NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority

[Surfah]

I think Marlin K Jensen is the source of the "best and brightest" quote.

Sure. It's an appeal to the disaffected.

[All-American]

There are 10 teenagers on the list. Taking the average doesn't tell the real story.

Exactly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lewboski wrote this article, didn't he?!

[ERCougar]

Radiowest talking about this right now. Stream on KUER.

EDIT: this is a good listen. I guess Mattsson encountered this stuff in trying to help disaffected members. He wasn't satisfied with the answers he was getting, so it sounds like he was part of the impetus to the Marlin Jensen meeting in Sweden.

[DrumNFeather]

Pretty much my take on the article as written too. I did an eye roll when the author mentioned the Church is losing some of its best and brightest and then had the statistic of how many members served in leadership roles. What was that threshold? Deacons Quorum President? 2nd Counselor in Sunday School? Scoutmaster? Any active, worthy member will participate in some leadership role. And we all know that best and brightest isn't necessarily a requirement for any calling in the Church.

“God does not begin by asking us about our ability, but only about our availability, and if we then prove our dependability, he will increase our capability.” - Neal A. Maxwell

[Harry Tic]

Pretty much my take on the article as written too. I did an eye roll when the author mentioned the Church is losing some of its best and brightest and then had the statistic of how many members served in leadership roles. What was that threshold? Deacons Quorum President? 2nd Counselor in Sunday School? Scoutmaster? Any active, worthy member will participate in some leadership role. And we all know that best and brightest isn't necessarily a requirement for any calling in the Church.

I really don't get the collective eye-roll response. Was the article flawed? Sure. It looked to me like they really had two half-articles which they tried to stitch together: the interesting story is that you have an Area Authority 70 with serious questions. This isn't quite Grant-Palmer-level stuff, but not without interest. When's the last time you remember anyone who was ever sustained in General Conference going public with issues like this? Or two GAs calling an emergency meeting to discuss doubts on the part of members? Of course the other story is about religion in the age of the internet. Okay, the latter is a canned piece that writes itself.

But it is clear that if even some of our CS literati are unimpressed, the church leadership apparently is. As I mentioned above, there is real, tangible evidence of a growing problem of which the Brethren are aware and which they are trying to address. There is little doubt that attrition rates are high and I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that a growing number of highly talented young people are wandering away, some for principled reasons, some not. I'm aware of the limitations of anecdotal evidence, but when I look back on my brightest friends from college days--and this was at BYU, mind you--only a minority of them are still active in the church. Hence, the Jensen/Turley tour; the Teryl Givens workshops, the JS papers project, the modest attempts at reworking church curriculum, JRH addressing doubters in GC, the putting out to pasture of Dan Peterson, etc.

Feel free to yawn and guffaw all you want. Maybe some of you guys know something the Brethren don't.

[woot]

Interesting non-mormon take on NYT article:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreli...skeptic-piece/

This article seems mostly born of misunderstanding, which the author admits throughout. I'm not sure it's a very useful take on the NYT piece. I don't think there's any need to doubt that there really is an ongoing crisis of faith -- while data are not forthcoming, the problem has been admitted by authorities with access to that data. It also seems that they missed the part where this guy is an area authority, not just a bishop, so it really is a big(ish) deal.

There's also no contradiction between the church producing the JS papers and the church not disseminating this information. A member can go to church every week their whole life and not learn about any of JS's warts. They'll hear the story about JS refusing alcohol for his surgery, and naturally assume it's because he wasn't a drinker. Why else would that story be told? But JS was a drinker, a fact that requires digging into materials not discussed in church, even if some of those materials are produced by the church.

[jay santos]

This article seems mostly born of misunderstanding, which the author admits throughout. I'm not sure it's a very useful take on the NYT piece. I don't think there's any need to doubt that there really is an ongoing crisis of faith -- while data are not forthcoming, the problem has been admitted by authorities with access to that data. It also seems that they missed the part where this guy is an area authority, not just a bishop, so it really is a big(ish) deal.

