General Authority Affect

[Snow]

So I think that, by and large, General Authorities give the boringestest talks possible; not that the material itself is necessarily that dry, though recent talks seems to be more cookie cutterishish and less intellectually challenging than even 30 years ago - but the deal I don't like it the GA drone. It's a shame because to read the material, it is often quite moving but the delievery, for me, renders it too too not-so-good.

Last week, my mom, sisters, and wife went to the BYU Women's Conference. They said that, in contrast to prior years, the talks were like glorified Sacrament Meeting talks. Elder Samuelson, the new BYU President talked. My mom used to work for him. She said he used to be a dynamic, engaging speaker. Not so now as he has adopted the typical GA drone.

Why? Do them send them to GA drone school?

Worse yet is when local Mormons adopt it in their Sacrament Meeting and Stake Conf. talks, and combine it with the semi-effiminent, ala Ed Smart, Mormon mellow act.

Uuck!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@May 10 2004, 06:29 PM

Why? Do them send them to GA drone school?

That's a possibility. Maybe people should bombard SLC with letters complaining about delivery style and maybe they'll take notice. Maybe they don't realize how they sound.

M.

[Guest curvette]

I truly think they mistake "boring" for "reverent." "Reverent" means "worshipful" and people worship in all different ways--many of them not boring (as Maureen so aptly pointed out in the fringe thread!) All I ever hear in Primary anymore is: Reverence, reverence, reverence. Well, that's not exactly true--they talk incessantly about the temple too. Poor kids!

[Jason]

Too bad someone like Jedidah Grant isn't alive today. He'd rail at the stand until the whole crowd was at a fever pitch!

So much for the "reverent" tone....

[Jenda]

Why don't they start ordaining younger men into the higher offices? I mean, Joseph Smith was 39 when he was killed and he had started a church by then, and all the men he ordained were about his age (give or take), except his father, who, as presiding patriarch, was supposed to be an older figure.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Jason]

Why don't they let the members vote who should be in? Im not talking about just the raise the hand on this dude we've already picked vote. That's not a vote. That's a lack of options.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+May 11 2004, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ May 11 2004, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@May 11 2004, 03:35 PM

Why don't they start ordaining younger men into the higher offices?  I mean, Joseph Smith was 39 when he was killed and he had started a church by then, and all the men he ordained were about his age (give or take), except his father, who, as presiding patriarch, was supposed to be an older figure.

Before reducing the minimum age, how about a multicultural Quorum of the Twelve? I'd like to see that!

No kidding! For a worldwide church, those Ensign pictures look awfully white! Occasionally there has been an "ethnic" seventy thrown in, but the big 12 have always been and continue to be white and delightsome! There is the problem of location though. The church is really still very young in many other countries, and they probably need to keep the strong leaders in their own countries for now. Eventually though, if the church continues to grow overseas and growth in the US continues to drop, there will be more "foreign" topdogs.

[Jenda]

In the Community of Christ, we have had a Japanese and an African apostle. And none of the first presidency are American (they are all white, but not American.) And the age of the apostles has been steadily decreasing, some are being ordained in their late 40's. The president of the church is probably in his mid-50's, and has been president for 6 or 8 years.

[broadway]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 10 2004, 07:55 PM

I heard a theory once that the more boring you are, the more likely people are to believe you.

Let's say an old man in a conservative suit gets up in front of a bunch of people and says calmly in a boring, droning voice:

"Today my dog walked up to me and recited the pledge of allegiance. I don't know if this had any significance. But I was very proud to have such a patriotic dog."

On the other hand, let's say this is a young guy with long hair, or maybe an earring or tattoo, with a loud southern accent, screaming into the microphone and waving his arms:

"Today my dog walked right up to me and recited the pledge of allegiance! By golly, if I ain't sure that that wasn't a sign from God that this country is destined to RULE THE WORLD! I say we invade every other country on the planet and free their dogs from slavery...let them live like real AMERICAN DOGS!!! It is the destiny of CANINE DOMESTICATION!!! My dog might not have said that in so many words....BUT I KNOW THAT IS WHAT HE MEANT!!!"

Which guy are you gonna believe?

