Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

[cinepro]

How can a member who most likely had the feelings of the spirit often suddenly chuck it all away? And how can a member of his standing who most likely had countless spiritual experiences throw it all away because he did not know this or that. This is what I just don't get. Like i said, a lds testimony is built on sand. But why?

As Canard pointed out, this didn't "suddenly" happen. He has been dealing with these issues for 8 years, and tried to resolve them through the "proper channels" (i.e. discussions with his leaders, personal study, and prayer). It was only after these methods proved inadequate, and he found the Church's responses to be disingenuous and lacking, that he has "gone public".

But it doesn't appear that he has totally separated from the Church (although who knows if a special meeting with the local High Council isn't in his future...?)

I suspect one important factor in this is Swedish/European culture. In the transcript of the meeting between Elder Jenson and Richard Turley with the questioning Swedish LDS, it appears the Swedish were very critical of the answers (and non-answers) they were getting, and wouldn't accept the usual "milk" when "meat" was what was needed.

[why me]

There's also a thread going about the article:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209281045

I think his story will resonate with many people who have struggled with difficult questions and a transition of faith.

The questions above are only a few of many. He and other Swedish saints were visited by Elder Marlin Jensen and Richard Turley in 2010. They had 15-16 questions. Jensen and Turley did a pretty shockingly poor job of trying to answer them.

And he's not a new doubter. We just newly know. He's been working through these concerns for 8 years. It's not a new doubt.

I've only been going for about 12-18 months on these questions. I can't imagine the exhaustion of working through it all for 8 years.

The problem comes with the spiritual experiences that he has had and now he seems to doubt based on history and unknowing it. And it is this that I find amazing and has lead me to conclude that the spiritual experiences that the lds experience may be built on sand. I am sure that he told the swedish saints many times about these experiences and bore his testimony. And this testimony should not be based on what the church tells about its history and what it doesn't tell.

However, not many christians know the ins and outs of the 4 gospels either. It is quite amazing just how we got the 4 gospels and how they came about decades after the death of Christ. And according to bible scholars, the gospels are not very reliable at all when detailing what exactly Christ said and did. And yet, people believe the gospels as the definitive word of god. But the gospels and how they became a narrative is strewn with imperfections. Most christians are rather ignorant of their faith.

[Sleeper Cell]

Does it make you feel better that he's only an area seventy.

What makes this newsworthy (and frankly gives it so much impact) is the fact that he held a high ranking church office. Under the circumstances, it is legitimate to correct people for exaggerating how high ranking his office actually was. It is at least as legitimate (and arguably more so) as criticizing the church for the artistic license in illustrations depicting the translation of the Book of Mormon.

So the GAs called a fraud as area seventy? Good powers of discernment of them then.

Not all of the original apostles worked out so well, either. To say nothing of the original seventy. At times, it looked like none of the original apostles were working our so well.

This is not intended to disparage Bro. Mattsson in any way. From what little I have heard of him, he seems to be an honorable man.

Besides which you have no more evidence that Elder Mattsson is a fraud than that Joseph didn't practice polygamy.

I agree. To expand further upon your point, what is the point of apologetics, if we start out by assuming that every doubter is a fraud, or worse, “someone who just wants to sin” (as if that wasn’t true for all of us)?.

I am hardly an expert on the subject, but one of the few things I have learned about disaster psychology is that two people can (and often do) have quite different reactions to the same traumatic experience. This does not necessarily make one of them less “strong” or “less spiritual,” nor does it even necessarily mean that one has a “weaker testimony” of the Gospel. I suppose the same is true of people who react differently to the same information about religious matters.

For that matter, it isn’t all that unusual for honest, intelligent, and thoughtful jury members to come to different conclusions about recent events -- even though each juror had exactly the same information, and was given this information at the same time and in exactly the same manner. Why should we be surprised when the same thing happens in our day-to day life, when each “juror” has different (hopefully only slightly different) information, which each received at different times and under different conditions -- especially when the matter under dispute occurred a couple of centuries ago and when religious faith and personal testimony (no two “jurors” have the same evidence) are involved? Then, there is this difference. During jury selection, every effort is made to exclude those who have any sort of stake in the outcome. If that criteria were applied to the posters on this internet forum, that would pretty much eliminate all of us.

This is not to say that moral transgression, pride, and dishonesty don’t play major roles in many apostasies. They do. But not in all. And we should not assume that they do in an individual case, absent strong evidence to the contrary.

[why me]

As Canard pointed out, this didn't "suddenly" happen. He has been dealing with these issues for 8 years, and tried to resolve them through the "proper channels" (i.e. discussions with his leaders, personal study, and prayer). It was only after these methods proved inadequate, and he found the Church's responses to be disingenuous and lacking, that he has "gone public".

