Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[cinepro]

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 think the big differences would be:

1. Different life experiences in the Church (I don't know enough about either man to say what those are though).

2. Different personalities and cultures.

3. Different ways in which they learned about historical issues.

[teddyaware]

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

And I'm wondering if one of the main ingredients missing in the hand wringers and axe grinders is a deep sense of humility. Could it be that all this second guessing of the Lord's duly chosen leaders has it's root in pride? Who knows for sure. Perhaps it's best to not paint this issue with a broad brush.

[Storm Rider]

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.

This has no relationship in Jesus' message. Do you think it does?

[Tacenda]

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.

Disagree, because when you've been carefully fed milk and a little rice cereal your whole life by your teachers and leaders, reading only church sanctioned books, you don't get the meat. When Deseret Bookstore won't even carry a book about JS's particular polygamy, how are you going to get the meat? Most LDS aren't scholars, and who has time if you're raising a family. LDS scholars are usually doing it full time, writing books or being apologists for the church. So the poor sucker that tries to do what is right, holds callings, attends the temple, pays tithing, holds down a job or two to feed their family, gets punched because they didn't go the intellectual way. When none of it would have happened if he'd heard or read it completely just by attending Sunday School or Seminary and just during Church History year, where the Sunday School teacher wouldn't be warned against sharing certain subjects. Or having the manuals leave out pertinent information as if it never existed.

[Nevo]

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.

To this I can only say that if the Church is calling people as stake presidents and area authorities that are deemed too spiritually immature to be given "the straight goods" on difficult historical issues, then things are worse than I thought.

[Duncan]

Disagree, because when you've been carefully fed milk and a little rice cereal your whole life by your teachers and leaders, reading only church sanctioned books, you don't get the meat. When Deseret Bookstore won't even carry a book about JS's particular polygamy, how are you going to get the meat? Most LDS aren't scholars, and who has time if you're raising a family. LDS scholars are usually doing it full time, writing books or being apologists for the church. So the poor sucker that tries to do what is right, holds callings, attends the temple, pays tithing, holds down a job or two to feed their family, gets punched because they didn't go the intellectual way. When none of it would have happened if he'd heard or read it completely just by attending Sunday School or Seminary and just during Church History year, where the Sunday School teacher wouldn't be warned against sharing certain subjects. Or having the manuals leave out pertinent information as if it never existed.

I would go along with most of that, time and interest. Polygamy is a massive topic and it would take a long time to read through and write everything you wanted to about the subject. Then again I have had my mind blown by Truman Madsen's books and articles and Elder Maxwell's writings and a few others, no one has ever told me to not read others writings so to that end I have read Catholic Scholar Henri Nouwen and not Catholic but forget his religious affliation N.T. Wright among many others and I just spilled cereal on my lap and that's just peachy

[Senator]

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.

Actually it works very well. Lawyers seek this in the cross-examination of witnesses all the time. However its very disheartening to witness among saints. Edited July 27, 2013 by Senator

[teddyaware]

To this I can only say that if the Church is calling people as stake presidents and area authorities that are deemed too spiritually immature to be given "the straight goods" on difficult historical issues, then things are worse than I thought.

Not necessarily. Most every Bishop and Stake President I've known were not great gospel scholars. They were competent at teaching the basics, but did not have what I would call a profound understanding of the mysteries of God. Most were good administrators and adequate personal counselors but profound theologians they were not.

By the way, only one area seventy with shaken faith syndrome out of all the other general and area authorities is not at all an any indication that "things are worse than (you) thought." Quite an exaggeration, don't you think? Considering all of the apostasies of Church leaders that took place in the early days of the restoration, I'd say that things are much better than you indicate. Could it be rightly said that some people look at the Church with rose colored glasses, while others look at it with a blind fold?

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Disagree, because when you've been carefully fed milk and a little rice cereal your whole life by your teachers and leaders, reading only church sanctioned books, you don't get the meat. When Deseret Bookstore won't even carry a book about JS's particular polygamy, how are you going to get the meat? Most LDS aren't scholars, and who has time if you're raising a family. LDS scholars are usually doing it full time, writing books or being apologists for the church. So the poor sucker that tries to do what is right, holds callings, attends the temple, pays tithing, holds down a job or two to feed their family, gets punched because they didn't go the intellectual way. When none of it would have happened if he'd heard or read it completely just by attending Sunday School or Seminary and just during Church History year, where the Sunday School teacher wouldn't be warned against sharing certain subjects. Or having the manuals leave out pertinent information as if it never existed.

