Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[canard78]

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

Are you sure? I think he was made emeritus early due to health problems. He stood down from the position of area authority in 2005 when he had heart surgery.

Either way, his questions started after his release.

Which is why Alan's ridiculous assertion that he lied at the fireside when he said "I know" is unfounded. He's refused to answer me on this, but the date can only have been pre-2005, if he was giving the fireside as an Area Authority.

Edited July 29, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

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

...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.

It's going to be my 'pet quote' for a few days, but this from Nibley:

"There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit. Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things."

If inspired men can disagree about scripture I'm even more confident they can have divergent on who marries whom.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Only members of the First Quorum of the Seventy are given emeritus status. In the other quorums, they serve for a period and are released, as in other Church callings.

Even members of the Second Quorum, who, unlike Area Seventies, are designated General Authorities, serve for a number of years and are then released without receiving emeritus status.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Only members of the First Quorum of the Seventy are given emeritus status. In the other quorums, they serve for a period and are released, as in other Church callings.

Even members of the Second Quorum, who, unlike Area Seventies, are designated General Authorities, only serve for about five years before they are released.

Yup. Don't see how he could be emeritus status

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865563554/Emeritus-general-authorities-welcome-the-chance-to-practice-what-theyve-preached.html?pg=all

[Scott Lloyd]

Yup. Don't see how he could be emeritus status

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865563554/Emeritus-general-authorities-welcome-the-chance-to-practice-what-theyve-preached.html?pg=all

My friend Joe got it wrong in the second paragraph of that story, wherein he implied that members of the Second Quorum receive emeritus status. But then, he quoted this from lds.org, which makes the policy clear:

The LDS Church website indicates that "members of the First Quorum of the Seventy are called to serve until the age of 70, at which time they are given emeritus status (similar to being released). Members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy typically serve for three to five years; after this time, they are released."

Area Seventies don't even serve full time in their callings, let alone being given emeritus status when released. I don't know where Bill got the idea Mattsson is on emeritus status.

[mfbukowski]

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.

President Hinckley didn't know much about God having a father either, did he?

[Calm]

I don't know where Bill got the idea Mattsson is on emeritus status.

My memory says the NYT article said it.

Yep:

“I felt like I had an earthquake under my feet,” said Mr. Mattsson, now an emeritus area authority.

Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

My memory says the NYT article said it.

Yep:

Maybe Mattsson told them that because that's what he thought he was. He seems to have been in the dark about a bunch of other stuff.

Incidentally, the term "area authority" isn't used anymore. Neither is the later term, "area authority seventy." They're called area seventies.

I don't recall what term was being used back in 2005 when Mattsson was released.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

President Hinckley didn't know much about God having a father either, did he?

He knew of course... Just 'more express' to give the shrug-off for the watching heathens.

[Calm]

By Elder Hans H. Mattsson

Area Authority SeventyEurope Central Area

http://www.mormoncha...could-i-testify

area authority in 1995 replacing the regional reps

1997 they were ordained as seventies and become area authority seventies.

unknown when shortened, but not before 2003 and not after 2005 at least.

http://en.wikipedia....tter_Day_Saints)#Area_seventies_and_additional_quorums_of_seventy

Changed in 2005:

http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/the-unfolding-role-of-the-seventy-time-line?lang=eng

2005 Area Authority Seventy title changed to Area Seventy.

Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

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.

I think that if you look at the history of the ban and how the GAs were attempting to come to terms with it...I think that we can say that they did not know why it was enacted. To discover more one can listen to Dehlin's podcast about it. Here are his notes from the podcast. Notice that Abel's grandson was ordained a priest and then an elder in 1934 and 1935. How could that be?

http://mormonstories...ues/blacks.html

Edited July 29, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

I think that if you look at the history of the ban and how the GAs were attempting to come to terms with it...I think that we can say that they did not know why it was enacted. To discover more one can listen to Dehlin's podcast about it. Here are his notes from the podcast. Notice that Abel's grandson was ordained a priest and then an elder in 1934 and 1935. How could that be?

http://mormonstories...ues/blacks.html

I think a lot of them through the 20th C thought they knew. We have the 1940s first pres statement saying it is a doctrine and Stapley's 1960s letter saying it was Joseph's revelation that instigated the ban.

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, on 27 July 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

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?

No, because you did not quote "the rest of the story" I included in my post and that is "Both of them testified that they received a witness to that fact themselves".

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.

I do not presume to speak for the prophet of the church or the Lord. Since Joseph is no longer around, why don't you address that question to President Monson or better yet, to the Lord? I hope you do at least still believe in Him?

Glenn

[why me]

I think a lot of them through the 20th C thought they knew. We have the 1940s first pres statement saying it is a doctrine and Stapley's 1960s letter saying it was Joseph's revelation that instigated the ban.

That may be. But then we have Abel's grandson getting the priesthood. This tells me that they may not have known what exactly was going on. Also, if you look at the time line, it seems that Black Pete's straying away into polygamy and being sealed to several white women, as he claimed to be a 'prophet' may have been the catalyst.

