'Titanic' Backlash and the 'PG-13' Rating

[R.W. Rasband]

In sacrament meeting last Sunday, the high council speaker told us that
our stake president has asked us not to see the movie "Titanic", because
it promotes "non-covenant relationships" (possibly the young women of the
church might be seduced into the idea of preferring a fling with young
Leonardo to a temple marriage.) My own first reaction to this was that
"Titanic" is the most financially successful film of all time, so this
advice was a little like closing the barn door after the horse has run
off. But the point was made: "Titanic" is an unworthy film.
The high councillor then informed us that we should avoid all "PG-13"
movies. This was a new one on me, but I think I know the genesis of this
idea. A couple of months ago the "Deseret News" ran a series of articles
by the Oscar-winning LDS director Kieth Merrill (who also directed
"Legacy", of course.) He wrote that the MPAA ratings system is out of
whack; some PG-13 films (like "In & Out") are more objectionable than some
R-rated movies (my own example--"Schindler's List"). Merrill's point was
that the individual must make the decision of which movies to not see for
him or herself, and that the current ratings system is unreliable. So
apparently in some circles this has been interpreted as meaning that not
just all R-rated movies are evil, but also all PG-13 rated movies are
equally evil and to be avoided. In my opinion this misses Merrill's point
by a wide margin. Has anyone else encountered this "new" resistance to
"Titanic' and other PG-13 movies? (I haven't yet seen "Titanic" and have
no plans to do so, because in spite of the great special effects, it
sounds too similar to a Paperback Romance for me to enjoy it. But it
seems needlessly harsh to spoil the fun for pre-teen girls.)

R.W. Rasband
Heber City, UT
wh...@victoria.tc.ca

[Clarke Echols]

R.W. Rasband (wh...@victoria.tc.ca) wrote:
<snip>
: The high councillor then informed us that we should avoid all "PG-13"

: movies. This was a new one on me, but I think I know the genesis of this
: idea. A couple of months ago the "Deseret News" ran a series of articles
: by the Oscar-winning LDS director Kieth Merrill (who also directed
: "Legacy", of course.) He wrote that the MPAA ratings system is out of
: whack; some PG-13 films (like "In & Out") are more objectionable than some
: R-rated movies (my own example--"Schindler's List"). Merrill's point was
: that the individual must make the decision of which movies to not see for
: him or herself, and that the current ratings system is unreliable.

<snip>

Keith Merrill was on a mission in Denmark when I was there and spent
time in leadership positions. I admire his work in the industry.
"Legacy" was a crowning achievement, but it is obvious he was right in
saying that "Legacy" had an unseen director as well; he was only an
instrument in the process.

Several years ago I spent some long hours talking about Hollywood and
the entertainment industry with Collin Cantwell (listed in the credits
for "Star Wars") while he was working as a consultant for my employer.
He designed the space ships in Star Wars and also worked on Close
Encounters of the Third Kind and other movies as well. In the course of
those conversations, it became very apparent that the entire industry is
driven by greed and immorality. Nowhere is this more apparent than in
recent activities in the Disney companies. Walt would not have
tolerated the focus on profit at the expense of goodness.

I do not patronize the "big hits" for the simple reason that I detest
the greed for money without responsibility of moral rectitude. My
employer has a policy of promoting diversity toward people whose private
behaviors offend me, even to the point of advertising their social-group
activities in company newsletters under the guise of support groups.
My wife has seen the movie multiple times, as have my children. Some
things I cannot stop, but when I can I will not participate in padding
their pocket-books.

A former stake president in our area spoke in stake conference and
advised members to avoid PG movies, stating that "PG" meand "Plenty of
Garbage" (in reference to "Bless the Beasts and Children", a movie I
know little about).

We are to be the salt of the earth. We cannot do our job if we
are contaminated by the things of the world. If we ask ourselves
the stern question, "What would Jesus do?", it might cause us to
avoid a lot of things we rationalize ("rational lies"). President
Hinkley avoids eating in restaurants, preferring fast food; not
because of the menu, but because there is much of importance that we
should be doing. If we spent more time influencing others for good
(have you done your home/visiting teaching, your missionary work, your
genealogy?) and less time being entertained, the work would go a lot
faster, and we are still accountable for our use of time on Judgement
Day.

We know what's right. We just like to bend the rules. And Satan,
knowing that, leads us carefully down the path to ruin if we are
the least bit unwary.

Clarke

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to R.W. Rasband (wh...@victoria.tc.ca) having written:
[snip]

>equally evil and to be avoided. In my opinion this misses Merrill's point
>by a wide margin. Has anyone else encountered this "new" resistance to
>"Titanic' and other PG-13 movies? (I haven't yet seen "Titanic" and have

I can understand this person's suggestion that Titanic be avoided. It's
the story of a couple of morally bankrupt kids who are in the middle of
a tragic accident. The film itself didn't make me a better person for
seeing it. Much of the actual historical details were ignored, dramatized
or downplayed for a bunch of fabricated garbage. And it is the number one
moneymaker/most "sure" trend of late. (Sure there are other films, but
this one made a lasting impression upon a lot of people, by its pretense
of something virtuous.)

So it qualifies, in my mind, as something to be targetted. Perhaps a
stake president might equally say Don't go see the latest trendy moneymaking
flick from Hollywood, but then that would probably go in one ear and out
the other. By focussing on Titanic, at least you remembered the comment.

Now rather than nitpicking at the detail, let's try and understand the
actual message being communicated... in so doing, you'll catch the Spirit
of the message... (Why does this discussion remind me of the whole Word
of Wisdom discussion that never seems to die in this newsgroup?)

Best regards,

--
************************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) * "The meek shall inherit the earth, *
*********************************** and the bank shall reposess it." *
* 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion ***************** -- Sawyer Brown ***
*********************************** (from Cafe on the Corner)

[ASprin7926]

In article <6mr9md$rld$1...@supernews.com>, "R.W. Rasband" <wh...@victoria.tc.ca>
writes:

> Has anyone else encountered this "new" resistance to
>"Titanic' and other PG-13 movies? (I haven't yet seen "Titanic" and have

>no plans to do so, because in spite of the great special effects, it
>sounds too similar to a Paperback Romance for me to enjoy it. But it
>seems needlessly harsh to spoil the fun for pre-teen girls.)

It's my understanding that 'Titanic' has a nude scene, not just an implied
"fling scene". I don't think pre-teen girls need to find their fun in seeing
nude sex scenes...it goes against everything the church stands for,
doesn't it?
Dru

[Sandi]

R.W. Rasband wrote:

> Has anyone else encountered this "new" resistance to
> "Titanic' and other PG-13 movies? (I haven't yet seen "Titanic" and have
> no plans to do so, because in spite of the great special effects, it
> sounds too similar to a Paperback Romance for me to enjoy it. But it
> seems needlessly harsh to spoil the fun for pre-teen girls.)
>

We have. People in our ward are talking about it like crazy. And yes we have
seen it. But if I had known about the nudity I never would have gone. The
leadership hasn't actually come out and said not to see it, that I know of,
but a lot of people are saying it. We had a discussion with our 13yo daughter
afterward and came to the conclusion that we shouldn't watch PG-13 movies. As
a result we are having to do away with a good volume of our accumulated
videos. (She is a dino freak and we have both JP movies and many others) I
just wish these movies could be made without all the vulgarity. It would
still make for a wonderful flick.

--
Sandi * "A true friend loves you even when you act like yourself"
***************************************************************

[Eric Olson]

Sandi <san...@geocities.com> writes:
>but a lot of people are saying it. We had a discussion with our 13yo daughter
>afterward and came to the conclusion that we shouldn't watch PG-13 movies. As
>a result we are having to do away with a good volume of our accumulated
>videos.

Doesn't that seem a little extreme? Why is it that we Mormons seem to have
such an overwhelming desire to create these hard and fast, pharisaical rules
all the time, when a little personal discretion and case-by-case applied
wisdom would do just nicely?

I can't help but feel sorry for all those poor Mormons outside the United
States -- outside the jurisdiction of the MPAA -- who are going to be going to
hell now for watching all these "evil" movies. God Bless America and the
MPAA! What would we ever do without them and their ratings system? Hmmmm --
maybe we would actually have to think for ourselves!

Just my (slightly sarcastic) 2 cents.

Eric

[Randy & Teyana Reynolds]

R.W. Rasband wrote:
>
> In sacrament meeting last Sunday, the high council speaker told us that
> our stake president has asked us not to see the movie "Titanic", because
> it promotes "non-covenant relationships" (possibly the young women of the
> church might be seduced into the idea of preferring a fling with young
> Leonardo to a temple marriage.)

This is long...but worth it...please read it all.

