Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[ERayR]

Be that as it may, when interacting with me on this board and elsewhere, you will do so with civility or not at all.

Will you please put the real Scott Lloyd back on?

[Calm]

Hi there! Tell you what, it seems that for some reason the messaging app needed in order to message others on this board is no longer found on my page. Don't exactly know why this is the case but here I stand partially incommunicado. I can't even message the moderators to let them know of my plight (perhaps one will read this and restore the function).

reported it, there is one mod that does the tech stuff I think and he's not always available.

[ALarson]

I'm listening to the podcast right now and I highly recommend that others listen to it too. Hans Mattsson and his wife are delightful and are filled with love for the church and the members. They are still active and attend for their own reasons (more for community...family and friends). They are not bitter or angry and only want the best for the church and hope what they are doing will help others answer difficult questions. Anyway....my thoughts.

[ERayR]

I'm listening to the podcast right now and I highly recommend that others listen to it too. Hans Mattsson and his wife are delightful and are filled with love for the church and the members. They are still active and attend for their own reasons (more for community...family and friends). They are not bitter or angry and only want the best for the church and hope what they are doing will help others answer difficult questions. Anyway....my thoughts.

First, how can they help others find answers that they themselves don't have? Second, This seems to be appropriate here: Rev. 3:16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

[ALarson]

First, how can they help others find answers that they themselves don't have? Second, This seems to be appropriate here: Rev. 3:16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

They are hoping that by bringing attention to these issues, it will encourage the church to be more open and forthcoming with much needed answers. You shouldn't be judgmental of them if you refuse to listen to them and their feelings and desires for the church. Continue doing this if you wish....but they are anything but "lukewarm" about their beliefs.

Edited July 23, 2013 by ALarson

[Calm]

I think the being "lukewarm" is more about being indifferent than it is about being undecided...unless one cultivates the state of undecidedness rather than just attempting to pass through it into a decided position eventually.

[ERayR]

They are hoping that by bringing attention to these issues, it will encourage the church to be more open and forthcoming with much needed answers. You shouldn't be judgmental of them if you refuse to listen to them and their feelings and desires for the church. Continue doing this if you wish....but they are anything but "lukewarm" about their beliefs.

Where do you read judgmental into what I wrote? Second I evidently don't see judgmental as you see it. If one was not judgmental they would succumb to all sorts of things. It is good and right to be so. One must, however, realize that with what judgement one judges so shall he be judged. Darn it another one of those consequence thingys.

[ALarson]

I think the being "lukewarm" is more about being indifferent than it is about being undecided...unless one cultivates the state of undecidedness rather than just attempting to pass through it into a decided position eventually.

I also have felt that's what was meant by "lukewarm". As far as the Mattssons....they are neither indifferent nor undecided (so lukewarm does not describe them at all). They love the church and hope others who find out about some of the difficult issues can still remain active as they have. That is their message as far as I can tell and they are very sincere.

Edited July 23, 2013 by ALarson

[teddyaware]

reported it, there is one mod that does the tech stuff I think and he's not always available.

Thanks so much, Cal. Appreciate it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Where do you read judgmental into what I wrote? Second I evidently don't see judgmental as you see it. If one was not judgmental they would succumb to all sorts of things. It is good and right to be so. One must, however, realize that with what judgement one judges so shall he be judged. Darn it another one of those consequence thingys.

Or to put it another way, "Judge righteous judgment." (There's scriptural authority for you. )

[canard78]

Ok canard78, I know you don't like "personal" evidence, but this is why I feel Mattsson is a fraud.

This man (Mattsson) came to speak at a fireside in our Stake at which I was present.

He bore a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the church, of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and of the BofM. He said he knew by the Spirit that these things were true. He said a lot of other things too, but I won't go into detail.

It now appears he was lying.

That's not answering the CFR. You said "I have done some background reading on this fella." What background reading? Please provide references so we can go and read it too.

