Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

[Calm]

Luckily I read it before it was taken down. It was very good, I don't see why JD felt the need to take it down.

The Church has asked people not to pass around things they have unofficially recorded, such as stake conferences or other local meetings. This is in part because some counsel may be local but get expanded into worldwide urban legends ("GA So and So tells us we need to get our food storage and gardens in order....this means the world is coming to an end shortly" emails get passed around all the time, for example).

There is also the issue of guaranteeing accuracy. One can't know for sure a recording hasn't been altered or a transcript doesn't mess up.

Edited July 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Nice, Mattsson is now being compared to the only known (that I'm aware of) son of perdition.

You forgot Cain...and Judas is debated whether or no he is an SoP, IIRC, though it seems pretty clear from this verse that he is, assuming it is an accurate portrayal of Jesus' actual words:

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Edited July 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[mnn727]

How many threads do we need on this?

[Calm]

How many threads do we need on this?

at least 20, you should help by starting a few more

[canard78]

It was Canard78 who named the comparisons.

No I didn't. I was one down the chain and had replied to someone else who had mentioned Judas and Peter. Danzo maybe? I'm on my phone so quite hard to track back.

ETA: Calmoriah kindly checked: Storm rider, not Danzo

Edited July 24, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

No I didn't. I was one down the chain and had replied to someone else who had mentioned Judas and Peter. Danzo maybe? I'm on my phone so quite hard to track back.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209281142

Storm Rider

Here is the chain, can't just link to it:

#1209281142Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

Posted by

Storm Rider

on 2 days ago in

General Discussions

why me, on 22 July 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

I have a simple problem. Here we have a good guy who has been a leader in the lds church. I am sure that he had many spiritual experiences while in the lds church in his positions or callings and as a mormon in general. How can a member who most likely had the feelings of the spirit often suddenly chuck it all away? And how can a member of his standing who most likely had countless spiritual experiences throw it all away because he did not know this or that. This is what I just don't get. Like i said, a lds testimony is built on sand. But why?

Maybe you could answer me a question I have always wondered about; how could an apostle of Jesus Christ, who learned the gospel at the feet of the Master Teacher, still betray him with a kiss in the case of

Judas

or deny him three times in the case of Peter? When you answer this then you will have the answer for your questions.

#1209281371

Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

Posted by

canard78

on A day ago in

General Discussions

Storm Rider, on 22 July 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Maybe you could answer me a question I have always wondered about; how could an apostle of Jesus Christ, who learned the gospel at the feet of the Master Teacher, still betray him with a kiss in the case of Judas or deny him three times in the case of Peter? When you answer this then you will have the answer for your questions.

That's an interesting question. Are you raising a "comparison by insinuation" between Elder Mattsson and

Judas

or Peter. There's a world of difference.

Elder Mattsson remains a humble follower of God. He considers his actions and decisions guided by his prayers with God. If you'd listened to his interview you might be able to see this too.

The question then becomes, why does God create a plan where the majority of his children a placed in and guided by Him towards perspectives that are not Mormonism?

#1209281374

Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

Posted by

ERayR

on A day ago in

General Discussions

canard78, on 22 July 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

That's an interesting question. Are you raising a "comparison by insinuation" between Elder Mattsson and Judas or Peter. There's a world of difference.

Elder Mattsson remains a humble follower of God. He considers his actions and decisions guided by his prayers with God. If you'd listened to his interview you might be able to see this too.

The question then becomes, why does God create a plan where the majority of his children a placed in and guided by Him towards perspectives that are not Mormonism?

I will agree there is a diffierence. Judas felt enough remorse that he killed himself, Peter repented and turned his life over to God on God's terms and Elder Mattsson is still attempting to have it on his own terms.

#1209281390

Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

Posted by

omni

on A day ago in

General Discussions

ERayR, on 22 July 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

I will agree there is a diffierence. Judas felt enough remorse that he killed himself, Peter repented and turned his life over to God on God's terms and Elder Mattsson is still attempting to have it on his own terms.

Nice, Mattsson is now being compared to the only known (that I'm aware of) son of perdition.