Titanic is one of my favorite movies of all time. Yes, there is a nude
scene where you see a woman's chest. Someone had wrote in another
article that it was a sex nude scene. He did not have sex with her until
later (that was wrong also...they should have been married...I agree).
I am a big art fanatic. I know the difference between art and
pornography. Women have the most beautiful shape ever seen by the human
eye (opinion). It is not shameful to see her in art form. Rose's
portrait was not seductive, it was deep and thoughtful. Very different
than porno. If a woman's breast causes a man to get excited no matter
what form it is in then he shouldn't be looking at it. But if it causes
one to reflect on beauty and awe-inspiring work then let it. Hundreds
of universities in the US have are classes where you draw live nude
art. There is nothing wrong with that. Many members I know take
classes like that and their testimony has not faltered. It is wrong to
have sexual relations with people before marriage. I don't like to see
it in movies. Titanic showed a love scene but didn't show the actions.
They showed before and after. Not during. Yes, you can still think about
what is going on. But you don't see it. There are worst pg13 movies
out there than Titanic if you are worried about sex. This is why I
understand we shouldn't watch pg13 at all.
During the real Titanic wreck years ago there were some real, true,
love stories that happened. A woman that was pregnant sailed that ship
with her new husband. They were on their way home to the US to share
the pregnancy with family and friends. Of course the husband had died.
Even more real stories exist about that fascinating ship and the love
that was shared therein.
The movie "Medicine Man" was about a doctor who went to another country
to find a cure for cancer. He worked with the aboriginees (sp?). They
were naked. You saw womens chest bouncing around everywhere. Did I
hear complaints from anyone? No. Why? Could it be because that is
their culture? That is their background? They grew up that way? They
don't know any better? I don't know.
This movie Titanic had excellent history and background mixed with a
wonderful story about true love (which is hard to come by these days),
compassion, self-lessness and more. If I recall, one of the most
special moments was when the musicians played "Nearer my God to Thee".
At the end of the movie they showed Rose and Jack getting back together
again. All of their friends and loved ones were there. What did that
show? LIFE AFTER DEATH? I left that movie more inspired and touched
than I do when I leave church (as of lately). I don't agree with 2
scenes in the whole movie but the rest of the movie has been done so
well to bring history and love together.

> (But it

> seems needlessly harsh to spoil the fun for pre-teen girls.)

Pre-Teen girls mean under 13 which means they shouldn't be there anyway
unless an adult was with them.

I am surprised that one stake president said "Do not watch PG 13 movies
anymore" but the rest of the church is still watching it and hasn't been
told not to. If the Stake President tells you not to do something
PERIOD!!! than that should be considered a commandment. So why is the
rest of the church not involved with this commandment? If he said "I
suggest you don't watch pg13 movies anymore" that is different. He is
warning you but not commanding you. I walked out of PG13 movies
before. I will continue to do so if I find something offensive. If the
Prophet tells me not to watch them, then I won't. I don't watch R
movies at all...no matter how much I want to. This church is too full
of everyone's opionions we don't even know what is actual docrine
anymore. Should I wear dresses all day on Sunday? Should I not have a
picnic with my family after church on Sunday? Should I not drink hot
chocolate? and more. The Church is getting more and more confusing.
But if you stick with the real Doctrines of the gospel and not follow
opinions than it is not confusing. We have free agency. We have the
ability to say "I won't watch Titanic because of the nude scene". So
on...I have had to repent of things in my lifetime like everyone
else...But watching Titanic isn't one of them.
Teyana Reynolds
Phoenix, AZ

The above statements are my personal opinion only. If I offend anyone I
am sorry and I hope if I am wrong someone has the courage to tell me. I
may be on the wrong path leading away from Heavenly Father. I need
someone to tell me.
--
Are you looking for a special gift that will
remind them you care? Visit Basket Bloomers!
Gourmet gift baskets for all occasions...
*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*
http://home.earthlink.net/~teyana

[df...@my-dejanews.com]

[Moderator's Note: We need to get this thread back on target for the
group. Please consider this in your replies. dn]

In article <6ms11m$4pe$1...@supernews.com>,
Sandi <san...@geocities.com> wrote:

>
>
> R.W. Rasband wrote:
>
>
> We have. People in our ward are talking about it like crazy. And yes we have
> seen it. But if I had known about the nudity I never would have gone. The

yourself"
> ***************************************************************

We have also seen this movie, but were spared the nude seen as we live in the
United Arab Emirates, where such things are edited out of the movies. One of
the benefits of living in a Moslem country is that we are not subjected to
such things in movies, newspapers, magazines, etc.

>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Randy & Teyana Reynolds (tey...@earthlink.net) having written:
[snip]

>Titanic is one of my favorite movies of all time. Yes, there is a nude

Perhaps this is exactly why it has received such attention, because
LDS people who have (or should have) high moral standards are embracing
something which communicates a number of very morally bankrupt ideas.

Sure there were moments of "virtue", but the overall examples of the
FICTIONAL characters in the film were taudry and devoid of moral
fortitude. In a lot of ways we are all on a "sinking ship", do we all
just go awol and follow our baser desires? The point is that there is
more to the story than what we saw onscreen. There is a life after
death, and even if you're going to die, living by your moral standards
to the VERY END is an essential part of life.

>scene where you see a woman's chest. Someone had wrote in another
>article that it was a sex nude scene. He did not have sex with her until
>later (that was wrong also...they should have been married...I agree).

I was actually very disappointed in the "love scene", especially by
the comments in the movie, it distracted from the story, and was in
my mind, evidence that some audience members aren't happy unless they
know for certain that the characters had sex. Personally it's that
type of message that really really bothers me. You don't HAVE to
have sex to show a strong bond of love.

As for the "nude scene", would you like your own daughter posing for
a young man, no matter how artistic it is? Especially alone in a
room and it is known that the two are infatuated with one another?
That's just ASKING for a moral problem. So if you wouldn't allow your
daughter such, why in the world is this film "one of your favorites"?

Now let's take this one notch further. What if the story had been
about two young men who fall in love and then die tragically on the
Titanic? Would the story have been your favorite then? What if
there was no sex or nude scene, but intstead it was full of homosexual
yearnings and innuendos. I can bet you wouldn't find the story AT ALL
appealing. Clearly that's immoral in your mind, even if there had been
LESS flesh, it wouldn't have mattered. But immorality is just as
tragic when it is a man and a woman, yet somehow we've got a high
tolerance for such sins... To me it seems incredibly hypocritical.

>I am a big art fanatic. I know the difference between art and

I am an amateur artist. And I still found the story to be morally
bankrupt and the messages to be cheap at best and disparaging at
worst.

[snip]

>than porno. If a woman's breast causes a man to get excited no matter
>what form it is in then he shouldn't be looking at it. But if it causes

But that wasn't the ONLY message being communicated. I'm not one to freak
out about seeing another woman's breasts. Heck, I could draw them all day
if I wanted... But there were a number of messages being communicated in
it, including the "thrill" of cheating on one's husband. And you can't
tell me the experience was not "sexual", the main character admits it
was the most "erotic" experience of her life. Heck, the whole audience
laughed at her comments and the reaction of those listening to her recount
the tale, so yes, in a very real way it was pornography.

Furthermore, because it was PG-13 a younger audience is exposed to these
things in a very erotic and sensual way. Thus lowering the standard by
what is considered acceptable in the ratings of stuff we see.

[snip]

>what is going on. But you don't see it. There are worst pg13 movies
>out there than Titanic if you are worried about sex. This is why I
>understand we shouldn't watch pg13 at all.

The most sexual organ on the body is not the genitals, but the mind.

[snip]

> The movie "Medicine Man" was about a doctor who went to another country
>to find a cure for cancer. He worked with the aboriginees (sp?). They
>were naked. You saw womens chest bouncing around everywhere. Did I
>hear complaints from anyone? No. Why? Could it be because that is
>their culture? That is their background? They grew up that way? They
>don't know any better? I don't know.

I never saw it, though I thought this was rated R. Since I don't go
see Rated R films, I can't comment on this one... Further, is nudity
acceptable to LDS, no matter what the lifestyle? Not hardly! That's
one reason why we wear a garment. If a member of that culture were to
join the church, they would be expected to start wearing clothes...

> This movie Titanic had excellent history and background mixed with a
>wonderful story about true love (which is hard to come by these days),

Actually, from what I've read, much of the actual human parts of the
story were only sketchily true at best. For example, there's no evidence
that the poor people were LOCKED in the lower decks of the ship, that was
the director's embellishment to add dramatic effect. If I were to seek
an accurate historical account, I don't think I'd recommend Titanic. Sure
it looked good, but the actual story centralized on pure fiction.

Heck, for the length of the film, most of the actual historical details
and events that actually occurred were cut from the film. The film was
meant as entertainment to a carnal world.

[snip]

>again. All of their friends and loved ones were there. What did that
>show? LIFE AFTER DEATH? I left that movie more inspired and touched

But the consequences of their actions was never shown... consequences
which are significant...

[snip]

>I am surprised that one stake president said "Do not watch PG 13 movies
>anymore" but the rest of the church is still watching it and hasn't been
>told not to. If the Stake President tells you not to do something
>PERIOD!!! than that should be considered a commandment. So why is the
>rest of the church not involved with this commandment? If he said "I
>suggest you don't watch pg13 movies anymore" that is different. He is
>warning you but not commanding you. I walked out of PG13 movies

The great irony in this is that had the stake president said "Don't go
see PG-13 or R rated movies" it would have gone in one ear and out the
other. It was only because the specific film title "Titanic" got
mentioned that this is now a "hot topic". Personally I applaud the
Stake president for singling it out, not because this film is that much
worse than any other PG-13 film, but because it draws attention to something
we mistakenly revere and forces us to open our eyes and draw our standards
to a more stringent level.

I saw Titanic, and at first I didn't think it was all that contraversial.
I watched it, I was able to endure the "bad scenes" and try to pull out the
special warm fuzzies. But I've since thought a lot about my own personal
reaction. I find myself too tolerant of filth. I must confess I wouldn't
recommend the film to anyone, and after closer, more thoughtful inspection
(after the hype wore off) I found that I'd bought into a big flashy, good
looking, special effects, piece of dung. I admit I'm easily drawn into
the hype, and I have to admit that I'm not proud of that part of my nature.