Elder Mattsson was released in 2005 due to health reasons (he had a heart operation), so you're fireside must have been before then. Maybe around 10 years ago. It's only in the last few years that these concerns have really taken root for him. The fact is that 10 years ago he did "know." He knew in just the same way any other member knows. He had a spiritual experience that he attributed to an interaction with God. He concluded that was confirmation of the church's truth and bore his testimony as a result.

He started investigating the issues to help a friend. He knew it was true, so wanted to find answers for his friend to help him see it was true too.

Today I do not say: "I know the church is true." 2 years ago I was giving a fireside where I said a very similar testimony to what you describe Elder Mattsson saying. I was bearing my testimony every month in church where I said as much. Was I lying too? Or am I lying now?

[canard78]

If by this you mean there was no official divorce, there were practical reasons for that (no officials around to grant it, iirc) and such was no uncommon among frontier communities where often people married and divorced without government involvement due to the lack of government officials to do the honours.

There's a long thread on Zina on this board. To avoid a long tangent I'll just reference it.

[ERayR]

That's not answering the CFR. You said "I have done some background reading on this fella." What background reading? Please provide references so we can go and read it too.

Elder Mattsson was released in 2005 due to health reasons (he had a heart operation), so you're fireside must have been before then. Maybe around 10 years ago. It's only in the last few years that these concerns have really taken root for him. The fact is that 10 years ago he did "know." He knew in just the same way any other member knows. He had a spiritual experience that he attributed to an interaction with God. He concluded that was confirmation of the church's truth and bore his testimony as a result.

He started investigating the issues to help a friend. He knew it was true, so wanted to find answers for his friend to help him see it was true too.

Today I do not say: "I know the church is true." 2 years ago I was giving a fireside where I said a very similar testimony to what you describe Elder Mattsson saying. I was bearing my testimony every month in church where I said as much. Was I lying too? Or am I lying now?

Not my call to make. What I do know is that one day we all will stand before the one whose call it is and attempt to justify our actions. That's what I'm working on.

[teddyaware]

Where do you read judgmental into what I wrote? Second I evidently don't see judgmental as you see it. If one was not judgmental they would succumb to all sorts of things. It is good and right to be so. One must, however, realize that with what judgement one judges so shall he be judged. Darn it another one of those consequence thingys.

I find the words discern, discernment and discerning more useful and readily accepted by others. Being spiritually discerning accomplishes the same things as when one shows spiritual judgement, but showing discernment doesn't carry all the negative baggage folks today apply to one who is being judgmental.

When one is spiritually discerning, he will see all the same warts, imperfections and even potential dangers in the behavior and character of another. If need be the spiritually discerning person will know how to properly deal with (or not deal with) other people, but the element of condemnation and risking being perceived as self-righteous are eliminated. It's a win, win.

Edited July 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

I find the words discern, discernment and discerning more useful and readily accepted by others. Being spiritually discerning accomplishes the same things as when one shows spiritual judgement, but showing discernment doesn't carry all the negative baggage folks today apply to one who is being judgmental.

When one is spiritually discerning, he will see all the same warts, imperfections and even potential dangers in the behavior and character of another; but if need be the spiritually discerning person will know how to properly deal with (or not deal with) other people, but the element of condemnation is eliminated. It's a win, win.

That is probably true but I like to use scriptural language when it suits my purpose and the scriptures use the word judge. I was pointing out to ALarson his/her misuse of that scripture.

BTW I have a blessing that promised me that gift. I hope I do not totally destroy my blessing.

Edited July 23, 2013 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

That is probably true but I like to use scriptural language when it suits my purpose and the scriptures use the word judge. I was pointing out to ALarson his/her misuse of that scripture.

Indeed, the negative baggage is probably due to misuse of or misconception of scripture. Not all judgement is to be eschewed, only unrighteous judgment.

[omni]

But here's a simple solution to our private communication problem: I believe I am the only Ted Suhaka (the surname is Russian) in the entire world, so you will easily find me on facebook. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Oh come on Ted, did you really like the Book of Mormon Movie? That hurt the church's missionary efforts more than The God Makers could ever have dreamed.

