Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[ERayR]

I agree.

It is my theory that there is a key point in the journey of every "doubting" LDS (and probably any other religions as well).

This key point is the moment that they honestly open their mind to one single thought:

"There is a chance that the Church isn't true."

Once this happens, if the doubter opens themselves up to questions about methodology and inquiry (for example, analyzing the ways in which they have traditionally tried to determine the "truthfulness" of the Church and whether or not those ways are the most reliable), the road can get very, very rocky.

But if the anchor holds fast and it is never sincerely considered that the Church might not be true, than no amount of information or anything else will ever put a testimony in danger.

So the key is to try and keep people from ever having that thought.

The key is for them to get personal revelation. You don't keep people from anything. You help them find revelation.

[stemelbow]

I agree.

It is my theory that there is a key point in the journey of every "doubting" LDS (and probably any other religions as well).

This key point is the moment that they honestly open their mind to one single thought:

"There is a chance that the Church isn't true."

Once this happens, if the doubter opens themselves up to questions about methodology and inquiry (for example, analyzing the ways in which they have traditionally tried to determine the "truthfulness" of the Church and whether or not those ways are the most reliable), the road can get very, very rocky.

But if the anchor holds fast and it is never sincerely considered that the Church might not be true, than no amount of information or anything else will ever put a testimony in danger.

So the key is to try and keep people from ever having that thought.

Problem we have here is the assumption that LDS can't consider the possibility of the Church not being true while opening him/herself "up to questions about methodology and inquiry" and yet not going down a rocky path.

Maybe it can quite a benefit to a believer to follow this course in the long run. Sure some willl be lost but perhaps some are better/strong mormons for going that route.

[Nevo]

Problem we have here is the assumption that LDS can't consider the possibility of the Church not being true while opening him/herself "up to questions about methodology and inquiry" and yet not going down a rocky path.

I don't think there is any other way.

Maybe it can quite a benefit to a believer to follow this course in the long run. Sure some willl be lost but perhaps some are better/strong mormons for going that route.

Maybe I'm just being a romantic, but I think a thoughtful, reflective faith is generally to be preferred over unexamined, unreflective faith—in spite of the risks involved. As Paul said, "Howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men" (1 Corinthians 14:20). Or as Dostoevsky put it: "It is not as a child that I confess Christ. My Hosanna comes forth from the crucible of doubt."

[Calm]

Only at the threshold of crisis, it seems, do those words gain any meaning.

Perhaps for some, for others they have had meaning all their lives. I wonder how many of those who have a crisis feel the same way.

[Calm]

So the key is to try and keep people from ever having that thought.

A strong enough anchor can even handle a serious consideration of the possibility that the Church might very well not be true.

I had friends telling me the Church wasn't true when I was about 10 and I took their position seriously then as I do now acquaintances whose experience tells them the LDS faith is not a valid one.

Edited July 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

You're right, I don't believe JS practiced polygamy in the way most people do. But comeon, almost everyone in the church thinks he did. This guy must have known. Either that, or he was a very ignorant man. I don't think there is any middle ground.

But my point is that he doesn't believe anymore because he has chosen not to, not because he was forced not to. So his hurt, sincere or otherwise, is self-inflicted.

I have absolutely zero sympathy with him.

And I know what I am talking about as I have been where he is, as those who know me will readily testify to. So I know the mindset. I know he has deliberately decided to disbelieve for other reasons than the ones he presents, because he will have known about those things for years. He is a fraud in my view.

As for investing his entire life in the church, so what? We all know that we get a lot out of the church too. Especially if we enjoy positions of authority as he had.

No I don't buy it. He's a wolf among lambs and he probably always has been.

As I mentioned I agree what any member ought to at least know JS practiced polygamy based on D&C 132. But my point was most members don't know the extent he did nor about the debacle of polygamy as it became a battle between his successors and the US government. As for your position on polygamy, well you are in opposition to every reputable historian on LDS issues that I am aware. Amazing really.

As for Mattsson choosing or not choosing, well I am not sure it is a choice. For many the evidence just becomes insurmountable and belief at least in the way they once had it is not a tenable position for them to maintain. Of course I may be biased as I have reached that point though many times I have tried to put the genie back in the bottle. It just does not work at least not yet and not for me.