I have discovered that the best way to make a christian into an atheist is to send them to study theology at a secular university. What facts these students suddenly discover are sure faith shakers for sure. Just how we got the gospels can be a game changer for many christians and the differences in those gospels can be a real faith shaker especially when the historical Jesus is studied. I don't think that it would be that different for a mormon who suddenly finds something that was not known in the past by that member. However, what the lds do have is a tesimony and spiritual experiences that would confirm that testimony. What the modern church does with information are the decisions by the modern church and should not affect someone's testimony or lessen those spiritual experiences that one had.

Edited July 22, 2013 by why me

[ERayR]

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

The great and spacious building?

[why me]

"Mormonism is still an adolescent religion", compared to the RCC. How very accurate. "We" need to get over what others, including our own members, think of us, of the Church. Suppression or ignoring or deflecting of any historical information whatsoever is a sign of insecurity or even fear. That mentality comes from the top. Why will things get any better if that continues to come from the top?...

How many catholics know their history? Or lutherans? Or baptists? Not many. And yet, history is not that important for them. What is important is their faith and they overwhelmingly recognize that people are fallible and this would include history. We are all working our way through life. When a baptist goes to sunday school are they getting a history lesson? I don't think so. They are getting a faith promoting lesson.

Edited July 22, 2013 by why me

[why me]

The great and spacious building?

I find it all rather strange. It is obvious that the critics are wining the internet war but in this case, I just find it hard to understand the weakness of lds testimonies. I don't see this in other faiths. I see members of other faiths just overlooking the past, and seeing the present and go with the now. And yet, no one has proven the book of mormon a fraud, no one has disproven the experiences of the 11 witnesses or offered a good explanation about why they never denied their spiritual experience. Discovering the head in the hat does not disprove the translation process and its final product. In fact, just the opposite. It is obvious that Hans came under internet sites that gave doubting explanations of the facts.

[ERayR]

I find it all rather strange. It is obvious that the critics are wining the internet war but in this case, I just find it hard to understand the weakness of lds testimonies. I don't see this in other faiths. I see members of other faiths just overlooking the past, and seeing the present and go with the now. And yet, no one has proven the book of mormon a fraud, no one has disproven the experiences of the 11 witnesses or offered a good explanation about why they never denied their spiritual experience. Discovering the head in the hat does not disprove the translation process and its final product. In fact, just the opposite. It is obvious that Hans came under internet sites that gave doubting explanations of the facts.

What you are seeing is not a wholesale occurrence. What you have is a concentration of those that are of this mind here on the internet and they love to expand each incidence out of proportion to its importance.

[cinepro]

How many catholics know their history? Or lutherans? Or baptists? Not many. And yet, history is not that important for them. What is important is their faith and they overwhelmingly recognize that people are fallible and this would include history. We are all working are way through life. When a baptist goes to sunday school are they getting a history lesson? I don't think so. They are getting a faith promoting lesson.

Perhaps the Church will move in that direction too. If current trends continue, we may have to.

[cesc101]

Perhaps the Church will move in that direction too. If current trends continue, we may have to.

You lost me there...

[canard78]

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

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

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

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

[ERayR]

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

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

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

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

[canard78]

You lost me there...

In other words, the Anglicans don't hold up their founder (Henry VIII) as a great man. They accept their problems and don't try to defend it. I don't see the Catholic Church standing by the inquisition or the warring popes.

The implication from Cinepro was (I imagine) that we may eventually say "we are where we are today. We can't defend the history, some of it was have an uninspired mistake. We refute and distance ourselves from the practice/preaching of XYZ. We apologise for the hurt caused by ABC. Now let's get on with today and tomorrow."

[canard78]

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

Except he isn't one of "people have been turning away from Christ's teachings for millenia..."

He still lives a life of following God and Christ as best he understands. He rejects certain aspects of Mormon history and claims. There are millions of people who reject Mormon claims every day (either passively or actively). That doesn't mean they are turning away from Christ's teachings.

[ERayR]

Except he isn't one of "people have been turning away from Christ's teachings for millenia..."

He still lives a life of following God and Christ as best he understands. He rejects certain aspects of Mormon history and claims. There are millions of people who reject Mormon claims every day (either passively or actively). That doesn't mean they are turning away from Christ's teachings.

He is definitely turning away from some of them.

[omni]

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

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

[EllenMaksoud]

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 have any faith in historians, what ever their faith, because history is written by the winner.

My personal history with the LDS since March of 2011, is so powerful and "Old Testament" that many of the things that doubters struggle with, I don't. I don't actually know if Joseph Smith really did polygamy. Emma says he did not. Of course, my X had a big fat affair and I did not know it. Maybe we don't need to know everything. So, are you looking for a reason to doubt so it will give you an excuse?

[canard78]

As I said on the other thread, I believe this guy is a big fraud. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

And let's get something straight; this guy was not really a General Authority. He was an area Seventy.

There is a difference.

Stop the name calling. This is a sensitive issue do not throw bombs.

CFR

Provide evidence of what you've read that leads to this conclusion. Or is it "in your briefcase"?