There's also no contradiction between the church producing the JS papers and the church not disseminating this information. A member can go to church every week their whole life and not learn about any of JS's warts. They'll hear the story about JS refusing alcohol for his surgery, and naturally assume it's because he wasn't a drinker. Why else would that story be told? But JS was a drinker, a fact that requires digging into materials not discussed in church, even if some of those materials are produced by the church.

Yeah, I'm seeing that blog article being discussed in the Mormon blogosphere, and I'm not sure. Doesn't add any insight and most of the conclusions are based in lack of understanding of the details of the Swedish Rescue story or Mormonism in general.

[Paperback Writer]

But let's not overlook Brigham Young. He married a heck of a lot of women (some as young as 15 or 16 when he was in his 40's), had a crap load of children with them, divorced a good number of them, and still managed to get a great university named after himself. And unlike the Saudis BY wasn't sitting on a huge amount of oil reserves and so he wasn't able to pay out lavish dowries to the fathers for their daughter's hand in marriage. But rather, maybe, gave the family a "revelation" that he was commanded to do so and/or a promise that their daughter would have an eternal life in the highest kingdom, etc, etc. Who cares about those large dowries when it comes to the eternal perspective? Besides having a Brigham Young as a relative by marriage may have saved the family from being assigned to move to Idaho, Arizona, or some other of hell hole of a place to live. A little insurance like that might have been worth a daughter back then.

All good information. I think one has to look at the other side of the coin as well - the bride's perspective. These plural marriages were not forced onto women. I'll side-step the point that many of these women prayed about the decision to enter into plural marriage and felt they'd received an answer, to point out that there were very good reasons from the female point of view to marry at an early age to an older man even if he had other wives. For one, these older men were often prominent and successful with little concern that they could provide for wife and children. In addition, these men often held important church callings or had a sustained track record of being active in the church removing doubts that he would apostatize or not attend church in the future. In contrast, it was very difficult for a young man to become estaplished in Utah territory. Usually it required land (money), acquiring skills (time), or building up a business and participating in comerce (money and time). Many of these young women viewed it as an honor to have a marriage proposal from a prominent, older man as it could mean a better standing in the community, being provided for, and a guarantee of church activity. They had a chocie in the matter and many probably felt they wouldn't get a better marriage offer.

[SoonerCoug]

These plural marriages were not forced onto women. I'll side-step the point that many of these women prayed about the decision to enter into plural marriage and felt they'd received an answer....

I think you're wrong. What you say could just as easily be said about the wives of Warren Jeffs. Consider that for a moment.

Religious manipulation by a prophet practically equals force. You're disregarding the facts.

Having sex with a minor is rape by the modern legal definition, and I think there is good reason for this. Things are too unequal for it to be truly consensual even if you think the girl supposedly consented.

Parents were giving these young girls to Joseph. Think of the pressure they felt.

Read about their lives: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

May I suggest starting with Helen Mar Kimball: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26...MarKimball.htm

[Joe Public]

I really don't get the collective eye-roll response. Was the article flawed? Sure. It looked to me like they really had two half-articles which they tried to stitch together: the interesting story is that you have an Area Authority 70 with serious questions. This isn't quite Grant-Palmer-level stuff, but not without interest. When's the last time you remember anyone who was ever sustained in General Conference going public with issues like this? Or two GAs calling an emergency meeting to discuss doubts on the part of members? Of course the other story is about religion in the age of the internet. Okay, the latter is a canned piece that writes itself.