Each member has the opportunity and responsibility to teach themselves the deep things of God through study, prayer, the Spirit and personal revelation. That's how I did it and everybody else can do it the same way. By divine design, the deep things of the gospel, or the mysteries of godliness, are deliberately not taught publicly. You don't hear the General Authorities blabbing all the hidden meaning of the temple ordinances all over the place, do you? The mysteries of God are there for the taking for those willing to exercise the faith and do the hard work to obtain them.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

A rep point will do. I'm closing in on 2,000.

Just kidding. I don't come here for glory and validation. (Even if I did, there's precious little to be had here.)

[jim_mason]

Teddyaware said: 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.

Teddyaware, during the meeting with the members in Sweden, in my opinion, meat was asked about and meat was not provided, apart from Joseph Smith is either a Prophet or not.

However, until a Prophet says "Thus sayeth the Lord, Joseph smith polygamy and polyandry were because (insert reason)" there will not be satisfactory answers, it is simply ridiculous for us to conjure up reasons for Joseph Smother actions; Brigham Young's statements...etc. without their own personal statements for their actions.

Edited July 27, 2013 by jim_mason

[teddyaware]

Teddyaware said: 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.

Teddyaware, during the meeting with the members in Sweden, in my opinion, meat was asked about and meat was not provided, apart from Joseph Smith is either a Prophet or not.

However, until a Prophet says "Thus sayeth the Lord, Joseph smith polygamy and polyandry were because (insert reason)" there will not be satisfactory answers, it is simply ridiculous for us to conjure up reasons for Joseph Smother actions; Brigham Young's statements...etc. without their own personal statements for their actions.

I know the answers to those questions and I didn't need a Prophet to give me satisfactory answers. Why should the Lord reveal 'strong meat' answers to those who are unworthy and/or unprepared when if they had only had enough faith they could have gotten the answers to those questions for themselves.

Each man and woman has the right and privilege to be a prophet or prophetess in their own right. This being the case, why should the Lord spoon feed those who aren't willing to put in the hard work to get those answers for themselves. The trouble started for the former area authority when he began to continually importune the leaders for meaty answers to gospel questions when he could have gotten those answers for himself. If he understood the scriptures, he would have known that a man can go straight to God Himself for answers to difficult and controversial gospel questions. But perhaps he lacked the faith or knowledge to try.

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

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.

Hence my contention that the hue and cry "I was not told, somebody should have taught me history" is irrelevant. Teaching "history" and the "hard" things in Church would make no differrence all protestations to the contrary.

[ERayR]

Disagree, because when you've been carefully fed milk and a little rice cereal your whole life by your teachers and leaders, reading only church sanctioned books, you don't get the meat. When Deseret Bookstore won't even carry a book about JS's particular polygamy, how are you going to get the meat? Most LDS aren't scholars, and who has time if you're raising a family. LDS scholars are usually doing it full time, writing books or being apologists for the church. So the poor sucker that tries to do what is right, holds callings, attends the temple, pays tithing, holds down a job or two to feed their family, gets punched because they didn't go the intellectual way. When none of it would have happened if he'd heard or read it completely just by attending Sunday School or Seminary and just during Church History year, where the Sunday School teacher wouldn't be warned against sharing certain subjects. Or having the manuals leave out pertinent information as if it never existed.

Last I looked there were a whole lot of other book publishers and the internet is still up. Most of the time.

[omni]

I know the answers to those questions and I didn't need a Prophet to give me satisfactory answers. Why should the Lord reveal 'strong meat' answers to those who are unworthy and/or unprepared when if they had only had enough faith they could have gotten the answers to those questions for themselves.

Each man and woman has the right and privilege to be a prophet or prophetess in their own right. This being the case, why should the Lord spoon feed those who aren't willing to put in the hard work to get those answers for themselves. The trouble started for the former area authority when he began to continually importune the leaders for meaty answers to gospel questions when he could have gotten those answers for himself. If he understood the scriptures, he would have known that a man can go straight to God Himself for answers to difficult and controversial gospel questions. But perhaps he lacked the faith or knowledge to try.

How in the world do you know the answers to these questions when the prophet doesn't even know. The church's defacto answer for any controversial question is now "we don't know why" or "we have no official position on the matter"? You and Ahab seem to have a direct line to God and he will answer any question you ask of him, so why can't our leaders do the same?

