Conference

[Archaea]

it seemed more lively than many from the past, though we still had some yawner talks.

One talk which didn't receive much acclaim, or at least I missed it, was from Joseph Sitate. He was quite articulate and charming. My kids thought he was difficult to understand but I did not.

Does Holland strike anybody as a bible thumper? He missed his calling as an evangelist.

Interesting conference nonetheless.

[Valentinus1]

Originally Posted by Archaea

it seemed more lively than many from the past, though we still had some yawner talks.

One talk which didn't receive much acclaim, or at least I missed it, was from Joseph Sitate. He was quite articulate and charming. My kids thought he was difficult to understand but I did not.

Does Holland strike anybody as a bible thumper? He missed his calling as an evangelist.

Interesting conference nonetheless.

I'm unfamiliar with conference in general. Is there often a specific theme to the individual sessions? What were some of the topics?

I worked and did school work all weekend. I wanted to atleast catch one session so that I could be more familiar with what happens but it didn't happen.

Thanks

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Valentinus1

I'm unfamiliar with conference in general. Is there often a specific theme to the individual sessions? What were some of the topics?

I worked and did school work all weekend. I wanted to atleast catch one session so that I could be more familiar with what happens but it didn't happen.

Thanks

The details of planning the semi-annual conference are unknown to me, as that is far above my paygrade, humor intended.

The purpose of the conferences is always to inspire faithful living, and perhaps to convince a few interested observers to look at our faith more closely. One usually walks away with some "feel-good" talks, some guilt talks and some plain vanilla stuff.

For the most part, no deep theological discussions are promoted in such an environment. These talks are to be distributed broadly and are written by non-theologians. The style at times can be almost too matter of fact, but others do a good job in content and delivery. Not every speaker is necessarily selected on the basis of oratorial splendor. In fact some of the speakers are downright dull, but one can often find one or two talks which speak to you the listener, either from a point of provocation or as a reminder to do better in some area of Christian service. It's light fare, but useful and part of the culture nonetheless.

[Valentinus1]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The details of planning the semi-annual conference are unknown to me, as that is far above my paygrade, humor intended.

The purpose of the conferences is always to inspire faithful living, and perhaps to convince a few interested observers to look at our faith more closely. One usually walks away with some "feel-good" talks, some guilt talks and some plain vanilla stuff.

For the most part, no deep theological discussions are promoted in such an environment. These talks are to be distributed broadly and are written by non-theologians. The style at times can be almost too matter of fact, but others do a good job in content and delivery. Not every speaker is necessarily selected on the basis of oratorial splendor. In fact some of the speakers are downright dull, but one can often find one or two talks which speak to you the listener, either from a point of provocation or as a reminder to do better in some area of Christian service. It's light fare, but useful and part of the culture nonetheless.

I think I'll do as my mother does then, wait for it in magazine and then decide if I want to read it.

I'm curious, is the Community of Christ World Conference done in the same manner?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Valentinus1

I think I'll do as my mother does then, wait for it in magazine and then decide if I want to read it.

I'm curious, is the Community of Christ World Conference done in the same manner?

By Thursday, you can read or listen to certain talks online at lds.org and follow links to conference. It's my preferred method, picking and choosing.

[MikeWaters]

I didn't really care for Holland's talk. Maybe it is my hard heart or my native dislike for people who are so strident and black and white, and almost antagonistic. Of course, the flip side is that he is just being passionate. But sometimes passion is a cover for insecurity.

Anyway, I'm sure it was very useful and touching to many.

The news about Joseph Smith and the BoM seems to have generally been "bad" for many years now, i.e. little has come forward that supports the historicity of the BoM, and a very significant thing has come forward that suggests most Native Americans are not of Hebrew descent. Chiasma seems like a very flimsy basket to hold our eggs in. Of course, the proper argument is that "I don't need to prove the Book of Mormon to you or anyone. It is God's book, and He will prove it, in His way, in His time--to you. If you will seek it. The end."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I didn't really care for Holland's talk. Maybe it is my hard heart or my native dislike for people who are so strident and black and white, and almost antagonistic. Of course, the flip side is that he is just being passionate. But sometimes passion is a cover for insecurity.

Anyway, I'm sure it was very useful and touching to many.

The news about Joseph Smith and the BoM seems to have generally been "bad" for many years now, i.e. little has come forward that supports the historicity of the BoM, and a very significant thing has come forward that suggests most Native Americans are not of Hebrew descent. Chiasma seems like a very flimsy basket to hold our eggs in. Of course, the proper argument is that "I don't need to prove the Book of Mormon to you or anyone. It is God's book, and He will prove it, in His way, in His time--to you. If you will seek it. The end."

I appreciate it for what it is.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I didn't really care for Holland's talk. Maybe it is my hard heart or my native dislike for people who are so strident and black and white, and almost antagonistic. Of course, the flip side is that he is just being passionate. But sometimes passion is a cover for insecurity.

Anyway, I'm sure it was very useful and touching to many.

The news about Joseph Smith and the BoM seems to have generally been "bad" for many years now, i.e. little has come forward that supports the historicity of the BoM, and a very significant thing has come forward that suggests most Native Americans are not of Hebrew descent. Chiasma seems like a very flimsy basket to hold our eggs in. Of course, the proper argument is that "I don't need to prove the Book of Mormon to you or anyone. It is God's book, and He will prove it, in His way, in His time--to you. If you will seek it. The end."

His talk about the Trinity was one of my favorites maybe because it was so hard-core. I'm sick of Christians defining Christianity by belief in a doctrine conjured up 400 years after Christ and which has such weak support in the Bible. The one verse in all the Bible which comes closest to teaching the trinity the way the catholics and evangelicals do wasn't in the original text and turns out to be a late addition by Erasmus of Rotterdam in the late middle ages.

[Archaea]

These talks have content worthy to recommend, but again I don't know what you want Valentinus.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...1117-4,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...1117-7,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-10,00.html

interesting for Oaks but not uncommon in manner,

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-10,00.html

a friend, not a member, was moved by Eyring's delivery of this talk,

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-22,00.html


http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-27,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-31,00.html

[Valentinus1]

Originally Posted by Archaea

These talks have content worthy to recommend, but again I don't know what you want Valentinus.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...1117-4,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...1117-7,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-10,00.html

interesting for Oaks but not uncommon in manner,

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-10,00.html

a friend, not a member, was moved by Eyring's delivery of this talk,

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-22,00.html


http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-27,00.html

http://lds.org/conference/talk/displ...117-31,00.html

I'm not exactly sure of what I'm looking for either. I don't mean to take up time from you. I suppose I am looking for something profound and moving.

I have been talking to my younger brother and his wife quite a bit since coming to this board and have been asking a lot of questions. What I like about what they have to say is that none of their answers are candy-coated but well thought out and not verbatim. I'm also not entirely comfortable with my sudden extreme interest in the LDS faith considering the lack of it in my upbringing and the current church that I attend. But I feel a pull nonetheless.

At most, logically this post seems more childish and confusing. I want to make more sense of what is racking my brain but still afraid to fully take it on.