#1209281726

Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

Posted by

calmoriah

on 19 hours ago in

General Discussions

omni, on 22 July 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Nice, Mattsson is now being compared to the only known (that I'm aware of) son of perdition.

You forgot Cain...and

Judas

is debated whether or no he is an SoP, IIRC, though it seems pretty clear from this verse that he is, assuming it is an accurate portrayal of Jesus' actual words:

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Last post:

Posted by

canard78

on Today, 10:23 AM in

General Discussions

ERayR, on 23 July 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

It was Canard78 who named the comparisons.

No I didn't. I was one down the chain and had replied to someone else who had mentioned

Judas

and Peter. Danzo maybe? I'm on my phone so quite hard to track back.

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I won't ask for it then.

I'm glad that some people, like Tacenda, found it useful. I personally think the answers could have been better.

Either way, the genie won't be stuffed back in the bottle and it is already being quoted extensively on other forums/blogs already.

FAIRmormon may, at some point, wish to reply to some of those points. So if you want a copy for safe keeping in such an instance I can PM it to you.

[canard78]

http://www.mormondia...entry1209281142

Storm Rider

Here is the chain, can't just link to it:

-SNIP-

Thanks. I can't 'rep' on my phone either. But I owe you one when next on my laptop

[CV75]

I have a simple problem. Here we have a good guy who has been a leader in the lds church. I am sure that he had many spiritual experiences while in the lds church in his positions or callings and as a mormon in general. How can a member who most likely had the feelings of the spirit often suddenly chuck it all away? And how can a member of his standing who most likely had countless spiritual experiences throw it all away because he did not know this or that. This is what I just don't get. Like i said, a lds testimony is built on sand. But why?

You use the word "likely," which still leaves room for what is actual, which may be differen than what is likely.

He points to being in a "bubble" -- this in my opinion is not an indicator of spiritual experience, or what spiritual experieince does for people. It is, to me, an indicator of codependency (for lack of a better word, and not meant to be clinically diagnostic).

[canard78]

You forgot Cain...and Judas is debated whether or no he is an SoP, IIRC, though it seems pretty clear from this verse that he is, assuming it is an accurate portrayal of Jesus' actual words:

I've often wondered about Judas. Was he fulfilling a prophecy that was needed as it was part of the symbol of humanity's rejection of Christ at the time, or was a prophecy made 100s of years earlier because the prophet was shown a future event that only happened because Judas chose to?

Omniscience vs foreordination vs agency. That's a plug hole I can spend days swirling around.

[canard78]

You use the word "likely," which still leaves room for what is actual, which may be differen than what is likely.

He points to being in a "bubble" -- this in my opinion is not an indicator of spiritual experience, or what spiritual experieince does for people. It is, to me, an indicator of codependency (for lack of a better word, and not meant to be clinically diagnostic).

His Ensign article and Alan's personal recollection of a stake meeting where he spoke would both suggest genuine spiritual experiences. He also discusses spiritual witnesses received in his interview.

I have certainly had very real and memorable spiritual witnesses: of the Book of Mormon, of Joseph as a prophet, of the saving power of Christ, of the divine love of Heavenly Father. I don't patronise myself by attributing them to 'warm fuzzies' of 'confirmation bias' or whatever other psycho-babble is created to explain away spiritual experiences. They remain, for me, genuine interactions with Deity. Mattsson also believes/hopes his are too.

But... My interpretation today of what those spiritual witnesses each of us have (whether Mormon or non-Mormon), especially what I interpret my own specific ones to mean, are very different to what I considered them to mean a few years ago.

[ERayR]

No I didn't. I was one down the chain and had replied to someone else who had mentioned Judas and Peter. Danzo maybe? I'm on my phone so quite hard to track back.

ETA: Calmoriah kindly checked: Storm rider, not Danzo

Sorry it was just that I was responding to your post and didn't back check. I still stand behind my post.

[CV75]

His Ensign article and Alan's personal recollection of a stake meeting where he spoke would both suggest genuine spiritual experiences. He also discusses spiritual witnesses received in his interview.

