Sister Oscarson's Talk

[hope_for_things]

I didn't like her talk at all, and one element that rubbed me wrong particularly is that she spoke as if her views on Mormonism represent the true view of Mormonism.  As if everyone who is a real Mormon would agree with her perspectives.  

For those of you who liked her talk, how would you feel if a different kind of talk were given in conference.  A talk from a progressive perspective, spoken as if that is the true kind of Mormonism.  Example:  

Quote

We are grateful for our testimony of the BoM as inspired fiction, that Joseph was inspired to gather together multiple different sources from his 19th century environment and create a book that has been inspirational for many people and brought them closer to Christ. The BoM also contains many errors and racist language, and we are grateful for the continued light and understanding we've received through many inspired individuals outside of the church as well which have brought new understanding, technology, and transparency to the world which helps us to see opportunities to learn and grow and do good in the world.

How would this kind of language be received by more orthodox/traditional Mormons?  

Edited April 4, 2016 by hope_for_things

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't like her talk at all, and one element that rubbed me wrong particularly is that she spoke as if her views on Mormonism represent the true view of Mormonism.  As if everyone who is a real Mormon would agree with her perspectives.

For those of you who liked her talk, how would you feel if a different kind of talk were given in conference.  A talk from a progressive perspective, spoken as if that is the true kind of Mormonism.  Example:

How would this kind of language be received by more orthodox/traditional Mormons?

Yeah, you see, the difference is, she was actually right.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad that so far the comments on this thread, for the most part, have been positive toward Sister Oscarson.

But before things turn sour, I feel to mention that Sister Oscarson was my mission mom 40 years ago.

I had been serving in the Sweden Stockholm Mission under President G. Richard Oscarson. A month before I was to come home, they divided the mission, and I ended up in the Sweden Göteborg Mission. President Oscarson's brother, Paul, was called to preside over the new mission. Paul's wife was (and is) Bonnie. She was in her mid-20s then, not much older than the missionaries.

I have maintained contact with the Oscarsons over the years. They are like extended family to me.

I say all this by way of warning that I will not take kindly to anything nasty said about Sister Oscarson.

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't like her talk at all, and one element that rubbed me wrong particularly is that she spoke as if her views on Mormonism represent the true view of Mormonism.  As if everyone who is a real Mormon would agree with her perspectives.  

For those of you who liked her talk, how would you feel if a different kind of talk were given in conference.  A talk from a progressive perspective, spoken as if that is the true kind of Mormonism.  Example:  

How would this kind of language be received by more orthodox/traditional Mormons?  

I can't speak for others but if I head that in conference, I would take it as a wakeup call for me to do some serious reexamining of my own beliefs.  Whether or not I changed them would depend on what happened between me and the Spirit, but it would definitely cause me to take a very close look at myself and why I chose to believe what I did.

I wouldn't resent it anymore than I resent any of the calls for me to repent and change for my own good and others that come from anyone whose views differ from me, in or out of the Church (as long as I see sincerity, an effort to understand others even if it fails, and a desire to do better in themselves, which attitudes I do see in our leaders consistently).

[Deborah]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

For those of you who liked her talk, how would you feel if a different kind of talk were given in conference.  A talk from a progressive perspective, spoken as if that is the true kind of Mormonism.  Example:  

How would this kind of language be received by more orthodox/traditional Mormons?  

For one thing it wouldn't be given from a progressive perspective. The emphasis is always on doctrine and obeying the commandments.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yeah, you see, the difference is, she was actually right.

Are you trying to be arrogant and dismissive or are you just joking around?  Humor doesn't always translate in text form very well.  

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you trying to be arrogant and dismissive or are you just joking around?  Humor doesn't always translate in text form very well.  

It's not a joke. It's dogma.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I can't speak for others but if I head that in conference, I would take it as a wakeup call for me to do some serious reexamining of my own beliefs.  Whether or not I changed them would depend on what happened between me and the Spirit, but it would definitely cause me to take a very close look at myself and why I chose to believe what I did.

