Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[cinepro]

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

At the very least, they could stop teaching stuff that could later be contradicted with further knowledge. That would be a huge step forward, and would solve a lot of problems right there.

[Calm]

I think we need to take into account that different individuals have experience in different areas of spirituality, thus they may be prepared and even partaken of the spiritual meat in one aspect of the gospel even if they are 'milk' drinkers in another area. We should not discount someone's spiritual or intellectual development completely even if they have an issue that has led to doubt in one or more areas.

PS: this was a thought triggered by Nevo's post 445 IIRC, couldn't get the quote function to work.

Edited July 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

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

Solve a century old mystery and share the answer.

Do you think I would spill private, sacred knowledge on an internet bulletin board, so that those who are unworthy and unprepared for the mysteries of godliness could have a field day trampling all over sacred things?

"9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full." Alma 12

[ERayR]

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.

Oh do not doubt, he has left. He just still attends.

[omni]

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

Ok then ErayR, are the prophets "lying for the Lord" when they say they don't know the answer to these questions? If they aren't lying, then why is Teddy able to receive answers from God and the prophets aren't? Please provide a simple and direct answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

But Calmoriah can never be caught anyway!

As I recall, calmoriah quit keeping track after 2,000. She had so many it became embarrassing to her. An "embarrassment of riches," perhaps?

I have to say that calmoriah is by far my largest awarder of rep points, so my tally is skewed in that respect.

Not that I'm complaining. There is no one here whose approbation I would rather have.

But she is very generous.

[Nevo]

IOU about a hundred rep points.

If teddyaware is now the voice of reason on this board, then that's my cue to leave. Probably long overdue actually.

[Calm]

One can find comments compelling while disagreeing with how someone applies it.

I agree that someone in a place of significant doubt is at the milk level by definition....because they most likely need to rewrite their expectations about how they see the world from the most basic level.

OTOH, I don't see sharing accurate and indepth historical and doctrinal info as necessarily "meat".

[ERayR]

One can find comments compelling while disagreeing with how someone applies it.

I agree that someone in a place of significant doubt is at the milk level by definition....because they most likely need to rewrite their expectations about how they see the world from the most basic level.

OTOH, I don't see sharing accurate and indepth historical and doctrinal info as necessarily "meat".

Right on. Its more like a side dish, salad or something.

[Calm]

I like that analogy, Ray.

[rongo]

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"?

They've already answered for themselves (Ray and teddy), but their answer is in the spirit of Charles Penrose's (and many, many others') declaration:

Our testimony does not depend upon Joseph Smith; it does not depend upon Brigham Young; it does not depend upon John Taylor, or upon the council of the Twelve Apostles, which is now the presiding quorum in the Church. I pin my faith to no man’s sleeve; I am a believer in the Scripture which says, “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.” (August 17, 1879. Journal of Discourses 20:295)

I wrote a whole paper looking at many of such statements:

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous#en17

I agree with them. The president of the Church holds individually, and the twelve apostles hold collectively, all priesthood keys. But, I know what I know and believe what I believe (really know and really believe) independent of them or anyone else. The Mormonism I know teaches and encourages us to find our own answers, even if the institutional church is silent on them. Of course, when we have our personal answers, we are not authorized to authoritatively teach them as official Church answers, either. But, they are nonetheless real answers for us, personally.

[rongo]

Mattsson never left. He still has a testimony of many things he just has doubts . . . Mattsson is firmly in the Church in regards to faithfulness . . .

Time will tell for sure, but doing Mormon Stories podcasts and being quoted extensively in the New York Times on frustration with Church leaders and the Church is not a good sign, no matter how it's spun. A better model would have been how B. H. Roberts dealt with his frustration with Church leaders during the 1920s. He didn't fire salvos and air dirty laundry in the national press, nor did he give interviews with dissidents. Does anyone know how Mattsson currently serves in the Church (i.e., is he still an AA70)? Edited July 28, 2013 by rongo

[ERayR]

Time will tell for sure, but doing Mormon Stories podcasts and being quoted extensively in the New York Times on frustration with Church leaders and the Church is not a good sign, no matter how it's spun. A better model would have been how B. H. Roberts dealt with his frustration with Church leaders during the 1920s. He didn't fire salvos and air dirty laundry in the national press, nor did he give interviews with dissidents. Does anyone know how Mattsson currently serves in the Church (i.e., is he still an AA70)?