[snip comments about a confusing church]

Agreed. We do tend to make church way too complicated... :-)

>But if you stick with the real Doctrines of the gospel and not follow
>opinions than it is not confusing. We have free agency. We have the
>ability to say "I won't watch Titanic because of the nude scene". So
>on...I have had to repent of things in my lifetime like everyone
>else...But watching Titanic isn't one of them.

I'm glad that for you it wasn't something you viewed as necessary of
repentance. I think for myself personally, it was. Furthermore I
recognize in myself a much more serious problem, which is my own attraction
to things carnal. As a saint, I am to push away such influences, but
far too often I find myself justifying the natural man inside of me.
Laughing at the dirty joke, enjoying the dirty movie and enjoying the
titillation, when such things are a dead end street, spiritually. I
can only speak for myself, but I am beginning to understand that if I
am to make myself a better person, eventually some of these worldly
influences will have to go... I will have to sacrifice some of those
things carnal to allow for greater things spiritual.

>The above statements are my personal opinion only. If I offend anyone I
>am sorry and I hope if I am wrong someone has the courage to tell me. I
>may be on the wrong path leading away from Heavenly Father. I need
>someone to tell me.

Likewise the same applies to my comments. I appreciate any correction. I
don't take offense at people who respectfully disagree with me, and no
doubt there are a good many who won't find such things as spiritually
unfulfilling as I did. My comments, if they seemed like a personal
attack, I apologize, such was not the intention, your opinion is very
much a common one, and one that I, at one time, shared. The arguments,
made above, are, therefore, arguments I made against myself and comments
I have told myself in my own personal struggle with who I am... So
apologies if it is offensive or too extreme.

My best regards,

[E. Mark Ping]

In article <6mtg3o$20b$1...@supernews.com>,

Eric Olson <olso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Sandi <san...@geocities.com> writes:
>>but a lot of people are saying it. We had a discussion with our 13yo daughter
>>afterward and came to the conclusion that we shouldn't watch PG-13 movies. As
>>a result we are having to do away with a good volume of our accumulated
>>videos.

>Doesn't that seem a little extreme? Why is it that we Mormons seem to
>have such an overwhelming desire to create these hard and fast,
>pharisaical rules all the time, when a little personal discretion and
>case-by-case applied wisdom would do just nicely?

One of the most important roles of the rating system is to inform us so
that we can use our personal discretion. Looks to me like the original
poster has used that discretion to not see PG-13 movies. See, the problem
with judging on a "case-by-case" basis, is that to judge it, you have to
see the movie. Oops! You can't decide afterwards not to watch the movie.
That's the purpose of the MPAA ratings. However, if it has been shown that
some PG-13 go beyond the bounds of what you will accept, then not seeing
PG-13 movies simply means that the rating may include things you don't want
to see.

After "Mars Attacks" and now "Titanic", I too have decided that PG-13
movies are not for me.

>I can't help but feel sorry for all those poor Mormons outside the United
>States -- outside the jurisdiction of the MPAA -- who are going to be
>going to hell now for watching all these "evil" movies. God Bless America
>and the MPAA! What would we ever do without them and their ratings
>system? Hmmmm -- maybe we would actually have to think for ourselves!

You know, of course, that other countries have equivalent organizations
which rate movies, right? You know that they exist to help provide
information about the movie so that we can make an informed decision as to
whether or not to see a movie? Sounds like Sandi has, in fact, used her
own mind and thought for herself--to the degree of making a decision which
involves ridding her house of material she now deems inappropriate.

Or are you simply advocating that we must experience anything before we
make a decision about whether it is good or not?
--
| "If hard data were the filtering criterion
Mark Ping | you could fit the entire contents of the
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU | Internet on a floppy disk."
| - Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope Tells All

[Jon Noring]

In article ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) writes:

>The great irony in this is that had the stake president said "Don't go
>see PG-13 or R rated movies" it would have gone in one ear and out the
>other.

For a few years I attended Edina Baptist Church, a very well-known, and
overall quite moderate independent Baptist church in Minnesota. The pastor
there, Dr. Ricker (who had close ties to Dallas Theological Seminary, the
bastion of Baptist "intellectualism", which is very heavy into logical and
rational analysis *assuming* the inerrancy of Scripture) was overall a very
moderate voice in an otherwise very conservative denomination. After all,
Baptists tend to eschew things that even Mormons allow, such as dancing,
playing cards, etc. They will drink coke and coffee, but no alcohol. You
Mormons think you have it rough -- just join a hard-core Baptist church
sometime and your lifestyle will *really* get restricted. :^) No more
bridge, no more dancing, etc (and you'll get to just as many meetings,
especially the infamous Wednesday night prayer meetings.) Actually, I don't
know how the LDS would survive without being allowed to dance. :^) (Do
devout LDS play bridge?) Of course, as they often say among the Baptist
faithful, "dancing is a vertical expression of a horizontal desire", so a
Mormon convert to the Baptist faith will quickly get used to it -- they're
well trained, even better than Mormons, in how to avoid sin. But I digress.

Anyway, during a sermon once on movies, Dr. Ricker made it plain that he
will personally never watch a secular movie that is rated even PG. His
reasoning is that if it isn't good enough for your children to watch, you
should not watch it. Of course, I disagreed with him on this, for reasons I
won't get into here, and obviously today really disagree with him as my
religious views have liberalized. But it shows that the argument over
appropriate movies and movie ratings is not restricted to the LDS religion
but is discussed in most conservative Christian denominations.

It is also my observation that except for theology and Church government
(two biggies of course), there's very little difference in life practice
between the LDS and the Fundamentalist faithful with regards to family,
personal conduct, etc. When I visit my devout LDS neighbors, if I didn't
know they were LDS, I'd swear (oops, wrong word) that I just visited one of
my Baptist friends back in Minnesota. Even the women dress and wear their
hair similarly, and hold similar views on family, child rearing, the
subordinate role of the wife, etc. Mr. Bingham alludes to the difficulty of
living a chaste life -- this is clearly not restricted to the LDS faithful --
most of the conservative Baptist people I know would make Mr. Bingham's angst
pale in comparison. And Baptists fervently teach "freedom in Christ", but
get around that by saying "don't do anything that will make your weaker
brother/sister stumble in their Christian walk", so they end up in legalism
even if they don't have to. That's the primary reason for no dancing, no
alcohol and no card-playing among conservative Baptists (except Uno, that's
acceptable because the cards can't be used for gambling games) because even
though the "New Covenant" now allows these things, we should not do anything
which will make a weaker believer stumble. So much for freedom in Christ.

Sound familiar? :^)

Jon Noring

--
_____________________________________________________________________________
OmniMedia Digital Publishing | Web: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
South Jordan, UT 84095 | Phone: 801-253-4037
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Brent]

Raymond Bingham wrote:

> I was actually very disappointed in the "love scene", especially by
> the comments in the movie, it distracted from the story, and was in
> my mind, evidence that some audience members aren't happy unless they
> know for certain that the characters had sex. Personally it's that
> type of message that really really bothers me. You don't HAVE to
> have sex to show a strong bond of love.

Absolutely right. AND Mr. Cameron could have EASILY shot around the nudity in the sketching
scene. But that wasn't the ONLY message being communicated. I'm not one to freak

> . But there were a number of messages being communicated in
> it, including the "thrill" of cheating on one's husband.

I guess I missed the part when Kate Winslow married Billy Zane.

> Actually, from what I've read, much of the actual human parts of the
> story were only sketchily true at best. For example, there's no evidence
> that the poor people were LOCKED in the lower decks of the ship, that was
> the director's embellishment to add dramatic effect. If I were to seek
> an accurate historical account, I don't think I'd recommend Titanic. Sure
> it looked good, but the actual story centralized on pure fiction.

The STORY was a STORY. Yep, made up. BUT THE FACTS IS THE FACTS. ROV expeditions to the
Titanic found stowage door LOCKED. I've seen the video. The drunken baker DID ride the ship
in. The ship sank. Differing accounts disagree on whether or not shots were fired at the life
boats. What Mr. Cameron did was work very hard to get the best historical view possible, then
put an entertaining story to it.

And he does.

And lots of people are jealous. And other's suffer from the desire to be "cooly detached" and
make fun of what "everyone else with LOW taste" is seeing.

> Heck, for the length of the film, most of the actual historical details
> and events that actually occurred were cut from the film.

Did we see the same Titanic? Molly Brown. JJ Astor. Gugenheim. The nature and consequence of
Titanics design and accident?

What pressing matters of history were overlooked? The lack of enough life boats--no. The
launching of less than full boats--no. The fact that most victims FROZE to death in the
water--no. The timeline of events--no. The passengers and crews inability to comprehend the
ship was sinking--no.

> The film was
> meant as entertainment to a carnal world.
>

Yes, it was entertaining.

> But the consequences of their actions was never shown...

What rotting in Hell for fornication? Or accepting the gospel on the other side and the YM/YW
from the Boulder 3rd ward doing thier proxy work?

> The great irony in this is that had the stake president said "Don't go
> see PG-13 or R rated movies" it would have gone in one ear and out the
> other. It was only because the specific film title "Titanic" got
> mentioned that this is now a "hot topic". Personally I applaud the
> Stake president for singling it out, not because this film is that much
> worse than any other PG-13 film, but because it draws attention to something
> we mistakenly revere and forces us to open our eyes and draw our standards
> to a more stringent level.

What about "Dr. Doolitte" now opening with Eddie Murphy? PG-13?Or what about the frightening
Rap Music (75% of which is purchased by WHITE suburban teens?)
Or Heavy Metal?