The first one, because he sounds calm...and for many people calm means "reasonable".

not sure if I'd believe either, but I do know that neither would I find boring!

[Jason]

Wish list for speakers and speeches:

J. Golden Kimball approaching the stand, half drunk. As he begins his speech, he looks up at the tele-prompters and blurts out: "What the"

I can just imagine it!

[Guest Starsky]

I think that old saying....'ya gotta get their attention first'...is definite not the case anymore...

I think Tao hit the nail on the head....they think that calm is reasonable and true.....

But who is listening to it all? I can't get my kids to listen anymore...they used to love to listen because there were laughs and stories all delivered with animation....

I have to say I can't stand to listen to Elder Scott anymore....it is just so repetive...each time the same thing and whining with the drone....

UUUGGGH!

[Guest]

Wow ... I cannot believe anything I am reading in this post!

First: I think the talks given by the General Authorities are amazing. In fact, in my spare time I literally read conference talks and other materials by the General Authorities. Something I learned, if you are just listening at Conference because that is what you are supposed to do, yeah, you are going to be bored. But if you listen to find answers to questions in your own life, the talks are simply amazing.

SECONDLY: I cannot believe anyone is questioning who is called OF GOD to be an Apostle or General Authority. Did you simply forget that? THEY ARE CALLED OF GOD .

Third: do you really think a man of 30 years of age can have the WISDOM and EXPERIENCE of a man that is in his 50's, 60's and older? Joseph Smith went into the sacred grove as a boy and came out a prophet, this is absolutely entirely true. However, people didn't live as long back then. So the men WERE younger. I guess it still comes down to, it doesn't matter who, age, or race ... THEY ARE CALLED OF GOD.

[Jenda]

Third: do you really think a man of 30 years of age can have the WISDOM and EXPERIENCE of a man that is in his 50's, 60's and older? Joseph Smith went into the sacred grove as a boy and came out a prophet, this is absolutely entirely true. However, people didn't live as long back then. So the men WERE younger. I guess it still comes down to, it doesn't matter who, age, or race ... THEY ARE CALLED OF GOD.

This is a joke, right? If not, you really don't know that much about how old people lived to be back then.

We look at a number called the average lifespan of a person, and at different points in time, it is different. And granted, the average lifespan back in the mid-1800s was a lot shorter than it is now. But you need to look at a specific word in that phrase, and it is "average". What does that say to you? Remember the law of averages? You take all the numbers, add them together and divide by the total number you are adding. Voila, you get the "average".

Back then, many, many (if not most) children died in childbirth. That dropped the average lifespan by probably 20 years. Back then, there were no cures for diseases, or immunizations to prevent disease. That dropped the averag lifespan several years. Back then, women died in childbirth. That dropped the average lifespan some. But those that lived through childbirth, and disease lived to be ripe old people. So, please drop the innuendo that the only reason that young people had spiritual experiences was because there were no older people. God works with those who seek Him, no matter how old they are.

[Maureen]

It's all subjective UtahStateRunner. You find their talks awe-inspiring, others find them boring and their delivery mundane. Their perception of GA talks are just different then yours; that doesn't make them wrong.

M.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jenda@May 14 2004, 09:22 AM

This is a joke, right? If not, you really don't know that much about how old people lived to be back then.

We look at a number called the average lifespan of a person, and at different points in time, it is different. And granted, the average lifespan back in the mid-1800s was a lot shorter than it is now. But you need to look at a specific word in that phrase, and it is "average". What does that say to you? Remember the law of averages? You take all the numbers, add them together and divide by the total number you are adding. Voila, you get the "average".

Back then, many, many (if not most) children died in childbirth. That dropped the average lifespan by probably 20 years. Back then, there were no cures for diseases, or immunizations to prevent disease. That dropped the averag lifespan several years. Back then, women died in childbirth. That dropped the average lifespan some. But those that lived through childbirth, and disease lived to be ripe old people. So, please drop the innuendo that the only reason that young people had spiritual experiences was because there were no older people. God works with those who seek Him, no matter how old they are.

I think you misunderstood my post (and probably at my own fault of not stating more clearly what I meant to). Or you simply didn't read my last line where I said exactly what you did: "I guess it still comes down to, it doesn't matter who, age, or race ... THEY ARE CALLED OF GOD."