I don't think so. He is referred to as Former AA70.

[rongo]

At the very least, they could stop teaching stuff that could later be contradicted with further knowledge. That would be a huge step forward, and would solve a lot of problems right there.

I disagree. I much prefer the open sharing of thoughts, a la Journal of Discourses era, even though it provides enemies and concerned members with ammunition and fodder, to the carefully, oh so carefully-correlated sharing of thoughts we have now (cf. President Hinckley's multiple interviews on KFD, etc.). Overall, the ratio of "howler/head-scratcher" statements to "solid/reasonable/orthodox" statements is just fine, and very favorable to the Church, despite the representations of enemies, dissidents, and worriers. The overall perspective is akin to Elder Roberts's characterization (from my paper above):

It should not be matter of surprise to anyone that unwise things have been both said and done by some of the best men in the Church. On the contrary, it is matter of congratulation to the Church that so little unwisdom has been manifested by our brethren upon whom God has laid the heavy burdens of so great a work (A Defense of the Faith and the Saints, p. 347)

[rongo]

I don't think so. He is referred to as Former AA70.

That's what I thought. I'm curious just how "just as committed and faithful as ever" he really is, inasmuch as it can be determined superficially by such things as attendance, callings, etc. Again, his public airing of frustration in broadcast venues is not a good thing, and does not accrue to him being "just as committed and faithful as ever," no matter how anyone slices it.

[omni]

They've already answered for themselves (Ray and teddy), but their answer is in the spirit of Charles Penrose's (and many, many others') declaration: I wrote a whole paper looking at many of such statements:

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous#en17

I agree with them. The president of the Church holds individually, and the twelve apostles hold collectively, all priesthood keys. But, I know what I know and believe what I believe (really know and really believe) independent of them or anyone else. The Mormonism I know teaches and encourages us to find our own answers, even if the institutional church is silent on them. Of course, when we have our personal answers, we are not authorized to authoritatively teach them as official Church answers, either. But, they are nonetheless real answers for us, personally.

Since they haven't answered the question and you seem to have similar views I will ask you the same thing. Are the prophets lying when they tell us they don't know the answers to these questions? If they aren't why are you all able to receive answers while they aren't? I kindly request that you answer in a simple and direct manner.

[Glenn101]

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

Solve a century old mystery and share the answer.

Number 1: What

Let's get the definition of polyandry straight. Acording to the dictionary (dictionary.com) it is:

pol·y·an·dry

[pol-ee-an-dree, pol-ee-an-]

noun

1.the practice or condition of having more than one husband at one time.

Joseph Smith was sealed for eternity to several women who were civilly married to other men. So let us put that old canard (1.a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor) to rest and tell it like it really is and not fall into the trap of yellow journalism (dishonest in editorial comment and the presentation of news, especially in sacrificing truth for sensationalism,)

Joseph, as far as I have been able to adduce, was not married to any woman currently married to any man. The sealings were to become effective (and now have supposedly become effective) after the end of this mortal frame of existence.

Why:

According to Joseph Smith, because he was commanded by the Lord to do so. According to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Joseph told them before their marriages to other men that the Lord had revealed to him that they were to be his plural wives. Both of them testified that they received a witness to that fact themselves. Those events have been well discussed in other threads, so I will not redundate (that is not a real word, but I like it) here.

We have long had those facts at our disposal. One may not like the answers, or they might not believe Joseph was telling the truth. In other words, there might be some doubt in some people's minds.

So, I ask you again, where can you find the answers? All of the players are long gone from our stage. As Ed Ames so eloquently belted out "Who will answer?" Actually, the question is who can answer? Until a doubter asks someone who has the answers, he or she will only get opinions and will continue on this not so merry-go-round. All of the round tables and podcasts are an exercise in futility because, no matter how smart a person is, if he or she does not have the answer, he or she cannot enlighten anyone else. It is like the blind leading the blind.

Glenn

[ERayR]

Since they haven't answered the question and you seem to have similar views I will ask you the same thing. Are the prophets lying when they tell us they don't know the answers to these questions? If they aren't why are you all able to receive answers while they aren't? I kindly request that you answer in a simple and direct manner.

No. Question answered. Read for comprehension.

