NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority

[Moliere]

When Christ visited the Nephites, there was one or more times where what he shared was simply too difficult to articulate in writing.

That could have been because of the limitations of the Reformed Egyptian language.

[ERCougar]

On a road trip to Vegas and then on my run today, I listened to the Dehlin interview with Mattsson:
http://mormonstories.org/hans-mattsson/

Yes, it's a little long, but a really interesting look into what it's like to be a Swedish and then General Authority. You can sense how kind and loving both he and his wife are and just how devastating his faith crisis was. To claim that he was disingenuous about either what he knew or about his crisis is absurd, and worse, remarkably uncharitable. It's worth a listen if you have a long road trip ahead.

[Eddie]

One wonders why God's revelation needs editing in the first place...

Not to point out the obvious - but most of God's revelation is written by man. I think even those who don't necessarily believe in God are able to recognize that fallibility of men.

Now - maybe if God wrote, edited, published, printed, and then delivered the book printed and all ready to read in each person's language...then you could fault Him if there were mistakes.

[Sullyute]

You'd have to have some incredibly restrictive views on what counts as revelation to think that genuine revelation excludes the possibility of editorial changes. When you're talking about rendering in human language something which presumably exceeds language, it would be more surprising if you didn't need to edit and revise.

Which raises the question (hat tip to AA) which revelations are still in need of editing to come in line with what God was trying to communicate in the first place?

[Pheidippides]

There's a pretty big difference (at least in the current church) between the PH and a divining rod. I'm not sure that's just a matter of rendering, or at least it's not the way we are instructed in revelation today.

That's not even the biggest editing issue pertaining to the PH in the D&C. Isn't there a revelation that now contains a reference to the appearance of Peter James and John, which reference didn't exist in 1833?

I believe that the word Priesthood was not even used until 1835. Don't quote me on that.

[Harry Tic]

There's a pretty big difference (at least in the current church) between the PH and a divining rod. I'm not sure that's just a matter of rendering, or at least it's not the way we are instructed in revelation today.

I totally agree. My comment was of a more general nature.

Which raises the question (hat tip to AA) which revelations are still in need of editing to come in line with what God was trying to communicate in the first place?

D&C 89:2. Apparently, the phrase "not by commandment or constraint" did not capture the Lord's intent. Either that or it was his (or Joseph's) sardonic sense of humor coming through.

[Paperback Writer]

Which raises the question (hat tip to AA) which revelations are still in need of editing to come in line with what God was trying to communicate in the first place?

Why edit when there is a handbook to clarify revelation? Section 89 comes to mind where what was revealed as not a commandment is now practiced somewhat differently and is now a commandment. The verses are still there just some are no longer read as part of the correlated lesson on the WofW.

Edit: Harry Tic beat me to it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I believe that the word Priesthood was not even used until 1835. Don't quote me on that.

I believe it was used before then, but only in the same manner as it is used by other Christian churches: to designate a group of ministers or the work done by ministers. It wasn't used to define a power or authority (current definition) for many years and certainly wasn't used this way in the BOM.

[pellegrino]

That could have been because of the limitations of the Reformed Egyptian language.

[Mr Bean]

MG asks a very interesting question. Why should some uncomfortable historical detail about JS trump one's testimony of the BoM? If the BoM is what it claims to be, any biographical details about JS would appear to be irrelevant. While I think the reasoning is sound, I don't think it captures how testimonies actually work as an empirical matter. Testimonies generally involve buying into a narrative of some sort, a cluster of claims about JS, the First Vision, the BoM, and so on, that coalesce into a story which we tell ourselves and tell others. The story as a whole is edifying and faith-promoting. A robust faith narrative can accommodate a few anomalies here and there--they can be explained away as long as the big picture is left intact. To borrow an analogy popular in sports, we tend to evaluate JS's "body of work" and either find it inspired or not. A strong body of work does not imply perfection.

But when the number of anomalies grows and reaches critical mass (this is apparently what precipitated the crisis among Swedish members), we come to realize that there are other possible narratives in which the uncomfortable historical details are not a bug, but a feature. In these narratives, JS becomes a charlatan, or a dirty old man (well, young), or a delusional type, or whatever. Once the narrative is flipped, even details that once appeared innocuous or immaterial (JS's money-digging past) come to appear sinister and foreboding.

I tend to think that it's possible to reclaim a more robust and inspiring version of Joseph Smith and, oddly enough, I have tended to find non-Mormon authors writing about JS more interesting than Mormon ones (Harold Bloom, Simon Critchley).

Loved this response. Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but I found it fascinating.

In my "inactive" state, I still grasp at some hope or reason to swollow the blue pill and return to the matrix.

So... I am trying to look at this high level and evaluate the full body of work and not get overly hung up on the details.

