Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

[Glenn101]

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 have not listened to the podcast. I do understand that Elder Mattson has prayed about the subject(s) and has done so extensively.. It is my understanding that because of the problems that he found, he has reappraised his earlier spiritual experiences as not saying what he though they originally said.

I am not trying to speak to Elder Mattssons's efforts at prayer. I can only speak from my own experience and the clarity and conviction that my spiritual experiences left me with.

You assertion about multiple paths to Godliness inside and outside of Mormonism do not ring true scripturally.

Glenn

[DBMormon]

A side note that hasn't been mentioned. I am guessing every seventy, apostle, and FP member will have read and be aware of this article. For some it's going to be their first, as it was with Hans', brush with the fact that these issues are not answered as easily as they first thought and it will have a ripple effect (perhaps tiny) with other leaders taking care to be more aware and consider these issues and their possible answers.

[Nevo]

I believe that for some people that type of answer won't come until the next life.

You may be right about this. The revelations tell us that signs come "not by the will of men, nor as they please, but by the will of God" (D&C 63:10). Alma fasted and prayed for "many days" before receiving a witness of the truth (Alma 5:46). For some, the trial of their faith may last considerably longer (consider, for example, the experience of Mother Teresa).

Edited July 26, 2013 by Nevo

[Nevo]

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

I don't mind you taking issue with my posting style or finding me unfair to other posters—I am open to criticism on that front—but I do reject your insinuation that my posts on the "other" board reveal my true nature more fully than my posts on this board. I do not post any differently over there than I do here.

[Nevo]

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

Hi Glenn,

You wrote: "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."

Why do I take issue with this? Because I don't see "asking God" as the panacea for all questions and doubts. Prayer is important but it is not the only thing. In many cases, we will still have questions and doubts even after asking God for his opinion.

Personally, I am more sympathetic to Terryl Givens's approach:

The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension.

[Glenn101]

Hi Glenn,

You wrote: "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."

Why do I take issue with this? Because I don't see "asking God" as the panacea for all questions and doubts. Prayer is important but it is not the only thing. In many cases, we will still have questions and doubts even after asking God for his opinion.

Personally, I am more sympathetic to Terryl Givens's approach:

Nevo,

Thanks for your reasoned response. I agree with Givens, to a degree. And, in fact, if you will reread the original post to which you were responding, you will see that I have addressed the uncertaintity principle in our lives. I pointed out that even for prophets who have seen Christ and angels, there is still a level of uncertainty when something is presented that challenges hard core paradigms. The examples that I gave of Nephi and Joseph show that they didnot just blindly follow a "warm feeling" but balked and resisted until they knew of a certainty that the actions were indeed what God wanted. And those answers could only have come from God.

Most of us, in this life, will not have such close encounters with God where we will see Him and Jesus Christ face to face and know from personal experirnce that they live. We are left to grapple with uncertainties on a different level. But we have been promised that God will affirm to us the truth via the conduit of the Holy Ghost. We are promised that by the power of the Holy Ghost, we may know the truth of all things. (Moroni,1o:5)

Even with that power, the truth is not revealed to us in one fell swoop. We struggle with our faith at various stages. But, if God is to be believed, we can advance from uncertainty to certainty, one step at a time. However, God has admonished us not to waver. That infamous James again. Once I have had a question answered to a degree that there is no longer any doubt, I do not ask that question over again when something comes up that jars against the moral paradigms that I have established through my scripture readings and prayers.

When I first heard about polygamy and Joseph, I was really unconcerned. I had been taught about the restitution of all things and I had read of polygamy by the ancient prophets. It was many years ago that I heard of the "polyandry" charges brought against Joseph. So, I did my research and came to the conclusion, based on the available evidence, that those charges were unfounded. I found no evidence of sexual relations with those women, although there is some anecdotal evidence that can be interpreted as such as in the case of Patty Sessions.

I did not go back and begin to doubt the spiritual experiences that I have had gone through up to that point. They had been as real to me as the hiatal hernia that causes me often to groan and then upchuck everything that I have just eaten (but much more pleasant).

Although you say that prayers are not a panacea for ansers to every question in this life, where else can you turn for answers to questions about God, about His Church, and about His prophets? About which Church is God's church and which prophets are God's prophets? That is really the crux of the matter.

If you can point me to another source I can trust as much as I trust God, please do so.

Glenn

[Bart Burk]

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

“I was just in a bubble, and we felt so happy,” Mr. Mattsson said.

The first doubts filtered up to him from members who had turned to the Internet to research a Sunday school talk. There are dozens of Web sites other than the Mormons’ own that present critical views of the faith.

The questions were things like:

■ Why does the church always portray Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from golden plates, when witnesses described him looking down into a hat at a “peep stone,” a rock that he believed helped him find buried treasure?

■ Why were black men excluded from the priesthood from the mid-1800s until 1978?

■ Why did Smith claim that the Book of Abraham, a core scripture, was a translation of ancient writings from the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, when Egyptologists now identify the papyrus that Smith used in the translation as a common funerary scroll that has nothing to do with Abraham?

■ Is it true that Smith took dozens of wives, some as young as 14 and some already wed to other Mormon leaders, to the great pain of his first wife, Emma?

About that last question, Mr. Mattsson said, “That was kind of shocking.”

The entire article is a good read. What do you think about his concerns? I realize that there is a thread about him but the article puts it all in a nutshell.

I don't believe his concerns are valid. They have all been well explained. Doctrine and Covenants 132 is very explicit about how polygamy should be lived. If Joseph lived it incorrectly Joseph Smith will have to answer to God for it. It is not our role to judge it. The mtDNA evidence is inconclusive in my view and rests on the assumption that humans have been in the Americas for 14,000 plus years. Phyllis Olive's explanation rings true to me:

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/index-orig-with_new_bk_redo_v-5_006.htm

I don't really believe Joseph Smith translated most of the Book of Mormon by looking into a hat. He may have used that method occasionally, but Emma and Whitmer were not there most of the time.