I have certainly had very real and memorable spiritual witnesses: of the Book of Mormon, of Joseph as a prophet, of the saving power of Christ, of the divine love of Heavenly Father. I don't patronise myself by attributing them to 'warm fuzzies' of 'confirmation bias' or whatever other psycho-babble is created to explain away spiritual experiences. They remain, for me, genuine interactions with Deity. Mattsson also believes/hopes his are too.

But... My interpretation today of what those spiritual witnesses each of us have (whether Mormon or non-Mormon), especially what I interpret my own specific ones to mean, are very different to what I considered them to mean a few years ago.

I understand, but in any case, “likely” does not mean “actual.”

I also think one can have genuine spiritual experiences and then reframe them as not being authentic. I think the Parable of the Sower points to this kind of dynamic, except the soil can change over time, allowing the potential for someone to view his former spiritual “frontier” (which is supposed to expand) as a rate-limiting “bubble.”

Sometimes the soil changes through disobedience and wickedness, sometimes due to illness, accident, and other challenges of the fallen world. Where he references “terrible psychological and nearly physical disturbance,” it could well be that. I think it more often depends on where one chooses to stand in relation to his faith and knowledge and what he does with them, but that does not always make it the way it always goes.

[Tacenda]

I'm glad that some people, like Tacenda, found it useful. I personally think the answers could have been better.

Either way, the genie won't be stuffed back in the bottle and it is already being quoted extensively on other forums/blogs already.

FAIRmormon may, at some point, wish to reply to some of those points. So if you want a copy for safe keeping in such an instance I can PM it to you.

I did think it was great because people need to talk it out, I'd be estatic to talk this out with a church leader. Except they aren't always church historians and most likely would said, "we don't know why". Just like they are saying they don't know on the Priesthood ban, one day they'll say they don't know the reasons why there was polyandry, or quite possibly polygamy in the far off future.

I personally believe JS just thought it needed to be put into practice like OT times. But fail to see that God ever commanded it the way Joseph lived it, and I believe he knew this in the end at Liberty jail. There is a statement I read once that he felt it a terrible mistake. Not sure the validity of it. I know that he went to the Lord first to ask if it should be implemented, not the reverse.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

FAIRmormon may, at some point, wish to reply to some of those points. So if you want a copy for safe keeping in such an instance I can PM it to you.

We are covered thanks...and it has been reposted elsewhere already, not surprisingly.

[Calm]

Thanks. I can't 'rep' on my phone either. But I owe you one when next on my laptop

I was going to say "great, it will help get me over 4000" but apparently I haven't looked at my rep points for awhile...either that or somethings I've recently said really got some major points.

[Calm]

Omniscience vs foreordination vs agency. That's a plug hole I can spend days swirling around.

Kind of makes one's head hurt in my experience.

[Calm]

.....most likely would said, "we don't know why". Just like they are saying they don't know on the Priesthood ban, one day they'll say they don't know the reasons why there was polyandry, or quite possibly polygamy in the far off future.

I assume you don't want them to make up reasons, so if there is no record of the revelation for "why" what else would you have them say?

[ERayR]

I personally believe JS just thought it needed to be put into practice like OT times. But fail to see that God ever commanded it the way Joseph lived it, and I believe he knew this in the end at Liberty jail. There is a statement I read once that he felt it a terrible mistake. Not sure the validity of it. I know that he went to the Lord first to ask if it should be implemented, not the reverse.

I don't think God gave Joseph a detailed plan for the implementation and practice of polygamy. D&C 132 is pretty much all the detail we get. Anything else that I have seen is someones elses interpretation of events. Joseph struggled with it and made mistakes. Unfortunately implementation has a way of showing up the problems.

I have not found anything that indicated Joseph thought it a terrible mistake. What I would believe is that he might have seen some of his implementation errors.

One should be careful second guessing what Joseph did. We look back with 200 years of hindsight from a twenty first century perspective and impose our mores on our ancestors. Pretty arrogant I would say.

