Sister Oscarson's Talk

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 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:

So you using repetition is a good thing, repetition from church leaders is not.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you using repetition is a good thing, repetition from church leaders is not.

Heh!!  You got me on that one!! 

Now I did not say repetition was bad from the Church. I just said I found it interesting that we use repetition in the Church heavily.  When I was a missionary we were taught to repeat our testimony after almost every principle we taught in every discussion.  And I said many won't agree that it is a repetition of a falsehood.

It just fascinates me.  So do the other 20 things Daniel Kahneham goes over in the article. 

Humans are just fascinating creatures!!

 

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Heh!!  You got me on that one!! 

Now I did not say repetition was bad from the Church. I just said I found it interesting that we use repetition in the Church heavily.  When I was a missionary we were taught to repeat our testimony after almost every principle we taught in every discussion.  And I said many won't agree that it is a repetition of a falsehood.

It just fascinates me.  So do the other 20 things Daniel Kahneham goes over in the article. 

Humans are just fascinating creatures!!

 

 

I know you didn't say repetition was badetc, just teasing.  I agree, humans are fascinating.  Keeps me coming back to the board.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Read it.  Twice.  I stand by my statement.

Sounds like I need to adjust my perspective a bit.  I'm assuming you don't agree with the central thesis of the author about evolving doctrine and external influences with naturalistic explanations for doctrinal development.  My guess is that you attribute a divine hand heavily involved in the processes all along the way.  Where I may see contradiction and inconsistency, you assume a purpose and at times perhaps a misunderstanding by mortals, but a divine hand leading behind the scenes throughout.  If this is an accurate depiction, I can't say I agree with it, but I can say that I respect it.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Deborah said:

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.

 

I didn't say anything about half measures or setting the bar below the Celestial Kingdom either.  I said progressive perspectives which I think are compatible with those goals.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I guess you're implying progressive ideas or "sap" (your pejorative term) is not considered by you to be loyal to the faith.  I don't agree.  The church has evolved enormously over the years.  Today's fundamentally core doctrines could easily be flipped on their head in 100 years, just like has happened in the past with polygamy.  It always makes me smile when I hear people pronounce that something will never happen, because that's exactly what the last person said right before something changed.  

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess you're implying progressive ideas or "sap" (your pejorative term) is not considered by you to be loyal to the faith.  I don't agree.  The church has evolved enormously over the years.  Today's fundamentally core doctrines could easily be flipped on their head in 100 years, just like has happened in the past with polygamy.  It always makes me smile when I hear people pronounce that something will never happen, because that's exactly what the last person said right before something changed.  

No, our core doctrines have changed little. Our enemies like to claim that polygamy in this life and priesthood restrictions were core doctrines but they never were.

When they disavow the Book of Mormon or the divinity of Christ as Messiah I will believe the ridiculous idea that our core doctrines are shifting. Of course the progressive speaker above did do that which is why they would be a heretic.

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, our core doctrines have changed little. Our enemies like to claim that polygamy in this life and priesthood restrictions were core doctrines but they never were.

When they disavow the Book of Mormon or the divinity of Christ as Messiah I will believe the ridiculous idea that our core doctrines are shifting. Of course the progressive speaker above did do that which is why they would be a heretic.

It's difficult to think of the church in 1880 and 2016 as being the same entities. The doctrines are so totally different. The atonement as we understand it has become so much more important, not to be supplanted by sealings to highly placed leaders or, in theory, human sacrifice (blood atonement). 

While the priesthood ban was never a core doctrine, polygamy seems to have been. Perhaps that developed because there was so much trouble over the issue. When a group is defensive about an issue sometimes the importance of that issue can get inflated, in a reactionary way. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

It's difficult to think of the church in 1880 and 2016 as being the same entities. The doctrines are so totally different. The atonement as we understand it has become so much more important, not to be supplanted by sealings to highly placed leaders or, in theory, human sacrifice (blood atonement).

While the priesthood ban was never a core doctrine, polygamy seems to have been. Perhaps that developed because there was so much trouble over the issue. When a group is defensive about an issue sometimes the importance of that issue can get inflated, as a reaction.

I actually have to agree with you on this one.  (I know, shocking right?)

When people say our "core" doctrines haven't changed they mean the first principles - faith, repentance, baptism, the atonement, etc.
But limiting those as our core doctrines is just not accurate historically.  Core doesn't mean first.  It may mean most important, but that is up for debate.