At no point did I state (or even mean to imply if that's what you got from it) that only YOUNG men could have spiritual experiences because there were no older men at hand. All that was meant to be taken from that point was, there were MORE men around the age of 30-45, so only logistically speaking, as in any aspect of life, there would probably be more men of the 12 in that age range than older ... I was just giving a logistical explanation which I thought would help make more sense for whom I was replying to.

However, and fortunately, in life we DON'T rely on logistics. We rely on faith. That is why I said, "it doesn't matter who, [their age] ... THEY ARE CALLED OF GOD" and that is all that matters.

(all bold and caps for emphasize only, not for the purpose of yelling). :)

I know I am new on this board, but I cannot help but notice how quick everyone is to get in an argument. May I make a suggestion? Perhaps when reading we shouldn't automatically look for something to nit-pick at, rather see what the poster is actually intending on writing. Particularly when is it obviously right there ... ie: "it doesn't matter who, age, or race ... they are called of God." I mean, how more obvious can someone be?

[Guest]

Maureen:

Of course everyone is entitled to their own perceptions. And of course because someone likes them and someone doesn't, it doesn't mean one of those people are wrong. I never said that. I never implied that. I am very surprised at how easily things are interpreted here on this board. One person thinks that I said in the 1800's old men could not have spiritual experiences and the other thinks that I said if someone doesn't agree with me they are wrong. When in reality, on the second account (I've already mentioned the first in another post) what I was being chastised for was hypocritically done.

I guess this just goes along with what I just barely posted ... it seems to me that most people who read this board are looking for something to disagree with.

No harsh feelings for anyone ... Have a splendid day! :)

[Maureen]

Originally posted by UtahStateRunner@May 14 2004, 08:56 AM

....I never said that. I never implied that. I am very surprised at how easily things are interpreted here on this board...

I guess this just goes along with what I just barely posted ... it seems to me that most people who read this board are looking for something to disagree with.

Wow ... I cannot believe anything I am reading in this post!

First: I think the talks given by the General Authorities are amazing. In fact, in my spare time I literally read conference talks and other materials by the General Authorities. Something I learned, if you are just listening at Conference because that is what you are supposed to do, yeah, you are going to be bored. But if you listen to find answers to questions in your own life, the talks are simply amazing.

SECONDLY: I cannot believe anyone is questioning who is called OF GOD to be an Apostle or General Authority. Did you simply forget that? THEY ARE CALLED OF GOD.

USR - Maybe you should re-read your original post. My perception of your post is that you did imply that you thought other posters were wrong or inaccurate in their perception of the GA's talks because one should not think that GA's could possibly be boring - They're called of God!!!!

It seems it was your post that was disagreeing in the first place.

M.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Maureen@May 14 2004, 10:14 AM

USR - Maybe you should re-read your original post. My perception of your post is that you did imply that you thought other posters were wrong or inaccurate in their perception of the GA's talks because one should not think that GA's could possibly be boring - They're called of God!!!!

It seems it was your post that was disagreeing in the first place. 

M.

Maureen:

I am not sure where you are from ... but I am from Logan, Utah. And here in Logan, we don't take the emotion of being surprised to mean "YOU ARE WRONG." It is just to mean as ... something that is unexpected, unanticipated.

Also, the comment of "they are called of God" as you will see, was in reference to when some people were saying there should be more ethnic people on the Quorum of the 12. In that case, since they are called of God, if you think who is called to the 12 is wrong, you are arguing with God. And THAT is wrong. I will stand behind that statement 100%.

I am still surprised (which remember, is not defined as "think you are wrong") that people find the GA's boring. After all, the are the Lord's mouth piece. The are disciples of Christ and are to act as Christ would if He were here. So in sense, are they not saying they find Christ's words boring?

I am not saying they are wrong, just giving a different perspective of my own.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by UtahStateRunner@May 14 2004, 09:21 AM

So in sense, are they not saying they find Christ's words boring?

