Happy - start your day off right!

[timpin]

Can you tell me how to do that for next time?

 

I'm totally lost and confused. I can't seem to get it no matter how I try WITHOUT any attached Videos and/or Negative Comments the way I would like it. Help! ...

Thanks to everyone for trying to help - Zak, I don't know how you did it but that's the best unadulterated version I've seen so far - Thanks again All. 

[Greg Dent]

Dont worry about the comments be happy and watch it.

[Sheep]

Hhmmm. This is very interesting. This video is getting to be elusive. Each one uploaded has either gone private, or has been deleted.

 

If you go to the first post in this thread, and click on the video, it mentions a copyright issue with "Joe Bethelite." (Of course, that's a real name, isn't it?)

 

Well, at this moment there is another one posted on YouTube. We'll see how long that one lasts. (Download it while it's still there.)

[feather]

not surprising if it goes away soon,

  the Bethel waiter video didn't stay up very long either

[rocket]

The music and the video is copyrighted. YouTube is very strict on music.

[timpin]

in the meantime, a "Clean, Unadulterated" version, no unnecessary Trash attached - thanks to FW from MS ...

 

 The 'unofficial' Bethel tour!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NwsZkPSylEc&sns=fb?r...

Play

Happy at Bethel

m.youtube.com

Brothers and Sisters happy at Bethel.

 

 

It's hard not to like!

Edited January 31, 2015 by timpin

[Musky]

"FW" didn't want the the link to his video posted in other forums, so he removed it. 

[4th Generation]

I don't mean to put a wet blanket on this but, doesn't that guy Will Pharrell have some not very nice and rather ummm sexually immoral songs besides this one?

[trottigy]

I don't know. I haven't bought any of his albums and rarely listen to the radio, but this song seems fine. Is there something objectionable in it?

Edited February 1, 2015 by trottigy

[Luezette]

I found nothing objectionable in it. As far as the singer is concerned, while I'm not familiar with him, It cantruly be said that almost all songs contain immoral lyrics. That is why we must be careful what we listen to at all times. But why knock the artist him or herself, unless everything he or she sings is immoral? Take for instance the late great Etta James. She was great. Yet, a few of her songs, if really listened to, contains immorality. Then there's Sade. Oh my goodness...her voice, her band! But there's a few songs...you know the rest. This can go on and on like The Temptations, Tina Turner, Bruce Springsteen, Pit Bull...

We need to be selective yes, but keep it reasonable.

Just my thoughts.

[Brother_Bliss]

(Is this the right place to post this?)

 

Nope. 

 

JW Related Stuff Forum (public) = All JW related News and theocratic interests such as illustrations, stuff that encouragement junkies forward to one another, and items you want to share with brothers and sisters who are not necessarily members of JWTalk.

 

General Discussion (public) = No JW or theocratic related topics whatsoever (usually).

[Brother_Bliss]

Copy that link into a text editor, like "Notepad", etc. And then copy and paste it into the forum from that. This will remove the hyperlink that takes you to the YouTube website and allows our embedded player to play the video. 

 

Alternatively, in the editor, flip the switch to change to plain text mode, and then paste your link. You can then flip the switch back to the Advanced Editor and keep typing. (note, this only works on the web version, not the mobile version or tapatalk).

[Luezette]

Oh! Ok then. Please remove my post to the appropriate thread, if at all necessary. Thanks.

[Brother_Bliss]

I don't mean to put a wet blanket on this but, doesn't that guy Will Pharrell have some not very nice and rather ummm sexually immoral songs besides this one?

 

So what?

 

Just a song on it's own merits, not on the composer.

 

One of the great things about today's music scene is you can go and buy individual songs instead of having to buy the whole CD. 

[Brother_Bliss]

Oh! Ok then. Please remove my post to the appropriate thread, if at all necessary. Thanks.

 

You're good. I was quoting and replying to someone else in this thread.

[Luezette]

Oh!

