Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

[Glenn101]

Hans Matteson is not the first "high ranking" member of the church to entertain uncertainties. There have been others even of "higher rank" who have apostatized over information or doctrine which upset their entrenched paradigm(s). It does not matter at what point in secular life or church life that one learns the upsetting information. Either a lifetime member, a newly baptized member, or an investigator, if the person is not willing to trust God to give them an answer, the result will be the same.

No one, but no one, will be able to learn about the truth of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (and the head in the hat thing is really irrelevant) by secular research and reasoning. Nor will they be able to find out the truth about polygamy by researching history to the nth degree. In fact, they might not even be able to find out about the truth of polygamy by much fasting and prayer. It is something, along with the Law of Consecration that is not being practiced today, so that answer might be irrelevant.

What anyone can do is obtain a revelation on the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, of the Book of Mormon, and of Joseph Smith as a prophet by much fasting and prayer. Those are relevant questions.

I believe that God will keep His promise and that the Holy Ghost will manifest the answer in a manner that is convincing and unequivoal. That has been my own experience. There has been nothing that has been uncovered in history that has made me reconsider those experiences in another light, to doubt the clarity and force of the message I received. A message that was not verbal in nature, but was nonetheless, illuminating, powerful, and unmistakeable.

One does not have to have faith in Joseph Smith, in the LDS Church, or the Book of Mormon to receive an answer on those subjects. But one must have faith in God, and believe in their hearts that God will answer their prayers.

Uncertainties are all around us in this life. (Duh!) But we can be certain of God and God's promises.

Nephi was certain of God and his promises when commanded to return to Jerusalem and ontain the Brass Plates. He hadseen visions and angels. Yet when he came across Laban lying drunk in the street and was constrained by the spirit to kill him, Nephi resisted. It was only after the the Spirit spoke verbally and explained the reasoning, that Nephi finally complied. He had to know that it was from God.

You know, Joseph Smith had some uncertainties. He had seen God and Jesus Christ. He had seen angels. Yet, when he was called upon to practice polygamy, he procrastinated until some rather severe penalties were about to be executed did he go forward with what God had commanded him to do.

The opinions of Hans Matteson, you, me, or anyone else about Joseph Smith and polygamy are irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the one that God has, and there is only one way to find out what that is. And that opinion is what we need to find out.

Glenn

[ERayR]

Hans Matteson is not the first "high ranking" member of the church to entertain uncertainties. There have been others even of "higher rank" who have apostatized over information or doctrine which upset their entrenched paradigm(s). It does not matter at what point in secular life or church life that one learns the upsetting information. Either a lifetime member, a newly baptized member, or an investigator, if the person is not willing to trust God to give them an answer, the result will be the same.

No one, but no one, will be able to learn about the truth of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (and the head in the hat thing is really irrelevant) by secular research and reasoning. Nor will they be able to find out the truth about polygamy by researching history to the nth degree. In fact, they might not even be able to find out about the truth of polygamy by much fasting and prayer. It is something, along with the Law of Consecration that is not being practiced today, so that answer might be irrelevant.

What anyone can do is obtain a revelation on the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, of the Book of Mormon, and of Joseph Smith as a prophet by much fasting and prayer. Those are relevant questions.

I believe that God will keep His promise and that the Holy Ghost will manifest the answer in a manner that is convincing and unequivoal. That has been my own experience. There has been nothing that has been uncovered in history that has made me reconsider those experiences in another light, to doubt the clarity and force of the message I received. A message that was not verbal in nature, but was nonetheless, illuminating, powerful, and unmistakeable.

One does not have to have faith in Joseph Smith, in the LDS Church, or the Book of Mormon to receive an answer on those subjects. But one must have faith in God, and believe in their hearts that God will answer their prayers.

Uncertainties are all around us in this life. (Duh!) But we can be certain of God and God's promises.

Nephi was certain of God and his promises when commanded to return to Jerusalem and ontain the Brass Plates. He hadseen visions and angels. Yet when he came across Laban lying drunk in the street and was constrained by the spirit to kill him, Nephi resisted. It was only after the the Spirit spoke verbally and explained the reasoning, that Nephi finally complied. He had to know that it was from God.

You know, Joseph Smith had some uncertainties. He had seen God and Jesus Christ. He had seen angels. Yet, when he was called upon to practice polygamy, he procrastinated until some rather severe penalties were about to be executed did he go forward with what God had commanded him to do.

The opinions of Hans Matteson, you, me, or anyone else about Joseph Smith and polygamy are irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the one that God has, and there is only one way to find out what that is. And that opinion is what we need to find out.

Glenn

Glen this is so right.

[Tacenda]

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

I failed to mention Phil Barlow was there also. Hey, isn't John allowed to have a crisis of faith like others we know have. He's almost come full circle, almost.