As for this comment you made:

I know he has deliberately decided to disbelieve for other reasons than the ones he presents, because he will have known about those things for years. He is a fraud in my view.

I will be blunt. Such a position is often taken by in the pew Mormons and it is needed to diminish and marginalize someone like Mattsson. And you need to do it because by marginalizing him and his motives your own piety is lofted up and maintained. To allow that there may be validity to the doubter is to jeopardize your own testimony. I know, because I used to do it as well.

[Teancum]

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

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.

1: I understand the context and have read the verse 100s of times and used it in many teaching settings.

2: It is clear to me that you don't care what others may think of you. But the point is your comment is from an a priori dogmatic position that Christ actually said these words which certainly can be questioned by many good people.

[cinepro]

But if the anchor holds fast and it is never sincerely considered that the Church might not be true, than no amount of information or anything else will ever put a testimony in danger.

So the key is to try and keep people from ever having that thought.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 100% of the people that investigate under those conditions will fall away. There are certainly those who will finish their "journey" with strong testimonies and remain faithful to the end.

[cinepro]

The key is for them to get personal revelation. You don't keep people from anything. You help them find revelation.

While I would agree that it's difficult for someone to get a strong testimony without revelation (some would say it's impossible), it does seem possible for people to become thoroughly convinced that the Church isn't true without any revelation whatsoever.

[ERayR]

While I would agree that it's difficult for someone to get a strong testimony without revelation (some would say it's impossible), it does seem possible for people to become thoroughly convinced that the Church isn't true without any revelation whatsoever.

It is indeed possible and I would say maybe even probable that without revelation there will be a falling away if/when they encounter opposition.

[teddyaware]

The real tragedy, for me personally, is that the Church should be very prepared. These issues have been being discussed online for the last 10-15 years, and offline for even longer. The growth of the internet and the spread of information was easy to see 10 years ago.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I have been saying this was coming for 10 years, as have many others with much louder voices. The only reason the Church wouldn't be prepared is because they wouldn't listen; many people have only responded with "All is well."

It's not like the someone discovered Joseph Smith's secret journal two weeks ago and found some damaging information and then the internet was suddenly invented last week and so the Church was blindsided. If the Church is "unprepared", it is only because of complacency and willful ignorance.

The leaders of the Church are not at all unprepared for future challenges; and they most certainly haven't been complacent or willfully ignorant when it comes to readying the members of the Church for the many prophesied tribulations that lie ahead on the way to the Lord's coming. As prophets, seers and revelators these are men of great spiritual intelligence, wisdom and perceptivity, and are second to none when it comes to discerning the future societal, cultural, technological and religious and trends that will confront the saints of God.

The work that needs to be done in order for the Church to be prepared for the oft prophesied future trials that will descend upon the Lord's people has to be carried out by the members themselves -- the Apostles and Prophets are not going to do the preparation for them. This theme is driven home General Conference after General Conference (do you remember?); so much so that by now there's no excuse for a seasoned member not "to know the drill."

From the earliest days of the restoration, each individual member has been commanded to become prophets and prophetesses in their own right, with each to prepare for such by being diligent in filling to the brim the 'lamps' of their faith, hope, testimony and strength with the gifts, powers and revelations of God.

When "the exceedingly great mist(s) of darkness," prophesied by Lehi, surround and envelope the children of the Lord in these last days to perplex, confuse and discourage them till they release their soul saving grip on the holy rod of iron, those who are prophets in there own right will not be moved; but they will steadfastly maintain their grip on the principle of personal revelation till they are safely gathered home to the sheepfold of that God who gave them life.

When men and women become prophets and prophetesses in their own right, they rightly view the living prophets, seers and revelators who stand at the head of the Church as those who are placed first among equals, not as supermen who have obtained spiritual gifts they themselves, as rank and file members of the Church, can never hope to receive.