The really scary thing is that we come to point where we say:

"I kept my child from seeing Titanic. I'm a good parent. I'm soooo good that I'm driving him
to and from the Marilyn Mason concert so I can be part of that experience."

Or

"My child never saw Titanic--he was too busy at the DOOM/QUAKE conference."

Or

"My kid will NEVER see that nasty Titanic...now did you see what Laura did to Larry on 'One Live
to Live'?"

Isn't what Satan really wants is to get us to the point where we don't worry about what we
do...we worry that we aren't being told what to do?

(does that make sense?)

Best,

Brent

[Eric Olson]

E. Mark Ping writes:
>One of the most important roles of the rating system is to inform us so
>that we can use our personal discretion. Looks to me like the original
>poster has used that discretion to not see PG-13 movies. See, the problem
>with judging on a "case-by-case" basis, is that to judge it, you have to
>see the movie.

[snip]

>Or are you simply advocating that we must experience anything before we
>make a decision about whether it is good or not?

Not at all. My point was definitely _not_ to say that we have to
experience everything for ourselves. I for one have no intention of shooting
up with heroin, going to a strip club, or shooting into a schoolyard with an
assault rifle. My point was simply that in our church we seem to have a
tendency to like to throw the proverbial "baby out with the bathwater." This
shows up in a variety of contexts -- the current movie issue, the Word of
Wisdom, and "appropriate" Sabbath-day activities immediately come to mind.

Back on the movie issue: we have many sources of information regarding movies
(and television programs) in our society that are quite independent of the
MPAA ratings system. There are lots of ways to find out about the content of
movies we might be interested in. I just think it a bit strange that the
previous poster would throw out her entire collection of PG-13 videos (which
she apparently had deemed "worthy" of viewing previously) after deciding in a
rather blanket-like manner that _no_ PG-13 movies are fit for viewing (in her
family). I have no idea what movies are involved there, and it is very
possible that they all deserve the "circular file," but on the off chance that
there was at least one PG-13 video with known redeeming qualities, couldn't it
get a stay of execution? :)

I just think it's a little funny how legalistic we can get. To illustrate my
point, I remember several years ago when the movie "The Joy Luck Club" was in
theaters. The movie was officially rated "R" (why? I have no idea -- I
heartily recommend it as a heartwarming, pro-family-values film) but one
theater in Berkeley had the rating listed as PG-13. I don't know if you
remember this, Mark, but there was quite a debate among the LDS students
regarding whether or not it was o.k. to see the "PG-13" version (which was no
different from the "R" version). There were quite a few people who were
unwilling to see it in a theater where it was listed as "R," but who had no
problem seeing it at the "PG-13" theater. It didn't make much sense to me
then, and still doesn't now.

Eric

[Paul Blanch]

My suggestion to all is to do a little research before going to a movie.
The rating system does not seem to do very much in preparing to view a
movie. I have found an interesting web site which details many movies
www.screenit.com. If you don't want to know the plot, then don't read the
plot section. I usually go to the parts which describe how many of each of
the profane words are used (including taking the name of God in vane). It
also describes if there are any sex/nude scenes, jump scenes (if it would
cause children to jump in there seat), immitative behavior, etc. etc.

I don't have it in front of me right now, but PG-13 and PG movies have been
mentioned in General Conference. If anyone wants the references, I will
post it the next chance I get to go look it up. Basically the Apostles and
General Authorities have been discussing movies since the early 1900's.
This is not a new topic.

Just to sum up my point....Do research before going, especially if you have
kids you are going to take to a movie. If your research proves that you can
justify watching a particular movie, then fine...go watch it (Make sure your
justification is made in light of what the prophets and apostles have said,
as well as what is in the scriptures)

Paul
Euless, TX

[Paul Blanch]

Here are couple quotes from conference which I promised in another post.
There are many more, but these 4 give the basic idea...

Pioneers of the Future: Be Not Afraid, Only Believe
President James E. Faust (October 1997)

My dear brethren, all of us, young and old, must constantly guard
against the enticements of Satan. These evil influences come to us like
tidal waves. We must choose wisely the books and magazines we read, the
movies we see, and how we use modern technology, such as the Internet.

Standing for Truth and Right
Elder M. Russell Ballard (October 1997)

Many of you young men of the Aaronic Priesthood may find yourself on
the front line of a battle against those who intend to do things that are
morally wrong. I do not believe that you can stand for truth and right while
wearing anything that is unbecoming one who holds the priesthood of God. To
me, it is impossible to maintain the Spirit of the Lord while listening to
music or watching movies or videos that celebrate evil thoughts and use
vulgar language.

"Touch Not The Evil Gift, Nor The Unclean Thing"
Elder H. Burke Peterson (October 1993)

Again I say, leave it alone. Turn it off, walk away from it, burn it, erase
it, destroy it. I know it is hard counsel we give when we say movies that
are R-rated, and many with PG-13 ratings, are produced by satanic
influences. Our standards should not be dictated by the rating system. I
repeat, because of what they really represent, these types of movies, music,
tapes, etc. serve the purposes of the author of all darkness.

Purify Our Minds And Spirits
Bishop H. Burke Peterson (October 1980)

Now, brethren of the priesthood, there should not be any X-or R-rated
movies that we participate in viewing or talking about. There must be no
pornographic magazines, pictures, or stories, no re-telling of filthy jokes
or crude experiences. Once in a while we should stop and ask ourselves, "In
whose army are we fighting? Whose battle lines are we defending. Do you have
the courage to walk out of an off-color PG-rated movie--or do you watch and
listen, and suggest to yourself, "This soon will pass," or "Everyone is
doing it; it must be an acceptable type of entertainment"? Have you the
courage to keep out of your home some television shows that are filled with
suggestive sexual conversation--and even experiences? Have you thought
lately how effective these shows are in piercing even the strongest spirits?
Brethren, we must not feed ourselves a diet of trash!

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Brent (bjm...@micron.net) having written:
[snip]

>The STORY was a STORY. Yep, made up. BUT THE FACTS IS THE FACTS. ROV expeditions to the
>Titanic found stowage door LOCKED. I've seen the video. The drunken baker DID ride the ship
>in. The ship sank. Differing accounts disagree on whether or not shots were fired at the life
>boats. What Mr. Cameron did was work very hard to get the best historical view possible, then
>put an entertaining story to it.
>And he does.
>And lots of people are jealous. And other's suffer from the desire to be "cooly detached" and
>make fun of what "everyone else with LOW taste" is seeing.

I'm not going to argue with you about the virtues of this film. I don't
think there were many, and after careful inspection I found the stories
being communicated to have very little to do with the Gospel. It was a
distraction at best, and I really didn't need it in my life.

Suppose you took ten gallons of lemonade and put one tablespoon of fresh
greasy green dung in it. Mix it up. Now how many volunteers do you think
you will get to drink it? Sure you probably couldn't even taste the waste
in it, but people don't commonly consume dung for very good reasons. Now
suppose that we took a teaspoon of something with botchelism(sp?) or rat
poisoning and tried to pass it off? (Heh, hasn't this been done in other
religions? :-)

My point is that for me there were elements in the movie that were poisonous
to my soul. Perhaps you've built up a tolerance to filth, and if so, then
it probably didn't make you any worse for the experience. But such was not
the case for me. The overall effect was not one of spiritual growth and I
was disturbed by the messages being communicated.

If you were friends with Jesus, is it a film you'd invite him to come see
in your home?

[snip]

>> But the consequences of their actions was never shown...

>What rotting in Hell for fornication? Or accepting the gospel on the
>other side and the YM/YW from the Boulder 3rd ward doing thier proxy work?

I wonder if you genuinely believe that all it takes for a person who's lived
a life full of carnal whimsy to just up and accept their temple work and all's
well in Zion? Is it any wonder that youth have difficulty comprehending
repentance and the hard road for those that abuse the Law of Chastity. After
all, in the church either they transgress, go apostate and we never see them
again, thus out of sight out of mind, or they are there among us, enjoying
our fellowship and soon are bearing their testimonies along with the rest of
the congregation.

What is not witnessed are the long nights and days on one's knees pleading
for forgiveness. Do Spirits need to repent? I think so... and from what I
understand from prophetic utterings it's not quite the cakewalk you make it
out to be, especially for a disembodied spirit.

[snip]

> What about "Dr. Doolitte" now opening with Eddie Murphy? PG-13?
>Or what about the frightening
>Rap Music (75% of which is purchased by WHITE suburban teens?)
>Or Heavy Metal?

One thing at a time. The point is that the Stake President doesn't have
time or ability to mention all the things that might be spiritually
corrosive, if one can establish that there are extremely trendy things
in our society which many of us find acceptable, but God doesn't, then
we can start to get into the habit of watching what we allow into our
minds and homes.

>The really scary thing is that we come to point where we say:

>"I kept my child from seeing Titanic. I'm a good parent. I'm soooo good
>that I'm driving him to and from the Marilyn Mason concert so I can be
>part of that experience."

Certainly there is a concern of such a thing, but I think you're completely
missing the point. The point is that if we are sensitive to things like
Titanic, then these other things should be nobrainers.

Further I think there is value in setting a standard which is high, so that
children can make discretionary choices, some of which may be questionable,
but not nearly as questionable as if the parents had an "Anything Goes, as
long as they go to church." attitude.

[snip]

>Isn't what Satan really wants is to get us to the point where we don't
>worry about what we
>do...we worry that we aren't being told what to do?
>(does that make sense?)

