Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[bear]

How.... How can you say that his doubting the church is just an easy way for him to let go of the church because he clearly has other issues and he is just a wolf in sheep clothes??? Who are you to say? I have doubted a lot. But I have NEVER in my life felt closer to God than I do now. I still doubt. I still feel close to him. Many peoplle leave because they doubt. They don't doubt to make it an easy way to get yout of church. How can you even begin to say that you and him think alike when you don't know him? I'm going to let it go now but just had to let you know.

[canard78]

When one has doubts, as does Elder Mattsson, there is no better counselor, teacher, and resolver of doubts and troubling issues than is the Holy Ghost Himself. At the time of his baptism, Brother Mattsson was the recipient of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and speaking from my own personal experience, I can say that when I was troubled with questions, it was by my own study, research and prayerful seeking that the Holy Ghost Himself ultimately inspired me with answers my questions that brought peace to my heart, enabling me to maintain my conviction of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel.

I think it's very likely the reason why Brother Mattsson received what you call Marlin Jensen's "paucity of answers" is because there actually is no good way for an outside party (i.e. someone outside of the doubter's own mind, heart and spirit) who is able to satisfactorily answer these questions in a way that would satisfy a troubled mind and restore testimony. The only way for one to overcome the exceedingly great mists of darkness that cause some to let go their grip on the iron rod of truth and testimony -- as described by Lehi in his vision of the tree of life -- is to maintain his grip on the iron rod of the word of God, and remain steadfast in testimony to the doctrines and principles he already knows to be true.

To further explain the above point, if someone already knows the Book of Mormon is a miraculously produced second prophetic witness of the Lord Jesus Christ, he should maintain a firm grip on that sacred book and not allow some late appearing mist of darkness and confusion to cause him to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Or if a man has a testimony that celestial eternal family life is God's design and will for those most blessed of the Father's spirit children who obtain the third heaven, he should keep a firm grip on that glorious principle, rather than cast it away because of some Johnny-come-lately mist of darkness that ministers doubt. Faith in what one already knows to be true fortifies the soul against the doubts and questions that could cause him to turn away from those things that he, by personal revelation, already knows to be true

Lehi's vision vividly demonstrates that powerful doubts can and will present themselves to testimony bearing believers who cling to the iron rod of truth. And according to Lehi, some will allow those mists of darkness and confusion to override the spiritual knowledge of that which they already knew to be true. Conversely, Lehi also tells us there are others who will not allow the confusing and frightening mists of darkness to persuade them to release their grip on those sacred principles and doctrines which they know in their hearts are be true.

Will people please listen to his own words before thinking they can pass judgement on the man.

He did go to the Lord in prayer, he did feel guided by the spirit in his actions. He does feel the Lord has guided him to the position he is in now. He does believe that God wants him to be open about his experience to help the church open up and to offer some support to others who struggle with their faith.

Do you accept that he has also now been blessed to have answers from the Holy Ghost like he says he has, or do you presume that his answers were wrong because they contradict the answers you think you've had?

[canard78]

How.... How can you say that his doubting the church is just an easy way for him to let go of the church because he clearly has other issues and he is just a wolf in sheep clothes??? Who are you to say? I have doubted a lot. But I have NEVER in my life felt closer to God than I do now. I still doubt. I still feel close to him. Many peoplle leave because they doubt. They don't doubt to make it an easy way to get yout of church. How can you even begin to say that you and him think alike when you don't know him? I'm going to let it go now but just had to let you know.

I can only presume that some people read things like this and it scares them. They go into a defensive corner and then come out fighting. The accusation of fraud has been presented with no evidence at all.

I would suggest an unfounded accusation of fraud is slander. I'd suggest the board might want to remove it as litigation can, I believe, be brought against the publisher not just the individual.

[Duncan]

Will people please listen to his own words before thinking they can pass judgement on the man.

He did go to the Lord in prayer, he did feel guided by the spirit in his actions. He does feel the Lord has guided him to the position he is in now. He does believe that God wants him to be open about his experience to help the church open up and to offer some support to others who struggle with their faith.

Do you accept that he has also now been blessed to have answers from the Holy Ghost like he says he has, or do you presume that his answers were wrong because they contradict the answers you think you've had?

Mattsson sounds like a self proclaimed something or other says I, but with others I wish him well. I always thought that the scriptures were here "that faith might also might increase in the earth" also general conference, church and firesides

Besides of which I wish he would remember this experience that he wrote about in the Ensign

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=150&sourceId=5e4ad326b221c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[ALarson]

Seriously? I didn't know we had members on the moon!

So you had never read D&C 132? You know, the bit where Emma is told to accept the "wives" Joseph has already been given?

You've stated on here that you do not believe that Joseph Smith wrote D&C 132, Alan (Rock)....have you now changed your mind?

[canard78]

I recognise I've been quite vocal and emotional in my defence of Hans Mattsson.