[ERayR]

I failed to mention Phil Barlow was there also. Hey, isn't John allowed to have a crisis of faith like others we know have. He's almost come full circle, almost.

Most of us work ours out with God, in private. Glad to hear he is almost full circle. Hope he makes it.

[Calm]

Those who think they know everything are irritating to those of us who do.

[Calm]

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.

I still haven't seen the Lord of the Rings movies all the way through, just the snippets from walking into the room while family is watching it. Too close and yet too far apart....

[Calm]

The opinions of Hans Matteson, you, me, or anyone else about Joseph Smith and polygamy are irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the one that God has, and there is only one way to find out what that is. And that opinion is what we need to find out.

Glenn

Well stated.

[omni]

What kind of portrait shows someone with a face in the hat that would deny the artist the ability to portray Joseph Smiths face.

An accurate one.

[Danzo]

An accurate one.

When was the last time you saw accuracy in an artistic representation?

[why me]

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.

All history is selective when it is taught. No one learns a complete history when they learn it in high school or even in university. Writers need to be selective in the facts they wish to bring out or a book can be 1000 pages long and unsellable. It is really not a church's business to write their own history but it is up to scholars and historians to publish books and articles about such history. If we go to any bookshop we will see tons of books on the history of christianity, protestantism or catholicism. All written by scholars and not written by any church. Why should the lds church be different? There needs to be scholars interested in lds history. Maybe with the JSPs, more scholars will write something.

[why me]

If the history the church teaches is so selective that it is misleading then there's a problem.

Of course it is selective and the facts chosen are usually relevant for today. In my last sunday school class, we had about 35 minutes to discuss the Marsh incident among other things. The teacher needed to be selective in what was taught. Do you think that in catholic catechism class, a comprehensive history is taught? Do you think that a doubting history is taught? No. But catholics and protestants can go to a bookshop and read all they want on catholic or protestant history. And of course one can go to a christian bookshop to get tons of faith promoting material or go to a catholic bookshop to get tons of faith promoting material. No doubting history there. Are they being dishonest?

[Nevo]

The opinions of Hans Matteson, you, me, or anyone else about Joseph Smith and polygamy are irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the one that God has, and there is only one way to find out what that is. And that opinion is what we need to find out.

I'm glad you feel confident in your faith and that you believe you know God's mind on these matters. But I find it rather arrogant and presumptuous of you to suppose that Hans Mattsson hasn't received the same answers as you have because he hasn't sought God in prayer or hasn't done so with sufficient faith. Your post is full of smooth pieities that will earn approving nods from many here, but I find it more than a little reminiscent of the speeches of Job's "comforters," who applied their conventional theological understanding to Job's situation and turned out to be pretty poor judges of things.

[Calm]

I'm glad you feel confident in your faith and that you believe you know God's mind on these matters.

I didn't get that sense at all from his post. He cited Nephi and Joseph as resisting and having doubts even after their personal visions. He listed himself as irrelevant just as everyone else is. Seems to me he was saying that the only one who can give you the real answers is God and everyone has to continue to seek out him and open themselves to the Spirit no matter who they are to seek his Will for them, including those who have had fantastic experiences in the past.

It seems to me the bottomline of what he was saying is that no one will be satisfied with answers for their doubts from friends, family, GAs or the Prophet, but it is only God that can give the kind of peace and comfort they are looking for.

If I have misinterpreted him, he can correct me, of course.

****And I would add that even if I believe that God will give the kind of answers that Glen describes, I don't believe it is on some sort of timeline that we can point to and say 'if he hasn't gotten the answer yet, he wasn't really trying'. I believe that for some people that type of answer won't come until the next life.

Edited July 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

-SNIP-

I believe that God will keep His promise and that the Holy Ghost will manifest the answer in a manner that is convincing and unequivoal. That has been my own experience. There has been nothing that has been uncovered in history that has made me reconsider those experiences in another light, to doubt the clarity and force of the message I received. A message that was not verbal in nature, but was nonetheless, illuminating, powerful, and unmistakeable.

-SNIP-

One does not have to have faith in Joseph Smith, in the LDS Church, or the Book of Mormon to receive an answer on those subjects. But one must have faith in God, and believe in their hearts that God will answer their prayers.

-SNIP-

The opinions of Hans Matteson, you, me, or anyone else about Joseph Smith and polygamy are irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the one that God has, and there is only one way to find out what that is. And that opinion is what we need to find out.

I wonder if you've taken the time to listen to Elder Mattsson's Mormon Stories interview?

He did/does pray, he did go to God to seek His will and guidance. That's why he has spoken up.

I hope you don't presume that just because the answer the Mattssons got from God is different to the one your paradigm that he must be wrong. You might both be right, but only for you.

