriah was a prominent participator in that thread, and I also know she is much better than I am at digging up old threads.

Maybe if we asked really nicely.....

do it! she's a good sport and great researcher! I did that meyer's briggs test in High school and got ESFJ which mean career wise I could bake a cake and for the social side commit suicide...but I want to buy a Mercedes Benz 1936 260 D first before that happens

[Calm]

There was recently a whole thread on this and personality types- and I know Calmoriah was a prominent participator in that thread, and I also know she is much better than I am at digging up old threads.

Maybe if we asked really nicely.....

Is that the one where canard said 'it all makes sense now!' after one of Kevin's ultrainsightful comments or something along those lines?

[Calm]

Genuine game changer for me.

And here I was just making a joke.

[canard78]

Is that the one where canard said 'it all makes sense now!' after one of Kevin's ultrainsightful comments or something along those lines?

Pretty much

[mfbukowski]

http://www.mormondia...ns-and-anomaly/

This one you mean?

Genuine game changer for me.

And thanks for the links.

Yep- That's the one!

One of the best ever, I think.

[rongo]

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.

I take it you've read "How Green Was My Valley" (Bronwen is the wife of an older brother that Huw has a crush on). I've read it in German, and it was much better than the Best Picture winner (Maureen O' Hara, Roddy McDowell, etc.).

[Johnnie Cake]

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:

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

Thanks for responding to my CFR and confirming that there is no record of Joseph smith ever marrying Fanny ... Assuming a marriage is not the same as an actual marriage

[canard78]

I take it you've read "How Green Was My Valley" (Bronwen is the wife of an older brother that Huw has a crush on). I've read it in German, and it was much better than the Best Picture winner (Maureen O' Hara, Roddy McDowell, etc.).

Is that the one where the lad down the coal mine gets taught to read?

My brother played the lead in that. We were very proud.

[canard78]

Thanks for responding to my CFR and confirming that there is no record of Joseph smith ever marrying Fanny ... Assuming a marriage is not the same as an actual marriage

You probably need to get back to Cal on her reply then.

I wasn't ever trying to prove Fanny Alger and Joseph's marriage.

I was making the point to Scott that just because someone has read D&C 132 (including the section heading) it doesn't mean they know the full implications. You have to do lots more background reading for that. Much of which is not available from LDS sources. As such it's reasonable that someone who has faithfully served his whole life and focused his study on the scriptures, the Ensign and a few other books (the missionary library) would not have been negligent in their study, nor would they they be naive. But they almost certainly would be surprised to discover the detail of plural marriage (among many others).

If you want to throw in an affair with the au pair too, be my guest. There's probably not enough evidence either way. I don't consider Joseph a prophet because I think him infallible. I consider him a prophet because the application of the lasting scripture actually works.

But... Because I recognise his fallibility I also don't feel the need to accept every piece of 'doctrine' he revealed. Just as I do with the teachings of other non-Mormon 'prophets and wise men' (to quote a GA).

I am proudly a "cafeteria Mormon." But only because I am confident that God is my personal trainer and helps me choose the eating plan best suited to me.

I have a hard time understanding anyone who believes there's a set menu for all of humanity. That simply makes no sense as is not borne out by taking a simple look at the diversity of the human family.

[jim_mason]

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

The one thing i did read, that was uplifting is the statement that Joseph Smith is either a Prophet or no, which does not answer pinpoint question.

A disclosure though, I do not understand how what Mattson learned affected him so deeply.

[canard78]

The one thing i did read, that was uplifting is the statement that Joseph Smith is either a Prophet or no, which does not answer pinpoint question.

A disclosure though, I do not understand how what Mattson learned affected him so deeply.

Then don't worry about it. I believe God has us each in the "hollow of His hand" Each of us get the personalised curriculum needed to make our best way through life.

I am comfortable Hans Mattsson has found his, as I'm sure you have found your own too.

[teddyaware]

Then don't worry about it. I believe God has us each in the "hollow of His hand" Each of us get the personalised curriculum needed to make our best way through life.

I am comfortable Hans Mattsson has found his, as I'm sure you have found your own too.

The only comfort I feel in Brother Mattsson's situation is harboring a hope that his detour into unbelief may in some marvelous way eventually restore him to an even greater faith and deeper testimony than he once possessed.

If Christ and the Prophets are our exemplars, it would seem a loss of belief is nothing about which to feel comfortable. The burden of the scriptures is: "without living faith it is impossible to please God." Therefore, if brother Mattsson has lost his faith, it would stand to reason that loss of faith is unpleasing to God -- and displeasing God can't be a good thing.

But it must be said that if this is the best Brother Mattsson can do, there will still be a place reserved for him in one of God's many glorious mansions above. Each of us will be given as much heaven as we are able to receive and appreciate.

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Or people who wanted straight answers instead of obfuscation.

The quick answer is not always the best answer, as anyone who has been victimized by the "sound bite" mentality can attest.

