Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

[ERayR]

However, it was one of the ways used so why not have illustrations of it? There is an illustration of Joseph copying down characters off of the plates and as far as we know, that*** only happened a few times at the very beginning IIRC as it took way too much time besides the one time he did it for the Anthon excursion. They used to have Joseph portrayed in the breastplate with the UandT for a Primary lesson as well as in the older Scripture Stories books (one can find the image on Mormonthink if anyone is curious). They've removed that as well. I haven't been able to find an image for that on lds.org which was surprising to me when that happened, but perhaps they preferred to leave such portrayals to people's individual imaginations...perhaps because we don't have enough accurate details, or perhaps they want people to think of it as less of a mechanical translation (plug in one word and out comes another) and one more dependent on the Spirit and pure revelation.

***My memory says at the very beginning he would translate off the characters he had copied rather than the plates...this would have been in conjunction with him wearing the breastplate and looking through the spectacles, but it was too awkward and time consuming of a process, using both of the stones in the spectacles hurt his eyes for one thing. My memory could be wrong on this though, it is not something I have diligently studied, the mechanics not being that important to me.

My question is which is relevant, that he translated the Book of Mormon or that he sometimes put his face in his hat? And what is wrong with his face in his hat other than the imposition of a current day personal bias on a prior era?

[why me]

I'll weigh in. Hans Mattsson's experience is is the same story to a T that many LDS encounter when exploring the internet and Books (if they read much)

It will continue to get worse as younger and younger folks are online more and more. The only way to combat it is to offer a faithful way in which to understand the informationa nd to be the first ones to get their ear with it. It is a new game and so we must confront it in new ways, specifically being more open about doubt and some form of innoculation throught out the Sunday curriculum. It doesn't have to take up a large chunck, just a little continuous sprinkle

The problem is quite simple to solve. Members should be directed to BYU studies websites where academics give their understandings and interpretations. All controversies should be covered. It is not up to the church to engage in such historical debates. It should be done by proxy. A church who engages in historical debate will lose the argument and accomplishes nothing. If I wish to search catholic history I do not go to the vatican website. Nothing there. I go to scholars.

[why me]

My question is which is relevant, that he translated the Book of Mormon or that he sometimes put his face in his hat? And what is wrong with his face in his hat other than the imposition of a current day personal bias on a prior era?

The face in the hat is rather faith promoting. But difficult to give an artist interpretation of it. But the face in the hat is a faith enhancer. How to teach this to kids. Easy. Have a hat, have them stick their head in it and have them attempt to write a book. They will fail. Why? Because the translation occurred by the power of god.

[Nevo]

And what is wrong with his face in his hat other than the imposition of a current day personal bias on a prior era?

This question would be best directed to:

Curriculum Development

50 East North Temple Street, Room 2404

Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0024

[ERayR]

This question would be best directed to:

Curriculum Development

50 East North Temple Street, Room 2404

Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0024

Why is it relevant to you?

[why me]

Because LDS folks still don't get that testimonies are built, not so much on experiences, but on an interpretation of those experiences; and those interpretations on principles of rationality and whether somethings are facts or not. Plus, it doesn't happen suddenly at least for those of us who were in the Church for a long time. Which one you take to be the sand in "built on sand", whether rationality and what we can see are facts or on unreflective experiences hurried by feelings, matters tremendously.

I think that most members who leave the fold rationalize their experiences. They can say such things as people of other faiths have the same experiences as the lds. So, such experiences prove nothing. And then, they begin to talk about a warm fuzzy as a replacement for the Holy Ghost. And this use this rationality and read how other people in their boat are doing the same thing, fostering their own way of thinking.

[why me]

My question is which is relevant, that he translated the Book of Mormon or that he sometimes put his face in his hat? And what is wrong with his face in his hat other than the imposition of a current day personal bias on a prior era?

The church was quite open about it in the past. It was in the Ensign as were peep stones. But I never saw an artist interpretation of it. I think that it would be best to just explain the process again without the picture. The process itself is rather a miracle when we consider that a book came of it. No manuscript etc.