[rongo]

The church had a go at answering them. They even sent Elder Jensen and Bro. Turley to have a go. They did a pretty bad job. If the church historian and his assistant couldn't resolve these then it's no wonder they went looking elsewhere.

http://mormonstories...ckholm_2010.pdf

Is this a bad link? I don't get anything when I click on it. I wanted to compare their allegedly "pretty bad job" with the admittedly very good job that Dan Peterson and others did with the Bremen Apostasy apostates in my mission (I've posted a .pdf of that before, from the mission president who dealt with the brunt of it, and arranged for a long conference call with FARMS men). The apostates agreed that their questions had been fully answered, but it didn't matter ---- their caustic doubt was invulnerable, even while admitting that their questions were fully and satisfactorily answered. I'm interested in just how "bad" Jensen and Turley's answers were, because I don't think it matters. When you get to the point of official people being dispatched to address concerns, it's already pretty much over, in my experience. Regardless of how well they do.

[canard78]

Is this a bad link? I don't get anything when I click on it. I wanted to compare their allegedly "pretty bad job" with the admittedly very good job that Dan Peterson and others did with the Bremen Apostasy apostates in my mission (I've posted a .pdf of that before, from the mission president who dealt with the brunt of it, and arranged for a long conference call with FARMS men). The apostates agreed that their questions had been fully answered, but it didn't matter ---- their caustic doubt was invulnerable, even while admitting that their questions were fully and satisfactorily answered. I'm interested in just how "bad" Jensen and Turley's answers were, because I don't think it matters. When you get to the point of official people being dispatched to address concerns, it's already pretty much over, in my experience. Regardless of how well they do.

The transcript has been removed by Dehlin with this note instead:

• Originally I shared a transcript of the 2010 meeting between the disaffected Swedish saints and Elder Marlin Jensen and Richard Turley. I have since decided to stop sharing the transcript (since it was recorded without permission). Please forgive the inconvenience. I am walking a difficult line as an active church member, and am trying to do the “right thing” for all parties involved. This is a difficult balance.
  

I had downloaded a copy before the link was removed. I'm not sure whether to share or not. I guess out of respect for Dehlin, Turley and Elder Jensen I'd be better to not continue distributing it.

Edited July 23, 2013 by canard78

[Tacenda]

Is this a bad link? I don't get anything when I click on it. I wanted to compare their allegedly "pretty bad job" with the admittedly very good job that Dan Peterson and others did with the Bremen Apostasy apostates in my mission (I've posted a .pdf of that before, from the mission president who dealt with the brunt of it, and arranged for a long conference call with FARMS men). The apostates agreed that their questions had been fully answered, but it didn't matter ---- their caustic doubt was invulnerable, even while admitting that their questions were fully and satisfactorily answered. I'm interested in just how "bad" Jensen and Turley's answers were, because I don't think it matters. When you get to the point of official people being dispatched to address concerns, it's already pretty much over, in my experience. Regardless of how well they do.

Luckily I read it before it was taken down. It was very good, I don't see why JD felt the need to take it down. Unless it shows that a lot of information that TBM's think is anti is actually true. That would be the only fear for JD, thinking that the church was not ready for this to be out there like that. I thought the way MJ and Turley handled the question and answer meeting was awesome. They took everyone's questions first, before answering and put them up on a white board, I'm imagining. And various audience members asked the questions that troubled them. MJ and Turley didn't try to quell any questions, nothing was off the table, it was a come what may. I loved that about it. These members were helped just by being able to voice out loud, concerns to reps from the church. Each question was then answered one by one. Most appeared to be truthful answers, the best the reps could answer. The questions covered every concern out there, from polyandry to BOA, to blacks in the priesthood, DNA, the list goes on. I thought it was more faith promoting vs. not, this transcript.

[ERayR]

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

It was Canard78 who named the comparisons.

[DJBrown]

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

Maybe I am a simpleton, but I don't think so on this. I have known lots of people fall away from the church. But I cannot name one person who has left the church or fallen away who was reading the Book of Mormon and praying at the time of their departure. To me, this makes great sense. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then it is the rod of iron in Lehi's vision. And there were plenty of people who fell away from the path, but those who held to the rod (Book of Mormon) did not fall away.

I have read many opinions on why people leave the church. I know there are countless different personalities and concerns. But I really think it all comes down to this simple principle and practice. No person is immune from doubt and cynicism. As society changes and become more secular and godless, I don't think we should be surprised by these trends found in our church and almost all other churches.

[bluebell]

Luckily I read it before it was taken down. It was very good, I don't see why JD felt the need to take it down. Unless it shows that a lot of information that TBM's think is anti is actually true. That would be the only fear for JD, thinking that the church was not ready for this to be out there like that.

I thought JD said he took it down because it was recorded without consent and he didn't want to upset anyone, now that he's trying to be active in the church?

[Calm]

I had downloaded a copy before the link was removed. I'm not sure whether to share or not. I guess out of respect for Dehlin, Turley and Elder Jensen I'd be better to not continue distributing it.

I won't ask for it then.