Sure that's part of it. But this isn't an all or nothing type of
issue. Satan WANTS you to Go see Titanic. He WANTS you to stare at
Kate's perky nipples. He wants you to come away thinking that it was
a great film with a blushable part here or there. And he wants you
to think there's no harm in it. He wants you to think you're sophisticated
He wants you to defend your decision to see it. And he wants you to get
all defensive about it, maybe even call your stake president a conservative,
out of touch, loon.

There's a lot at stake, and I think the last thing we need to worry
about is becoming mindless sheep (at least mindless sheep to God, though
Satan probably has a taste for mutton), though Satan sure would like that
too...

Best regards,

[David Bowie]

Jon Noring wrote in message <6munba$chn$1...@supernews.com>...

<snip>

:...And Baptists fervently teach "freedom in Christ", but

:get around that by saying "don't do anything that will make your weaker
:brother/sister stumble in their Christian walk", so they end up in
:legalism even if they don't have to. That's the primary reason for no
:dancing, no alcohol and no card-playing among conservative Baptists
:(except Uno, that's acceptable because the cards can't be used for

:gambling games)...

<mid-sentence snip>

Apparently you've never played Uno the *right* way. ;-)

More seriously, though, although many Mormons believe that face cards are
evil, i would say that most Mormons would, at core, disagree with what is
presented here as the (i would say it's more correct to say it's *a*)
Baptist rationale for not playing with face cards.

Whereas the Baptist rationale presented above is a safeguard for all others,
i would argue that Mormons are much more likely to focus on whether
something has the potential to lead the individual doing the
card-playing/movie-watching/whatever into sin.

David, now listening to the Waitresses' "Thinking about sex again"
--
Remove the % from my e-mail address to reply
David Bowie http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu PhD student in Sociolinguistics
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!

[Sandi]

Eric Olson wrote:

> Doesn't that seem a little extreme? Why is it that we Mormons seem to have
> such an overwhelming desire to create these hard and fast, pharisaical rules
> all the time, when a little personal discretion and case-by-case applied
> wisdom would do just nicely?
>

maybe it is extreme but when we had our discussion we gave her the choice. SHE is
the one who decided that if we don't watch one movie because of the content, and
thus the rating, that we don't watch any of them. I agree that we could take care
of it on a case by case basis but our daughter made her decision and we are going
to back her up on it now matter how difficult it may be for us to do.

[Sandi]

Eric Olson wrote:

> Back on the movie issue: we have many sources of information regarding movies
> (and television programs) in our society that are quite independent of the
> MPAA ratings system. There are lots of ways to find out about the content of
> movies we might be interested in. I just think it a bit strange that the
> previous poster would throw out her entire collection of PG-13 videos (which
> she apparently had deemed "worthy" of viewing previously) after deciding in a
> rather blanket-like manner that _no_ PG-13 movies are fit for viewing (in her
> family). I have no idea what movies are involved there, and it is very
> possible that they all deserve the "circular file," but on the off chance that
> there was at least one PG-13 video with known redeeming qualities, couldn't it
> get a stay of execution? :)
>

Like I said before, it wasn't my decision. I am trying to teach my daughter to
live up to her principles. (I may not have done anything else right in raising
her but I have given her a decent set of morals) Sure some of the movies we own
we previously thought were ok. But when my daughter makes her mind up about
something like this she sticks to it. She won't watch ANY PG13 movie now because
she has decided that they are becoming way below her standards. I don't think I
could get her to change her mind and keep even one of them. And further I
wouldn't want to. I am proud that she has decided to do this. Sure it could have
been something worse she was giving up but to her it is important to do and I am
going to support her in it.

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Jon Noring (nor...@netcom.com) having written:

>In article ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) writes:

[snip]

>especially the infamous Wednesday night prayer meetings.) Actually, I don't
>know how the LDS would survive without being allowed to dance. :^) (Do
>devout LDS play bridge?) Of course, as they often say among the Baptist
>faithful, "dancing is a vertical expression of a horizontal desire", so a
>Mormon convert to the Baptist faith will quickly get used to it -- they're
>well trained, even better than Mormons, in how to avoid sin. But I digress.

Well I agree there are forms of dance which are inappropriate for LDS as
well. They have chapperones at LDS dances to enforce certain standards,
and as in most things there always seems to be a "sinful" version.

But I certainly wouldn't consider it sinful when Mommy, my 19 month old
daughter and 1 month old daughter and myself all dance in a circle to a good
country song. It's more of a celebration of life...

I grew up in a family that never played with face cards, though we did
play Uno. I also was allowed to play roleplaying games, but I knew other
LDS parents that didn't want their children playing them. The only
complaints my parents had about them was that we spent an awful lot of
time playing them, when we could be doing things like "homework" or "yardwork"
or "chores". We did have a rule, no roleplaying on Sunday. I still
enjoy a good card game, or roleplaying game (though I have to admit it's
been a long while since I've had the pleasure).

>Anyway, during a sermon once on movies, Dr. Ricker made it plain that he
>will personally never watch a secular movie that is rated even PG. His

Well, at that point a lot of LDS simply just don't bother with movies. Heck,
it's not like you HAVE to have movies. People got along fine without them
before Hollywood, though I'm sure that's not a popular notion in Hollywood.
:-)

[snip Baptist stuff...]

This type of thing has always been a concern of those that try to live a
set of moral standards. Even within the LDS church, a religion which
believes in freedom of choice as the most precious gift God has given us,
LDS struggle with where government and culture and choice all interplay.
Suppose I have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, then if laws existed
which severly restricted the access to alcohol I would probably be safer
than if alcohol were served with every meal and at every restaurant.
Suppose I have a genetic/hormonal predisposition to some form of sexual
addiction? Then the rampant publication of sex trades might be very
dangerous to me and my own freedom. Laws that restricted such things might
help me in overcoming that.

I think we're seeing some interesting things in legal cases now, where
people are claiming to be victims of tobacco companies targetting them
with an addictive substance. And the government is pandering to these
people, because smoking is a hot health topic these days. One has to
wonder, will beer companies be someday targetted for their agressive
peddling campaigns to youth. Could an argument be made against the
sex trade that they prey upon certain types of people, with a genetic
weakness for their materials?

Anyhow it's an interesting issue, and I'm not saying that one thing's
better than another. I do tend to believe that there will come a day
when we will have to actively choose to not partake of garbage in all
its forms, because society will make garbage legal in all its forms.
LDS try to encourage people in making these choices for themselves, but
when people don't respond, and we slip in our own tollerances toward
sin becomes too great, occasionally we get wakeup calls...

My comments were mostly observations in my own life as to my own personal
choice to try and become a more pure person. I'm not advocating we
try a legal ban of such things, as much as in my own personal life, I'm
trying to figure how I can deal with things.

This also brings up an interesting issue. I've noticed that whenever you
state a personal weakness or practice which seems overly conservative that
a lot of people take that as a threat, as though they are suddenly being
judged. That's hard, because that also keeps the person trying to improve
thier own life from improving, due to pressure from one's friends to remain
the same. If I were to declare tomorrow that I wasn't going to go see any
more PG-13 movies, I can garantee that I'd have certain friends take offense
at it, and argue with me about it. They'd feel threatened by my decision
and I admit I would feel pressure to repeal the decision, just to accomodate
them. I have to wonder if we're all "accomodating" each other to hell...

Just a question, I'm curious as to what others think...

Best regards,

[Ann Porter]

>This also brings up an interesting issue. I've noticed that whenever you
>state a personal weakness or practice which seems overly conservative that
>a lot of people take that as a threat, as though they are suddenly being
>judged. That's hard, because that also keeps the person trying to improve
>thier own life from improving, due to pressure from one's friends to remain
>the same. If I were to declare tomorrow that I wasn't going to go see any
>more PG-13 movies, I can garantee that I'd have certain friends take
offense
>at it, and argue with me about it. They'd feel threatened by my decision
>and I admit I would feel pressure to repeal the decision, just to
accomodate
>them. I have to wonder if we're all "accomodating" each other to hell...

Hope the snip's not too big. My experience with this is VERY similar,
though it was in a very different context - mine was drinking. I'm a
convert (11+ years now) and prior to my conversion I acquired quite a taste
for alcohol. (I've had a couple of uncles die of alcohol related illness at
fairly young ages, so perhaps my taste wasn't ENTIRELY acquired. But I
digress). In any case, many many people who didn't even know me prior to
conversion were very annoyed by my refusal to drink. These included
co-workers and my (now ex-) husband. It got to be a kind of contest - "What
can we do to get her to drink?" I really tried not to be dogmatic about my
abstinence - I phrased it along the lines "It's something I've committed to
God not to do," instead of the "alcohol is a tool of the devil and you're
all going to hell" approach, but that didn't seem to matter.

In the original context (movies) I think Sandi's daughter's decision not to
watch PG-13 movies is commendable. It's not a decision I would necessarily
make, but now that she HAS made that decision, she only needs to make it
once. She doesn't need to make it over and over again (and find herself
rationalizing things that she knows in her heart aren't right.) I think
it's usually better to just draw a line and not cross it, rather than move
the line depending on the circumstances.

Best,
Ann

[E. Mark Ping]

In article <6n01h1$fpj$1...@supernews.com>,

Eric Olson <olso...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>My point was simply that in our church we seem to have a tendency to like
>to throw the proverbial "baby out with the bathwater." This shows up in a
>variety of contexts -- the current movie issue, the Word of Wisdom, and
>"appropriate" Sabbath-day activities immediately come to mind.

