Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[teddyaware]

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

I know, and I agree. The definitions of judgment and discernment overlap quite a bit. It's just that sometimes it's necessary to keep the natives happy by avoiding catch words and phrases that muddy the waters of mutual understanding.

[teddyaware]

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

You call in a designated hitter.

[canard78]

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.

Hearsay alert:

A friend who has worked in church media said that when President Hinkley saw the first edit of the Book of Mormon movie he leant back in his chair and said: "Well... I see we've made another lovely film for the members of the church."

/End hearsay alert

[teddyaware]

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.

Hanging around this board too much may do just that...

[ERayR]

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 conference, 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.

You have lived in the wrong place. Every time we have covered D&C Sec. 132 is covered. However it is covered in importance to present day not for 1800's.

[ERayR]

You call in a designated hitter.

Wrong league.

[canard78]

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.

Polygamy was always the joke. "How many wives do you have." So I was aware that a few Mormons practised some polygamy - Brigham Young mainly. I remember being surprised and a little indignant that the BY manual had white-washed it out of his life, given he was so famous for it.

But I honestly had no idea that 132 was about plural marriage until recently. We're taught to read the Book of Mormon. I know that book inside out and any time someone says "where do they teach about... xyz... in the Book of Mormon" I can usually find it within a few minutes.

The D&C is never taught as a "cover to cover" resource. It's not linear, it jumps about. Usually it's taught thematically. And when they teach eternal marriage, a few verses from it are selectively picked out.

It will be interesting to see how our teacher covers it in SS this year. I will try to resist making any mischief. I usually respect Sunday School and stay quiet.

[canard78]

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

I consider ordinances to be the "outward expression of an inner conviction."

Not all marriage ceremonies are the same worldwide. But they mostly all express an inner conviction, even if the outward expression is different.

It's expressing inner convictions through outward expressions that is important. So if someone else is able to do that with a different outward expression, leading to the same relationship with God and same inner conviction, then I still consider it to be valid.

In other words, I don't believe that only Mormon ordinances are the only valid way of living by those inner convictions. The symbolism of the ordinances work for me. I love the symbol of baptism and the many symbols of the endowment. But the promises I make and keep are what matter, not the physical act itself.

Edited July 24, 2013 by canard78

[bdouglas]

You have lived in the wrong place. Every time we have covered D&C Sec. 132 is covered. However it is covered in importance to present day not for 1800's.

I have been going to church my whole life and I cannot remember a single time in SS, a church sponsored religion class, at BYU, in stake conference, in general conference, in sacrament meeting or any other church venue where polygamy (not to mention polyandry) was talked about on record. I learned about it on my own because I am curious and I read a lot. But I have people in my family, one an engineer and another an attorney, who were blindsided during the last five years by what they've learned on the internet. Both of these brothers have been bishops. They are not the kind of people who read outside the box (i.e., correlated church material) when it came to the church, and consequently they didn't know anything about any of this.

This is why it is not at all hard for me to imagine how Elder Mattson could be so long in the church and not know about polygamy. Where was he going to learn about it? From Sec. 132? There are current serving GAs who I think could not really tell you what is in sec. 132.

Edited July 24, 2013 by bdouglas

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not like sec. 132 is taught in gospel doctrine class, priesthood, or preached at Gen Conference.

See here.

And here.

And here.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

There are current serving GAs who I think could not really tell you what is in sec. 132.

CFR that there is even one. (And good luck with that!)

Edited July 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

Wrong league.

Oh that's right, the Celestial League doesn't have any DH'S except for 'Team Manager.'

[Scott Lloyd]

I know, and I agree. The definitions of judgment and discernment overlap quite a bit. It's just that sometimes it's necessary to keep the natives happy by avoiding catch words and phrases that muddy the waters of mutual understanding.

While I understand the importance of being sensitive to connotation and semantics, I dread seeing the language corrupted by political correctness.

[Teancum]

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.

This is a lousy scripture passage and a poor analogy. Which am I more likely to spew out of my mouth? Something hot, cold or lukewarm? Hot of course! If it is burning the hell out of my mouth it goes out ASAP!

Oh and using it to club a doubter who still wants to attend church is just be form. The wheat and take is a better approach. How knows but the wheat may lovingly help the tare.

[cinepro]

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)

Let me know how that works out for you.

[ERayR]

I learned about it on my own because I am curious and I read a lot. But I have people in my family, one an engineer and another an attorney, who were blindsided during the last five years by what they've learned on the internet. Both of these brothers have been bishops. They are not the kind of people who read outside the box (i.e., correlated church material) when it came to the church, and consequently they didn't know anything about any of this.