I wouldn't resent it anymore than I resent any of the calls for me to repent and change for my own good and others that come from anyone whose views differ from me, in or out of the Church (as long as I see sincerity, an effort to understand others even if it fails, and a desire to do better in themselves, which attitudes I do see in our leaders consistently).

Thanks Calm, appreciate your thoughtful comment.  I think its important for us to learn from each other, consider other perspectives and to me this defines big tent Mormonism.  A person I respect uses the terms challenge and be challenged by, when talking about studying the gospel, and I think you demonstrate that here.  

Edited April 4, 2016 by hope_for_things

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you trying to be arrogant and dismissive or are you just joking around?  Humor doesn't always translate in text form very well.

A little of both I'm afraid.

You see I have a testimony of the gospel as revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith.  Given that testimony, I no longer will to remotely consider the items described in your satirical post, and further more, my testimony agrees with the principles spoken of by Sister Oscarson.

Now of course, you have every right to have a different set of beliefs.  I respect other's rights to their own belief and their own journeys.
But that respect does not extend to accepting the validity of beliefs that call my testimony false.  Something is either true or it is not.  Since I asked the Lord and he answered me with a  spiritual witness I have no reason to take a questioning approach. 

Why would I say "Hey God, you told me the Church is the ONLY true Church and the Book of Mormon is true, but my friend says you told them the opposite so I'm going to doubt the answer you gave me.  That's ok right?"

We are all obligated to the testimonies provided to us.  We are not obligated to the testimony of anyone else.  So when Sister Oscarson states "church is "the kingdom of God and the only true church on the Earth," and my witness agrees with that, I will say again "she is right" and your speculation is wrong.

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Deborah said:

For one thing it wouldn't be given from a progressive perspective. The emphasis is always on doctrine and obeying the commandments.

This doesn't answer my question unfortunately.  I assume you're saying that progressive perspectives aren't in agreement with accepted doctrine and are akin to breaking the commandments?  

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not a joke. It's dogma.

Dogma - n. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Yep.  When God speaks, it's incontrovertibly true.
Dogma is NOT a dirty word.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A little of both I'm afraid.

You see I have a testimony of the gospel as revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith.  Given that testimony, I no longer will to remotely consider the items described in your satirical post, and further more, my testimony agrees with the principles spoken of by Sister Oscarson.

My post wasn't satire.  I'm a part of communities of people with those kinds of beliefs.  Many people call them progressive or middle way Mormons.    One thing I've learned through my faith journey is that many members and leaders throughout the history of this church have various different opinions and beliefs about fundamental issues.  Interacting with respect and kindness with all kinds of beliefs I believe is the challenge we have in the 21st century.  

Quote

But that respect does not extend to accepting the validity of beliefs that call my testimony false.  Something is either true or it is not.  Since I asked the Lord and he answered me with a  spiritual witness I have no reason to take a questioning approach.

This is my exact point.  This is what I believe Sister Oscarson and so many others do on a regular basis.  Rather than just expressing personal beliefs, she used authoritative language that doesn't allow for differing interpretations and perspectives.  I turned this around to use similar sounding authoritative language to express progressive beliefs, and it sounds like it doesn't make you comfortable.  

Quote

We are all obligated to the testimonies provided to us.  We are not obligated to the testimony of anyone else.  So when Sister Oscarson states "church is "the kingdom of God and the only true church on the Earth," and my witness agrees with that, I will say again "she is right" and your speculation is wrong

To me, its not about who's wrong or who's right objectively.  Its about the language used by sister Oscarson.  Her language is off putting to those with different perspectives or in your case different witnesses of the truth.  Wouldn't it be better if she used language more personal, saying things like, "I believe..." or "I have a witness..."  rather than the authoritative language of "We believe..." and the way she said things that don't allow for others with different experiences to feel like they aren't marginalized in the process?  

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My post wasn't satire.  I'm a part of communities of people with those kinds of beliefs.  Many people call them progressive or middle way Mormons.    One thing I've learned through my faith journey is that many members and leaders throughout the history of this church have various different opinions and beliefs about fundamental issues.  Interacting with respect and kindness with all kinds of beliefs I believe is the challenge we have in the 21st century.