I've listened to his interview with Dehlin. I've read the full transcript of the Turley/Jensen visit to Sweden in 2010.

If find Mattsson's concerns reasonable and often unanswered.

I'll try to calm the passion in my posts down and 'play the ball as it lies.'

[ERayR]

He was a very high ranking leader within the church and he seems very sincere to me.

So was Oliver Cowdery.

[canard78]

You've stated on here that you do not believe that Joseph Smith wrote D&C 132, Alan (Rock)....have you now changed your mind?

Good point. Besides which he's simplifying the section. It doesn't specifically tell Emma to accept the wives.

[pmccombs1]

Seriously? I didn't know we had members on the moon!

So you had never read D&C 132? You know, the bit where Emma is told to accept the "wives" Joseph has already been given?

I joined the church when I was 13 (nearly 40 years ago) and I have known about Joseph's alleged polygamy nearly all of that time. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Alas, I grew up in an era of franchise religion, characterized by standardization and correlation. It was a time when reading and not-reading amounted to about the same thing. Here on the moon, we are first told what the words mean, then we read them as a mere exercise in devotion, already having been taught what to expect from them. Our scriptures were mere signs of things called "continuing revelation," interpreted for us by specialists and subject to the leveling machinery of a correlation department bent on delivering a single, vanilla-flavored faith-promoting story. It didn't matter at all what any of it actually said. Well, until now, that is.

Edited July 22, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Danzo]

I can only presume that some people read things like this and it scares them. They go into a defensive corner and then come out fighting. The accusation of fraud has been presented with no evidence at all.

I would suggest an unfounded accusation of fraud is slander. I'd suggest the board might want to remove it as litigation can, I believe, be brought against the publisher not just the individual.

I think that a lot of other web boards will go down for libel before this one. It is mild. Unfortunately since the topic of this thread is a man. People will discuss this man.

His issues have been discussed ad nausem on this board for ages. There is nothing new here (at least for anyone who looks at this board regularly).

As I think was discussed earlier, this man has been going through questions that seem common in this era. The details of Joseph Smiths' polygamy and polyandry are not know very well even by the those that claim to know a lot. Even the so called experts know very little. Because we know so little there is large room for doubt. Everyone feels in the blanks with what they "know" he was really doing.

A long time ago, (before the internet in the stone age) I asked someone who was an institute teacher and (i think) had a doctorate in church history. He said that some of Joseph's Smiths wives were legally married at the time. He said we don't know why, or any of the details, and left it at that. I think that was and still is the appropriate answer for today. We don't know much, certainly not any details.

So the question is, what good does it do to obsess about this issue? I don't think it can be argued that the church today teaches us to marry other peoples spouses. I don't think that we have record that the church has ever taught this.

We obsess about this issue because

1. What if Joseph smith wasn't as righteous as we thought he was? (he probably wasn't, we even see it in scripture)

2. We want to defend Joseph Smith. (I'll god judge him)

3. We want to introduce doubt ("What else don't we know?")

4. Everyone like a good scandal.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Danzo

[ALarson]

So was Oliver Cowdery.

Mattsson is still an active member of the church.

[Danzo]

Mattsson is still an active member of the church.

Oliver Cowdery Came back so there is hope for Mattsson.

[canard78]

I think that a lot of other web boards will go down for libel before this one. It is mild. Unfortunately since the topic of this thread is a man. People will discuss this man.

His issues have been discussed ad nausem on this board for ages. There is nothing new here (at least for anyone who looks at this board regularly).

As I think was discussed earlier, this man has been going through questions that seem common in this era. The details of Joseph Smiths' polygamy and polyandry are not know very well even by the those that claim to know a lot. Even the so called experts know very little. Because we know so little there is large room for doubt. Everyone feels in the blanks with what they "know" he was really doing.

A long time ago, (before the internet in the stone age) I asked someone who was an institute teacher and (i think) had a doctorate in church history. He said that some of Joseph's Smiths wives were legally married at the time. He said we don't know why, or any of the details, and left it at that. I think that was and still is the appropriate answer for today. We don't know much, certainly not any details.

So the question is, what good does it do to obsess about this issue? I don't think it can be argued that the church today teaches us to marry other peoples spouses. I don't think that we have record that the church has ever taught this.

We obsess about this issue because

1. What if Joseph smith wasn't as righteous as we thought he was? (he probably wasn't, we even see it in scripture)

2. We want to defend Joseph Smith. (I'll god judge him)

3. We want to introduce doubt ("What else don't we know?")

4. Everyone like a good scandal.

I used to be content to ignore our origins and just focused on the church today. Not good enough anymore.

And this is the first I've heard of Mattsson. I had no idea it had been discussed 'ad nasuem.' Please provide some links to previous discussions.

