DiscussMormonism.com

Don't know if this has been discussed here, but BYU is doing a preemptive ban before there are overwhelmingly larger numbers of damning videos informing BYU students of church history and personal stories about others exit from the church.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252541,00.html

You may be correct, but the motives you have ascribed to the reason for of blocking You Tube are not the same as in the article. I am surprised you failed to note them doing so on direct orders of the Reptilians.

moksha wrote:You may be correct, but the motives you have ascribed to the reason for of blocking You Tube are not the same as in the article. I am surprised you failed to note them doing so on direct orders of the Reptilians.

Although I hold a reptilian conspiracy in the plausible but not probable realm (Haha) I do not see them paying any attention to teh Mormon church.

On the other hand, do you think Alpha Draconia is another word for Kolob?

But seriously...Bandwidth?

I know a great deal about bandwidth and this stinks of censorship.

VegasRefugee wrote:Don't know if this has been discussed here, but BYU is doing a preemptive ban before there are overwhelmingly larger numbers of damning videos informing BYU students of church history and personal stories about others exit from the church.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252541,00.html

BYU students don't have to watch video in order to know what's out there. The days of the church being able to protect the members from damning information are gone. Sound bite videos don't tell the whole story, anyway. A member has to really want to search out the foundation of church history in order to find the rest of the story (to quote Paul Harvey). Members are able to compartmentalize their faith away from critical thinking and logic, and this will continue, whether they are at BYU or elsewhere. Those that want to find out will find out. Those that don't won't. And BYU-in-loco-parentals will have no control over either.

Don't sweat it, Vegas. If the church is going to implode, it will implode. And then we will know once and for all that it is led by men who were so arrogant and enarmored with their power and unrighteous dominion they listened only to their own reason.

harmony wrote:
Don't sweat it, Vegas. If the church is going to implode, it will implode. And then we will know once and for all that it is led by men who were so arrogant and enarmored with their power and unrighteous dominion they listened only to their own reason.

Gee, in prior posts you maintain that you hold a current recommend and attend the temple. Given the questions that you must affirmatively answer to get that recommend, it seems to me that you are either being disingenuous with your bishop, or are lying to us about your recommend, or else lying to us about your feelings about the Brethren. Anyway you look at it, your argument seems weak.

rcrocket

rcrocket wrote:

harmony wrote:
Don't sweat it, Vegas. If the church is going to implode, it will implode. And then we will know once and for all that it is led by men who were so arrogant and enarmored with their power and unrighteous dominion they listened only to their own reason.

Gee, in prior posts you maintain that you hold a current recommend and attend the temple. Given the questions that you must affirmatively answer to get that recommend, it seems to me that you are either being disingenuous with your bishop, or are lying to us about your recommend, or else lying to us about your feelings about the Brethren. Anyway you look at it, your argument seems weak.

rcrocket

What argument? (Plu, we already had this discussion, remember? I am not required to like my leaders, not required to refrain from criticizing them. All I'm required to do is sustain them, personal feelings aside. And that I do. I do not, however, revere them, fawn over them, or agree with them when they do or say something stupid. I sustain them, much as I sustain the President of the United States, even when I disagree with him too).

VegasRefugee wrote:But seriously...Bandwidth?

I know a great deal about bandwidth and this stinks of censorship.

I agree that bandwidth is just a pretense. The article itself states:

Students can access Internet video through Google, which Jenkins said is more easily filtered than YouTube.

In fact there are many internet sites that allow video: msn soapbox, yahoo, AOL, metacafe, etc.

But if you're worried about censorship of uncomfortable information, I can vouch that there is plenty of it in BYU's Heber B. Lee Library. And if that isn't good enough, they can always go to the Provo City Library. If BYU is trying to censor anything, it's porn. Every year BYU bishops complain about that all-too-common issue.

Bottom line here is that BYU is a Mormon owned compound. You WILL obey their rules. By accepting their admission of you as a student, you are submitting yourself to their rules, which basically allows them to control every aspect of your secular and religious life, period.

The bandwidth argument is tenuous at best...to date BYU has never had a "press release" ban on PtoP networks, the single biggest bandwidth thief since COX cable.

More mind control for the "academic" masses.

I expect a GC ban on youtube come Easter.



ps Google actually owns Youtube.
pps What the hell was VEGAS doing on FOX news?!? (perhaps more alarming!)

Notoriuswun wrote:pps What the hell was VEGAS doing on FOX news?!? (perhaps more alarming!)

If you want to study communist propaganda you read Pravda.