Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

[why me]

I've stated my opinion that I simply don't think God instituted the ban. There was no revelation to do so. Bigotry and ignorance caused it. The same extended and maintained it in different measures. Once both were eliminated the ban was lifted. Unfortunately that took 130 years.

There was some of this too: bigotry and ignorance. However, the foundation of the lds church was not this way as Joseph had enlightened thinking on this subject and he grew into more enlightenment as time went on. However, America was a bigoted society not just toward Blacks but also toward Jews, catholics and anyone else who showed some difference. We still need to take into consideration what William McCary did when he took it upon himself to be sealed to many white women and identifying himself as a prophet. What the white population would have done when this was discovered would be anyone's guess. I think that it did send shivers to some leading saints.

However, why would Abel's grandchild be allowed to have the priesthood in 1934? And become an elder in 1935? I think that there was some confusion going on and some embarrassment about the ban. It was no so clear cut.

Edited July 25, 2013 by why me

[Duncan]

Only because a portion of the 15 were not willing to ask. In fact the ban was finally lifted when the two apostles who are on record as being racist were out of town. They did endorse the lifting of the ban. But only once the decision had been made and they were called to effectively be told "the first presidency and 10 of the quorum have ratified this. Will you too?" They could hardly say no. Thankfully.

It was Elders Delbert Stapley and Mark E. Petersen who were away that gave their consent. Elder Stapley was sick in hospital and died 2 months later in Aug of '78 and Elder Petersen was off touring a mission. According to his biography Elder Petersen said the following,

"I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation's coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent"

Mark E. Petersen: a Biography,176

I don't know what Elder Stapley said of the ocassion but it sounds like Elder Petersen was happy about it

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't know what Elder Stapley said of the ocassion but it sounds like Elder Petersen was happy about it

Silly Duncan, don't you know that others have perfected the art of reading with certitude the hearts and minds of those long-since dead.

[Duncan]

Silly Duncan, don't you know that others have perfected the art of reading with certitude the hearts and minds of those long-since dead.

I have a joke I could say right now but probably would get me banned! hahaha!

[canard78]

Are you suggesting that this deliberately was timed to exclude those two?

Call For Reference

I'm not saying it was deliberately timed to exclude those two. I'm observing that the two apostles who are on record as being opposed to racial equality were absent during the 2 hour session where people were invited to share their personal views.

There are so many threads on this topic I'm losing track of where I've referenced this.

Ah, found it. I said this on the LeGrand Richards thread:

Maybe we can continue the discussion over here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61310-legrand-richards-truth-on-the-1978-priesthood-restoration/page__st__120#entry1209282291

Where can I read more about who was present or absent, the opinions of Peterson and Stapley, etc?

Blacklds.org has some good resources on the day of the restoration and who was present.

On Thursday, l June 1978, the general authorities held their regular monthly fast and testimony meeting. The members of the Seventy and the Presiding Bishopric were then excused, and President Kimball, his two counselors, and ten of the apostles remained (Elder Mark E. Peterson was in South America, and Elder Delbert L. Stapley was in the hospital).

Before offering the prayer that brought the revelation, President Kimball asked each of the brethren to express their feelings and views on this important issue. For more than two hours they talked freely and openly. Elder David B. Haight, the newest member of the Twelve, observed: "As each responded, we witnessed an outpouring of the Spirit which bonded our souls together in perfect unity—a glorious experience. In that bond of unity we felt our total dependence upon heavenly direction if we were to more effectively accomplish the Lord’s charge to carry the message of hope and salvation to all the world.

http://www.blacklds....clare2#thoughts

This is Stapely's letter to George Romney where he advises against actively seeking a solution to black equality (at pain of death).

http://www.boston.co...ert_stapley.pdf

Petersen's speech at BYU is here which includes the statement that black people will only get to go to the celestial kingdom as servants.

http://www.mormonism...954/mep1954.txt

You can make your own conclusions.

[canard78]

I hadn't heard that. Who were these two? Can I get a CFR as well? Thanks!

Petersen and Stapley.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61310-legrand-richards-truth-on-the-1978-priesthood-restoration/page__st__120#entry1209282291

[canard78]

It was Elders Delbert Stapley and Mark E. Petersen who were away that gave their consent. Elder Stapley was sick in hospital and died 2 months later in Aug of '78 and Elder Petersen was off touring a mission. According to his biography Elder Petersen said the following,

"I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation's coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent"

Mark E. Petersen: a Biography,176

I don't know what Elder Stapley said of the ocassion but it sounds like Elder Petersen was happy about it

I'm glad he acknowledged and endorsed it. I'm also glad he wasn't in the room when they had the discussion before praying about it.