Not at all. I don't think Christ has anything to do with the personal stories that the GA's give in their conference addresses. Anyway, no one said the words are boring. Snow said that the "delivery" of the words is boring. Two people can recite the Gettysburg Address, one in a monotone drone, and one with proper emotion. The first will lose a great deal of his intended audience. The second will touch many hearts, possibly anger some people, but this person will make many connections. If we go back and read it in print, it is the same, but when spoken--can be vastly different. I don't see how anyone can listen to General conference and NOT notice the particular affectation of speech present. It's as subtle as a freight train!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+May 14 2004, 09:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ May 14 2004, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--UtahStateRunner@May 14 2004, 09:21 AM

So in sense, are they not saying they find Christ's words boring?

Not at all. I don't think Christ has anything to do with the personal stories that the GA's give in their conference addresses. Anyway, no one said the words are boring. Snow said that the "delivery" of the words is boring. Two people can recite the Gettysburg Address, one in a monotone drone, and one with proper emotion. The first will lose a great deal of his intended audience. The second will touch many hearts, possibly anger some people, but this person will make many connections. If we go back and read it in print, it is the same, but when spoken--can be vastly different. I don't see how anyone can listen to General conference and NOT notice the particular affectation of speech present. It's as subtle as a freight train!

EXACTLY! well said Curvette!

[Guest]

Curvette:

Very, very true ... I understood it as they thought what the GA's were talking ABOUT was boring, not in the way which they presented it. Thanks for pointing that out!

This kid in my student ward, when giving talks, does it very "GAesque" ... When it isn't a general authority speaking that way, it is quite entertaining. Although, I am not bothered by the way GA's speak anyway. :)

(Any of you heard of launch cast? A little feature yahoo.com offers, a radio station that you set which songs you want to play etc. and so forth ... never in my long-legged life did I ever realize how many people out there sing and write songs. There is a man who calls himself, "Chocolate Genius" who sings songs ... interesting).

[Traveler]

Thank you Snow this has been a rather interesting thread. It is interesting the color according to the poster. When I say color I refer to the spectrum of what a person thinks is important, what has value, what is the basis of believable, what is desired, what is boring ect.

Just a side note. Many years ago I attempted to become a teacher (never could pass the spelling test). I specilized in exceptional learners. In other words the very bright and how to teach them. One of the great problems is that most teachers do not know how to identify exceptional learners. One thing, contrary to popular opinion the very bright are seldom bored and find stuff of great intrest to them out of almost nothing or things that would bore normal people. The shorter the attention span the less sharp the brain.

It can be funny when a very birght person attempts to explain something they find of great importance. The less inteligent become so lost in the boring details that there is almost no communications. The opposit happens when a less intellilgent person explains something to a bright person. The bright person will start filling in all the gaps until the slower person gives up becomes bored and wants to change the subbject.

In short - what someone finds intertaining is a major indication of their intelligence. BTW 90% of TV programming is directed toward lower that average inteligence. Asking a person about their favorit music, TV program and other intertainment is a major indicator of their intelligence.

Is this not fun?

The Traveler

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@May 14 2004, 06:22 PM

Thank you Snow this has been a rather interesting thread. It is interesting the color according to the poster. When I say color I refer to the spectrum of what a person thinks is important, what has value, what is the basis of believable, what is desired, what is boring ect.

Just a side note. Many years ago I attempted to become a teacher (never could pass the spelling test). I specilized in exceptional learners. In other words the very bright and how to teach them. One of the great problems is that most teachers do not know how to identify exceptional learners. One thing, contrary to popular opinion the very bright are seldom bored and find stuff of great intrest to them out of almost nothing or things that would bore normal people. The shorter the attention span the less sharp the brain.

It can be funny when a very birght person attempts to explain something they find of great importance. The less inteligent become so lost in the boring details that there is almost no communications. The opposit happens when a less intellilgent person explains something to a bright person. The bright person will start filling in all the gaps until the slower person gives up becomes bored and wants to change the subbject.

In short - what someone finds intertaining is a major indication of their intelligence. BTW 90% of TV programming is directed toward lower that average inteligence. Asking a person about their favorit music, TV program and other intertainment is a major indicator of their intelligence.

Is this not fun?

The Traveler

You are the most condescending person on this board.