In fact, you could argue that the core of something is the deepest part underneath the outer first layer of the gospel.
Our doctrines have changed, significantly, since the days of Joseph and Brigham.  They would barely recognize the Church today, although I am sure there have been some developments they would be rejoicing over.
IMO the doctrinal changes made through the course of Joseph restoring the gospel (as Hopeforthings referred to) happened in a very different way than the doctrinal changes that have occurred since the turn of the 20th century.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I actually have to agree with you on this one.  (I know, shocking right?)

When people say our "core" doctrines haven't changed they mean the first principles - faith, repentance, baptism, the atonement, etc.
But limiting those as our core doctrines is just not accurate historically.  Core doesn't mean first.  It may mean most important, but that is up for debate.

In fact, you could argue that the core of something is the deepest part underneath the outer first layer of the gospel.
Our doctrines have changed, significantly, since the days of Joseph and Brigham.  They would barely recognize the Church today, although I am sure there have been some developments they would be rejoicing over.
IMO the doctrinal changes made through the course of Joseph restoring the gospel (as Hopeforthings referred to) happened in a very different way than the doctrinal changes that have occurred since the turn of the 20th century.

Thanks JLHPROF, I agree.  I think when many people say that doctrine's haven't changed, they are naive about the history.  Nehor's comment seems to fit this description.    

It's a question of faith whether someone wants to believe if changes in doctrine are divinely inspired or not.  But to deny the changes exist all together shows a lack of understanding and objective observation of the facts.  

[Nofear]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Our doctrines have changed, significantly, since the days of Joseph and Brigham.

While I agree that how Sunday worship from the 1800's would be somewhat unfamiliar to Sunday worship today, in the not-quite-perfect compilation Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, I have found profound addition to my understanding of the Gospel. I think we understand the Gospel better than we did in the early days of the Church. That is good and as it should be. But that doesn't mean the doctrines themselves have significantly "changed".

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I actually have to agree with you on this one.  (I know, shocking right?)

When people say our "core" doctrines haven't changed they mean the first principles - faith, repentance, baptism, the atonement, etc.
But limiting those as our core doctrines is just not accurate historically.  Core doesn't mean first.  It may mean most important, but that is up for debate.

In fact, you could argue that the core of something is the deepest part underneath the outer first layer of the gospel.
Our doctrines have changed, significantly, since the days of Joseph and Brigham.  They would barely recognize the Church today, although I am sure there have been some developments they would be rejoicing over.
IMO the doctrinal changes made through the course of Joseph restoring the gospel (as Hopeforthings referred to) happened in a very different way than the doctrinal changes that have occurred since the turn of the 20th century.

Thanks JLHPROF. We agree so rarely, it's fun when it happens!

[Deborah]

I think doctrines appear to have changed because we keep growing in knowledge and understanding. For example the way sealings were done in the early days is much different than now. The doctrine of sealing didn't change but the understanding that we should be sealed to family members did.

[Deborah]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't say anything about half measures or setting the bar below the Celestial Kingdom either.  I said progressive perspectives which I think are compatible with those goals.  

It depends on what you mean by "progressive" perspectives. Not all progressive thoughts are compatible with gospel principles.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Deborah said:

It depends on what you mean by "progressive" perspectives. Not all progressive thoughts are compatible with gospel principles.

 

Not all perspectives (progressive, conservative, liberal, orthodox, etc) are compatible with the gospel.  But I imagine that "the gospel" is defined differently by all kinds of people both inside and outside of the church.  

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Nofear said:

While I agree that how Sunday worship from the 1800's would be somewhat unfamiliar to Sunday worship today, in the not-quite-perfect compilation Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, I have found profound addition to my understanding of the Gospel. I think we understand the Gospel better than we did in the early days of the Church. That is good and as it should be. But that doesn't mean the doctrines themselves have significantly "changed".

Most members would agree with you.
I cannot after spending so much time studying the doctrines taught in the 1800s and the doctrines taught today.  Other than the first principles, there have been too many changes to ignore.  But that's another topic for another thread.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Most members would agree with you.
I cannot after spending so much time studying the doctrines taught in the 1800s and the doctrines taught today.  Other than the first principles, there have been too many changes to ignore.  But that's another topic for another thread.

