Sister Oscarson's Talk

[JLHPROF]

Quote

Bonnie L. Oscarson • The president of the faith's Young Women organization, for girls ages 12 to 17, said the LDS Church is "more than just a good place to go on Sundays and learn how to be a good person."

"It is more than just a lovely Christian social club where we can associate with people of good moral standing," she said. "It is not just a great set of ideas that parents can teach their children at home so they will be responsible, nice people."

To Mormons, their church is "the kingdom of God and the only true church on the Earth," Oscarson said. "It is called the Church of Jesus Christ because he stands at the head; it is his church, and all these things are possible because of his atoning sacrifice."

While this was nothing new, the directness with which she stated it was refreshing, especially in our current religion climate where cultural mormonism and a relativistic approach to the gospel abounds.
I always love it every couple of conference sessions when a speaker makes clear the uniqueness of the restored gospel.
One of my favorite, most quoted Conference talks is President Hunter's " Let us plan for and teach and plead with our children to marry in the house of the Lord. Let us reaffirm more vigorously than we ever have in the past that it does matter where you marry and by what authority you are pronounced man and wife."

 

[salgare]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

While this was nothing new, the directness with which she stated it was refreshing, especially in our current religion climate where cultural mormonism and a relativistic approach to the gospel abounds.
I always love it every couple of conference sessions when a speaker makes clear the uniqueness of the restored gospel.
One of my favorite, most quoted Conference talks is President Hunter's " Let us plan for and teach and plead with our children to marry in the house of the Lord. Let us reaffirm more vigorously than we ever have in the past that it does matter where you marry and by what authority you are pronounced man and wife."

They do tend to be tossed to and fro by the philosophies of men.  They are at a tough point here, with capital T Truth baby boomers on the one hand New Mormonism loving Millennials on the other.

Bridging the past with the present is a hard gig.

Edited April 4, 2016 by salgare

[CMZ]

After she spoke at our regional stake conference thingie a month or so ago when she got up to speak today I knew she wasn't going to mince any words.

[BCSpace]

It'll be interesting.  I've noticed the Church seems to have done fairly well in bringing many people back into activity in recent years, but I've noticed that many of these are very tender in the gospel and still carry habits and traditions that ultimately need be exchanged for abiding belief and temple worthiness.

[pcarthew]

Sister Oscarson was direct, it is refreshing.  Although in a world of political correctness, wordy speeches and the new morality it will challenge some and offend some too.  I think who cares, I believe what she said.  It was straight to the point with no fluff.  Here it is to the point, clear, powerful and beautiful.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

While this was nothing new, the directness with which she stated it was refreshing, especially in our current religion climate where cultural mormonism and a relativistic approach to the gospel abounds.
I always love it every couple of conference sessions when a speaker makes clear the uniqueness of the restored gospel.
One of my favorite, most quoted Conference talks is President Hunter's " Let us plan for and teach and plead with our children to marry in the house of the Lord. Let us reaffirm more vigorously than we ever have in the past that it does matter where you marry and by what authority you are pronounced man and wife."

 

Yes, if she wanted to exclude more people from any participation in the church she probably succeeded. She made her case for reducing the Mormon tent. Well done.

[Deborah]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, if she wanted to exclude more people from any participation in the church she probably succeeded. She made her case for reducing the Mormon tent. Well done.

Sigh. I really enjoyed her talk and I think people need a reminder of what the church is. For those who think it's a social club maybe they should look elsewhere. That sounds cold but the times are critical and the emphasis is on going to the temple and keeping covenants, not having a nice place to meet and talk. What is wrong with reminding people who have been merely visiting to recommit to what is important.

[Okrahomer]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, if she wanted to exclude more people from any participation in the church she probably succeeded. She made her case for reducing the Mormon tent. Well done.

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:  For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-52)

[Gray]

This idea of the "one true church" is fundamentally at odds with the goal of fostering humility. If I were God (ha!) and I did have a one true church, I would make sure my children never knew that it was the "one true church", lest the notion of it lead them astray from more important principles. 

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

This idea of the "one true church" is fundamentally at odds with the goal of fostering humility. If I were God (ha!) and I did have a one true church, I would make sure my children never knew that it was the "one true church", lest the notion of it lead them astray from more important principles. 

And never let your children know where they came from and that you love them lest they conflate your true Church with your true love.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, Deborah said:

Sigh. I really enjoyed her talk and I think people need a reminder of what the church is. For those who think it's a social club maybe they should look elsewhere. That sounds cold but the times are critical and the emphasis is on going to the temple and keeping covenants, not having a nice place to meet and talk. What is wrong with reminding people who have been merely visiting to recommit to what is important.

 

Is it possible that the church means something different to different people? Or must we demand that the church means the exact same thing to you as it does to me? Should we demand that people "look elsewhere" if they don't believe exactly like I think they should? I hear you and Sister Oscarson saying, yes. That is a very narrow definition of church and very dismissive to many members.

I agree- that sounds cold.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if only 100% orthodox believers were allowed to attend one Sunday. How empty would the church be? OR it wouldn't really make a difference anyways since no one can even agree on what 100% orthodox would even mean.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Deborah said:

That sounds cold but the times are critical and the emphasis is on going to the temple and keeping covenants, not having a nice place to meet and talk. 

It's clear to me that the emphasis is often on temple attendance and keeping covenants.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if, based on your comment here, we need to see an increased emphasis on the teachings of Christ.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And never let your children know where they came from and that you love them lest they conflate your true Church with your true love.

I don't see the connection. 

[Deborah]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Is it possible that the church means something different to different people? Or must we demand that the church means the exact same thing to you as it does to me?