Last I heard, movies were not a life need. I even know people who have
never seen "Star Wars" and have survived to tell the tale ;). Sure, movies
are fun, but if they march into a moral grey area, what redeeming quality
can they have?

>Back on the movie issue: we have many sources of information regarding
>movies (and television programs) in our society that are quite independent
>of the MPAA ratings system. There are lots of ways to find out about the
>content of movies we might be interested in. I just think it a bit
>strange that the previous poster would throw out her entire collection of
>PG-13 videos (which she apparently had deemed "worthy" of viewing
>previously) after deciding in a rather blanket-like manner that _no_ PG-13
>movies are fit for viewing (in her family). I have no idea what movies
>are involved there, and it is very possible that they all deserve the
>"circular file," but on the off chance that there was at least one PG-13
>video with known redeeming qualities, couldn't it get a stay of execution?

Apparantly not. It appears to me that the family rethought their viewing
choices, and decided on an action that felt right. I can't argue against
that.

What we don't know, but which would be interesting, is an answer from Sandi
about your question. I would like to know if they had second thoughts
about any movies that they might want to keep, and how that was resolved.

>I just think it's a little funny how legalistic we can get. To illustrate
>my point, I remember several years ago when the movie "The Joy Luck Club"
>was in theaters. The movie was officially rated "R" (why? I have no idea
>-- I heartily recommend it as a heartwarming, pro-family-values film) but
>one theater in Berkeley had the rating listed as PG-13. I don't know if
>you remember this, Mark, but there was quite a debate among the LDS
>students regarding whether or not it was o.k. to see the "PG-13" version
>(which was no different from the "R" version). There were quite a few
>people who were unwilling to see it in a theater where it was listed as
>"R," but who had no problem seeing it at the "PG-13" theater. It didn't
>make much sense to me then, and still doesn't now.

Well, I really can't comment on that issue specifically. I believe that I
was on my mission in South America when the movie came out. That doesn't
make sense to me either, though.

[Eric Olson]

Raymond Bingham writes:
>I'm not going to argue with you about the virtues of this film. I don't
>think there were many, and after careful inspection I found the stories
>being communicated to have very little to do with the Gospel. It was a
>distraction at best, and I really didn't need it in my life.

I would assume that on this same logic, you never watch football, basketball,
or play golf? You know, football encourages violent behavior in young men,
and professional sports all advocate (by implication) that it's o.k. to
violate the Sabbath -- as long as you're making enough money. And don't even
get me started on hunting and fishing! ;-)

Of course I am being sarcastic again. Not _everything_ in this life has to be
lifted out of a Sunday School manual. Many things we enjoy in life are there
for the pure enjoyment of being distracted from the stresses of our day-to-day
life.

Not that I advocate the movie that started this thread, however. I personally
didn't really like "Titanic" -- it had horrible writing and acting (except for
Gloria Stewart). I feel that I got what I paid for it (I saw it for free at a
screening at Paramount Studios in Hollywood). I even advised my younger
sister _not_ to take her newly-returned-missionary boyfriend to see it,
specifically citing the much-discussed nude scene.

Eric

[Clarke Echols]

Ann Porter (a...@cprplus.com) wrote:
: >This also brings up an interesting issue. I've noticed that whenever you

: >state a personal weakness or practice which seems overly conservative that
: >a lot of people take that as a threat, as though they are suddenly being
: >judged. That's hard, because that also keeps the person trying to improve
: >thier own life from improving, due to pressure from one's friends to remain
: >the same. If I were to declare tomorrow that I wasn't going to go see any
: >more PG-13 movies, I can garantee that I'd have certain friends take
: offense
: >at it, and argue with me about it. They'd feel threatened by my decision
: >and I admit I would feel pressure to repeal the decision, just to
: accomodate
: >them. I have to wonder if we're all "accomodating" each other to hell...

: Hope the snip's not too big. My experience with this is VERY similar,

: though it was in a very different context - mine was drinking. I'm a
: convert (11+ years now) and prior to my conversion I acquired quite a taste
: for alcohol. (I've had a couple of uncles die of alcohol related illness at
: fairly young ages, so perhaps my taste wasn't ENTIRELY acquired. But I
: digress). In any case, many many people who didn't even know me prior to
: conversion were very annoyed by my refusal to drink. These included
: co-workers and my (now ex-) husband. It got to be a kind of contest - "What
: can we do to get her to drink?" I really tried not to be dogmatic about my
: abstinence - I phrased it along the lines "It's something I've committed to

: God not to do," instead of the "alcohol is a tool of the devil and you're
: all going to hell" approach, but that didn't seem to matter.

>From a much broader perspective, what's the problem/principle behind
all of the discussion? We know the entertaiment industry is driving
by unmitigated greed for financial compensation in large amounts. We
know the same is true of the tobacco and spiritous beverages industry.
So why do so many "have" to see something with a "PG", "PG-13", or "R"
rating (or "NR" for that matter)?

We cave in to peer pressure because we lose sight of why we're here in
the first place.

I have friends who are multi-multi-millionaires. Some have little or no
college; some didn't even finish high school. I met a man in Nashville
a few years ago driving a luxury coach that today would cost about a
million bucks. He dropped out of the sixth grade. His prinicple in the
local school condemned him for not getting an education like his brother
and sister. So how does he afford the coach? When he moved from
Missouri to California, he was functionally illiterate. Now his
brother, sister, and mother run his company while he plays on the
profits.

I have other friends who are college graduates. Some live or have
lived in half-way/rehabilitation houses for alcoholics. Some are
or were on welfare. Some make a pitiful living; others are doing OK.

The only differences lie ***IN HOW THEY THINK***!!!

The person whose thoughts are centered on end results, whether they be
physical/financial or spiritual, will accomplish more in life and in
eternity than will those who live for present pleasures, a paycheck on
Friday, FACing at the local bar, or two weeks' vacation for good
behavior each year.

The reason for avoiding chemicals, drugs, tobacco, etc. is because we
forfeit freedom if we don't; addiction, broken homes, broken lives,
broken marriages, broken careers. The reason we should avoid
undesirable entertainment is because of its influence on our mind.

BUT MOST OF ALL, THESE ALL COST ********TIME*******!

Time that is better spent in helping others, buiding family
relationships in a wholesome environment, doing genealogical
research, temple work, home/visiting teaching, scripture study,
and a myriad of wholesome and useful things that have eternal
reward instead of a mere short-term physical pleasure.

Sir Walter Raleigh once said, "A man must first govern himself ere he is
fit to govern a family; and his family ere he be fit to bear the
government of the commonwealth." We can apply that to our own lives and
eternal future: "A man (or woman) must first govern himself ere he is
fit to govern a family; and his family ere he be fit to bear the
government of the heavens." We cannot become gods unless we master
self, and part of self-mastery is learning to discard pleasant
activities for more important things.

Clarke

Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. No endorsement by my
employer should be inferred.

[Randy & Teyana Reynolds]

Hello all,
I posted a few days ago about my views on the Titanic movie. According
to psychologists many people lash out with opinions, anger and hurt
without really knowing what is bothering them. That is why so many
divorces occur. We speak before we think. In my situation I may have
done just that. I still really enjoy the movie "Titanic" and I always
will (I guess). But this is what is really bothering me deep inside my
heart.
1. In France R ratings are because of violence not nudity.
2. In France you watch nudity on regular tv broadcasting.
3. My opinion of what is wrong is very different than my
husbands, friends, family etc.
4. Everyone's opinion is different.
5. Christ won the war against Satan because He chose to allow
free agency and the ability to think for ourselves.
(this doesn't bother me...it makes me very happy)
6. My husband will never ever look at the breasts of any other
woman. Even if we are in the hospital looking at baby
photos and how women breastfeed etc. He will not look.
That is his choice. Breasts don't bother me. Maybe
because I am a woman. If I saw a nude man that would be
a different story.
My main complaint is that when mormons (I am one) get up in church and
say "Don't watch PG-13 movies" as a commandment it bothers me because it
is taking away freedom of choice. If the Prophet said the same thing I
would do it. But it would still be a choice for me. I have a strong
opinion about the Prophet. Whatever he says goes...goes. If members of
the church get up and say "I believe this movie isn't good to watch
because of..." then I will choose for myself to follow their opinion or
not. I think nudity in movies is bad. I also believe that there are
still some excellent PG13 movies out with no problem like that at all.
I have just noticed lately that everyone has been preaching opinions
instead of doctrine and then judging the rest of the world by those
opinions. Many other countries have nude signs everywhere. So should
we get all the Mormons out of those countries so they aren't "tempted"
by just driving down the street? No. Why? Because we all have the
ability to choose for ourselves what is right and wrong. What turns you
on may have a completely different effect on me. Free agency is what it
is all about and I feel like we are loosing it.

[ASprin7926]

In article <6mu71d$7rt$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham)
writes:

>The great irony in this is that had the stake president said "Don't go
>see PG-13 or R rated movies" it would have gone in one ear and out the
>other. It was only because the specific film title "Titanic" got
>mentioned that this is now a "hot topic". Personally I applaud the
>Stake president for singling it out, not because this film is that much
>worse than any other PG-13 film, but because it draws attention to something
>we mistakenly revere and forces us to open our eyes and draw our standards
>to a more stringent level.

