- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
I attend a relgion; I construct a theology; I practice my faith.
This is very profound!
Yeah, I think that was well said Ray. PiperAlpha wrote:Old-Timer wrote:I attend a relgion; I construct a theology; I practice my faith.
This is very profound!
Indeed!
Andrew wrote:Thanks to that darn primary song, reverence is associated in the church with being quiet.
Actually, I think that song is great spiritual teaching that holds potential reform for the church. “Reverence is love.” Have you been singing the same song I have been singing?
Tom wrote:Actually, I think that song is great spiritual teaching that holds potential reform for the church. “Reverence is love.” Have you been singing the same song I have been singing?
Nope, I was thinking of “Reverently, Quietly.” I wasn’t familiar with “Reverence is Love” – that is more complete definition of “reverence.”
doubting mom wrote:doubtingthomas wrote:
SamBee: I cannot stand listening to re-hashed conference talks. It especially becomes nauseating when they say something along the lines of “I was asked to give a talk on so and so’s Conference talk” or “I was asked to speak on this topic and was given two talks from so and so to use.” I tune out almost immediately upon hearing that.Ugh this is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t know if it’s because I took a public speaking class or what but I feel it’s the number one rule in speaking to not say I’m going to speak on ____. Whenever I’m asked to talk I take the GC talk or article and use it for jumping off points. The best compliment I got after a talk was that it flowed very nicely.
Well, this is the thing, I think the original conference talks are often okay, but it’s the rehash that’s the problem. Few people can rehash, or give a GC speech properly, and what’s the point since they’re filmed?
I’d rather hear ancient GC talks from pre-broadcast/film days, then at least they’d be fresh to a new generation.
SamBee wrote:doubting mom wrote:doubtingthomas wrote:
SamBee: I cannot stand listening to re-hashed conference talks. It especially becomes nauseating when they say something along the lines of “I was asked to give a talk on so and so’s Conference talk” or “I was asked to speak on this topic and was given two talks from so and so to use.” I tune out almost immediately upon hearing that.Ugh this is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t know if it’s because I took a public speaking class or what but I feel it’s the number one rule in speaking to not say I’m going to speak on ____. Whenever I’m asked to talk I take the GC talk or article and use it for jumping off points. The best compliment I got after a talk was that it flowed very nicely.
Well, this is the thing, I think the original conference talks are often okay, but it’s the rehash that’s the problem. Few people can rehash, or give a GC speech properly, and what’s the point since they’re filmed?
I’d rather hear ancient GC talks from pre-broadcast/film days, then at least they’d be fresh to a new generation.
Me, too! In fact, I recently watched a couple of videos of George Albert Smith speaking at conference. He almost sounded like a preacher. So full of life and zeal. His hands were being used while speaking, his voiced often raised in excitement when he spoke. Nothing like the monotone, tired-sounding things I hear a lot these days.
I am told by a friend that things are toned down now because “we have evolved.” Evolved into what?
Amazingly yesterday, I actually heard my first DECENT reheated GA talk in priesthood. The guy who was speaking is I suspect verging into our territory, but he did it really well. I agree with you about “evolution”. When it comes to that word, we always assume it means improvement, in nature, and in the church. It doesn’t necessarily. Blandness does not bring investigators into the church. In fact, it encourages the idea that we are a robotic cult.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.