But it is clear that if even some of our CS literati are unimpressed, the church leadership apparently is. As I mentioned above, there is real, tangible evidence of a growing problem of which the Brethren are aware and which they are trying to address. There is little doubt that attrition rates are high and I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that a growing number of highly talented young people are wandering away, some for principled reasons, some not. I'm aware of the limitations of anecdotal evidence, but when I look back on my brightest friends from college days--and this was at BYU, mind you--only a minority of them are still active in the church. Hence, the Jensen/Turley tour; the Teryl Givens workshops, the JS papers project, the modest attempts at reworking church curriculum, JRH addressing doubters in GC, the putting out to pasture of Dan Peterson, etc.

Feel free to yawn and guffaw all you want. Maybe some of you guys know something the Brethren don't.

Well said. Many, many people - including several on this board who said so earlier - grew up learning the correlated history/doctrine and either not being exposed to anything else or following church leaders' advice to dismiss it as anti-Mormon propaganda. On top of the sense of betrayal many of them experience upon learning about these omissions (some would say deceptions), they're now getting hit with "Well, it's always been out there if you wanted to know. If you never knew, then it's your fault!"

[Surfah]

I really don't get the collective eye-roll response. Was the article flawed? Sure. It looked to me like they really had two half-articles which they tried to stitch together: the interesting story is that you have an Area Authority 70 with serious questions. This isn't quite Grant-Palmer-level stuff, but not without interest. When's the last time you remember anyone who was ever sustained in General Conference going public with issues like this? Or two GAs calling an emergency meeting to discuss doubts on the part of members? Of course the other story is about religion in the age of the internet. Okay, the latter is a canned piece that writes itself.

But it is clear that if even some of our CS literati are unimpressed, the church leadership apparently is. As I mentioned above, there is real, tangible evidence of a growing problem of which the Brethren are aware and which they are trying to address. There is little doubt that attrition rates are high and I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that a growing number of highly talented young people are wandering away, some for principled reasons, some not. I'm aware of the limitations of anecdotal evidence, but when I look back on my brightest friends from college days--and this was at BYU, mind you--only a minority of them are still active in the church. Hence, the Jensen/Turley tour; the Teryl Givens workshops, the JS papers project, the modest attempts at reworking church curriculum, JRH addressing doubters in GC, the putting out to pasture of Dan Peterson, etc.

Feel free to yawn and guffaw all you want. Maybe some of you guys know something the Brethren don't.

I'm not sure I am disagreeing with you.

My criticism is of the article, it's poor construction (that you acknowledge), lack of citations (or lousy ones) and lack of clarity. I have no clue what Mattsson's standing in the church is now. He's disaffected. I don't even know what the author means by saying that. Yet at the end the author says Mattsson is still attached to his Mormon faith. What does that mean? It's too bad that the article causes people to question motivations or Mattsson's story, because it could have been a really great piece. I think half of CS could have penned a better article.

[Harry Tic]

I have no clue what Mattsson's standing in the church is now. He's disaffected. I don't even know what the author means by saying that. Yet at the end the author says Mattsson is still attached to his Mormon faith. What does that mean?

I think it means he'd fit right in on CS.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us...nted=all&_r=1&



Anyone heard of this guy?

Kind of surprised he didn't know about some this stuff.

It's shocking to me people leave the LDS church for such reasons. It's like, "Well if he had not molested 14 year old girls I could have believed he translated the Book of Mormon from a gold book shown him by an angel."

[MarkGrace]

It's shocking to me people leave the LDS church for such reasons. It's like, "Well if he had not molested 14 year old girls I could have believed he translated the Book of Mormon from a gold book shown him by an angel."

You know, I had this same thought as I mulled over this thread while running home from work tonight. I was kind of wondering why certain facts make people lose/question their testimony/belief/faith. If facts made you crumble, what made you believe in the first place? There is no factual reason to believe in the church -- most of its seems preposterous if that's the only way you're going to look at it. And I basically had the exact some thought you just outlined here -- people would have believed a guy who said he translated scriptures from golden plates that he couldn't produce and claimed visitations from God and angels, but now because of marriage to teenagers he's no longer what he claimed? I'm interested in this.