Out of interest, in his biography, does he refute and renounce what he said in 1954 about race relations?

[Krutt]

I'm sorry that Mattsson has lost his testimony and faith in the restored gospel... it can happen... but we usually do not see it in someone with his years and experience in the Church. When it does happen, people often lose sight that this is nothing new... the people who saw and heard Christ himself... witnessed his miracles... still turned away... people have been turning away from Christ's teachings for millenia...

Even Church leaders in our early history, who had had incredible spiritual experiences, turned away for one reason or another... some returned and embraced full fellowship again... some didn't.

So what is new about Mattsson's faith crisis?

I'm sorry for him... and I always pray that I will not be one to fall away... and thankfully, I myself have had incredibly strong witnesses of the Spirit through the years... I've told of one here, I'll tell it once again...

It was Oct '09 Gen Conf... that week on this Board there had been several disucussions that had raised questions, some of which had given me pause as often anti material/posts can... My faith wasn't really what could be termed "shaken," but a couple of things did give me pause.

So, beginning session of Gen Conf., I was in my jammies watching BYU-TV, settling into my big wingback chair, listening to the beautiful music of the Choir. Nothing was on my mind except the beautiful music... suddenly into my mind and heart came the "still small voice" but spoken clearly and plainly as if someone was standing beside me... "Do not be afraid... the Gospel is correct... stay faithful... stay true." A deep peace filled me as I thanked Heavenly Father for that witness... I think of it often as I participate here...

from the beach on a beautiful morning... GG

By being Norwegian, I feel I can relate to Brother Mattsson in other areas as well. In Scandinavian culture, you're pretty much expected to mean a 100 % what you say. For example, while living in the US, several people told me they also were Norwegians after I had told them I came from Norway. For me it was then a given to ask where in Norway they came from, and the answer back could often be something like; "well, my great, great, great grandfather on my mothers side came from Norway, but I don't know what city". From a Scandinavian point of view, this person is not Norwegian, and many Scandinavians would even classify a statement like this to be untruthful. From an American's point of view, she would consider Norwegian because of ancestry. This example shows how one culture's understanding of honesty can be misunderstood by another. In Gospel Principles Chapter 31 about Honesty it states the following; (under the section -To Lie Is Dishonest - For teachers), “There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of Lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence or by telling only part of the truth”.

The LDS Church is expecting 100 % honesty from its members, which is a good thing. As a Norwegian, I would expect 100 % honesty back, by same standards. Example could be, if JS translated the BOM by looking into a stone in a hat, we would have pictures of these events according to the history. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were engaged in polygamy/polyandry, we would not be misled by priesthood/relief society manuals written in a way to make us believe that there where only one wife. In several cultures, this kind of "truth bending" is not acceptable. But my heart broke, and my world collapsed around me as well, when I experienced the LDS Church had been dishonest to me, my family and fellow church members, by being silent and only telling part of the truth regarding church history.

[Duncan]

I'm glad he acknowledged and endorsed it. I'm also glad he wasn't in the room when they had the discussion before praying about it.

Out of interest, in his biography, does he refute and renounce what he said in 1954 about race relations?

it talks about his love for a black family named Hope in Ohio. When the Petersen family lived in Ohio this black family attended Church in Elder Petersen's ward and he befriended them, later when they moved to Utah because of racial discrimination they contacted him and he continued his association for them and according to his daughter/biographer, "demonstrated to his daughters that each person in the world is a child of God" pg 174

[thesometimesaint]

Go back far enough and we all came from someplace else. IE; I'm of England and Irish descent. But we came to what was to become the US many moons ago.

I find it hard to understand how any member of the Church for more than a few years doesn't know about LDS polygamy. It is right there in our Scriptures.

[canard78]

By being Norwegian, I feel I can relate to Brother Mattsson in other areas as well. In Scandinavian culture, you're pretty much expected to mean a 100 % what you say. For example, while living in the US, several people told me they also were Norwegians after I had told them I came from Norway. For me it was then a given to ask where in Norway they came from, and the answer back could often be something like; "well, my great, great, great grandfather on my mothers side came from Norway, but I don't know what city". From a Scandinavian point of view, this person is not Norwegian, and many Scandinavians would even classify a statement like this to be untruthful. From an American's point of view, she would consider Norwegian because of ancestry. This example shows how one culture's understanding of honesty can be misunderstood by another. In Gospel Principles Chapter 31 about Honesty it states the following; (under the section -To Lie Is Dishonest - For teachers), “There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of Lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence or by telling only part of the truth”.