[ERayR]

Because LDS folks still don't get that testimonies are built, not so much on experiences, but on an interpretation of those experiences; and those interpretations on principles of rationality and whether somethings are facts or not. Plus, it doesn't happen suddenly at least for those of us who were in the Church for a long time. Which one you take to be the sand in "built on sand", whether rationality and what we can see are facts or on unreflective experiences hurried by feelings, matters tremendously.

Need I say it again? It is about what you chose. Who is to determine what is rational? Are your choices any more rational than mine. One might think so if you saw my tin foil hat but other than that. Oh your constant mumbling into your soda can is a bit distracting.

[ERayR]

The church was quite open about it in the past. It was in the Ensign as were peep stones. But I never saw an artist interpretation of it. I think that it would be best to just explain the process again without the picture. The process itself is rather a miracle when we consider that a book came of it. No manuscript etc.

My frustrations are with those that grab on to such irrelevancies like a dog to a bone and refuse to see what is important, The Book of Mormon and its message.

[ttribe]

This might help with the circumstances surrounding the priesthood revelation: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7P1x3NXLrqkMjE5NzEwZDAtNjZkOS00YmM0LTk0NjYtZDcyYTQ2ZDQ2ZTIz/edit?hl=en&authkey=CLm4-fMN

[CV75]

But I never saw an artist interpretation of it.

I've never seen an artist representation of the Lord opening his eyes in the sepulture, standing up, clothing Himself or removing and folding the burial wrappings -- or was He assisted by angels? What really did happen in there? Or could Matthew 28:13 be right after all?

[ERayR]

The church was quite open about it in the past. It was in the Ensign as were peep stones. But I never saw an artist interpretation of it. I think that it would be best to just explain the process again without the picture. The process itself is rather a miracle when we consider that a book came of it. No manuscript etc.

Irregardless of whether the Church is/was open or even if they plastered it on billboards down the interstate which is relevant the face in the hat or the translation of the Book of Mormon?

[gmormon]

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

Who? I didn't see Cain being mentioned.... Cain is the only known SoP anybody else is just speculation.

Edited July 25, 2013 by gmormon

[canard78]

I'll weigh in. Hans Mattsson's experience is is the same story to a T that many LDS encounter when exploring the internet and Books (if they read much)

It will continue to get worse as younger and younger folks are online more and more. The only way to combat it is to offer a faithful way in which to understand the informationa nd to be the first ones to get their ear with it. It is a new game and so we must confront it in new ways, specifically being more open about doubt and some form of innoculation throught out the Sunday curriculum. It doesn't have to take up a large chunck, just a little continuous sprinkle

I don't want my kids to learn about sex on the playground in the first instance. I know it will be discussed and I know it will have some bad information. I heard some wacky stuff about sex around 10-11 years old.

Equally, we don't want our member to read about church history with the spin placed on it by our critics. That would be simply irresponsible.

For my own children, I'll make sure I do it. For the general membership of the branch I attend, the people who don't have a parent who knows it (or whose parent isn't a member or even living) the church has to provide some way to educate people on the church's own terms. And it can't be selective. Otherwise there will be disasters.

If I told my children only selective information about sex I could end up with a teenage pregnancy. I don't want to be a grandpa in my late 30s!

[canard78]

I would like to know would it have made any difference who told you about these issues or when, would you have reacted any different? If so why? Please give it some thought and be honest. Don't just say yes. Look at it this way: Critic says Joseph married other guys wives. Sunday school teacher says Joseph married other guys wives? I can't see any difference.

Ok... giving some thought. And being honest.

Finding out 'today' would have come as a surprise from any source. I would still have had consternation.

But when I first heard about polyandry, I read an article on fairlds soon afterwards that framed it very differently. It talked about the possibility of Joseph wanted to create links to other friends and family. That some of them were not sexual, but dynastic and possibly social ties for the eternities.

The way we frame our history, while being fully accurate, makes a difference.

As I've said before, my daughter was told about 'head in hat' not long ago. She and her younger brothers will grow up knowing that as being one of the major methods for translating. As I've said before, we're find with fantastical elements in the story, an Angel appearing in a bedroom in the middle of the night. Gold treasures burried by a prophet and found 100s of years later. Visits by deity. It's not exactly like the version we do tell is particularly 'normal.'