[rongo]

You don't need to treat me like that, omni. I've never given any cause for suggesting that I would give anything less than a direct answer. Why not wait for me to obfuscate before taking me to task for it?

It would depend on which of "these questions" you're asking about. I don't think all of the Brethren are completely knowledgeable about all apologetic issues, so they may truthfully not know or know enough about some things to be able to really comment, or give informed comment. In general, though, I think the Brethren are very PR-oriented and very, very careful with what they say. Overly so, in spades (e.g., President Hinckley's multiple interviews where he very briefly commented the KFD, etc.). I don't think it's lying, but it does attempt to superficially deflect the issue/question. I am disappointed with it, and would like them to more directly address things without worrying about PR, some people's reactions be damned.

Another thing to keep in mind is that my spiritual confirmations may not exactly match ErayR or teddyaware or someone else’s, and yet they can both be from the Spirit. I think this is because, while it’s the same Spirit, the processing and interpretation varies. This is why people (myself included) should be cautious about teaching or implying that one’s own views or confirmations are binding on other people or the Church.

Another point: It is clear to me that those who mock or find fault with Brother Turley and Elder Jensen and others for their performance in Q&A sessions have never been in their shoes. As disappointed as I am with President Hinckley’s interviews with the KFD, I’ve done multiple radio interviews about the Church, and it is very difficult. Time constraints, commercial breaks, not getting off into the weeds and bogged down with necessary context and background explanations, etc. Doubly so when it is subject to editing, and there are no guarantees as to whether context and background will be included. (Time, 60 Minutes). I wrote and directed (and spoke at one) several stake community firesides in my stake that drew over 130 non-members (that is what led to me being asked to come on the radio), and I did “anything goes” Q&A sessions after. Most critics of Turley, Jensen, etc. would do much more poorly in their shoes, even with what they think they “know,” their participation in online Mormonism message boards, and all their armchair quarterbacking. It is another thing entirely to be “on the front,” in real time. And there are always those who will repeat, over and over, that the answerer is dancing around the issues, even when the answerer is directly answering.

Edited July 28, 2013 by rongo

[omni]

No. Question answered. Read for comprehension.

Please point me to where you answered my question of whether the brethren are lying when they say they do not know the answer to these controversial issues.

[omni]

You don't need to treat me like that, omni. I've never given any cause for suggesting that I would give anything less than a direct answer. Why not wait for me to obfuscate before taking me to task for it?

Sorry, that wasn't meant as an insult to you, I even added the word "kindly" to soften the request:). I know it would be much easier to respond with long drawn-out philosophical pontifications that don't really answer the question, which is why I made the request.

It would depend on which of "these questions" you're asking about.

I was referring to the priesthood ban, evolution, the reason for polygamy, why people are gay. To my knowledge there aren't any official answers to these questions and we are loosing a lot of good people because of the lack of answers. Anyways, thanks for the response.

Edited July 28, 2013 by omni

[mfbukowski]

Oh do not doubt, he has left. He just still attends.

If he was "still in" he would not have done the interview- it can do nothing but hurt the church. So supposedly he is just having "doubts" but he wants to influence others to have the same doubts? It just doesn't make sense.

One who REALLY had "just doubts" would keep them private, especially in his position to influence others.

[mfbukowski]

Ok then ErayR, are the prophets "lying for the Lord" when they say they don't know the answer to these questions? If they aren't lying, then why is Teddy able to receive answers from God and the prophets aren't? Please provide a simple and direct answer.

ERay doesn't need my help, but you really think the 12 are going to tell YOU everything they know?

[mfbukowski]

As I recall, calmoriah quit keeping track after 2,000. She had so many it became embarrassing to her. An "embarrassment of riches," perhaps?

I have to say that calmoriah is by far my largest awarder of rep points, so my tally is skewed in that respect.

Not that I'm complaining. There is no one here whose approbation I would rather have.

But she is very generous.

Agree completely!

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, that wasn't meant as an insult to you, I even added the word "kindly" to soften the request:). I know it would be much easier to respond with long drawn-out philosophical pontifications that don't really answer the question, which is why I made the request.

I suppose that if one did not understand "long drawn-out philosophical pontifications" they would of course appear to be obfuscation, but unfortunately this is a complex world in which yes and no answers rarely communicate anything useful.