Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[omni]

Not the answer omni wanted to hear.

Nice dodge...again.

[Bart Burk]

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?

What would it change if we knew the answer?

[omni]

What would it change if we knew the answer?

I don't understand the question, If who knew the answer?

[Calm]

calmoriah, you are a researcher extrordinaire. Would you be able to find out how old Mattsson is?

He served 5 years, 2000-2005. Sounds like he was released on schedule or maybe a little early for heart surgery.

As to age, I haven't been able to find anything but perhaps someone who has listened to his first podcast about the early years in Sweden heard him say something?

Looking at pictures of him, I would be surprised if he was 78 or 79 (assuming he was 70 in 2005).

https://www.facebook.com/hhmattsson

I am thinking if he gives the date of his mission (he served it in London according to an article on lds.org) or something like that?

Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Sleeper Cell]

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?

]I’m reminded of the old story about the father who had two daughters. One was intelligent, kind, thoughtful and pleasant. The other was the opposite. The father so enjoyed talking to the first that he was slow to grant her requests -- in order to extend their conversations as long as possible. On the other hand, he was quick to grant the requests of his second daughter because … well, you get the idea.

[why me]

Not the answer omni wanted to hear.

Very few critics do want to hear it. I also think that many of them were not around during the priesthood ban. Those of us who were have a more understanding attitude of it all and we remember the conversations that members would have in foyer or in the meetings. I think that John gave a good outline of his podcast. And by looking at it, we can see just where the problem came from and how it was being worked through in the 20th century.

[why me]

Nice dodge...again.

No dodge. But if you look at the notes from the podcast or listen to the podcast you will see where the problem could have originated and how the leaders were trying to work their way through it. The fact that Abel's grandson got the both priesthoods tells us that things were not so clear cut. And Abel came from african ancestry and did suffer some consequences about it during Brigham's time. So, how could his grandchild get the priesthood?

http://mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/blacks.html

Edited July 29, 2013 by why me

[why me]

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?

I think that you are misreading it. We are more or less attempting to give explanations. Nothing more. I also don't think that the GAs have all the answers about the past. They are not gods, just human beings who are attempting to navigate through life too. Also, life is much more rosier when we focus on positives and not negatives. I have catholic friends who attend the catholic church regularly. They do not dwell on the negatives but see the positives in the Mass and in the faith. If we dwelt on the negatives on a constant basis, it would eventually destroy us. And lets face it, one can always find something that we may think is a negative.

[omni]

I think that you are misreading it. We are more or less attempting to give explanations. Nothing more. I also don't think that the GAs have all the answers about the past. They are not gods, just human beings who are attempting to navigate through life too. Also, life is much more rosier when we focus on positives and not negatives. I have catholic friends who attend the catholic church regularly. They do not dwell on the negatives but see the positives in the Mass and in the faith. If we dwelt on the negatives on a constant basis, it would eventually destroy us. And lets face it, one can always find something that we may think is a negative.

Just to be perfectly clear, I have not been asking why the ban was put in place, why polygamy was instated, or is human evolution a fact, etc. What I've been asking is...

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?

or here...

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.

and here...

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?

oh wait, one more...

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.

and finally here...

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?

[Bart Burk]

I don't understand the question, If who knew the answer?

Everyone.

[canard78]

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.

Talk about a knee-jerk overreaction. So just excommunicate the individual. Don't ban his entire race for 130 years.

If Black Pete had actually been Chinese Pete or Polish Pete, would you be fine with their entire nationality being banned for over a century?

[Calm]

Talk about a knee-jerk overreaction. So just excommunicate the individual. Don't ban his entire race for 130 years.

If Black Pete had actually been Chinese Pete or Polish Pete, would you be fine with their entire nationality being banned for over a century?

Better yet, English Pete.

Oh wait, didn't that happen already with John Bennett?

Edited July 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[omni]

What would it change if we knew the answer?

Because thousands of people are leaving the church or at the very least having a crisis of faith. If we were receiving genuine answers to these questions I have no doubt many of these people would stay. If these policies came from God there would no doubt be a good reason for them, whether man would accept them or not. As Paul said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel". Are we too ashamed of the real reasons for these policies?

[Duncan]

Because thousands of people are leaving the church or at the very least having a crisis of faith. If we were receiving genuine answers to these questions I have no doubt many of these people would stay. If these policies came from God there would no doubt be a good reason for them, whether man would accept them or not. As Paul said, "I am not ashamed of the gospel". Are we too ashamed of the real reasons for these policies?

you think people quit the Church solely for historical reasons?