[bdouglas]

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.

Great post!

[canard78]

Consider Christ's responses in several situations- "Come follow me....." Or the response He gave to the rich young man. He certainly put people in the position of having to choose "in or out." It makes sense that His servants and church just might do the same thing at some level.

As I've said elsewhere... "in or out" of Mormonism does not equal "in or out" of the church of the Lamb.

We're all on the path that leads back to Him. We're either travelling up ("in") or down ("out") the path. Mormonism is the vehicle for travelling the path. If I get "out" of the vehicle I can still walk. Or get on a bicycle. Or maybe even a Ferrari. I don't presume that Mormonism is the best vehicle for all people. It suits some of us. It currently suits me. I hope it always does. But I can envisage a time when I change vehicles. Maybe because I want to take the journey a little slower and enjoy the view as I go. Maybe because I'm in a hurry and want to travel the path more quickly.

I know D&C 1 implies to some people that Mormonism is the only vehicle and "all others" are headed in the opposite direction. I consider that a false read of the scripture.

[ERayR]

Oh come on Ted, did you really like the Book of Mormon Movie? That hurt the church's missionary efforts more than The God Makers could ever have dreamed.

Cold.

[ERayR]

As I've said elsewhere... "in or out" of Mormonism does not equal "in or out" of the church of the Lamb.

We're all on the path that leads back to Him. We're either travelling up ("in") or down ("out") the path. Mormonism is the vehicle for travelling the path. If I get "out" of the vehicle I can still walk. Or get on a bicycle. Or maybe even a Ferrari. I don't presume that Mormonism is the best vehicle for all people. It suits some of us. It currently suits me. I hope it always does. But I can envisage a time when I change vehicles. Maybe because I want to take the journey a little slower and enjoy the view as I go. Maybe because I'm in a hurry and want to travel the path more quickly.

I know D&C 1 implies to some people that Mormonism is the only vehicle and "all others" are headed in the opposite direction. I consider that a false read of the scripture.

What do you do when you reach a gate where you need certain ordinances to pass by?

[bdouglas]

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?

It's not like sec. 132 is taught in gospel doctrine class, priesthood, or preached at Gen Conference. I went to BYU for 4 years, and I took at least one D&C class, and I'm sure the instructor skipped 132. In those days there was not a soul in the Religion Dept who would talk with you about polygamy on record (I don't know how it is today). So if it's not talked about at BYU in the religion dept or by any of the faculty (on the record), if it's not in the church lesson manuals and it's not preached/talked about in conferences, stake or general, where does a member (especially one outside of the U.S.) learn about polygamy or any of the problem issues? I first learned about polygamy as a missionary from my companions, from missionary gossip and jokes, from stories passed around, etc. Did my mission prez talk to me or any other missionaries about it? Not that I'm aware of. He was the sort of guy who, if you asked him a question like that, would deflect it and change the subject to "something appropriate". In others words he was schooled in correlation. Later I would learn about polygamy and other issues from reading B. H. Roberts history of the church--which at the time I think was out of print.

Edited July 23, 2013 by bdouglas

[teddyaware]

Oh come on Ted, did you really like the Book of Mormon Movie? That hurt the church's missionary efforts more than The God Makers could ever have dreamed.

Which Book of Mormon movie? Refresh my memory, please. Sometimes there's no accounting for what might wind up being an item on one's facebook timeline.

[canard78]

Be that as it may, when interacting with me on this board and elsewhere, you will do so with civility or not at all.

Lol!

You do make me laugh sometimes Scott. I presume that was your dry humour, made dryer by leaving off the 'smiley'

Wasn't it.... ?

Oh...

[canard78]

First, how can they help others find answers that they themselves don't have? Second, This seems to be appropriate here: Rev. 3:16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

They have helped me immensely.

And they are not lukewarm.