Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[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 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.

Sorry but this really just frosts my cookies.

You want a simple answer to polygamy, the priesthood ban, evolution and why people are gay, right?

Really? Why not one for ending world poverty and stopping war for all time while you are at it?

[omni]

Sorry but this really just frosts my cookies.

You want a simple answer to polygamy, the priesthood ban, evolution and why people are gay, right?

Really? Why not one for ending world poverty and stopping war for all time while you are at it?

No, I want a simple and direct answer to my question of whether the brethren are lying or at least misleading when they say they don't know the reason for the priesthood ban and the others mentioned. Should be pretty simple.

[canard78]

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?

That sounds like you've got it hidden in Elder Perry's briefcase

But fair enough. I also have personal experiences I limit the sharing of so if your answer to the "why polyandry" question is too sacred then I'll respect that and not ask again.

[mfbukowski]

No, I want a simple and direct answer to my question of whether the brethren are lying or at least misleading when they say they don't know the reason for the priesthood ban and the others mentioned. Should be pretty simple.

Just plain ridiculous.

You want someone to mind-read the brethren and then tell you what is going on privately in their heads- in a simple answer is that what you want?

I think we have a little epistemological problem there. Maybe you could try reading my mind and giving me a simple answer to whether or not the number 365 occurs in my bank password.

Just keep it simple.

[canard78]

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

And you know this how? You have some knowledge of the inner processes of his mind and spirit?

[Calm]

I think it is quite possible that some of the brethren have received answers to such questions on a personal level but have been inspired not to share such as the Lord does not want the Church to hold an official position on some things in order to cause people to think and ponder about such subjects on their own and even seek God's opinion on the matter.

They are therefore not lying when they say "the Chuch" or even "we don't know" even if they have personal knowledge, IMO, because they are speaking for the Church in their positions, not themselves...unless they make it clear they are expressing a personal testimony or experience.

Edited July 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

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)?

Rongo, he was called an AA70 in 2000 and became emeritus in 2005 due to health problems (he needed heart surgery).

[Calm]

And you know this how? You have some knowledge of the inner processes of his mind and spirit?

I think he is going on percentages. Have you known anyone who has expressed disapproval of something the Church has done in such a way and not left (even if they have come back later?)

I can't think of any myself.

[canard78]

I think it is quite possible that some of the brethren have received answers to such questions on a personal level but have been inspired not to share such as the Lord does not want the Church to hold an official position on some things in order to cause people to think and ponder about such subjects on their own and even seek God's opinion on the matter.

They are therefore not lying when they say "the Chuch" or even "we don't know" even if they have personal knowledge, IMO, because they are speaking for the Church in their positions, not themselves...unless they make it clear they are expressing a personal testimony or experience.

To be fair, given my question to Ted was originally about polyandry I think we'd be better to say "they've never even acknowledged it existed."

They'd need to do that before they could be asked the follow-up question of why it happened.

I can't remember, did Sweeney ask Elder Holland about it during the BBC interview in 2012?

[omni]

Just plain ridiculous.

You want someone to mind-read the brethren and then tell you what is going on privately in their heads- in a simple answer is that what you want?

I think we have a little epistemological problem there. Maybe you could try reading my mind and giving me a simple answer to whether or not the number 365 occurs in my bank password.

Just keep it simple.

Why would mind reading reading required for such a simple question? I've always taken the brethren at their word when they say they don't know, do you?

[canard78]

I think he is going on percentages. Have you known anyone who has expressed disapproval of something the Church has done in such a way and not left (even if they have come back later?)

I can't think of any myself.

I think the "come back later" is the key part of this. There are plenty of those.

The Mattssons have already spent time exploring other churches and have now "come back later."

[mfbukowski]

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

I don't recall saying anything about him being the voice of reason. Seems rather capricious to me.

Edited July 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Why would mind reading reading required for such a simple question? I've always taken the brethren at their word when they say they don't know, do you?

We are going in circles. There are no simple answers to complex questions. I have had enough of going in circles. Edited July 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[omni]

To be fair, given my question to Ted was originally about polyandry I think we'd be better to say "they've never even acknowledged it existed."

They'd need to do that before they could be asked the follow-up question of why it happened.

I can't remember, did Sweeney ask Elder Holland about it during the BBC interview in 2012?

In the "Swedish Rescue" transcript Elder Jensen acknowledges polyandry did happen, but he doesn't know why. Interestingly he mentioned that if polygamy were reinstated (or if he was living in the early church, I can't remember for sure) he didn't believe that he and his wife could practice it.

[canard78]

Why would mind reading reading required for such a simple question? I've always taken the brethren at their word when they say they don't know, do you?

Maybe they know but saying 'I don't know' is "...more express than other (answers), that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory." (D&C 19:7)

I think the doctrine of saying one thing "for effect" but the opposite being the case is firmly embedded in Mormon theology.