When the church says we don't know why the priesthood ban was initiated or we have no official position on the validity of human evolution are they lying to us so as not to give meat before milk?

Edited July 27, 2013 by omni

[ERayR]

How in the world do you know the answers to these questions when the prophet doesn't even know. The church's defacto answer for any controversial question is now "we don't know why" or "we have no official position on the matter"? You and Ahab seem to have a direct line to God and he will answer any question you ask of him, so why can't our leaders do the same?

When the church says we don't know why the priesthood ban was initiated or we have no official position on the validity of human evolution are they lying to us so as not to give meat before milk?

1) How do you know the Prophet doesn't know? I'm guessing he knows and just won't tell you.

2) That direct line to God that you note for Teddyware and Ahab, Well I have some news for you, If you learn how to use it it is open to you too.

3) Our do the same. See #1.

[teddyaware]

How in the world do you know the answers to these questions when the prophet doesn't even know. The church's defacto answer for any controversial question is now "we don't know why" or "we have no official position on the matter"? You and Ahab seem to have a direct line to God and he will answer any question you ask of him, so why can't our leaders do the same?

When the church says we don't know why the priesthood ban was initiated or we have no official position on the validity of human evolution are they lying to us so as not to give meat before milk?

One of the prerequisites to receiving personal revelation is an open mind. Another essential element needed for the same is a knowledge of the scriptures (not just reading but having an actual Spirit-born knowledge). Another imperative is living faith in God -- knowing He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Having one's mind already made up will short circuit the process.

I have put the Lord's promises to the test and learned for myself that He is indeed a gracious rewarder of those who diligently seek further light and knowledge at His hand. The following promise is given to every member of the Church, regardless of position. All would to well to carefully read and come to comprehend these words from the Lord's own mouth:

"5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.

6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.

7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.

9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught." (D&C 76)

Edited July 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

1) How do you know the Prophet doesn't know? I'm guessing he knows and just won't tell you.

2) That direct line to God that you note for Teddyware and Ahab, Well I have some news for you, If you learn how to use it it is open to you too.

3) Our do the same. See #1.

Bullseye!

[mfbukowski]

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.

IOU about a hundred rep points.

[mfbukowski]

A rep point will do. I'm closing in on 2,000.

Uh oh, coming up fast. Where's that "minus rep points" button??

But Calmoriah can never be caught anyway!

[DBMormon]

Oliver Cowdery Came back so there is hope for Mattsson.

Mattsson never left. He still has a testimony of many things he just has doubts. This is specifically the type of person Elder Holland is speaking to. Mattsson is firmly in the Church in regards to faithfulness, where he is struglling is he is making the transition from Knowledge to Faith and doing so suddenly - it sucks and it's hard.

[teddyaware]

IOU about a hundred rep points.

Thank you mf...

[canard78]

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.

Maybe I miss-used 'obfuscation' (and you're one of the few Americans I'm happy to take an English lesson from )- what I meant was that they gave half answers of answers that avoided actually answering the question and when probed for clarity they sometimes gave what we call "politicians answers" that didn't really give an answer.

I've just checked:

Obfuscate: "to make obscure or unclear" - maybe that doesn't entirely fit the definition of what I had in the mind. I didn't mean an overload of info to confuse, more a behaviour of shuffling around the question without directly answering it.

[teddyaware]

Mattsson never left. He still has a testimony of many things he just has doubts. This is specifically the type of person Elder Holland is speaking to. Mattsson is firmly in the Church in regards to faithfulness, where he is struglling is he is making the transition from Knowledge to Faith and doing so suddenly - it sucks and it's hard.

This is very good to know. Good for Brother Mattsson.

[canard78]

I know the answers to those questions and I didn't need a Prophet to give me satisfactory answers. Why should the Lord reveal 'strong meat' answers to those who are unworthy and/or unprepared when if they had only had enough faith they could have gotten the answers to those questions for themselves.

Each man and woman has the right and privilege to be a prophet or prophetess in their own right. This being the case, why should the Lord spoon feed those who aren't willing to put in the hard work to get those answers for themselves. The trouble started for the former area authority when he began to continually importune the leaders for meaty answers to gospel questions when he could have gotten those answers for himself. If he understood the scriptures, he would have known that a man can go straight to God Himself for answers to difficult and controversial gospel questions. But perhaps he lacked the faith or knowledge to try.

You know the answers to those questions? You know why Joseph practised polyandry?

Solve a century old mystery and share the answer.