There are current serving GAs who I think could not really tell you what is in sec. 132.

To any one who uses the sensationalized terms such as blindsided I say if you have based your testimony on personal revelation of the restoration and the Book of Mormon then there will be no blindsiding, only a moment to put it in perspective and catalog it for future research. Sensationalizing your language appears to me as theatrics.

I would strongly suspect that the GA's are quite familiar with D & C 132.

[ERayR]

The wheat and take is a better approach. How knows but the wheat may lovingly help the tare.

When I read that one I seem to remember that the tares were left till the wheat ripened the were gathered and burned. Different analogies same ending.

[Scott Lloyd]

To any one who uses the sensationalized terms such as blindsided I say if you have based your testimony on personal revelation of the restoration and the Book of Mormon then there will be no blindsiding, only a moment to put it in perspective and catalog it for future research. Sensationalizing your language appears to me as theatrics.

He did say they learned about it on the Internet, and if that's the case, and they read it on anti-Mormon sites, then blindside may not be an inapt term, since a common MO of anti-Mormons is to ambush people with sophistry, half-truths, slanted information, etc.

But I agree with you that the Church does not blindside people.

I would strongly suspect that the GA's are quite familiar with D & C 132.

I would be amazed if there were any who are not.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[bdouglas]

CFR that there is even one. (And good luck with that!)

I don't need to CFR because I said "I think". For someone with 15,000 plus posts who hashes these things over and over day in and day out, it may be hard for you to believe that someone can have been active in the church for a lifetime and not know anything about these issues, but I am a witness to tell you otherwise.

[bdouglas]

He did say they learned about it on the Internet, and if that's the case, and they read it on anti-Mormon sites, then blindside may not be an inapt term, since a common MO of anti-Mormons is to blindside people with sophistry, half-truths, slanted information, etc.

But I agree with you that the Church does not blindside people.

I would be amazed if there were any who are not.

delete

Edited July 24, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

To any one who uses the sensationalized terms such as blindsided I say if you have based your testimony on personal revelation of the restoration and the Book of Mormon then there will be no blindsiding, only a moment to put it in perspective and catalog it for future research. Sensationalizing your language appears to me as theatrics.

I would strongly suspect that the GA's are quite familiar with D & C 132.

"Blindsided" is not sensationalistic if you're the one who is first finding out about these things. Read what Elder Mattson says about the way it left him feeling. You've devoted your whole life to a church you thought you knew about, and then you find out you don't. This is not my experience, but it is the experience of people who are close to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't need to CFR because I said "I think".

In other words, it's a wild assertion that you can't substantiate. Just admit that, and I'll be content.

For someone with 15,000 plus posts who hashes these things over and over day in and day out, it may be hard for you to believe that someone can have been active in the church for a lifetime and not know anything about these issues, but I am a witness to tell you otherwise.

I don't doubt that there are or can be such individuals. Whether they can justly blame others for their lack of awareness is what is in question.

We are counseled in scripture to seek learning "out of the best books"; to seek "wisdom by study and and also by faith" (emphasis mine). Some of the "best books" (including the Doctrine and Covenants itself) contain information about plural marriage.

And seek is an active verb; it implies more than just waiting to be spoon-fed.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[bdouglas]

You know the cliche that "perception is reality". It doesn't do any good for Scott Lloyd or others like him to point out how the information was there all along, all you had to do was look, etc. The question you have to ask yourself, do I want to be right, do I want to win, or do I want to be helpful?

[bdouglas]

In other words, it's a wild assertion that you can't substantiate. Just admit that, and I'll be content.

I don't deny that there are or can be such individuals. Whether they can justly blame others for their lack of awareness is what is in question.

I have a GA in my family. Does that help? I know another GA, from a Latin American country, and I would be very surprised if he could tell you much about 132. The one GA in my family was a bizman and he did not know much about the scriptures compared to some. I am pretty confident in saying that I do not think he would have been able to tell you much about 132.

Edited July 24, 2013 by bdouglas

[ERayR]

"Blindsided" is not sensationalistic if you're the one who is first finding out about these things. Read what Elder Mattson says about the way it left him feeling. You've devoted your whole life to a church you thought you knew about, and then you find out you don't. This is not my experience, but it is the experience of people who are close to me.

Blindsided is a sensationalistic term to pass the blame to somebody else.