[rameumptom]

I think we often misinterpret the concept of "true and living church", because we do not keep reading. The Lord notes that at the time of the revelation, the LDS Church was the only "true and living church, with which, I the Lord, am well pleased." This suggests there may be other true and living churches. There may be some true churches, and some living churches. There may be some that the Lord is somewhat pleased with, and others that he is not pleased with, at all.

Also, the Terrestrial Kingdom is described as honorable people that the Lord loves. They are considered Jesus' children. That is not a path to the fullness, but it is a path of ascendancy for many who do not feel comfortable with all the LDS Church engenders. And the Church is perfect when it deals with core doctrine, principles and ordinances, but often is not perfect when it strays from those things (which is why we have continuing revelation).

[canard78]

Mattsson sounds like a self proclaimed something or other says I, but with others I wish him well. I always thought that the scriptures were here "that faith might also might increase in the earth" also general conference, church and firesides

Besides of which I wish he would remember this experience that he wrote about in the Ensign

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

Have you listened to his interview?

He hasn't forgotten the spiritual expriences of the past. He's just viewing them from a different perspective.

FWIW, that article was written in 2004. His faith struggles started in 2005. So there's no contradiction or misrepresentation from this article.

Edited July 22, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

So was Oliver Cowdery.

And your point being?

[Danzo]

I used to be content to ignore our origins and just focused on the church today. Not good enough anymore.

And this is the first I've heard of Mattsson. I had no idea it had been discussed 'ad nasuem.' Please provide some links to previous discussions.

It is his issues that have been discussed. He his just a new person with the same issues.

Why is Church history so important to your spirituality? (I admit it is interesting, which is why I study it)

I fear that by placing so much faith in dead mortals, there is a risk in transforming this church into the Church of Joseph, or the Church of Brigham.

Maybe that is the case for some of these people. That for them it is the Church of Joseph, in that their faith was in Joseph, so maybe this questioning will turn into something good.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Danzo

[ERayR]

And your point being?

Posted Today, 10:18 AM

ALarson, on 22 July 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

He was a very high ranking leader within the church and he seems very sincere to me.

[Calm]

But Joseph himself... I had always imaged there was only Emma. I had been taught of her many times, but of others, nothing at all. It made for a certain perception, the D&C notwithstanding..

I am not debating that you didn't know or condemning you, I am just curious about learning how this works for those who have read the D&C and don't process it as evidence of Joseph's plural marriages, but something else. Please, could you possibly give more detail as to how you interpreted certain verses as well as the heading so that you understood it to be only Emma?

[thesometimesaint]

.

It was Joseph Smith claiming Christ was designating the LDS church as the only true and living church. Someone who rejects that Smith was speaking for Jesus or perhaps believes Joseph was inserting some of his own ideas into the pot would certainly consider your comments dogmatic.

So said some to the original Apostles.

[Calm]

Seriously? I didn't know we had members on the moon!

So you had never read D&C 132? You know, the bit where Emma is told to accept the "wives" Joseph has already been given?

I found out my sister wasn't aware of the David and Goliath story when she was in her teens. I still don't understand how someone can go through Primary and SS and just life in general and not pickup somehow on such a well known story. People just process things differently, I highly doubt it is intentional or based on intelligence or faithfulness, though it may have implications for long term commitment to their faith community or other types of community due to encountering such information in a way that they become fully aware of it and retain that awareness.

[Calm]

Unbelievable. It's sad that someone who has essentially dedicated his entire adult life to the church and then admits to a faith crisis suddenly becomes persona non grata.

Not everyone sees it that way. One needs to be as careful in making general assumptions about those who condemn as one is careful about making assumptions about the individual that some condemn.

I feel great sorrow and frustration for this and other individuals in his situation...sorrow for the pain that seems so unnecessary to me and frustration because there seems no way to avoid it for some. Hopefully as we progress in knowledge and experience (mankind in general and the church community in particular), we will learn ways to teach awareness in more lasting and deep ways so that all may understand and process significant information, especially that which later has great emotional impact for them, at a level that works for them.

Edited July 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Yes it is, but that's life.

No, we have a choice on how to react to others who see things differently than we do. We don't have to dismiss it as simply being 'life' and therefore we are justified in making negative judgments about someone, even if we think we've experienced the same thing in our life and reacted differently.

[Calm]

(and it's not hard to see why when reading the transcript of the Swedish meeting in 2010 with Elder Jensen and Richard Turley).

Link doesn't work for me.

Do we know if this is an official transcript or something that we can compare to a recording to check for accuracy? I am not claiming it isn't accurate, just wondering.

[Scott Lloyd]

.

It was Joseph Smith claiming Christ was designating the LDS church as the only true and living church.

Look at the context of Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 where the phrase comes from. They are the words of Christ, not Joseph Smith.

Someone who rejects that Smith was speaking for Jesus or perhaps believes Joseph was inserting some of his own ideas into the pot would certainly consider your comments dogmatic.

I'm speaking from the perspective of a believing Latter-day Saint. In doing so, I've never been overly concerned about what an unbeliever might think of me.