I learned in church today

[All-American]

Today's Primerica lesson included a reference to the miracle of the fishes and loaves. One of the kids asked how 5000 people could hear Jesus without a microphone.

I really had no answer. What do you guys think. That is a lot of people.

Does make you wonder, but it's not unheard of. The theater in Ephesus held something like 25,000 people. The tabernacle in Utah holds 7,000 or so. Thousands gathered to hear the inaugural addresses of presidents. I'm sure good acoustics helped in a lot of those places, though.

[Topper]

Does make you wonder, but it's not unheard of. The theater in Ephesus held something like 25,000 people. The tabernacle in Utah holds 7,000 or so. Thousands gathered to hear the inaugural addresses of presidents. I'm sure good acoustics helped in a lot of those places, though.

Do you believe it might actually be one of those cultural reference of somebody's large number meaning a lot, without a real reference to a real number?

[creekster]

Today's Primerica lesson included a reference to the miracle of the fishes and loaves. One of the kids asked how 5000 people could hear Jesus without a microphone.

I really had no answer. What do you guys think. That is a lot of people.

Last year we went to the ruins at Jerash, Jordan whee the romans built an amphitheater that held about that many people. It took advantage of a natural hillside and the acoustics were amazing. You could easily here the speakers on the stage at the top of the theatre as the acoustics demonstrated.

Moreover, does the bible say that everyone he fed had heard him? T

[TripletDaddy]

Last year we went to the ruins at Jerash, Jordan whee the romans built an amphitheater that held about that many people. It took advantage of a natural hillside and the acoustics were amazing. You could easily here the speakers on the stage at the top of the theatre as the acoustics demonstrated.

Moreover, does the bible say that everyone he fed had heard him? T

ha. Good point. I should have switched into Socratic mode with the CTR6 kid that asked a question.

[Moliere]

I had a full hour long lecture on naked misogynism, in which everybody tried to explain why the word "preside" doesn't mean precisely what the dictionary says it means.

I see you visited Indycoug's ward.

[Indy Coug]

I see you visited Indycoug's ward.

That's a shame because I didn't go to church today.

[creekster]

ha. Good point. I should have switched into Socratic mode with the CTR6 kid that asked a question.

You didn't ask what you should tell the primary class. You asked us what we thought. I think I experienced a location where he could have been heard easily by 5,000+ people. I also suggested that the question wasn't necessarily based on a correct premise (although I don't know). None of that requires the Socratic method.

If you want to know what we think you should tell primary kids, which is a good question, you should ask that question.

[clackamascoug]

If Jesus could feed 5,000 people with limited resources, why limit his ability to feed the people with his words.

I once stood on the stage at Ephesus, and said "Friends, Romans, Countrymen - Lend me your ear." That was a fun day.

[TripletDaddy]

If Jesus could feed 5,000 people with limited resources, why limit his ability to feed the people with his words.

Yeah that wasn't really the type of answer the kid was looking for.

[dabrockster]

Question on why this is placed on a person's record..

So I met with a inactive family who moved here a year ago (From Seattle actually). The couple are members and have been their whole life. But have been inactive for a while. They have a 13 year old daughter who has not been baptized and were told that on their record it will list them as a "Convert" instead a "Baptized member".

My Bishop said this is true but I wasn't really given a good reason except that if a child is not baptized prior to turning 9 they are then considered a covnert.. I think this irks the parents and I can ssee why..

I don't understand the reason behind this.. Seems stupid imo. Sure they should be taught by the missionaries etc. But desigante them a convert?? I don't get it..

[Moliere]

Question on why this is placed on a person's record..

So I met with a inactive family who moved here a year ago (From Seattle actually). The couple are members and have been their whole life. But have been inactive for a while. They have a 13 year old daughter who has not been baptized and were told that on their record it will list them as a "Convert" instead a "Baptized member".

My Bishop said this is true but I wasn't really given a good reason except that if a child is not baptized prior to turning 9 they are then considered a covnert.. I think this irks the parents and I can ssee why..

I don't understand the reason behind this.. Seems stupid imo. Sure they should be taught by the missionaries etc. But desigante them a convert?? I don't get it..

I find it odd that it would irk the parents. I imagine this is mostly just a way to separate the data (children of record/converts) when it comes to baptisms. I doubt this designation will have any impact on the daughter in the future, plus she's female so it's not like she has any real future in church leadership....

[Indy Coug]

Question on why this is placed on a person's record..

So I met with a inactive family who moved here a year ago (From Seattle actually). The couple are members and have been their whole life. But have been inactive for a while. They have a 13 year old daughter who has not been baptized and were told that on their record it will list them as a "Convert" instead a "Baptized member".

My Bishop said this is true but I wasn't really given a good reason except that if a child is not baptized prior to turning 9 they are then considered a covnert.. I think this irks the parents and I can ssee why..

I don't understand the reason behind this.. Seems stupid imo. Sure they should be taught by the missionaries etc. But desigante them a convert?? I don't get it..

This is a trivial bookeeping item that is given to HQ to delineate the number of children of record baptisms vs convert baptisms. This is done to reflect the number of conversions involving missionaries. It has absolutely no other significance than this. Why did anyone even bother to tell them this in the first place? Regardless, it shouldn't be a source of angst or frustration for the parents.

[Pheidippides]

This is a trivial bookeeping item that is given to HQ to delineate the number of children of record baptisms vs convert baptisms. This is done to reflect the number of conversions involving missionaries. It has absolutely no other significance than this. Why did anyone even bother to tell them this in the first place? Regardless, it shouldn't be a source of angst or frustration for the parents.

Agreed. It's not noted on the record unless things have changed in a few years (you can always do the math, I guess). It is only for the purposes of reporting convert/child of age baptisms AFAIK. Big non-issue.

[myboynoah]

Agreed. It's not noted on the record unless things have changed in a few years (you can always do the math, I guess). It is only for the purposes of reporting convert/child of age baptisms AFAIK. Big non-issue.

Yeah, I don't recall any special note on one's record clarifying that a person is a convert baptism. Besides, being a "convert" puts one in a special Mormon category, almost celebrity status. I say take it and run with it.

[Indy Coug]

Yeah, I don't recall any special note on one's record clarifying that a person is a convert baptism. Besides, being a "convert" puts one in a special Mormon category, almost celebrity status. I say take it and run with it.

Agreed. Being a convert means that at some point in time you weren't a mindless sheep. Being a child of record gives you no benefit of the doubt in this regard.