The LDS Church is expecting 100 % honesty from its members, which is a good thing. As a Norwegian, I would expect 100 % honesty back, by same standards. Example could be, if JS translated the BOM by looking into a stone in a hat, we would have pictures of these events according to the history. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were engaged in polygamy/polyandry, we would not be misled by priesthood/relief society manuals written in a way to make us believe that there where only one wife. In several cultures, this kind of "truth bending" is not acceptable. But my heart broke, and my world collapsed around me as well, when I experienced the LDS Church had been dishonest to me, my family and fellow church members, by being silent and only telling part of the truth regarding church history.

Just to warn you ahead of time. You may have people who reply to this by telling you that the church has hidden nothing. That they have been entirely honest in every way and have only presented to real picture. Even though their pictures are not accurate pictures.

You may have people tell you its your fault for not studying hard enough or suggest you are lazy. Or maybe even a 'yokel.' Let it slide. Like water off a duck's back. The less you take the bait the sooner they'll leave you alone Others on here are very helpful and collaborative. It's a good place to be - and I appreciate a few more Europeans! My family is also Swedish about 6 generations back. But I'm British.

Some will point out that the church can only use the art that artists create for them, so given there are no paintings of his head in a hat they have to use the innacurate one of Joseph and Oliver at a table with the Gold plates between them.

This is in spite of the fact that the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12 are heavily involved in setting the direction and tone of church media.

For example: when the recent New Testament videos went into production, the prospective actors for the key roles (Jesus, Mary, Peter, John the Baptist among others) were first interviewed by a General Authority and then their audition tape was reviewed by the 1st Presidency and quorum. There was a long debate about certain roles. Others were approved unanimously on first view of the audition tape. There were several European actors involved in the production as they wanted the New Testament videos to reflect the global church as much as possible. I think they've done an excellent job. I won't be able to answer a CFR on this paragraph as it's from personal conversation and knowing people who acted in key roles in the production.

They spent $millions on the New Testament videos and spend $millions more on other church media. My brother-in-law was paid $10,000 for a Mormon Messages video that never even got onto youtube.

If the church wanted accurate paintings of the translations they could have them in a month. They choose not to. They are not limited by the work of the artists. I've heard that answer several times before and it's probably one of the weakest I've heard.

[cdowis]

canard78, on 24 July 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

I've stated my opinion that I simply don't think God instituted the ban.

Just curious what you think==>>

Did God limit the priesthood to the Levites, or was this just Moses' idea. (also the prohibition against marrying outsiders)

Did Christ exclude the gentiles from being taught the gospel, or was this Peter's idea.

In each case the "racism" of both policies were eventually changed, were they not?

Edited July 25, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

Go back far enough and we all came from someplace else. IE; I'm of England and Irish descent. But we came to what was to become the US many moons ago.

I find it hard to understand how any member of the Church for more than a few years doesn't know about LDS polygamy. It is right there in our Scriptures.

Of course everyone knows the Mormons had polygamy. "How many wives do you have?" It's a joke I've been asked that for ages. I was a kid at school being asked how many mums I had. In a deep dark corner of rural UK.

It's Joseph's polygamy that is not widely known. Especially his polyandry and teenagers. That is no-where in the manuals or the scriptures. Neither is the fact that when the revelation was recorded in 1843, he'd already been living it for around 8-10 years.

I feel like a stuck record but why does everyone keep ignoring what Bushman says in the interview and what Turley says to the Swedish saints? They both acknowledge that many members do not know that Joseph was a polygamist.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

[Tacenda]

By being Norwegian, I feel I can relate to Brother Mattsson in other areas as well. In Scandinavian culture, you're pretty much expected to mean a 100 % what you say. For example, while living in the US, several people told me they also were Norwegians after I had told them I came from Norway. For me it was then a given to ask where in Norway they came from, and the answer back could often be something like; "well, my great, great, great grandfather on my mothers side came from Norway, but I don't know what city". From a Scandinavian point of view, this person is not Norwegian, and many Scandinavians would even classify a statement like this to be untruthful. From an American's point of view, she would consider Norwegian because of ancestry. This example shows how one culture's understanding of honesty can be misunderstood by another. In Gospel Principles Chapter 31 about Honesty it states the following; (under the section -To Lie Is Dishonest - For teachers), “There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of Lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence or by telling only part of the truth”.