Our stake president was seen coming out of Titanic by one of our youth.
He is a wonderful man, and he turned to the young man from our ward and
publicly apologized to him because the boy saw him coming out of Titanic.
He told this young man that he should never have gone to see it, and that he
was sorry that the youth had had to see him. The stake president clearly
felt that seeing Titanic had compromised his integrity.
What I'm seeing in this thread is a lot of people trying to justify themselves.
I'm thankful for a stake president who doesn't do that. He is one of the wisest
people I've ever known.
I agree that we are so accustomed to trash that we accept it as normal. This
is diametrically opposed to the church's teachings. We are to be in the
world, but not of it. When we buy into Hollywood, we draw further away from
the church. And we humans are so very good at justifying ourselves when
it comes to satisfying our own 'entertainment needs', aren't we?

[TSquare]

Eric Olson wrote:

I just think it's a little funny how legalistic we can get. To illustrate my
point, I remember several years ago when the movie "The Joy Luck Club" was in

> theaters. The movie was officially rated "R" (why? I have no idea -- I
> heartily recommend it as a heartwarming, pro-family-values film) but one
> theater in Berkeley had the rating listed as PG-13. I don't know if you
> remember this, Mark, but there was quite a debate among the LDS students
> regarding whether or not it was o.k. to see the "PG-13" version (which was no
> different from the "R" version). There were quite a few people who were
> unwilling to see it in a theater where it was listed as "R," but who had no
> problem seeing it at the "PG-13" theater. It didn't make much sense to me
> then, and still doesn't now.

I find this to be a fascinating thing about our church. Even though I personally
believe our religion clearly falls on the side of using our own judgement, "let
the spirit be our guide", "not be commanded in all things", etc., etc., I believe
the majority of us members really in fact don't want to live that way. We want
the prophet to tell us what movie to watch, what drug is ok to consume or what
kind of sex is permissible. We really don't want those decisions for ourselves. I
had a good friend that was addicted to prescription painkillers. He had no
problem rationalizing abusing these drugs as long as a doctor had prescribed
them, but when I asked what the difference was between abusing a prescribed drug
and one that was bought in some alley, well, clearly one was okay because it was
legal. I think this particular aspect of how our brain works is just fascinating.
We will feel guilty because someone tells us we should (I wonder how many are
feeling guilty now about Titanic since this discussion came up, but didn't
before) but not because what we are doing is clearly wrong (the example of the
person abusing the prescription drugs). What I do love about our church is that
it seems to allow this kind of diversity---some can watch Titanic and come out of
it only thinking about the virtue of the movie, and some walk out of it only
remembering the immorality of it all. Do I expect to find both of these people in
the Celestial Kingdom? Gosh, I hope so or I'm going to need a good book.

[TSquare]

Raymond Bingham wrote:

> I'm not going to argue with you about the virtues of this film. I don't
> think there were many, and after careful inspection I found the stories
> being communicated to have very little to do with the Gospel. It was a
> distraction at best, and I really didn't need it in my life.

Alright! Alright! I confess! I worked all day in the yard and it didn't have anything to do with
the gospel!

[Rob Pannoni]

E. Mark Ping wrote:
>
> Last I heard, movies were not a life need. I even know people who have
> never seen "Star Wars" and have survived to tell the tale ;). Sure, movies
> are fun, but if they march into a moral grey area, what redeeming quality
> can they have?
>

Perhaps if you assume that all moview are strictly for entertainment
value this make sense. But what about movies with serious themes or
that are intended as works of art? Would you say that only art that
deals with uplifting themes deserves to exist? That would exclude
nearly everything in classical literature. Shakespeare, for instance,
wrote about murder, adultry, incest and all sorts of sordid themes. Yet
Shakespeare was specifically mentioned as a model for mormon authors by
Spencer Kimball in a speech lamenting the fact that there were no
enduring works of mormon art on par with classical art. If you ban
nudity as well, then you can also eliminate a good portion of classical
painting and sculpture. Must we ban the classics from our lives to be
faithful church members?

Art can inspire in many ways, including being thought-provoking (which
moralistic art rarely is). Nudity notwithstanding, I would much rather
have my kids (ages 9 and 12) watch Schindler's List than practically any
of the dreck that's on TV. I'm not at all suggesting that Titanic
qualifies as great art. I'm just wondering about the implications of
the standard you suggested.

--Rob Pannoni

[Rob Pannoni]

Raymond Bingham wrote:
>
> As for the "nude scene", would you like your own daughter posing for
> a young man, no matter how artistic it is? Especially alone in a
> room and it is known that the two are infatuated with one another?
> That's just ASKING for a moral problem. So if you wouldn't allow your
> daughter such, why in the world is this film "one of your favorites"?
>

I admire your desire to surround yourself with uplifting things, but
this line of reasoning seems a bit silly to me. IT'S A MOVIE. It's not
real life. Would you refuse to watch a movie about a bank robbery
because you wouldn't personally rob a bank? Would you be afraid that it
might make you want to rob a bank?

We're told to be "IN the world, but not OF the world." But I think a
lot of church members are trying to keep their kids OUT of the world. I
work with at-risk kids by profession and I'm painfully aware of the
negative influence that media can have. But media permeates our society
beyond anything we can hope to control. The reality is that our kids
live in a world where not everyone lives up to LDS standards. Kids need
to learn to deal with this fact. Clearly, there's no reason to go out
of your way to immerse yourself or your kids in bad examples. But
trying to completely shelter kids from these influences is, frankly, a
lost cause. As mormons, if that's our primary strategy for helping kids
keep high standards, then I think our kids are in great danger.

>From my exerience, a more effective strategy is to teach kids to think
critically about what they see in the media. To innoculate them, so to
speak, so they are less-inclined to to accept the media messages. If we
can teach our kids to clearly see themselves as being different from the
people they see in the media, then seeing how other people live won't be
so threating.

--Rob

[Hedgehog]

In article <6muhis$2ks$1...@supernews.com>, ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (E.
Mark Ping) wrote:

> See, the problem
> with judging on a "case-by-case" basis, is that to judge it, you have to

> see the movie. Oops! You can't decide afterwards not to watch the movie.

Interesting. So what has happened to the Mormon emphasis on free agency?
Forget movies, just consider real life. For example, one day a hooker
opened her blouse and flashed her breasts at me as I drove by. I suppose
that means that all Mormons ought to have their eyes gouged out so they
won't accidentally see any of the little ugly episodes of life.

I think a better approach for Mormons is to actually listen to Jesus
rather than trying to teach Jesus.

Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make
clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full
of extortion and excess.

Mr 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can
defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that
defile the man.

Refusing to see PG-13 films is dangerous because it gives us the false
illusion that we have eliminated the problem when the problem was never up
there on the movie screen but always within our own hearts. Don't waste
effort worrying about the dirty outside world when the true dangers are
spiritual.

> Or are you simply advocating that we must experience anything before we
> make a decision about whether it is good or not?

Yep. See 2 Nephi 2:11.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6munba$chn$1...@supernews.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:

> After all,
> Baptists tend to eschew things that even Mormons allow, such as dancing,
> playing cards, etc. They will drink coke and coffee, but no alcohol. You
> Mormons think you have it rough -- just join a hard-core Baptist church
> sometime and your lifestyle will *really* get restricted. :^) No more
> bridge, no more dancing, etc (and you'll get to just as many meetings,

> especially the infamous Wednesday night prayer meetings.) Actually, I don't
> know how the LDS would survive without being allowed to dance. :^) (Do
> devout LDS play bridge?)

Intriguing. I am neither Baptist nor Mormon and I don't play Bridge (or
Poker). I don't dance. I do drink cokes and on rare occasions tea, but
not coffee. I don't drink alcohol except in cough syrups and similar
medicines. Also I don't wear jewelry. I do watch movies although my
grandparents tended to disapprove of all movies. I do eat meat although
all of my grandparents were strict vegetarians. I don't think either
Baptists or Mormons have any restrictions to scare me with.

> But it shows that the argument over
> appropriate movies and movie ratings is not restricted to the LDS religion
> but is discussed in most conservative Christian denominations.

I don't think anyone here suggested that it was restricted to LDS
believers. In fact, I think that conservative Catholics, Mormons, and
Baptists would all tend to like the same movies.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6n0vn1$3qj$1...@supernews.com>, olso...@earthlink.net (Eric
Olson) wrote:

> Not _everything_ in this life has to be
> lifted out of a Sunday School manual. Many things we enjoy in life are there
> for the pure enjoyment of being distracted from the stresses of our
day-to-day
> life.

See 2 Nephi 2:25 for example:

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6n068f$ctr$1...@supernews.com>, "Paul Blanch" <psm...@nstar.net>
wrote:

> Here are couple quotes from conference which I promised in another post.
> There are many more, but these 4 give the basic idea...
>
> Pioneers of the Future: Be Not Afraid, Only Believe
> President James E. Faust (October 1997)
>
> My dear brethren, all of us, young and old, must constantly guard
> against the enticements of Satan. These evil influences come to us like
> tidal waves. We must choose wisely the books and magazines we read, the
> movies we see, and how we use modern technology, such as the Internet.

The Internet?!?! That's cutting pretty close to home. ;)

I have no problems with the advice to choose wisely. I simply have qualms
when someone suggests that the way to choose wisely is to rely on the MPAA
ratings.

The Bible says:

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are
defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and
conscience is defiled.

Recently I just finished reading Gunther Grass' The Tin Drum. It is
widely considered to be the best novel written in Germany since WWII.
Since Faust advises to choose one's books carefully, how do Mormons feel
about The Tin Drum?