[Questing Beast]

you think people quit the Church solely for historical reasons?

It isn't the more fulsome history details that are the cause of leaving, it is the changed religious world view resulting therefrom....

[Duncan]

It isn't the more fulsome history details that are the cause of leaving, it is the changed religious world view resulting therefrom....

"religious worldview" ? how would my view of God and my relationship with him be weakened if Joseph Smith, whom I've never met and know only through documents, let's say fathered a child with someone other then Emma? who cares, i've got my own life to live and answer for. I LOVE history and even have a degree in it but I have to have two feet living in 2013 Canada, not the 1830's and 40's United States of America

Edited July 30, 2013 by Duncan

[omni]

you think people quit the Church solely for historical reasons?

Certainly not all or even most, but a significant and growing number do.

Edited July 30, 2013 by omni

[Questing Beast]

"religious worldview" ? how would my view of God and my relationship with him be weakened if Joseph Smith, whom I've never met and know only through documents, let's say fathered a child with someone other then Emma? who cares, i've got my own life to live and answer for. I LOVE history and even have a degree in it but I have to have two feet living in 2013 Canada, not the 1830's and 40's United States of America

If it is that simple for you, then you don't have an issue with the evidence pointing to JS as a "fallen prophet". I don't think of him as a "fallen prophet" either. But the evidence convinced me that "prophets" of the dogmatic, that is to say scriptural variety, have never existed. Take away JS's prophetic "mantel" and the whole of Judeo-Christianity falls apart, because it was only the "restoration" that showed the validity of Judeo-Christianity in the first place, for me. JS gone, gone is the whole structure I have expressed elsewhere that I have had difficulties believing. I just couldn't form clear concepts before Mormonism and the rest of religion fell apart. Once I got out of that mindset, I started to rapidly see things in a wider, even infinite, way, which makes "God" infinitely more huge in my existence than ever before. Far too Infinite to bother with "prophets". One on one is much better. "Save money, time and space"! ... Edited July 30, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Tacenda]

Duncan, remember this saying "they study their way out of the church".

Edited July 30, 2013 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

If it is that simple for you, then you don't have an issue with the evidence pointing to JS as a "fallen prophet". I don't think of him as a "fallen prophet" either. But the evidence convinced me that "prophets" of the dogmatic, that is to say scriptural variety, have never existed. Take away JS's prophetic "mantel" and the whole of Judeo-Christianity falls apart, because it was only the "restoration" that showed the validity of Judeo-Christianity in the first place, for me. JS gone, gone is the whole structure I have expressed elsewhere that I have had difficulties believing. I just couldn't form clear concepts before Mormonism and the rest of religion fell apart. Once I got out of that mindset, I started to rapidly see things in a wider, even infinite, way, which makes "God" infinitely more huge in my existence than ever before. Far too Infinite to bother with "prophets". One on one is much better. "Save money, time and space"! ...

I don't think of him as a fallen prophet and I have my own reasons for that

[Duncan]

Duncan, remember this saying "they study their way out of the church".

thats true they study their way out of the Church and I have no idea why they would do that, histry is not a search for God but a study of God. I don't think most people who quit the church do so for historical reasons. My one friend who quit the Church a few years ago didn't know who the Jaredites were and she had been a member all her 35 plus years, she did something she shouldn't have

Edited July 30, 2013 by Duncan

[Questing Beast]

thats true they study their way out of the Church and I have no idea why they would do that, histry is not a search for God but a study of God. I don't think most people who quit the church do so for historical reasons. My one friend who quit the Church a few years ago didn't know who the Jaredites were and she had been a member all her 35 plus years, she did something she shouldn't have

you are echoing my father in law, who quotes GAs who assert that apostasy is always caused by iniquity. That is not true. I know it is a false teaching....

[Duncan]

you are echoing my father in law, who quotes GAs who assert that apostasy is always caused by iniquity. That is not true. I know it is a false teaching....

I wasn't implying that all people who quit the Church do so because they want to sin or have sinned, she did but other people I know quit for other reasons but none have anything to do with history. Some quit because of history and I am saying i don't know why they would

[Duncan]

you are echoing my father in law, who quotes GAs who assert that apostasy is always caused by iniquity. That is not true. I know it is a false teaching....

show your father in law this conference talk from 1999

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1999/10/feed-my-sheep?lang=eng

[ERayR]

Nice dodge...again.

Huh, Dodge how?