Your Questions...Your Answers
https://www.theboardboard.org/
Hehe, good points...Benvolio wrote:I take it, then, that there are no talks offered by J. Golden Kimball.
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.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.
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 wrote:Hehe, good points...Benvolio wrote:I take it, then, that there are no talks offered by J. Golden Kimball.
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)
xkcd *** wrote: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 wrote:Hehe, good points...Benvolio wrote:I take it, then, that there are no talks offered by J. Golden Kimball.
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)
This just reminds me of the way members judge investigators. If they don't seem like the standard, stereotypical LDS member, why fellowship them?Werf_Must wrote:xkcd *** wrote: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 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)
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.
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: This just reminds me of the way members judge investigators. If they don't seem like the standard, stereotypical LDS member, why fellowship them?
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.xkcd *** wrote:Good thing it's all up to the Lord, and not us.
SWKT Parachuter wrote: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: This just reminds me of the way members judge investigators. If they don't seem like the standard, stereotypical LDS member, why fellowship them?
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.xkcd *** wrote:Good thing it's all up to the Lord, and not us.