However, I think we need to face reality. something I assume most of the brethren do, but they know they can't publicly take this stance which is:

If you really think that an angel of God stood before Joseph with a flaming sword and commanded him to jump in the 16 year old panties of his house maid Fanny, then lie about it and hide these trysts from his first wife (not to mention lying about these relationships for years to most of the members) ; then I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

So, for those of us that can see through the bullshit, is this a lesson on how God can still work through profoundly flawed people; and that the atonement is purifying even for the most vile of sinners (I should not cast stones), or was all this evidence of many ulterior motives and a carefully crafted fraud which was laid out with the end goal being the same as that, which all charlatans through history of strived for. Money and sex. Or in this case would seem to be sex and money with the former being the overwhelming primary driver.

Flame away.

[jay santos]

Loved this response. Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but I found it fascinating.

In my "inactive" state, I still grasp at some hope or reason to swollow the blue pill and return to the matrix.

So... I am trying to look at this high level and evaluate the full body of work and not get overly hung up on the details.

However, I think we need to face reality. something I assume most of the brethren do, but they know they can't publicly take this stance which is:

If you really think that an angel of God stood before Joseph with a flaming sword and commanded him to jump in the 16 year old panties of his house maid Fanny, then lie about it and hide these trysts from his first wife (not to mention lying about these relationships for years to most of the members) ; then I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

So, for those of us that can see through the bullshit, is this a lesson on how God can still work through profoundly flawed people; and that the atonement is purifying even for the most vile of sinners (I should not cast stones), or was all this evidence of many ulterior motives and a carefully crafted fraud which was laid out with the end goal being the same as that, which all charlatans through history of strived for. Money and sex. Or in this case would seem to be sex and money with the former being the overwhelming primary driver.

Flame away.

How could sex be the primary motivator when the first wife/affair didn't come until almost 10 years into the whole "translate the Book of Mormon and start a church" project? Polygamy seems to be somewhat simple to write off as a mistake and still preserve the bulk of the restoration.

[jay santos]

Loved this response. Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but I found it fascinating.

In my "inactive" state, I still grasp at some hope or reason to swollow the blue pill and return to the matrix.

So... I am trying to look at this high level and evaluate the full body of work and not get overly hung up on the details.

However, I think we need to face reality. something I assume most of the brethren do, but they know they can't publicly take this stance which is:

If you really think that an angel of God stood before Joseph with a flaming sword and commanded him to jump in the 16 year old panties of his house maid Fanny, then lie about it and hide these trysts from his first wife (not to mention lying about these relationships for years to most of the members) ; then I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

So, for those of us that can see through the bullshit, is this a lesson on how God can still work through profoundly flawed people; and that the atonement is purifying even for the most vile of sinners (I should not cast stones), or was all this evidence of many ulterior motives and a carefully crafted fraud which was laid out with the end goal being the same as that, which all charlatans through history of strived for. Money and sex. Or in this case would seem to be sex and money with the former being the overwhelming primary driver.

Flame away.

I like the idea of evaluating the "full body of work" and not the details. But I suggest you take it a step further. Evaluate the "full body" of the lived experience not the historical record.

[tooblue]

I like the idea of evaluating the "full body of work" and not the details. But I suggest you take it a step further. Evaluate the "full body" of the lived experience not the historical record.

But then he wouldn't be cleverer than the rest of us and able to see through the bullshit. He'd have to wade through it, albeit, only and exclusively, through the lens of his own lived experience. That's messy business.

[Mr Bean]

I like the idea of evaluating the "full body of work" and not the details. But I suggest you take it a step further. Evaluate the "full body" of the lived experience not the historical record.

OK. So I live a principled and moral life (which I believe I do and in many cases more than some card-carrying members) and I feel better about life and I don't have addictions to substances, and other vices. By extension I therefore have to believe that only baptized Mormons are going to the celestial kingdom and I must also believe in temple ceremonies and that JS restored polygamy, etc etc.

I have a testimony of principled living, but not necessarily of the church because of the history. That might change I suppose, but I can't bring myself to swollow the troubled history just because living a Mormon lifestyle shows positive fruit (I think any religion has principles that when lived improve life)

[Mr Bean]

But then he wouldn't be cleverer than the rest of us and able to see through the bullshit. He'd have to wade through it, albeit, only and exclusively, through the lens of his own lived experience. That's messy business.

I'm used to being accused of being the "bad guy" when I don't like the idea of prophets of God jumping into the pants of 14 year olds.

I call bs on it which clearly means I'm not partaking if the tree of life. Or like my home teacher who feels that clearly it's because I have a porn problem..

That's just my lived experience, you can have your own and declare your own bullshit of the fact that I'm not a supporter of religious authority leveraged pedfelia. But to each his own