Furthermore, what some might characterize as "obfuscation" may in reality be an effort to convey much-needed context, background and perspective.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I perceive some inconsistency here. On the one hand, you're characterizing a measured and nuanced reply as "obfuscation." On the other hand, you're condemning the "half-answer." I get the impression that viewed with such a mindset, the Church leaders are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[teddyaware]

The quick answer is not always the best answer, as anyone who has been victimized by the "sound bite" mentality can attest.

Furthermore, what some might characterize as "obfuscation" may in reality be an effort to convey much-needed context, background and perspective.

As a faithful, testimony bearing member of the Church, I must say I'm wondering if an anybody here has ever stopped to realize that it may just be that there is no way for the leaders to answer these questions in a way good enough to satisfy the doubters. Perhaps the leaders know that if they give "meat" answers to those who are only able to digest "milk" it will only further compound the problem. If members who are unworthy or unprepared to receive the meat of the gospel are given the meat anyway, they might very well choke on that meat or spit it out and trample all over it, thereby creating a public relations nightmare for the Church

For some reason, when members of the Church have an axe to grind common sense goes out the window. Did it ever dawn on any of the "axe grinders" on this board that there is no way for the leaders to answer these questions because they already know the doubters will not accept the real answers because they're just not spiritually ready to receive the mysteries of God?

By definition, those who doubt or have lost their faith are only prepared to receive milk answers to tough gospel questions. It's those of unshakable faith and great knowledge who are by very nature more likely to receive and properly digest the meat of the gospel. The scriptures teach this principle over and over again; but the 'axe grinders' are too blind or invested in knocking the Church leaders to realize the meat of the gospel is not for the "babes" of the Church (you can be a member of the Church for a long time and still only be a babe in faith). Paul describes the kind of member who is ready to receive and properly digest the meat of the gospel:

"12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5)

That last verse says it all -- when a babe in the gospel is given spiritual meat, they are not experienced and mature enough to be able to discern whether or not that spiritual meat is something good or something evil. By griping about the early members of the Church who knew and put into practiced a "meat" version of the gospel, the doubters and axe grinders reveal for all to see they are unprepared to receive the mysteries of God.

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

As a faithful, testimony bearing member of the Church, I must say I'm wondering if an anybody here has ever stopped to realize that it may just be that there is no way for the leaders to answer these questions in a way good enough to satisfy the doubters. Perhaps the leaders know that if they give "meat" answers to those who are only able to digest "milk" it will only further compound the problem. If members who are unworthy or unprepared to receive the meat of the gospel are given the meat anyway, they might very well choke on that meat or spit it out and trample all over it, thereby creating a public relations nightmare for the Church

For some reason, when members of the Church have an axe to grind common sense goes out the window. Did it ever dawn on any of the "axe grinders" on this board that there is no way for the leaders to answer these questions because they already know the doubters will not accept the real answers because they're just not spiritually ready to receive the mysteries of God?

By definition, those who doubt or have lost their faith are only prepared to receive milk answers to tough gospel questions. It's those of unshakable faith and great knowledge who are by very nature more likely to receive and properly digest the meat of the gospel. The scriptures teach this principle over and over again; but the 'axe grinders' are too blind or invested in knocking the Church leaders to realize the meat of the gospel is not for the "babes" of the Church (you can be a member of the Church for a long time and still only be a babe in faith). Paul describes the kind of member who is ready to receive and properly digest the meat of the gospel:

"12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5)

That last verse says it all -- when a babe in the gospel is given spiritual meat, they are not experienced and mature enough to be able to discern whether or not that spiritual meat is something good or something evil. By griping about the early members of the Church who knew and put into practiced a "meat" version of the gospel, the doubters and axe grinders reveal for all to see they are unprepared to receive the mysteries of God.

Compounding the problem is that very rarely will people who are spiritually or intellectually unprepared to receive the meat admit to being thus unprepared. More likely, they will take offense or insult at the very suggestion.

Often, an endeavor to help such individuals be better prepared to receive the meat will be resisted. That's when the accusations of "obfuscation," "whitewash," "deception," failure to give a "straight answer" start to fly.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

Compounding the problem is that very rarely will people who are spiritually or intellectually unprepared to receive the meat admit to being thus unprepared. More likely, they will take offense or insult at the very suggestion.

Often, an endeavor to help such individuals be better prepared to receive the meat will be resisted. That's when the accusations of "obfuscation," "whitewash," "deception," failure to give a "straight answer" start to fly.

Give that man a cigar (or some sort of LDS equivalent of the same)!

[Duncan]

Compounding the problem is that very rarely will people who are spiritually or intellectually unprepared to receive the meat admit to being thus unprepared. More likely, they will take offense or insult at the very suggestion.

Often, an endeavor to help such individuals be better prepared to receive the meat will be resisted. That's when the accusations of "obfuscation," "whitewash," "deception," failure to give a "straight answer" start to fly.

i've seen this a few times. Humility goes a long way but is in short supply. I recall a few years ago my Bishop and I watching Truman Madsen's DVD series on The Eternal Christ and not saying I am the most humble guy but I think we both walked away from that experience thinking, um maybe I don't know as much as I thought I did