[canard78]

I did think it was great because people need to talk it out, I'd be estatic to talk this out with a church leader. Except they aren't always church historians and most likely would said, "we don't know why". Just like they are saying they don't know on the Priesthood ban, one day they'll say they don't know the reasons why there was polyandry, or quite possibly polygamy in the far off future.

There is no official comment at all from the church on polyandry. I can't see that they've acknowledged its existence anywhere. If they did I'm almost certain it would be "we don't know why it was done" because there's simply not the evidence. And I've let go of the perspective that a prophet should also be able to go tapping on the door of whomever has the "big book of history in the sky" and seek clarification on whatever piece history is being discussed on the Internet today.

On the priesthood ban, I think we do have enough information to say it was uninspired and an error that should have never happened. But that's only my reading of the evidence.

As for polygamy... Well that's still a current doctrine. It's simply the case that Mormons still teach that in the celestial kingdom a man is able to have more than one wife. No idea why. The teachings on polygamy only ever teach that it's possible. I've never seen anything to explain why it's needed or what the blessing of polygamy is. So unless they unwind the whole doctrinal principle of polygamy, they're unlikely to say it shouldn't have happened/or we don't know why.

I personally believe JS just thought it needed to be put into practice like OT times. But fail to see that God ever commanded it the way Joseph lived it, and I believe he knew this in the end at Liberty jail. There is a statement I read once that he felt it a terrible mistake. Not sure the validity of it. I know that he went to the Lord first to ask if it should be implemented, not the reverse.

He asked The Lord about polygamy first and not the reverse? Where did you find that from? I'd not read that before. Was it similar to his question about baptism? Did he read about the Old Testament plural marriage and then went to God and said "tell me more?"

Edited July 24, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Kind of makes one's head hurt in my experience.

It was my first ever "faith crisis" as a teenager in seminary and it deeply bothered me for months.

These days, contrary to my 15yo inflated opinion of myself, I've realised my brain is far smaller than the universe. So I've stopped trying to stuff all of it in. Definitely a "shelved" topic. As my wise mum still says "ask Him when you get there."

[Calm]

He asked The Lord about polygamy first and not the reverse?

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

[why me]

On the priesthood ban, I think we do have enough information to say it was uninspired and an error that should have never happened. But that's only my reading of the evidence.

Historians can look into context and content. With context we see someone who was black who just happened to take it upon himself to become a polygamist and be sealed to a few white women. This may not have went over well with the white protestants who would have been opposed to polygamy between whites never mind between african-americans and white women. Was it inspired? Hard to say. The church survived. Would it have survived polygamous inter-racial marriages? Maybe not. I do believe that more blood would have been spilled.

We also need to remember that blacks were welcomed into the church as members.

[why me]

I did think it was great because people need to talk it out, I'd be estatic to talk this out with a church leader. Except they aren't always church historians and most likely would said, "we don't know why". Just like they are saying they don't know on the Priesthood ban, one day they'll say they don't know the reasons why there was polyandry, or quite possibly polygamy in the far off future.

Well, of course, the answer would be: God commanded it. We need to remember that with Joseph's polyandry the husbands knew about it. And with polygamy, Joseph would not do this in secret. Relatives of the women were asked too if it were okay with them. It seems that it went over fine at that time with the members who knew. I have this feeling that the women involved would talk about their spiritual experience with the principle. This would have satisfied most. I don't think that the women involved ever said a negative word about Joseph unlike the critics today and certain members too when it come to plural marriage.

[canard78]

Historians can look into context and content. With context we see someone who was black who just happened to take it upon himself to become a polygamist and be sealed to a few white women. This may not have went over well with the white protestants who would have been opposed to polygamy between whites never mind between african-americans and white women. Was it inspired? Hard to say. The church survived. Would it have survived polygamous inter-racial marriages? Maybe not. I do believe that more blood would have been spilled.

We also need to remember that blacks were welcomed into the church as members.

I recognise that as being one potential conclusion, but don't accept it and also don't see any evidence of a divine mandate. The evidence is probably too inconclusive to ever be conclusive. So "we don't know why" is probably the best we'll get from the church.