I agree. For those not familiar, this book is a great place to start in recognizing the cultural and doctrinal shifts that have occurred in the church. Charles Harrell- This is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology

http://www.amazon.com/This-Is-My-Doctrine-Development/dp/1589581032?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20harrell&qid=1459872679&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

It's difficult to think of the church in 1880 and 2016 as being the same entities. The doctrines are so totally different. The atonement as we understand it has become so much more important, not to be supplanted by sealings to highly placed leaders or, in theory, human sacrifice (blood atonement). 

If I was not morally opposed to CFRs I would ask for one. One need only read the Journal of Discourses and the Book of Mormon to see how the early Saints thought of the atonement. The emphasis on blood atonement and polygamy come because of a modern obsession with searching out those texts and not the endless "mundane" atonement texts.

[Garden Girl]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

It's difficult to think of the church in 1880 and 2016 as being the same entities. The doctrines are so totally different. The atonement as we understand it has become so much more important, not to be supplanted by sealings to highly placed leaders or, in theory, human sacrifice (blood atonement). 

While the priesthood ban was never a core doctrine, polygamy seems to have been. Perhaps that developed because there was so much trouble over the issue. When a group is defensive about an issue sometimes the importance of that issue can get inflated, in a reactionary way. 

Hello Gray... 

There have been some changes, yes... but I disagree that the "doctrines are so totally different."   The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith in response to a request for him to outline our basic principles.  We still adhere to those A of F principles as our core beliefs... and I see no change in emphasis on the Plan of Salvation, nor on the temple and the ordinances... We are still teaching from the D & C as part of our 4-year rotating canon of Bible, BoM, PoGP, and D&C... 

GG

 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Gray... 

There have been some changes, yes... but I disagree that the "doctrines are so totally different."   The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith in response to a request for him to outline our basic principles.  We still adhere to those A of F principles as our core beliefs... and I see no change in emphasis on the Plan of Salvation, nor on the temple and the ordinances... We are still teaching from the D & C as part of our 4-year rotating canon of Bible, BoM, PoGP, and D&C... 

GG

 

Except the Articles of Faith have been adjusted from what Joseph wrote (minor adjustments admittedly).  The temple and its ordinances (not just the theatrical presentation) have been altered significantly from what was restored.  And while the Plan of Salvation hasn't changed our understanding of the Godhead and exaltation has often changed.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I was not morally opposed to CFRs I would ask for one. One need only read the Journal of Discourses and the Book of Mormon to see how the early Saints thought of the atonement. The emphasis on blood atonement and polygamy come because of a modern obsession with searching out those texts and not the endless "mundane" atonement texts.

Blood atonement put a hard limit on the ability of the atonement to wash away some sins. And the idea that you could secure guaranteed exaltation for you and your family simply by marrying the prophet bypassed the atonement altogether. 

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Gray... 

There have been some changes, yes... but I disagree that the "doctrines are so totally different."   The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith in response to a request for him to outline our basic principles.  We still adhere to those A of F principles as our core beliefs... and I see no change in emphasis on the Plan of Salvation, nor on the temple and the ordinances... We are still teaching from the D & C as part of our 4-year rotating canon of Bible, BoM, PoGP, and D&C... 

GG

 

There was a big change in emphasis on the plan of salvation during Brigham Young's time. At least it appears so to me. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Blood atonement put a hard limit on the ability of the atonement to wash away some sins. And the idea that you could secure guaranteed exaltation for you and your family simply by marrying the prophet bypassed the atonement altogether. 

An oversimplification of their beliefs. But not completely wrong.

[salgare]

On 4/5/2016 at 8:48 AM, hope_for_things said:

I guess you're implying progressive ideas or "sap" (your pejorative term) is not considered by you to be loyal to the faith.  I don't agree.  The church has evolved enormously over the years.  Today's fundamentally core doctrines could easily be flipped on their head in 100 years, just like has happened in the past with polygamy.  It always makes me smile when I hear people pronounce that something will never happen, because that's exactly what the last person said right before something changed.  

true it seems.  JLHProf is a heretic by todays correlation standards, right?   And MFB is beyond progressive, being Nuanced (New) Mormonism.  This board alone covers a large spectrum.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, salgare said:

true it seems.  JLHProf is a heretic by todays correlation standards, right?   And MFB is beyond progressive, being Nuanced (New) Mormonism.  This board alone covers a large spectrum.

Hey, I resemble that remark!