Why should the fact that members are reminded of the true purpose of their covenants prevent anyone from attending who isn't there yet. Nothing she said would preclude that. I suggested going elsewhere because people like you seem to want the church leaders to stop reminding us what it is really about and so why bother to attend if you don't want to hear the truth.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:  For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-52)

So are you claiming that Christ is the author of contention and division? Or does that role still belong to another?

 

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, if she wanted to exclude more people from any participation in the church she probably succeeded. She made her case for reducing the Mormon tent. Well done.

I heard no message of exclusion.
If people CHOOSE to exclude themselves because they don't agree with the Church that is their own business.
The Church is not and should not be inclusive by changing principles.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Is it possible that the church means something different to different people? Or must we demand that the church means the exact same thing to you as it does to me? Should we demand that people "look elsewhere" if they don't believe exactly like I think they should? I hear you and Sister Oscarson saying, yes. That is a very narrow definition of church and very dismissive to many members.

I agree- that sounds cold.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if only 100% orthodox believers were allowed to attend one Sunday. How empty would the church be? OR it wouldn't really make a difference anyways since no one can even agree on what 100% orthodox would even mean.

Nobody demanded that people leave.
But if the Church says you must be baptized, and someone says I don't believe in baptism, the Church doesn't have to change to include that person in their membership without baptism.
Pretending the Church is just a social club, just one option among all the other denominations of equal value, or that the restored gospel doesn't have a unique relationship to our Heavenly Father, all of that is just plain wrong.

[salgare]

59 minutes ago, Deborah said:

Sigh. I really enjoyed her talk and I think people need a reminder of what the church is. For those who think it's a social club maybe they should look elsewhere. That sounds cold but the times are critical and the emphasis is on going to the temple and keeping covenants, not having a nice place to meet and talk. What is wrong with reminding people who have been merely visiting to recommit to what is important.

yes, those visitors and those not holding TR's are debits not credits.

[Okrahomer]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So are you claiming that Christ is the author of contention and division? Or does that role still belong to another?

 

Actually, I didn't claim anything.  I just quoted Luke 12:51-52, which seemed relevant to the idea that some will be excluded from what you called the "tent."  Perhaps I misunderstood you.  I apologize, if I did.

[Deborah]

43 minutes ago, salgare said:

yes, those visitors and those not holding TR's are debits not credits.

No they were encouraged to get their temple recommends and become fully committed. What a negative way you have of twisting everything.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

The thing is, the Great and Spacious Building is used as a club to beat people with and create separation. It's a shaming tool. It promotes an Us versus Them mentality that lead to many members taking the "if you don't like it, just leave" approach. It is hurtful. There are many reasons people attend church and frankly I can't understand why anyone would want to say that a person's reason for attending isn't valid.

The church isn't _____________. It is ____________.

This diminishes the tent of Mormonism and excludes the people who attend for the "wrong" reasons.

ETA- It invalidates the reasons they do attend. I don't have any problem with the leaders teaching what they think is important. What troubles me is when they vilify (GSB), dismiss, or invalidate the experiences and efforts of people who don't fit neatly into their box.

Edited April 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The thing is, the Great and Spacious Building is used as a club to beat people with and create separation. It's a shaming tool. It promotes an Us versus Them mentality that lead to many members taking the "if you don't like it, just leave" approach. It is hurtful. There are many reasons people attend church and frankly I can't understand why anyone would want to say that a person's reason for attending isn't valid.

The church isn't _____________. It is ____________.

This diminishes the tent of Mormonism and excludes the people who attend for the "wrong" reasons.

No, it encourages people to attend for the right reasons.
A very valid encouragement considering how many members are falling into wrong paths right now.  There is nothing wrong with reminding members WHY the Church exists in the first place.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, if she wanted to exclude more people from any participation in the church she probably succeeded. She made her case for reducing the Mormon tent. Well done.

Our camp followers not only need to be included but now they want to be treated as if they are an equally honorable valid alternative. The tent fits them in just fine. Their inferiority complexes mean we have to tell them that their weak faith is as good as strong faith.

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

To Mormons, their church is "the kingdom of God and the only true church on the Earth," Oscarson said. "It is called the Church of Jesus Christ because he stands at the head; it is his church, and all these things are possible because of his atoning sacrifice."

 

This brings to mind those sad years between 1834 and 1838 when Christ did not stand at the head of the Church and we were reduced to calling ourselves the "Church of the Latter Day Saints".  Dark times indeed.

[Maestrophil]

In all honesty, I like the thought of things being a bit narrow and the tent not too large.  

Easy spirituality that I see from my friend who prefer drum circles and meditation to church has never appealed to me (I don;t begrudge anyone for having it appeal to them, however.)  I just feel any organization of any import looses it's sense of power and urgency when rules and standards are watered down for inclusion.  Kind of like if the Navy Seals let obese people or people who hated America join at will - that would seem counter to the mission.  In the case of the church, I see the mission as getting people to make temple covenants so they can return to God.  The requires submitting to authority, norms, and protocol to a certain extent, and those who have no desire to go down that road, might want to look to a spiritual path (or lack of one) that demands less.

Isn't the bottom line - if you believe the prophet is called of God, you will follow even when difficult.  If you don't believe it, then, why would you want to be a part of it?  

 

Again, I don't begrudge anyone of either choice. But I expect the same courtesy.

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

In all honesty, I like the thought of things being a bit narrow and the tent not too large. 

Pretty sure Christ said something similar.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Not few there be that are sold on it, few there be that are convinced of it, or few there be that have it shoved down there throats.
The onus is on the seeker, not the Church.  The Church is not responsible for making the tent bigger (wider), the seekers are responsible for finding the narrow way, even if that means shedding some deeply held notions first in order to fit through.