The LDS Church is expecting 100 % honesty from its members, which is a good thing. As a Norwegian, I would expect 100 % honesty back, by same standards. Example could be, if JS translated the BOM by looking into a stone in a hat, we would have pictures of these events according to the history. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were engaged in polygamy/polyandry, we would not be misled by priesthood/relief society manuals written in a way to make us believe that there where only one wife. In several cultures, this kind of "truth bending" is not acceptable. But my heart broke, and my world collapsed around me as well, when I experienced the LDS Church had been dishonest to me, my family and fellow church members, by being silent and only telling part of the truth regarding church history.

I hear ya!

[CV75]

I feel like a stuck record but why does everyone keep ignoring what Bushman says in the interview and what Turley says to the Swedish saints? They both acknowledge that many members do not know that Joseph was a polygamist.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

There is an interesting read on the "Mormon Effect" thread, and part of a post that reads, "Traditional Christian denominations seem not to stress higher education as much because they don't want their children going to large universities where they might become secularized and prefer to send them to seminary schools or church sponsored schools. Yet, Mormons don't worry about that and in so many ways encourage higher education and they still have the ability to not become secularized and are even more active." (BOLD MINE)

In the case of Jospeh's ploygamy, "Mormons don't worry about that" because when they encouraged to seek knowledge and study and learn by faith, one of the benefits of that approach is, when learners comes across history they haven't been exposed to before, the same discipline and appreciation for arriving at the truth comes into play and a personal crisis is averted.

Where such a crisis has not been averted, there are many ways to reach out and minister. But figuring how to do facilitate or perform the seeking, studying, "faithing," etc. for someone else is like "teaching them not to fish" to borrow a phrase.

[CV75]

By being Norwegian, I feel I can relate to Brother Mattsson in other areas as well. In Scandinavian culture, you're pretty much expected to mean a 100 % what you say. For example, while living in the US, several people told me they also were Norwegians after I had told them I came from Norway. For me it was then a given to ask where in Norway they came from, and the answer back could often be something like; "well, my great, great, great grandfather on my mothers side came from Norway, but I don't know what city". From a Scandinavian point of view, this person is not Norwegian, and many Scandinavians would even classify a statement like this to be untruthful. From an American's point of view, she would consider Norwegian because of ancestry. This example shows how one culture's understanding of honesty can be misunderstood by another. In Gospel Principles Chapter 31 about Honesty it states the following; (under the section -To Lie Is Dishonest - For teachers), “There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of Lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence or by telling only part of the truth”.

The LDS Church is expecting 100 % honesty from its members, which is a good thing. As a Norwegian, I would expect 100 % honesty back, by same standards. Example could be, if JS translated the BOM by looking into a stone in a hat, we would have pictures of these events according to the history. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were engaged in polygamy/polyandry, we would not be misled by priesthood/relief society manuals written in a way to make us believe that there where only one wife. In several cultures, this kind of "truth bending" is not acceptable. But my heart broke, and my world collapsed around me as well, when I experienced the LDS Church had been dishonest to me, my family and fellow church members, by being silent and only telling part of the truth regarding church history.

There is an oft-cited adress (more than one) by Elder Uchtdorf that encourages such things to not get in the way through teh practcie of understanding and tolerating other cultures, and how the Spirit can smooth these kinds of things over.

[canard78]

Just curious what you think==>>

Did God limit the priesthood to the Levites, or was this just Moses' idea. (also the prohibition against marrying outsiders)

Did Christ exclude the gentiles from being taught the gospel, or was this Peter's idea.

In each case the "racism" of both policies were eventually changed, were they not?

I've heard both of those before as excuses/justification for the priesthood ban.

The Levites aren't a race. So that's not racist. Maybe tribalist!

Jesus had a specific mission, to fulfill the law of Moses. In order to do that his role was to teach the practitioners of that Law that he was fulfilling it. He was one man with a role to complete and couldn't be in two places at once. So yes, I do believe that it was God's will that Christ focused his ministry on the Jews. And within the Jews, he mainly focused on the 12 apostles and a few other disciples. A lot of his teaching was done in private to only the 12, who would take it to the Gentiles.