I don't like it, but now that I recognise it, I trade on it occasionally.

Edited July 28, 2013 by canard78

[Tacenda]

To be fair, given my question to Ted was originally about polyandry I think we'd be better to say "they've never even acknowledged it existed."

They'd need to do that before they could be asked the follow-up question of why it happened.

I can't remember, did Sweeney ask Elder Holland about it during the BBC interview in 2012?

Nope

[omni]

Maybe they know but saying 'I don't know' is "...more express than other (answers), that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory." (D&C 19:7)

I think the doctrine of saying one thing "for effect" but the opposite being the case is firmly embedded in Mormon theology.

I don't like it, but now that I recognise it, I trade on it occasionally.

You may be right, but doesn't that sound like something a politician or a PR firm should be doing rather than a prophet of God?

[Calm]

I can see someone who is acting as a teacher saying something along those lines.

Also protecting individuals and organizations is something everyone does and should do, though one may disagree on how it should be done or how far it should go.

I think the intent is the significant difference between a teacher and a politician that might be doing the same thing.

I have known a college aged kid who felt it was useless to try and do anything or learn because God would have already discovered it. I suspect there are even more out there who if their teacher or someone else said "I know, but you must find out for yourself" whose response would be their preferred equivalent of telling them to go to hell and would refuse to put in any effort beyond trying to get the answer from someone else.

Edited July 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I've worked with Turley before on an occasion when he edited a piece of text I had written.

Without going into detail about it, I will say I know something of his style. He's very careful and precise. If an idea, concept or incident cannot be fully developed or explained within the allotted space, he prefers to leave out any mention of it altogether.

I say that by way of explaining that what came across as "half-answers" to you may be simply a manifestation of Turley's reluctance to give any sort of answer at all if there was not time or opportunity to properly frame an answer, given the atmosphere of anger and disenchantment, frequent interruptions, a lengthy barrage of difficult questions all of which needed to be dealt with in the allotted time frame.

As for Elder Jensen, a more congenial, affable man I have never met. If he could not placate a crowd of angry, disenchanted people, I doubt anyone could.

I think the "fireside" was a bad idea to begin with. It was a no-win situation for everyone involved, a train wreck waiting to happen that never should have been scheduled in the first place. The visitors from Salt Lake did not have time or opportunity to respond as they would have liked, and the attendees didn't get the answers they wanted. But I don't think Elder Jensen or Richard Turley are at fault.

[canard78]

You may be right, but doesn't that sound like something a politician or a PR firm should be doing rather than a prophet of God?

I'm very comfortable with God telling people different things and in different ways. He's more interested in what we become, by whatever means.

Some may call that God being a liar or misleading. I call that the opposite. Not misled but well-led.

[rongo]

Why would mind reading reading required for such a simple question? I've always taken the brethren at their word when they say they don't know, do you?

Oh, that was the actual question? In that case, when the Brethren say they don't know why, I also take them at their word and believe that they don't know why. I don't think they "really" know, but are pretending not to (cue Jack Nickolson bellowing: "You can't handle the truth!"). Hence, not lying at all.

[Questing Beast]

Is that not the kind of thing the legal counsel to the Church might suggest? There are many theoretical situations in which the Prophet having a detailed journal might not be a good thing for legal defenders of the Church.

This is just nuts. How is an obedient elder going to know that he's going to be "the prophet" someday"? So when he gets into the quorum of the twelve, his journal writing comes to a halt? I don't buy it. How could a prophet justify encouraging the LDS people to keep journals/diaries, and not do it himself? Oh, he's listening to his "legal counsel" instead of to God. Good move!... Edited July 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[canard78]

This is just nuts. How is an obedient elder going to know that he's going to be "the prophet" someday"? So when he gets into the quorum of the twelve, his journal writing comes to a halt? I don't buy it. How could a prophet justify encouraging the LDS people to keep journals/diaries, and not do it himself? Oh, he's listening to his "legal counsel" instead of to God. Good move!...

Don't worry, his legal council prayed about it first.

No, I agree. If that's really what happens it's tragic. Mattsson combined with the Hoffman trial statement makes a fairly strong case that they don't follow their own council.

[DBMormon]

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)?

His faith crisis came after being named to emeritus status and that is where he still is. it had no bearing on his release, he hit 70 and was retired by the church from that calling

[cinepro]

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.

Okay, just so I'm clear, let me get this straight. You typed the following sentence about Joseph Smith:

Joseph told them before their marriages to other men that the Lord had revealed to him that they were to be his plural wives.

...and that didn't set off alarm bells in your brain?

Just so I have this clear, does only the Prophet have the authority to receive revelation about whom a woman is to marry (even him), and then tell the women who it is? Or is this something most Melchizedek priesthood holders can do? Or all preisthood holders? I checked the CHI and it isn't mentioned in there.