Some of the guidance that I have received recently, through prayer, would go against orthodox Mormon perspectives.

I believe God is happy for his children to go through life either in or out of Mormonism or any other 'ism' as long as it becomes fit for purpose for helping the individual along the path to godliness. I now consider the church history 'earthquake' of 2012 that forced a reappraisal of my paradigm to be a good thing. I'm grateful for it. I consider it heaven sent. I much prefer my new paradigm.

[why me]

I'm glad you feel confident in your faith and that you believe you know God's mind on these matters. But I find it rather arrogant and presumptuous of you to suppose that Hans Mattsson hasn't received the same answers as you have because he hasn't sought God in prayer or hasn't done so with sufficient faith. Your post is full of smooth pieities that will earn approving nods from many here, but I find it more than a little reminiscent of the speeches of Job's "comforters," who applied their conventional theological understanding to Job's situation and turned out to be pretty poor judges of things.

I have been reading your posts for quite some time. In fact, I have been reading them for years and I have always found them very informative. However, I have noticed a change in your tone. Much more critical now, not just of the church but also of posters. I do realize that we mere mortals do not have your knowledge. In my very humble opinion, you have now developed a tendency to look down on us poor intrepid fools. And this is the tone that I also got from your above post. Now you are knowledgeable and certainly are well read in church matters. But...this does not mean you are always right and we mere fools are always wrong.

Now in terms of Matts. I think that he did blow his cover when he took it public and allowed the NYT to do a video and an interview. If you notice something about the interview there was mention of a certain website called MT. The website was placed before the interview began when the interviewer was beginning her lead in. I think that we can all guess the website from the initials. Why would that be in the video if Matts had the interest of the church in mind? I know that if I were him, I just may be a little wary of supporting that website. But there it was. This can lead me to conclude that Matts does not have the best interest of the church at heart but just the opposite. But of course I would need to see more facts to make a judgement.

Edited July 26, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I wonder if you've taken the time to listen to Elder Mattsson's Mormon Stories interview?

He did/does pray, he did go to God to seek His will and guidance. That's why he has spoken up.

I hope you don't presume that just because the answer the Mattssons got from God is different to the one your paradigm that he must be wrong. You might both be right, but only for you.

Some of the guidance that I have received recently, through prayer, would go against orthodox Mormon perspectives.

I believe God is happy for his children to go through life either in or out of Mormonism or any other 'ism' as long as it becomes fit for purpose for helping the individual along the path to godliness. I now consider the church history 'earthquake' of 2012 that forced a reappraisal of my paradigm to be a good thing. I'm grateful for it. I consider it heaven sent. I much prefer my new paradigm.

What the church is going through now with Hans is what it went through in the past. Many leaders left the fold at the time of Joseph Smith. In fact, they were dropping like flies after a bug spraying. And the reasons were not much different from Hans. We also had the problem of people claiming this and that after prayer. These people were also dropping like flies after a night frost. It is all in lds early history. We also had the problem with people with peep stones etc.

And this is why a certain order was instituted within the church. Hans showed himself not to be that friendly to the church when he went to the world-wide press and allowed a certain website to be adverted into it. I can only think what would be happening now if Romney were president. Every former member with importance and every member with importance who is now critical of mormonism would be getting their 15 minutes of fame.

[Calm]

However, I have noticed a change in your tone.

I think you are reading too much into his posts. There have been many judgmental and/or emotional comments on this subject, it is not surprising that everyone tends to be more emphatic in their responses about it.

[canard78]

I have been reading your posts for quite some time. In fact, I have been reading them for years and I have always found them very informative. However, I have noticed a change in your tone. Much more critical now, not just of the church but also of posters. I do realize that we mere mortals do not have your knowledge. In my very humble opinion, you have now developed a tendency to look down on us poor intrepid fools. And this is the tone that I also got from your above post. Now you are knowledgeable and certainly are well read in church matters. But...this does not mean you are always right and we mere fools are always wrong.

Now in terms of Matts. I think that he did blow his cover when he took it public and allowed the NYT to do a video and an interview. If you notice something about the interview there was mention of a certain website called MT. The website was placed before the interview began when the interviewer was beginning her lead in. I think that we can all guess the website from the initials. Why would that be in the video if Matts had the interest of the church in mind? I know that if I were him, I just may be a little wary of supporting that website. But there it was. This can lead me to conclude that Matts does not have the best interest of the church at heart but just the opposite. But of course I would need to see more facts to make a judgement.

I've also noticed a tendency from some posters, you and Danzo for example, to take an approach with the heterodox posters on this forum of the faux praise as mockery. The assumption that we're being arrogant when we disagree with the orthodox view.

