Comments on: A Fireside from Hell or Someplace!?

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:12:02 +0000

Yeah, I’m not impressed with Dan Brown either. I couldn’t get past the cardboard characters and the ridiculous dialogue. The story of the Da Vinci Code is interesting, but it’s like he never really gets into it; forever skirting around the meat of the issue; as they run from place to place.

I don’t think I’ll ever attend another fireside again; I was forced to go to too many in my youth. Any soft spots that I may have had for firesides have been cauterized out.

By: D. Fletcher

D. Fletcher — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:03:47 +0000

I did get your point that that fireside was mostly… useless, either as a tool for uplifting the spirit, or for awakening the spirituality of non-member friends.

But truthfully, most firesides are pretty useless. The blogs give better information.

By: jjohnsen

jjohnsen — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:33:38 +0000

I know we’re encouraged to bring non-members to firesides, but I didn’t realize anyone actaully did this. They’re so hit-or-miss that I’d never dare. We took a Vietnamese investigator to one in Australia, and it ended being about how boat people from Asian countried were detroying family values in Australia. We never made that mistake again. I’ve never been to one like that here, but I have been to some that were pretty bad as far as quality goes.

Also, am I the only one that think’s Browns book is horrible? Horrible characters, horrible writing style and some really strange pacing. I broke down and read it after everyone I heard talk about it raved, and only finished reading so I could feel honest telling them how bad it was start to finish.

By: meems

meems — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:53:58 +0000

Mark B, Ha ha! Foucault’s Pendulum is one of my all time favorite books. I love that stuff!

By: Being critical

Being critical — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:06:47 +0000

It’s not quite the same thing, but this reminds me of a fireside we had recently featuring a soldier returned from Iraq. I expected (dumbly, as it turns out) that he’d talk about the challenges of being faithful in such a difficult environment and that sort of thing. He didn’t even address that subject, instead spending most of his time talking about military hardware and how we should support Bush’s policies. Grrrrr.

By: Bret

Bret — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:21:57 +0000

Perhaps we should mention the fact that for the entire time we were there (which granted, was probebly half his speaking time) his lecture had no direction. He gave the title as being about apostasy and restoration but then jumped from one subject to another without really tieing them together or basing them around any thesis statement. What does Knights Templar, his family geneology, or the gory details of the inquisition have to do with the need for a restoration besides the fact that, yes, people got screwed up on doctrine and did bad things. Bad, NAUGHTY things!

By: Bret

Bret — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:16:05 +0000

I’m sorry. After re-reading the post I see that you were addressing the fact that Constantine embraced Christianity, which is true. What the speaker said that was innaccurate was that he made it the state religion, which as I stated before, did not happen till Theodosius made it so in 381.

Brandon, Rusty, etc.

I had the same feeling going into and coming away from it. I think it should have (if done at all, which it shouldn’t have considering the content) been labeled a “forum address) or something of that sort and done on a different day than Sunday if for no other reason than to not let people get it confused with church doctrines or beliefs.

Polly,

Amen. I enjoyed Dan Brown’s books because they were fun but I don’t like that it has led to all this romanticized history and conspiracy theory. So many people think that if they read it in a book by someone who’s got a degree (or even NO credentials!) it’s got to be fact.

By: Justin H

Justin H — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:43:17 +0000

Oops, I see Brandon beat me to it.

By: Justin H

Justin H — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:42:07 +0000

Don–

I’m also somewhat incredulous that stake sponsorship would be afforded to this topic, just because it would pique audience curiosity. Is the goal is just to fill the stake house on Sunday nights? And since when does Dan Brown’s silliness merit serious and officially-sanctioned attention?

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:28:30 +0000

Don-

I still think the more significant question is not whether the material presented was accurate or not (though I think that is important, being a historian myself), but whether a fireside is an appropriate venue for such material. I understand how the subject would garner a lot of interest, but with all due respect, is that the best criterion on which to base a decision about whether or not a particular topic merits a fireside. If it is, then why not open the flood gates to include discussions of romance novels and the latest installation of _The Work and the Glory_ (wait, maybe that’s already being done!)