I just don't buy Mattson's criticisms anymore.

[why me]

I just don't buy Mattson's criticisms anymore.

There is something suspicious about Hans. I think that he is making an illogical leap. For example, according to him, because the church is not open about his issues, the church may not be true. And yet, whether or not the church wishes certain information to be well known has absolutely no bearing on whether the foundational claims of the lds church are not true or true. Also, the Joseph Smith Papers show that the church is quite open about Joseph Smith. Also, BYU studies has a lot of information on its website about church history.

History should come from church sponsored organizations or institutions such as BYU or the JSPs among other sources. And any member can access these sites and others.

That is your last personal attack in this thread.

[ERayR]

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....

I watched LOR movies and it was okay because I can't force my way through the books. To me they resemble Sam Clements statement about BOM. You know Chloroform in print.

[noel00]

When you check the site MormonScholarsTestify you find very few not born in the LDS faith That is few converted from outside.

http://www.michaelsh...things/excerpt/

most of us most of the time come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning (that, presumably, smart people are better at employing). Rather, such variables as genetic predispositions, parental predilections, sibling influences, peer pressures, educational experiences, and life impressions all shape the personality preferences and emotional inclinations that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to make certain belief choices. Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational belief, regardless of what we previously believed. Instead, the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through our lifetime. We then sort through the body of data and select those most confirming what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that are disconfirming.

_________________

Edited July 27, 2013 by noel00

[canard78]

I watched LOR movies and it was okay because I can't force my way through the books. To me they resemble Sam Clements statement about BOM. You know Chloroform in print.

Boooo, hisss

Just when I was starting to like you and you go and spoil it with this.

[canard78]

I don't believe his concerns are valid. They have all been well explained. Doctrine and Covenants 132 is very explicit about how polygamy should be lived. If Joseph lived it incorrectly Joseph Smith will have to answer to God for it. It is not our role to judge it. The mtDNA evidence is inconclusive in my view and rests on the assumption that humans have been in the Americas for 14,000 plus years. Phyllis Olive's explanation rings true to me:

http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/index-orig-with_new_bk_redo_v-5_006.htm

I don't really believe Joseph Smith translated most of the Book of Mormon by looking into a hat. He may have used that method occasionally, but Emma and Whitmer were not there most of the time.

I just don't buy Mattson's criticisms anymore.

Don't worry Burt. It's fine to ignore all of the evidence. That way you can believe anything you like.

Can you find me any evidence of the black priesthood ban being introduced by revelation? That was in the NYT list but you slipped it.

[ERayR]

Don't worry Burt. It's fine to ignore all of the evidence. That way you can believe anything you like.

That one, my friend, is a two edged sword and cuts both ways.

[canard78]

There is something suspicious about Hans. I think that he is making an illogical leap.

Oops, there's another ad hominem attack to add to the ever growing list.

Suspicious

Liar

Fraud

Manipulative

Naive

Yokel

Limited intellect

Childish/petty

Why can't people just accept that some people read the same information and feel concerned by it.

For example, according to him, because the church is not open about his issues, the church may not be true.

That's over-simplifying. He says that he has concerns about his testimony of the Book of Mormon because what he prayed about years earlier is different to the reality he has discovered. He is concerned that he believed it to be one thing (as it was presented by the church) but it's actually another.

And yet, whether or not the church wishes certain information to be well known has absolutely no bearing on whether the foundational claims of the lds church are not true or true. Also, the Joseph Smith Papers show that the church is quite open about Joseph Smith. Also, BYU studies has a lot of information on its website about church history.

History should come from church sponsored organizations or institutions such as BYU or the JSPs among other sources. And any member can access these sites and others.

Why? Why should members have to become historians and academics to get the reality?

The JSP is a great resource, but you've got to dig through to get to stuff. BYU is written by academics for academics.

Many members are not academics. What's available for them?

Edited July 29, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

Many members are not academics. What's available for them?

FAIR!

[canard78]

FAIR!

Yahoo indeed. I greatly appreciate FAIR.

But then why me had said that "History should come from church sponsored organizations or institutions." Is FAIR "church sponsored?"

[Calm]

Not, but has been recommended by many church leaders. Does that count?

[canard78]

Not, but has been recommended by many church leaders. Does that count?

Where? 'On the record' or off it?

[Bart Burk]

Don't worry Burt. It's fine to ignore all of the evidence. That way you can believe anything you like.

Can you find me any evidence of the black priesthood ban being introduced by revelation? That was in the NYT list but you slipped it.

I don't believe the priesthood ban was introduced by revelation. To me that was a relic of the 19th century that took too long to undo, but it doesn't invalidate everything else.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Faith and doubt are the same fire in which we all burn. For some it is a refiner's fire, burning away impurities. For other it is a fire in which they are consumed. Either way the fire serves the purpose for which it burns.

Edit to add...

I we fan the flames of faith, the fire burns hot enough to make us as strong a steel,

If we fan the flames on doubt the fire does not become hot enough and we are clumps of iron, poorly made and that iron becomes the chains of doubt with Satan begins with as "flaxen cords" until he binds us down with the"chains of hell". No foundation can ever be built on doubt of any kind, so whatever we seek to build upon it must fall...and fail.

Also some said he was not a GA, he was just one who would be released someday. But that does not matter no man is exempt from apostasy, we must all be one guard.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Questing Beast]

"... where they are continually burning but are never consumed!"

Pa Pa, do you literally believe that this earth life consumes some while it refines others?

I believe that we are ALL of us being "refined" all of the time....