"I do realize that we mere mortals do not have your knowledge. In my very humble opinion, you have now developed a tendency to look down on us poor intrepid fools.... But...this does not mean you are always right and we mere fools are always wrong."

Your opinion, when put in this language is really not very humble at all. I suppose that means I'm not either.

[why me]

"I do realize that we mere mortals do not have your knowledge. In my very humble opinion, you have now developed a tendency to look down on us poor intrepid fools.... But...this does not mean you are always right and we mere fools are always wrong."

Your opinion, when put in this language is really not very humble at all. I suppose that means I'm not either.

It wasn't meant to be humble. That is why I put the word 'very' in front of humble.

I suppose is very simple. I don't believe that the church policy about what should be known and unknown a problem for the truthfulness of the book of mormon. Why should it affect a person's testimony about the book of mormon? I also believe that church leaders made a mistake when they changed policy in the nineties. But that has nothing to do with the foundational claims about the book of mormon. It has to do with church policy in the nineties and late eighties and the decision that was made.

Why should Hans doubt the truthfulness of the book of mormon because of a change in policy by the church in what needs to be learned and what needs not to be learned?

[why me]

I think you are reading too much into his posts. There have been many judgmental and/or emotional comments on this subject, it is not surprising that everyone tends to be more emphatic in their responses about it.

I don't think that I am reading too much into it. I have seen this posters posts on a different board.

I like Nevo. I learned a great deal from this poster. And I appreciate this poster's knowledge. But I do not like the tone at times when Nevo addresses other posters who may not be up to his or her standards of knowledge. Or share his or her opinions. I thought that Nevo was unfair to Glenn and this is why I posted what I did.

Stop the board nannying if you want to stay in the thread.

[CV75]

The church loses the initiative and cedes territory when it lets the critics frame the history first.

Kind of what happened to Enoch (Moses 6:38), and what the Lord said would happen with Isaiah (Isaiah 6:9-10). It's more nuanced than apparent initiative and territory

[Tacenda]

I wonder if you've taken the time to listen to Elder Mattsson's Mormon Stories interview?

He did/does pray, he did go to God to seek His will and guidance. That's why he has spoken up.

I hope you don't presume that just because the answer the Mattssons got from God is different to the one your paradigm that he must be wrong. You might both be right, but only for you.

Some of the guidance that I have received recently, through prayer, would go against orthodox Mormon perspectives.

I believe God is happy for his children to go through life either in or out of Mormonism or any other 'ism' as long as it becomes fit for purpose for helping the individual along the path to godliness. I now consider the church history 'earthquake' of 2012 that forced a reappraisal of my paradigm to be a good thing. I'm grateful for it. I consider it heaven sent. I much prefer my new paradigm.

I would say there was a positive for me also, that thankfully counteracted the bad. And that is feeling like I can relate to people not of my faith or inactive. It's hard to explain, but it's not that I felt better than them but different than. It made it so I never developed close relationships, because of it. That's where I'm grateful to just look at others the same as I do the active LDS people. I know how insular I sounded before, and glad I'm not that person anymore. Edited July 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Glenn101]

"Glenn101, on 25 July 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

The opinions of Hans Matteson, you, me, or anyone else about Joseph Smith and polygamy are irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the one that God has, and there is only one way to find out what that is. And that opinion is what we need to find out."

I'm glad you feel confident in your faith and that you believe you know God's mind on these matters. But I find it rather arrogant and presumptuous of you to suppose that Hans Mattsson hasn't received the same answers as you have because he hasn't sought God in prayer or hasn't done so with sufficient faith. Your post is full of smooth pieities that will earn approving nods from many here, but I find it more than a little reminiscent of the speeches of Job's "comforters," who applied their conventional theological understanding to Job's situation and turned out to be pretty poor judges of things.

What part of the portion of my post that you quoted is incorrect????

Glenn

[Glenn101]

I didn't get that sense at all from his post. He cited Nephi and Joseph as resisting and having doubts even after their personal visions. He listed himself as irrelevant just as everyone else is. Seems to me he was saying that the only one who can give you the real answers is God and everyone has to continue to seek out him and open themselves to the Spirit no matter who they are to seek his Will for them, including those who have had fantastic experiences in the past.

It seems to me the bottomline of what he was saying is that no one will be satisfied with answers for their doubts from friends, family, GAs or the Prophet, but it is only God that can give the kind of peace and comfort they are looking for.

If I have misinterpreted him, he can correct me, of course.

****And I would add that even if I believe that God will give the kind of answers that Glen describes, I don't believe it is on some sort of timeline that we can point to and say 'if he hasn't gotten the answer yet, he wasn't really trying'. I believe that for some people that type of answer won't come until the next life.

Cal, you have interpreted my meaning correctly. Thanks.

Glenn