Perhaps those who struggle with shaken faith syndrome should come to realize the answers to their difficult questions are their own to resolve with the Lord Himself as the supreme visiting General Authority. After all, the promise of God is unto all, for a great prophet who did not lie said:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10)

Edited July 22, 2013 by teddyaware

[bubbachen]

When "the exceedingly great mist(s) of darkness," prophesied by Lehi, surround and envelope the children of the Lord in these last days to perplex, confuse and discourage them till they release their soul saving grip on the holy rod of iron, those who are prophets in there own right will not be moved; but they will steadfastly maintain their grip on the principle of personal revelation till they are safely gathered home to the sheepfold of that God who gave them life.

And all the people of God say, "Amen". Just remember, the Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ. We have the Old Testament, New Testament, and other more conventional, if you will, words of God. The iron rod at it's core is Jesus Christ. Personal revelation begins with the knowledge from God that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God. Everything else comes in at a distant second. And by everything else I mean: was Joseph Smith a prophet, is the BOM "true", is the "Church" true, do we have a prophet leading us today? Am I the only LDS that thinks this way? Doesn't it make sense to begin at the beginning, at foundation of existence and being? All of the early LDS converts believed in the Bible first and believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be prior to acceptance of LDS-specific doctrine.

[Calm]

Praying is done in desperation, "Please, Lord, give me something, anything to hang on to." But the whole test of faith is flavored by that awful balance of hope and doubt.

At least, that is my experience. Maybe it is uncommon.

Probably not, after all there is "Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief" (Mark 9:24).

[teddyaware]

And all the people of God say, "Amen". Just remember, the Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ. We have the Old Testament, New Testament, and other more conventional, if you will, words of God. The iron rod at it's core is Jesus Christ. Personal revelation begins with the knowledge from God that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God. Everything else comes in at a distant second. And by everything else I mean: was Joseph Smith a prophet, is the BOM "true", is the "Church" true, do we have a prophet leading us today? Am I the only LDS that thinks this way? Doesn't it make sense to begin at the beginning, at foundation of existence and being? All of the early LDS converts believed in the Bible first and believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be prior to acceptance of LDS-specific doctrine.

I'm glad that you seemed to get a kick out of my not so successful attempts at eloquence. Can't seem to help myself because I so admire those who can actually write with genuine eloquence.

As to your post, I disagree with you somewhat. Without the First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, the revelation of the books of Abraham and Moses, the compilation and publication of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the reestablishment of the true Church organization under the leadership of living Apostles and Prophets, the bestowal of essential dispensational keys of priesthood authority by angelic ministration (including the sealing power of Elijah), the restoration of the sacred temple ordinances that enable the prisoners in the spirit world to go free, etc. there is no true Church and Gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth. Unauthorized men may try as they will to administer the church and gospel, but they do so without saving power.

If one believes in the tenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like it or not there is no saving power on the earth without the Holy Priesthood, and one cannot embrace the true gospel of Christ without simultaneously accepting His duly authorized and ordained servants. Your statement causes one to wonder how familiar you are with the scriptures of the Restoration. There is no Church or gospel of Jesus Christ upon the face of the earth without the presence of duly authorized servants of God -- even those who hold the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.

The Gospel of Christ and His priesthood are inextricably linked; there is no actual existence of one without the other. And so in accordance with the above we read:

"19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh.(D&C 84)"

Even so, after all the above, perhaps I misunderstood your response and we are more or less on the same page after all. Let me know what you think...

Edited July 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[canard78]

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.

Try this: http://mormonstories.org/hans-mattsson/

I'm not sure. It has time codes in it and notes on inaudible sections. It also seems to end quite abruptly.

It's a fair concern to question the sources. Perhaps someone could ask for a copy to verify it.

(Edit: I noticed they've removed the link. Not sure why. Cal, PM me if you want to see it - 36 pages of it - I can send it as I downloaded it before the link was deleted).

Edited July 23, 2013 by canard78

[bu11fr0g]

I always thought Joseph Smiths polygamy was questiinable especially consummated polygamy. How else could all of the other branches be nonpolygamist?

Part of my oersonal problem was that when i lioked cliser at things that I had put on the shelf to figure out later -- it was much wirse than I thought. The more I look at Joseph Smith's polygamy the more rotten it appears.

Nearly all of the stuff antis write about falls apart on close inspection: the issues brought up by matteson dont and ger worse: polygamy, blacks and priesthood, book of abraham, book of mormon genetics. The more i look the more convoluted the explanations and more untrue statements by general authorities.

