BYU Talks on iTunes

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:08 am

Next to the LDS talks from BYU Broadcasting, they are all classified as 'Clean'. Most media isn't classified at all, some are 'Explicit' and some are 'Clean'. I always assumed that 'Clean' meant Explicit plus a radio edit... Evidently not so! *Censored talks for extreme righteousness*

Benvolio · Post by **Benvolio** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:19 am

I take it, then, that there are no talks offered by J. Golden Kimball.

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:15 pm

Benvolio wrote:I take it, then, that there are no talks offered by J. Golden Kimball.

Hehe, good points...

It is weird for me to think that he got away with his language... If an apostle tried that today, I doubt he would last long (actually, I doubt he would even get the call)

Benvolio · Post by **Benvolio** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:20 pm

Y'know, there really isn't any scriptural foundation for avoiding profanity. The closest I can think of is Matthew 5:37's instructions about avoiding swearing by heaven or God's throne. I'm not arguing that profanity is virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy. But it's more of a modern emphasis. Those sorts of rules take time to take hold. Even the Word of Wisdom and tithing took quite a while before they were really and truly universal commandments to the general body of the Church.

In a Board-related note, Pa Grape has always been a big J. Golden Kimball fan, and he introduced a few of his discourses to me. He actually has some profound and interesting quotes that are entirely unrelated to his colorful vocabulary. It's kind of a shame that people only remember him for quotes like "Hell, Heber, I can't read this!" rather than his testimony of Jesus Christ.

Katya · Post by **Katya** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:57 am

Benvolio wrote:In a Board-related note, Pa Grape has always been a big J. Golden Kimball fan, and he introduced a few of his discourses to me. He actually has some profound and interesting quotes that are entirely unrelated to his colorful vocabulary. It's kind of a shame that people only remember him for quotes like "Hell, Heber, I can't read this!" rather than his testimony of Jesus Christ.

Well, for a GA, the testimony is assumed to be a given. So, of course we remember him more for the things that set him apart from the other GAs before and since. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

xkcd *** · Post by xkcd *** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:51 pm

Werf_Must wrote:
Benvolio wrote:I take it, then, that there are no talks offered by J. Golden Kimball.
Hehe, good points...

It is weird for me to think that he got away with his language... If an apostle tried that today, I doubt he would last long (actually, I doubt he would even get the call)

I had a seminary teacher who, while on his mission in Brazil, was in a car with a general authority who hit his head on the roof of the car and let slip a swear word. He apologized immediately and asked my seminary teacher not to tell his wife. But I don't think we are capable of judging what would qualify a man for apostleship. Personally, I'd prefer a man who has a strong testimony of the church, who is close to the Savior, and is in tune with the Spirit, even if he uses language that isn't "G-rated". As long as he is capable of supporting the prophet and leading the members of the church. It just doesn't seem like one of those things that matters in the long run, at least to me.

Werf_Must · Post by **Werf_Must** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:51 pm

xkcd *** wrote:
Werf_Must wrote:
Benvolio wrote:I take it, then, that there are no talks offered by J. Golden Kimball.
Hehe, good points...

It is weird for me to think that he got away with his language... If an apostle tried that today, I doubt he would last long (actually, I doubt he would even get the call)
I had a seminary teacher who, while on his mission in Brazil, was in a car with a general authority who hit his head on the roof of the car and let slip a swear word. He apologized immediately and asked my seminary teacher not to tell his wife. But I don't think we are capable of judging what would qualify a man for apostleship. Personally, I'd prefer a man who has a strong testimony of the church, who is close to the Savior, and is in tune with the Spirit, even if he uses language that isn't "G-rated". As long as he is capable of supporting the prophet and leading the members of the church. It just doesn't seem like one of those things that matters in the long run, at least to me.

Don't get me wrong. Just because he had a colorful vocab doesn't mean he didn't say great things, that his testimony wasn't amazing, or that it rendered him incapable of supporting and strengthening the prophet and members. It is just very different than my standard stereotype of an Apostle.

xkcd *** · Post by xkcd *** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:04 pm

Werf_Must wrote:
xkcd *** wrote:
Werf_Must wrote: Hehe, good points...

It is weird for me to think that he got away with his language... If an apostle tried that today, I doubt he would last long (actually, I doubt he would even get the call)
I had a seminary teacher who, while on his mission in Brazil, was in a car with a general authority who hit his head on the roof of the car and let slip a swear word. He apologized immediately and asked my seminary teacher not to tell his wife. But I don't think we are capable of judging what would qualify a man for apostleship. Personally, I'd prefer a man who has a strong testimony of the church, who is close to the Savior, and is in tune with the Spirit, even if he uses language that isn't "G-rated". As long as he is capable of supporting the prophet and leading the members of the church. It just doesn't seem like one of those things that matters in the long run, at least to me.

Don't get me wrong. Just because he had a colorful vocab doesn't mean he didn't say great things, that his testimony wasn't amazing, or that it rendered him incapable of supporting and strengthening the prophet and members. It is just very different than my standard stereotype of an Apostle.

This just reminds me of the way members judge investigators. If they don't seem like the standard, stereotypical LDS member, why fellowship them?

xkcd *** · Post by xkcd *** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:05 pm

Good thing it's all up to the Lord, and not us.

SWKT Parachuter · Post by **SWKT Parachuter** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:23 pm

xkcd *** wrote: This just reminds me of the way members judge investigators. If they don't seem like the standard, stereotypical LDS member, why fellowship them?

In my experience, it's been the investigators who seemed the least stereotypically-LDS who were embraced most quickly by the members of the congregation, perhaps because it seemed like they could use some help the most. Just because you had a bad experience or whatever doesn't mean you need to project your bitterness on the rest of us.

xkcd *** wrote:Good thing it's all up to the Lord, and not us.

It sort of is up to us, at least to some degree. You know...free agency? But it's ok that you're wrong, because I think you just wanted to say something sanctimonious to make your last comment seem less like a grossly overarching generalization or something.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:46 pm

SWKTs back! Yay!

xkcd *** · Post by xkcd *** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:07 am

SWKT Parachuter wrote:
xkcd *** wrote: This just reminds me of the way members judge investigators. If they don't seem like the standard, stereotypical LDS member, why fellowship them?
In my experience, it's been the investigators who seemed the least stereotypically-LDS who were embraced most quickly by the members of the congregation, perhaps because it seemed like they could use some help the most. Just because you had a bad experience or whatever doesn't mean you need to project your bitterness on the rest of us.

xkcd *** wrote:Good thing it's all up to the Lord, and not us.
It sort of is up to us, at least to some degree. You know...free agency? But it's ok that you're wrong, because I think you just wanted to say something sanctimonious to make your last comment seem less like a grossly overarching generalization or something.

First, I'm sorry, I was in a bad mood, and you are right. However, in the wards I have been in, this generalization does apply. But, please do share with me how we get to choose who the Apostles are.