[On the huh]

I did hear that this video has met with disapproval from the Branch. 

[Luezette]

I think that if it was disapproved, it would be published in the KM. Maybe it will later on. Who knows? But Jehovah, if he disapproves something and feels a particular something would adversely affect his organization he would definitely speak on it that's for sure! And we all know that Jehovah does not bite his words! Nor does he sugar coat! Why? Because he wants "exclusive devotion" and so anything that interferes with that devotion Jehovah would not stand for!

Therefore, if that video is truly not approved, we WILL hear about it.

[trottigy]

I think its better to see this the other way around. Things that ARE approved are what the slave writes about. They don't make lists of all the things they do NOT approve of.

In this case, this wasn't done by the branch or the Slave. They didn't "approve" of it in the first place. So, I seriously doubt anything will be written. However, if they didn't want it posted - then they will talk with the one or two who originally sent it out from Bethel.

edit: They may even ask JWTalk to remove the link. They have not - yet.

Edited February 1, 2015 by trottigy

[Stavro]

I think that if it was disapproved, it would be published in the KM.

 

When someone commits some wrongdoing in the congregation, they are corrected privately, with occasional non-specific warnings about the individual given depending on the severity.

 

If this video is disapproved, the same principle of private counsel would apply, they wouldn't call out the wrongdoing of these brothers and sisters in a national publication.

 

From what I've heard (I know one of the brothers in the video), the branch has been repeatedly asking YouTube to remove the video, but many well-meaning ones have been manually downloading it and re-uploading it to their own YouTube accounts, inadvertently fighting the efforts of the branch.

[Luezette]

Nooo, I didn't mean to imply that the brothers would actually call out, in print, those involved in the video. I'm very aware of the procedure of wrong doing. I was just simply saying that if it was wrong, then i think Jehovah would address it in general that's all. Maybe something like "such and such video is wrong" oh brother! So much for words. Anyway and that without names.

Well, I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Luezette

[Stavro]

I was just simply saying that if it was wrong, then i think Jehovah would address it in general that's all. Not individually.

 

But since the video is so well known, any official comment, even without names, would be publicizing the wrongdoing of these individuals.

 

Since we are not personally involved in the production or distribution of this video, we have committed no wrongdoing, so it would be improper for the slave to reveal confidential matters to us. And if we do redistribute the video, we're already committing legal wrongdoing, because the music and the video are copyrighted by others.

[Luezette]

Oh. Ok, I guess we all have personal view points on whatever as long as it doesn't clash with Jehovah's point.

I do like what you said about the legal aspect in particular. I've always wondered why I'm unable to download certain songs from youtube.

[JJMS]

I did hear that this video has met with disapproval from the Branch. 

And i agree with Branch on that...

 

i only heard about this video yesterday when my mother showed me and asked if its from FDS and if its ok to have it on her tablet...

I had answer to her the same thing as below: 

 

This guy , William Pharell is well known as a immoral man. And it is not right nor good to mix his music with images of theocratics ativity..

 

That was and still is my personal point of view about this video. 

[Sheep]

I think its better to see this the other way around. Things that ARE approved are what the slave writes about. They don't make lists of all the things they do NOT approve of. In this case, this wasn't done by the branch or the Slave. They didn't "approve" of it in the first place. So, I seriously doubt anything will be written. However, if they didn't want it posted - then they will talk with the one or two who originally sent it out from Bethel. edit: They may even ask JWTalk to remove the link. They have not - yet.

 

There was an announcement in a KM a few years ago about a CD of Kingdom songs in a pop style. It said the CD was not approved, or something to that effect. (I can't find the reference at the moment; maybe you remember the one I'm referring to.) I remember borrowing the CD from a sister in our congregation. She had been visiting the German bethel, and her tour guide had given it to her. Well, the branch never approved of that CD in the first place, but something was definitely written about it. However, each situation is different, and may call for different ways of handling it.