[Alan]

As for this comment you made:

I know he has deliberately decided to disbelieve for other reasons than the ones he presents, because he will have known about those things for years. He is a fraud in my view.

I will be blunt.

So will I.

I have first-hand knowledge of this. I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. I know what I'm talking about. Believe me, we may well discover one day that this man had other issues.

The case of George P. Lee is a good example. He was excommunicated for "apostacy" because he argued with the Brethren over a point of doctrine and wouldn't relent. However, we later discovered he was actually a child molestor.

I'm not accusing Mattsson of such a crime, but I am saying there will be an underlying issue which has been festering for many years. His recent "epiphany" regarding the church's history is a comfort blanket for him. Especially as he has been so vocal about it.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Alan

[bubbachen]

I'm glad that you seemed to get a kick out of my not so successful attempts at eloquence. Can't seem to help myself because I so admire those who can actually write with genuine eloquence.

As to your post, I disagree with you somewhat. Without the First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, the revelation of the books of Abraham and Moses, the compilation and publication of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the reestablishment of the true Church organization under the leadership of living Apostles and Prophets, the bestowal of essential dispensational keys of priesthood authority by angelic ministration (including the sealing power of Elijah), the restoration of the sacred temple ordinances that enable the prisoners in the spirit world to go free, etc. there is no true Church and Gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth. Unauthorized men may try as they will to administer the church and gospel, but they do so without saving power.

If one believes in the tenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like it or not there is no saving power on the earth without the Holy Priesthood, and one cannot embrace the true gospel of Christ without simultaneously accepting His duly authorized and ordained servants. Your statement causes one to wonder how familiar you are with the scriptures of the Restoration. There is no Church or gospel of Jesus Christ upon the face of the earth without the presence of duly authorized servants of God -- even those who hold the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.

The Gospel of Christ and His priesthood are inextricably linked; there is no actual existence of one without the other. And so in accordance with the above we read:

"19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh.(D&C 84)"

Even so, after all the above, perhaps I misunderstood your response and we are more or less on the same page after all. Let me know what you think...

Ted, I was trying to convey my approval of what you wrote by using a phrase some preachers use to emphasize a point, as in "can I get an amen?" I think you are quite eloquent, primarily because you are able to convey what you mean to say in an edifying way. I didn't "get a kick" out of your post, so sorry if my reply seemed critical or snide in any way.

I'm a poor writer, so let me try to clarify what I previously said. I grew up as a Protestant Christian, so I've looked at the LDS Church from the outside in, and even though I consider myself a faithful and very active member, I am uncomfortable at times when people testify "I know the BOM is true. I know JS was a prophet of God and that Thomas S. Monson is God's prophet on earth today," and then they totally skip any testimony about Christ. Who is the Foundation? Through Whom was the universe made? You include in the Gospel quite a bit of what I consider to be extras (solemnly important and vital to our exaltation/sanctification but extras nonetheless). I believe the Gospel is the good news that the Messiah promised in the OT, YHWH Himself, has come in the flesh, suffered and died for humanity's sake, rose again in three days, and is now seated on the right hand of the Most High God. This has always been the bare core of the Gospel to me. The restoration of the Christ's church on earth through the prophet Joseph Smith, and everything else you referred to, is an elaboration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and this restoration elucidates the why, how, when, where... many of the details. I believe the LDS church is of God. But my starting point before joining the church was that Jesus is the Son of God as revealed to me by God through revelation. It seems to me that many LDS first ask if the BOM is true, if JS was a prophet, etc. and only then can they believe in Christ - placing the cart before the horse.

I realize that what I'm saying may sound strange to a born-in-the-covenant member, where priesthood, church structure, and even green jello salad can be inextricably tied to the divinity of Jesus. For me, and I would imagine many of my ilk who considered themselves Christians before joining the LDS church, the focus of my worship, the One that I love and call upon, this Jesus - my basic relationship with Him is not dependent upon the existence of the LDS Church, its prophets, or the BOM. I believe in Jesus because God revealed him to me, personally. BUT...because, because, because I believe in Him (as revealed in the protestant bible, the OTHER testament of Jesus Christ), I also believe that the LDS Church IS led by Him, and Thomas Monson is His prophet, and the BOM is scripture, and priesthood authority has been restored to the earth. Does this make sense? Everything starts and ends with Jesus, the Rock of our salvation.