Not every missionary teaches Brazilians. Is that racist? No, they just have a calling to Brazil. I had a calling to Belgium. Christ had a mission call to the Jews. Confucius had a mission to the Chinese. I don't see how that is considered racist.

There were also times of Christ teaching in public. But he didn't first check for gentiles in the crowd and kick them out. One Gentile in particular was even helped with his "unbelief" by being ministered to by Christ.

Another mission call was assigned to the Gentiles immediately after, via Peter's vision of the animals in the blanket. In the same generation and at an early opportunity and he taught him, by revelation, that: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons." A vision and doctrine that sadly the Mormon leaders appeared to ignore.

Peter's mandate to take the gospel to the Gentiles is recorded revelation. Canonised.

There is no revelation to deny the blacks the priesthood. So there is a fundamental difference. Most justification for the ban that came later was based on a false read of the scriptures. Until 1978 at which point the church refuted the scriptural principles people had tried to justify the ban with.

These days, apologists can't use the scriptures to justify the ban, because it's not scriptural basis to do so and you've been told by the leaders to "Forget everything that (they) have said... in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

So today apologists instead talk of social norms and pragmatism to allow for divine approval of the ban and let the church survive. But there's no divine mandate for the ban. Not a scrap of revelation to introduce it. And plenty of false doctrine preached to perpetuate it.

So even if Levirate priesthood and Christ preaching only to the Jews was devinely instituted and later overturned, I still don't accept that the priesthood ban was. Just because one or two were, doesn't mean that the last has to be.

I accept that God makes certain boundaries. I accept, for example, that only married people can have sexual relations worthily in the eyes of God. I accept that only worthy LDS can enter the temple. I don't accept that God wanted black people kept out it for 130 years.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course everyone knows the Mormons had polygamy. "How many wives do you have?" It's a joke I've been asked that for ages. I was a kid at school being asked how many mums I had. In a deep dark corner of rural UK.

It's Joseph's polygamy that is not widely known. Especially his polyandry and teenagers. That is no-where in the manuals or the scriptures. Neither is the fact that when the revelation was recorded in 1843, he'd already been living it for around 8-10 years.

I feel like a stuck record but why does everyone keep ignoring what Bushman says in the interview and what Turley says to the Swedish saints? They both acknowledge that many members do not know that Joseph was a polygamist.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

It is still a mystery to me. D&C 132 has been around for a long time now, and even longer if we consider the Bible.

Polyandry was practiced in the Bible. So it is strange that so called Christians would object to it on Biblical grounds.

Heck I married my teenage sweetheart. I was 20 and she was 19. So who cares, especially after 41 years together.

Also when I was in HS it was still legal for a 14 year old to get married. Back 170 years ago an older man marrying a much younger women was quite acceptable.

I've always accepted that some in the Church don't know about polygamy, even JS practice of it. However for those adults with more than 4 years in the Church, there really is no excuse for not knowing it.

[why me]

The LDS Church is expecting 100 % honesty from its members, which is a good thing. As a Norwegian, I would expect 100 % honesty back, by same standards. Example could be, if JS translated the BOM by looking into a stone in a hat, we would have pictures of these events according to the history. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were engaged in polygamy/polyandry, we would not be misled by priesthood/relief society manuals written in a way to make us believe that there where only one wife. In several cultures, this kind of "truth bending" is not acceptable. But my heart broke, and my world collapsed around me as well, when I experienced the LDS Church had been dishonest to me, my family and fellow church members, by being silent and only telling part of the truth regarding church history.

And if you would have put peep stones into the lds search engine one would get this:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

And this:

One of the Prophet’s plural wives, having lived three years in his home, reflected late in her life, “I have known of his outgoings, and his incomings, his sorrows and joys, his troubles and afflictions in public and in private. He was one of the noblest of men and those who knew him best, loved him most.” ¹⁴

^{https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng}

^{Of course, this was a time ago. The ensign had much information in the past. I do think that the ensign needs to become the ensign of old. But what does this tell us? It tells us that the church is not hiding it but rather has decided to downplay it all.}

[bluebell]

I feel like a stuck record but why does everyone keep ignoring what Bushman says in the interview and what Turley says to the Swedish saints? They both acknowledge that many members do not know that Joseph was a polygamist.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

I guess because it's weird that so many members don't know.

If we are reading and studying as much as we are supposed to in the church, I don't know how it's possible not to realize that the man who instigated polygamy at the command of God and was threatened with death if he didn't accept it, actually lived it.