I will teach them this:

"Joseph used a few different techniques to translate the Book of Mormon, including wearing the Nephite interpreters or looking at a favourite stone he had found while digging a well which he placed in a hat and looked at.

It's a bit like when Dad uses consecrated oil for blessings. The blessing is still given through faith and the spirit, but the oil is a symbol to help us increase our faith and have more confidence that the spirit is there. Neither the consecrated oil, nor the stone in the hat have any magical or divine properties. They are symbols to help people focus and to concentrate on while listening to the Spirit.

Joseph didn't translate directly like a professional. When Joseph used the term “translate,” he meant getting revelation. Looking at the stone in the hat helped him concentrate and have confidence that he was getting revelation."

That is very different to the "naughty whispered playground stories" that I read when I discovered the head in a hat on someone elses terms. The church loses the initiative and cedes territory when it lets the critics frame the history first.

[canard78]

delete duplicate (my internet's going funny)

Edited July 26, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

The problem is quite simple to solve. Members should be directed to BYU studies websites where academics give their understandings and interpretations. All controversies should be covered. It is not up to the church to engage in such historical debates. It should be done by proxy. A church who engages in historical debate will lose the argument and accomplishes nothing. If I wish to search catholic history I do not go to the vatican website. Nothing there. I go to scholars.

If the history the church teaches is so selective that it is misleading then there's a problem. Some people have a faith crisis as much for the actual history as for the fact that what they were taught was selective at best and misrepresentative at worst.

[Calm]

My question is which is relevant, that he translated the Book of Mormon or that he sometimes put his face in his hat?

Definitely that he did it by the power of God through revelation.

And what is wrong with his face in his hat other than the imposition of a current day personal bias on a prior era?

I don't see anything wrong with it which is why I think it would be a good idea to have a few pictures of it when appropriate (on the occasion when the seerstone is mentioned for example.

[Calm]

The church was quite open about it in the past. It was in the Ensign as were peep stones. But I never saw an artist interpretation of it. I think that it would be best to just explain the process again without the picture. The process itself is rather a miracle when we consider that a book came of it. No manuscript etc.

But some people are visual learners and they won't retain as much if they are only given words (and don't go to the extra effort of visualising it for themselves).

[ERayR]

But some people are visual learners and they won't retain as much if they are only given words (and don't go to the extra effort of visualising it for themselves).

I am that way but like to make my own pictures, in my mind.

[teddyaware]

If the history the church teaches is so selective that it is misleading then there's a problem. Some people have a faith crisis as much for the actual history as for the fact that what they were taught was selective at best and misrepresentative at worst.

I have a hunch that when the Lord untangles all the knots of doubt, distress and confusion that exist within the minds and hearts of those now troubled by shaken faith syndrome, they are going to be very, very surprised when they realize how simple the way back to renewed faith and inner peace could have been if only they had had eyes to see it.

Edited July 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[Calm]

I am that way but like to make my own pictures, in my mind.

Most of the time I do too, which is why I generally avoid movies about books I really love unless I believe I agree with the portrayal or it is different enough I don't transfer it. Generally it is only when something is complicated and perhaps not completely described that I prefer a visual aid. I have to say it was quite helpful for my OT prof, Victor Ludlow to come into class dressed as a OT priest to explain what the items described in the scriptures were actually. Edited July 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

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

Audio above is from this radio program aired today guests including John Dehlin http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/mormon-belief-digital-age

[ERayR]

Most of the time I do too, which is why I generally avoid movies about books I really love unless I believe I agree with the portrayal or it is different enough I don't transfer it. Generally it is only when something is complicated and perhaps not completely described that I prefer a visual aid. I have to say it was quite helpful for my OT prof, Victor Ludlow to come into class dressed as a OT priest to explain what the items described in the scriptures were actually.

My wife gets so aggravated with me when I sit through a movie with her I have read in book form. For some reason my commentary is not appreciated.

[ERayR]

http://radiowest.kue...ief-digital-age

Audio above is from this radio program aired today guests including John Dehlin http://radiowest.kue...ief-digital-age

I try to avoid Dehlin anymore. Those who think they know everything are irritating to those of us who do.