This is my exact point.  This is what I believe Sister Oscarson and so many others do on a regular basis.  Rather than just expressing personal beliefs, she used authoritative language that doesn't allow for differing interpretations and perspectives.  I turned this around to use similar sounding authoritative language to express progressive beliefs, and it sounds like it doesn't make you comfortable.

To me, its not about who's wrong or who's right objectively.  Its about the language used by sister Oscarson.  Her language is off putting to those with different perspectives or in your case different witnesses of the truth.  Wouldn't it be better if she used language more personal, saying things like, "I believe..." or "I have a witness..."  rather than the authoritative language of "We believe..." and the way she said things that don't allow for others with different experiences to feel like they aren't marginalized in the process?

So your issue is that she said "We believe" instead of "I believe" and made people feel left out who didn't believe?

Really?  (Tempting to start ranting about society today...)

And I am not uncomfortable with any progressive things you said.  Certain things in my personal life right now are just making me a little tired of the relativistic (true for me/not true for you) approach to the gospel.  I consider it the adversary's latest tool of choice and it is spreading faster than wildfire.

You want different interpretations and perspectives.  - " What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads."  Joseph Smith

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So your issue is that she said "We believe" instead of "I believe" and made people feel left out who didn't believe?

Really?  (Tempting to start ranting about society today...)

And I am not uncomfortable with any progressive things you said.  Certain things in my personal life right now are just making me a little tired of the relativistic (true for me/not true for you) approach to the gospel.  I consider it the adversary's latest tool of choice and it is spreading faster than wildfire.

You want different interpretations and perspectives.  - " What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads."  Joseph Smith

Yes, I don't like that she said "we believe", but that is just one example.  Her overall entire tone was off putting to me.  

I can understand the discomfort with relativism.  I used to be there myself and also used to see this is a trend of the adversary.  I just see things differently now.  Its not that I think all morality is relative, its just that I don't believe we mortals have the capacity or knowledge to state that we're right on so many issues, especially upon researching history and seeing how many times people use religious convictions to do immoral things and justify bad behaviors.  

That's a fun quote by Joseph I haven't heard before.  He said so many things over the years that contradict other statements and actions he took.  Quite the paradox of a person.  

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That's a fun quote by Joseph I haven't heard before.  He said so many things over the years that contradict other statements and actions he took.  Quite the paradox of a person. 

I know of no contradiction from Joseph Smith that was not easily explained by either incomplete revelation or audience attitudes.
Joseph was pretty darn consistent and accurate.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't like her talk at all, and one element that rubbed me wrong particularly is that she spoke as if her views on Mormonism represent the true view of Mormonism.  As if everyone who is a real Mormon would agree with her perspectives.  

For those of you who liked her talk, how would you feel if a different kind of talk were given in conference.  A talk from a progressive perspective, spoken as if that is the true kind of Mormonism.  Example:  

How would this kind of language be received by more orthodox/traditional Mormons?  

Expecting said speaker to get kicked out of authority ASAP and an apostle standing up to correct her heretical views.

Yeah, I don't see the need to play games with false equivalency.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I know of no contradiction from Joseph Smith that was not easily explained by either incomplete revelation or audience attitudes.
Joseph was pretty darn consistent and accurate.

No offense, but you need to learn some critical thinking skills.  Joseph was constantly changing his mind and contradicting earlier statements.  I suggest reading Charlie Harrell's book "This is my Doctrine" about Mormon theology development as a good starting point.  

 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_19?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=this+is+my+doctrine&sprefix=this+is+my+doctrine%2Caps%2C207&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Athis+is+my+doctrine

 

[Teancum]

22 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."

 

Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American psychologist notable for his work on the psychology of judgment and decision-making, as well as behavioral economics, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He is the author of Thinking Fast and Slow. Read these quotes, You may disagree with what he says, or you may get your rose-colored glasses blown off your nose.

1. "A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact."

http://www.inc.com/sims-wyeth/20-wise-humbling-quotes-from-a-nobel-prize-winning-psychologist.html

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Expecting said speaker to get kicked out of authority ASAP and an apostle standing up to correct her heretical views.