[canard78]

I guess because it's weird that so many members don't know.

If we are reading and studying as much as we are supposed to in the church, I don't know how it's possible not to realize that the man who instigated polygamy at the command of God and was threatened with death if he didn't accept it, actually lived it.

I can fully understand the surprise on this forum because the topics we study includes the history of the church.

Like I've said, until 18 months ago or I had absolutely no interest in the history. I was far more interested in studying faith, charity, compassion etc while also holding down several callings. Bushman and Turley accept it. I hope this whole episode with Mattsson will help people realise it's a more common occurance than they had presumed.

[Storm Rider]

I am not aware of any time during the history of humanity when doubt, faith crises, whatever one wants to label it, was not present and/or common within the people of God. It is a normal, natural state of man and one of the things that a disciple of Christ must overcome. Doubt seeps into the soul of man from divers areas. I am not sure if there is any value in quantifying where it comes from; it is there regardless of its provenance. The issue is how does a disciple of Christ strengthen their faith? This is not a trite question and trite answers are not sought in response. Faith and Reason are eternal companions and we should never assume that a faithful person must abandon Reason in order to retain faith. However, a man of Reason must also grasp the value and the importance of the role of faith in their life and the fact that there will be times when Faith must take priority if one is to remain a disciple. Fundamentally, I think it boils down to a position of desire; what do we want to be in this life? Do we want to be a disciple or do we want to follow the dictates of our own mind or the understanding of men? We must choose whom we will serve in this life. Once the choice is made we must allow our actions to demonstrate that choice.

[Tacenda]

If any of you live in Utah, there is a radio station that is interviewing John Dehlin concerning Hans Mattsson, today at 11:00 am. See the link below....

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/mormon-belief-digital-age#.UfFBW2BFGkY.facebook

ETA: Here is the link to the live show....

http://audio.kuer.org:8000/high.m3u

ETA: This will be re-broadcast later! Which is good, mowing the lawn.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Questing Beast]

... Fundamentally, I think it boils down to a position of desire; what do we want to be in this life? Do we want to be a disciple or do we want to follow the dictates of our own mind or the understanding of men? We must choose whom we will serve in this life. Once the choice is made we must allow our actions to demonstrate that choice.

Desire is such a nebulous thing, tied to our biology 24/7 until we are dead. It's all timing. A former bishop of mine left his wife of thirty years and then remarried a woman who is almost the same phenotype to outward eyes, perhaps he saw her differently from the mother of his children, that he claimed he had "never really loved". Two weeks after he uttered those hurtful words, he repented of them and tried to go back to his wife, but she would have none of his backtracking. She ended up marrying a guy who looked a lot like her ex too. Very strange.

What does any of that have to do with desire or lack of desire to be specifically a "disciple of Christ"? It seems to me that a personal concept of Christ and what being a disciple means can override all scriptural teachings on the subject. No matter what is taught over the pulpit, the individual has his/her own concept, and desire is necessarily dependent on concepts. How do you separate a metaphysical concept from a biologically driven concept? Seems impossible to me. So, "God Is to blame". "You made me this way, you fix it", isn't that big a request, imho. And in a way that's a humble stance, an admission that without God's intervention otherwise, I will just continue to be the same ol' guy I have always been. Desire must be powered by the being within....

[canard78]

I am not aware of any time during the history of humanity when doubt, faith crises, whatever one wants to label it, was not present and/or common within the people of God. It is a normal, natural state of man and one of the things that a disciple of Christ must overcome. Doubt seeps into the soul of man from divers areas. I am not sure if there is any value in quantifying where it comes from; it is there regardless of its provenance. The issue is how does a disciple of Christ strengthen their faith? This is not a trite question and trite answers are not sought in response. Faith and Reason are eternal companions and we should never assume that a faithful person must abandon Reason in order to retain faith. However, a man of Reason must also grasp the value and the importance of the role of faith in their life and the fact that there will be times when Faith must take priority if one is to remain a disciple. Fundamentally, I think it boils down to a position of desire; what do we want to be in this life? Do we want to be a disciple or do we want to follow the dictates of our own mind or the understanding of men? We must choose whom we will serve in this life. Once the choice is made we must allow our actions to demonstrate that choice.

I am grateful for my experiences of doubt. They have been a 'refiners fire' which have moulded my faith into something I have a far greater appreciation for. Partly because it is more my own, gifted to me by God. Rather than one that was adopted from another man.