So if one as an LDS member places his faith on anything other than the personal being that is the living, saving, all-encompassing Christ, faith crises will be inevitable in this world of information overload.

Ted, I think you and I are on the exact same page. Only I seem to be reading it upside down.

[canard78]

So will I.

I have first-hand knowledge of this. I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. I know what I'm talking about. Believe me, we may well discover one day that this man had other issues.

The case of George P. Lee is a good example. He was excommunicated for "apostacy" because he argued with the Brethren over a point of doctrine and wouldn't relent. However, we later discovered he was actually a child molestor.

I'm not accusing Mattsson of such a crime, but I am saying there will be an underlying issue which has been festering for many years. His recent "epiphany" regarding the church's history is a comfort blanket for him. Especially as he has been so vocal about it.

Provide some evidence for your conclusion of fraud and stop mud throwing by insinuation.

You have first hand experience of Elder Mattsson? Or of other people? Stop projecting your views onto others.

Are all people who leave the church sinners? My wife left the church while fully living all aspects of gospel commandments.

I believe you've said you're a Bishop in the past. If a member comes to you expressing doubts is your first reply to ask them about their worthiness?

[Bart Burk]

I find it hard to believe that anyone can be a member of the Church for five minutes without knowing about it. It's almost always the first question people ask about when they find out you are mormon.

I knew about polygamy when I joined the LDS Church. I didn't know that Joseph Smith had married a 14 year old girl or that he had married the wives of the other apostles. I was pretty surprised to learn that. I think that is what seems to have surprised them in Sweden as well. This is the kind of history the LDS Church might need to be more open about because it is all over the internet now and can't be simply brushed off. That the practice of polygamy might be true, but that the early Saints misunderstood how to apply it and sometimes might have applied it incorrectly, could be a better way of approaching the issue.

[Alan]

Provide some evidence for your conclusion of fraud.

No. The evidence I quote is from my own experience. Other evidence I have from other peoples experiences is confidential so I won't share it here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Needless to say, I stick by my conclusions 100%.

You have first hand experience of Elder Mattsson? Or of other people?.

Of other people, including myself - yes I do.

I believe you've said you're a Bishop in the past. If a member comes to you expressing doubts is your first reply to ask them about their worthiness?

No, but invariably it is. It may not come to light immediately, but it does eventually.

[Krutt]

I knew about polygamy when I joined the LDS Church. I didn't know that Joseph Smith had married a 14 year old girl or that he had married the wives of the other apostles. I was pretty surprised to learn that. I think that is what seems to have surprised them in Sweden as well. This is the kind of history the LDS Church might need to be more open about because it is all over the internet now and can't be simply brushed off. That the practice of polygamy might be true, but that the early Saints misunderstood how to apply it and sometimes might have applied it incorrectly, could be a better way of approaching the issue.

Have known about polygamy in the early church since I was about 13-14 mid 80's, but learned about polyandry for about 3 years ago. Really, really wish the church would come with an official statement about this practice.

[Alan]

Have known about polygamy in the early church since I was about 13-14 mid 80's, but learned about polyandry for about 3 years ago. Really, really wish the church would come with an official statement about this practice.

They won't do that for one simple reason - there was no polyandry. Joseph was simply sealed to these people, not married to them. When we understand that, the whole issue ceases to be an issue.

[Krutt]

They won't do that for one simple reason - there was no polyandry. Joseph was simply sealed to these people, not married to them. When we understand that, the whole issue ceases to be an issue.

But Brigham Young did the same thing...so did John Taylor. Brigham married Zina Huntington Jacobs and had children with her, while she was married to Henry Bailey Jacobs.

[Krutt]

But Brigham Young did the same thing...so did John Taylor. Brigham married Zina Huntington Jacobs and had children with her, while she was married to Henry Bailey Jacobs.

Church historic department will affirm this practice, but say they just don't know, nor understand...