Yeah, I don't see the need to play games with false equivalency.

That would make for some fun drama.  I haven't seen that in my lifetime.  I read a book about Brigham Young and Orson Pratt's battles over doctrine.  There were some public rebuttles there if I remember right, but still, most of the disagreements were behind closed doors.  Even when Bruce R. McKonkie went against the prophet David O' McKay's wishes with his book, he still wasn't ever called out publicly. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No offense, but you need to learn some critical thinking skills.  Joseph was constantly changing his mind and contradicting earlier statements.  I suggest reading Charlie Harrell's book "This is my Doctrine" about Mormon theology development as a good starting point.

 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_19?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=this+is+my+doctrine&sprefix=this+is+my+doctrine%2Caps%2C207&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Athis+is+my+doctrine

 

Read it.  Twice.  I stand by my statement.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American psychologist notable for his work on the psychology of judgment and decision-making, as well as behavioral economics, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. He is the author of Thinking Fast and Slow. Read these quotes, You may disagree with what he says, or you may get your rose-colored glasses blown off your nose.

1. "A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact."

http://www.inc.com/sims-wyeth/20-wise-humbling-quotes-from-a-nobel-prize-winning-psychologist.html

Not really into self-psychoanalysis.
And there is nothing I could hear about Joseph that would cause me to question.  You've been around this board long enough.  Is there anything left to be said about Joseph that we both haven't already heard?  It caused some here to doubt and others not to.  But I am hardly burying my head in the sand as to the history.

[Deborah]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This doesn't answer my question unfortunately.  I assume you're saying that progressive perspectives aren't in agreement with accepted doctrine and are akin to breaking the commandments?  

I didn't say that. What I did say is the church is going to give the standard for which we should all strive. They aren't going to push half measures. The goal is the Celestial Kingdom, nothing less.

 

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That would make for some fun drama.  I haven't seen that in my lifetime.  I read a book about Brigham Young and Orson Pratt's battles over doctrine.  There were some public rebuttles there if I remember right, but still, most of the disagreements were behind closed doors.  Even when Bruce R. McKonkie went against the prophet David O' McKay's wishes with his book, he still wasn't ever called out publicly. 

The difference of course is that Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McKonkie are fiercely loyal to the faith.

And your progressive sap above is not facing a doctrinal dispute. He is watering down the faith to make it palatable to more people, a fire and brimstone type offense.

[Teancum]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Read it.  Twice.  I stand by my statement.

Not really into self-psychoanalysis.
And there is nothing I could hear about Joseph that would cause me to question.  You've been around this board long enough.  Is there anything left to be said about Joseph that we both haven't already heard?  It caused some here to doubt and others not to.  But I am hardly burying my head in the sand as to the history.

No but I found the quite I shared fascinating.  And especially so because the LDS Church and culture spends a lot of time in repeating a testimony and we are even told what a testimony should be and what elements it should contain.  And we give a meeting once a month to this effort.   I recall still from my 7th grade speech class one of the fundamental principles of a convincing argument or speech is that "repetition is the basis of all persuasion."  Daniel Kahneman  seems to agree. Of course many here won't agree that the repetition of the typical LDS testimony is repetition of a falsehood.  But I think it is worth repeating:

Quote

"A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact."

It is used I guess by good guys and bad guys to bring the masses in line with whatever those who do this are promoting.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No but I found the quite I shared fascinating.  And especially so because the LDS Church and culture spends a lot of time in repeating a testimony and we are even told what a testimony should be and what elements it should contain.  And we give a meeting once a month to this effort.   I recall still from my 7th grade speech class one of the fundamental principles of a convincing argument or speech is that "repetition is the basis of all persuasion."  Daniel Kahneman  seems to agree. Of course many here won't agree that the repetition of the typical LDS testimony is repetition of a falsehood.  But I think it is worth repeating:

It is used I guess by good guys and bad guys to bring the masses in line with whatever those who do this are promoting.

Yeah, even the Bible agrees.
2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.(see also Matt 18:16)


 

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yeah, even the Bible agrees.
2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.(see also Matt 18:16)


 

The question is who are the good guys and who are not?