[Krutt]

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?

From personal experience, I believe there are many members, (leaders as well as non-leaders) who doubt, but are afraid to say so. A good friend of mine was recently called to be stake president, and I have had many conversations with him over the years, where he has expressed doubt. It's not easy expressing doubt in church and I believe dark numbers are high...

[mfbukowski]

He knew of course... Just 'more express' to give the shrug-off for the watching heathens.

Exactly

[ERayR]

I think that if you look at the history of the ban and how the GAs were attempting to come to terms with it...I think that we can say that they did not know why it was enacted. To discover more one can listen to Dehlin's podcast about it. Here are his notes from the podcast. Notice that Abel's grandson was ordained a priest and then an elder in 1934 and 1935. How could that be?

http://mormonstories...ues/blacks.html

Not the answer omni wanted to hear.

[Sleeper Cell]

That may be. But then we have Abel's grandson getting the priesthood. This tells me that they may not have known what exactly was going on. Also, if you look at the time line, it seems that Black Pete's straying away into polygamy and being sealed to several white women, as he claimed to be a 'prophet' may have been the catalyst.

I knew a former bishop of a ward in the Fillmore, UT area.. He told me that he knew one African American brother who was given the priesthood during that era. According to him, the brother’s Patriarchal Blessing declared his lineage as Ephraim. The matter of priesthood was referred to SLC. Eventually, the brethren decided that the Patriarchal Blessing trumped race (at least in that case), and he received the priesthood. I had the impression that this occurred in the 1940s, but I am not sure. I wish I had enough details to confirm this story.

Has anyone else heard a similar story (preferably one that is better documented)?

If true, this would be additional evidence that the brethren were uncertain about “what exactly was going on.” It would also suggest that, even then, they were open to further light on the subject.

[cdowis]

Glenn101, on 27 July 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

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.

Did I miss your citations? CFR please.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.mormoncha...could-i-testify

area authority in 1995 replacing the regional reps

1997 they were ordained as seventies and become area authority seventies.

unknown when shortened, but not before 2003 and not after 2005 at least.

http://en.wikipedia....tter_Day_Saints)#Area_seventies_and_additional_quorums_of_seventy

Changed in 2005:

http://www.lds.org/p...e-line?lang=eng

calmoriah, you are a researcher extrordinaire.

Would you be able to find out how old Mattsson is?

Somebody here said he was released because he turned 70, but I doubt he was that old. (I encountered him in Sweden when I was there for Seatrek 2001.) In any case, unlike General Authorities who are members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, Mattsson was neither and would not have been called with the expectation that he serve until age 70.

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, on 27 July 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

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.

Did I miss your citations? CFR please.

I did not quote either of the two. If you hadread my first post, I noted that the information was in a recent thread on Zina, but if you wish, I will dig out the exact quotes and sources. I really thought that all regular posters here were aware of the experiences of at least those two.

Glenn

[USU78]

calmoriah, you are a researcher extrordinaire.

Would you be able to find out how old Mattsson is?

Somebody here said he was released because he turned 70, but I doubt he was that old. (I encountered him in Sweden when I was there for Seatrek 2001.) In any case, unlike General Authorities who are members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, Mattsson was neither and would not have been called with the expectation that he serve until age 70.

There's a site for the 3rd Quorum of 70s . . . he's on there as a member of the 2000 class, with a 5-year term. 3rd Quorum guys continue to have their own jobs, operate in the areas where they're employed, and are not sustained by the membership as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators," according to the site.

[Scott Lloyd]

There's a site for the 3rd Quorum of 70s . . . he's on there as a member of the 2000 class, with a 5-year term. 3rd Quorum guys continue to have their own jobs, operate in the areas where they're employed, and are not sustained by the membership as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators," according to the site.

Thanks, USU78. That is consistent with my understanding.

[Duncan]

There's a site for the 3rd Quorum of 70s . . . he's on there as a member of the 2000 class, with a 5-year term. 3rd Quorum guys continue to have their own jobs, operate in the areas where they're employed, and are not sustained by the membership as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators," according to the site.

that includes all AA70's 3-8? quorums, just the 1st and 2nd Quorums are General Authorities, 1st members serve generally until 70 if not a bit later or a bit earlier as in the case of Elder Gene R. Cook. but yeah AA70's keep their jobs and aren't general authorities

[omni]

I think that if you look at the history of the ban and how the GAs were attempting to come to terms with it...I think that we can say that they did not know why it was enacted. To discover more one can listen to Dehlin's podcast about it. Here are his notes from the podcast. Notice that Abel's grandson was ordained a priest and then an elder in 1934 and 1935. How could that be?

http://mormonstories...ues/blacks.html

I agree, like I said earlier I've always taken the brethren at their word on this. I was quite surprised when I first asked this that there were a few who insinuated they do know but don't want tell us why for one reason or another (pearls before swine?). So if the brethren don't know the answers to these questions, why is the Lord revealing it to others on this board and not his mouthpiece?