Even more recently I finished reading The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million
Years of Human Sexual Culture. It is an anthropology book with an
emphasis on how certain archeological artifacts relate both to our own
sexuality and to the sexuality of those who created the artifacts. Would
Mormons not read this book?

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6n18f8$fnk$1...@supernews.com>, aspri...@aol.com (ASprin7926) wrote:

> Our stake president was seen coming out of Titanic by one of our youth.
> He is a wonderful man, and he turned to the young man from our ward and
> publicly apologized to him because the boy saw him coming out of Titanic.

Maybe I am in a particularly cynical mood today, but I wonder how many
other "questionable" movies this man saw without getting caught and not
having to apologize.

It just seems to me that this man must have known the rating of Titanic
before he bought the tickets and so he apparently has no general rule for
himself about avoiding PG 13 films.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6mr9md$rld$1...@supernews.com>, "R.W. Rasband"
<wh...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

> The high councillor then informed us that we should avoid all "PG-13"
> movies.

Interesting. What ratings of television shows are acceptable?

If I became a Mormon and happened to travel to Europe should I avoid
looking at Michaelangelo's David or the Venus de Milo?

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6mrtlg$k95$1...@supernews.com>, cla...@fc.hp.com (Clarke Echols) wrote:

> In the course of
> those conversations, it became very apparent that the entire industry is
> driven by greed and immorality. Nowhere is this more apparent than in
> recent activities in the Disney companies. Walt would not have
> tolerated the focus on profit at the expense of goodness.

Are Mormons uncomfortable in viewing Fantasia because of the sexuality and
alcoholism portrayed in a light comical fashion? Isn't good old Uncle
Walt ultimately responsible for Fantasia?

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6mu71d$7rt$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

> Now let's take this one notch further. What if the story had been
> about two young men who fall in love and then die tragically on the
> Titanic? Would the story have been your favorite then? What if
> there was no sex or nude scene, but intstead it was full of homosexual
> yearnings and innuendos.

Why is this considered to be a "notch further"? Are mere homosexual
yearnings even when not acted upon now considered by the LDS Church a more
heinous sin than actual fornication of heterosexuals?

> I can bet you wouldn't find the story AT ALL
> appealing.

Do Mormons find the Bible to be morally offensive? Consider for example
how King David murdered a man in order to cover up his acts of adultery.
Leonardo Di Caprio's character is actually morally superior to that of
some Biblical characters.

> Clearly that's immoral in your mind, even if there had been
> LESS flesh, it wouldn't have mattered.

Interesting.

> To me it seems incredibly hypocritical.

Just as in Luke 7:39 the actions of Jesus seemed hypocritical to the Pharisee.

> The most sexual organ on the body is not the genitals, but the mind.

Then you should understand that a person can engage in an adulterous orgy
even while locked in a solitary confinement cell.

> Actually, from what I've read, much of the actual human parts of the
> story were only sketchily true at best. For example, there's no evidence
> that the poor people were LOCKED in the lower decks of the ship, that was
> the director's embellishment to add dramatic effect.

Interesting. So a Mormon would avoid reading or seeing the plays of
Shakespeare because they are not 100% historically accurate?

> But the consequences of their actions was never shown... consequences
> which are significant...

Mormon morality always seems to me to be obsessed with quid pro quos. The
young man who seduced the girl died of hypothermia and yet that isn't
enough.

Do Mormons tend to feel that Oedipus Rex suffered sufficiently or is
Sophocles also an immoral author whom Mormons tend to avoid?

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Ann Porter]

>Why is this considered to be a "notch further"? Are mere homosexual
>yearnings even when not acted upon now considered by the LDS Church a more
>heinous sin than actual fornication of heterosexuals?

Gosh I hope not. You'd never know that to attend some of our meetings
sometimes, though.

Sexual sin is sexual sin. The context isn't relevant.

Best,
Ann

[Bill Polhemus]

Hedgehog wrote:

> In article <6mu71d$7rt$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:
>
> > Now let's take this one notch further. What if the story had been
> > about two young men who fall in love and then die tragically on the
> > Titanic? Would the story have been your favorite then? What if
> > there was no sex or nude scene, but intstead it was full of homosexual
> > yearnings and innuendos.
>

> Why is this considered to be a "notch further"? Are mere homosexual
> yearnings even when not acted upon now considered by the LDS Church a more
> heinous sin than actual fornication of heterosexuals?

When I was a young adolescent, and just beginning to get an idea of the meaning of
these things, a young couple in their late teens or early twenties in our ward, "got
into trouble." They were not strictly obedient to the teachings they had been
taught, and she became pregnant.

It was a very traumatic thing for them and for their families, for those were the
days when there was still, thankfully, some stigma attached to such situations.

Nevertheless, they were counselled to repent, and to marry so as to make a home for
the child. This they did, and though it was a rocky start, they eventually were
able to make a firm family foundation. They later entered the temple with their
children and were sealed together forever. What could have been a stark tragedy had
a lovely, happy ending. It was a wonderful example of the miracle of forgiveness.

Now, cast your thoughts to the implications of such a liaison between to males, for
example. Would the story have turned out similarly? I think not.

Would the restitution for offense against God and Church have included an eternal
bond between the two? That is ludicrous.

To those who like to imply that, somehow, homosexual expressions are on the same
footing as heterosexual fornication, I like to think back to this example from my
own experience, and I realize that they are worlds apart.

Fornication between a man and a woman is a misuse of the procreative instincts that
are rightly reserved for marriage. However, the same acts between a man and a woman
who are legally and lawfully married are not only permissible, but are sacred and
holy beyond expression.

There is nothing potentially sacred or holy or in any way, shape or form edifying in
homosexual acts. Not in the eyes of God, and not in the reckoning of the Church.

[Bill Polhemus]

[Moderator's Note: This discussion has the potential to start into
personal attacks; please avoid drawing conclusions
about your opponents as people based on your
disagreement with posts they make to this group]

Hedgehog wrote:

> Do Mormons find the Bible to be morally offensive? Consider for example
> how King David murdered a man in order to cover up his acts of adultery.
> Leonardo Di Caprio's character is actually morally superior to that of
> some Biblical characters.

So you consider that the acts of king David in this regard serve as an example of
what TO do?

Or is it that you tout "Titanic" as a morality play, and that we are to come away
from it cognizant of the negative consequences of fornication?

You'll quickly see that the answer to both questions is "no."

> > Actually, from what I've read, much of the actual human parts of the
> > story were only sketchily true at best. For example, there's no evidence
> > that the poor people were LOCKED in the lower decks of the ship, that was
> > the director's embellishment to add dramatic effect.
>
> Interesting. So a Mormon would avoid reading or seeing the plays of
> Shakespeare because they are not 100% historically accurate?

Shakespeare is not ever been presented as history, so far as I know.

However, and sadly, in this day and time such events as depicted in "Titanic", or
"Amistad," or "JFK", no matter how blatantly fabricated, are taken as historic
truth. They are studied in classrooms as just that, and this fact adds to the power
of agendized Hollywood directors to put forth their own versions of "truth," for a
poorly-informed public who are not able to make critical judgements to the contrary.

More than half-a-century of liberal harp-string-plucking has seen to that.

> > But the consequences of their actions was never shown... consequences
> > which are significant...
>
> Mormon morality always seems to me to be obsessed with quid pro quos. The
> young man who seduced the girl died of hypothermia and yet that isn't
> enough.

So he died of hypothermia BECAUSE he had elicit sexual relations with the girl?

I don't think even a "bloodthirsty Mormon" would dare to suggest that.

Is it not true that it could have shown DiCaprio's character making this gallant
sacrifice, WITHOUT the benefit of having screwed the lady? The sex was merely a
gratuitous effect, calculated to titillate adolescent girls' already-overheated
fantasies. In our day and time, the guy's GOTTA do her, or it just ain't "love."

> Do Mormons tend to feel that Oedipus Rex suffered sufficiently or is
> Sophocles also an immoral author whom Mormons tend to avoid?

Oedipus put out his own eyes as a result of having learned the magnitude of his
immoral act. It is cause and effect. Rough justice was served.

The only cause to which the effect was the demise of DiCaprio's character, was
winning the stupid passage on the stupid ship to begin with. He could have made his
"heroic sacrifice" without having stuck it to her, that you must admit.

[Bill Polhemus]

Hedgehog wrote:

> If I became a Mormon and happened to travel to Europe should I avoid
> looking at Michaelangelo's David or the Venus de Milo?

Q1: What is the purpose of existence of David and of the Venus de Milo?

Q2: What is the purpose of the gratuitous sex scene in "Titanic," and of the
glorification of the young woman's cuckolding of her fiance?

[Bill Polhemus]

Hedgehog wrote:

> Are Mormons uncomfortable in viewing Fantasia because of the sexuality and
> alcoholism portrayed in a light comical fashion? Isn't good old Uncle
> Walt ultimately responsible for Fantasia?

You might be interested to know that there are quite a few conservative Christians,
including some LDS, who are not all that enthralled with Disney legacy. Ol' Walt
was a notorious agnostic, and much of that comes out in his films.

That's to say NOTHING of the antics of the present-day Walt Disney Corporation.

[df...@my-dejanews.com]

[Moderator's Note: Please make sure replies deal directly with
Mormon-oriented issues]

> If I became a Mormon and happened to travel to Europe should I avoid
> looking at Michaelangelo's David or the Venus de Milo?
>

> Peace,
> Hedgehog
>
>

I work with people who have at one time or another taught high school in
various areas of Africa. One friend in particular has explained how
difficult he first found it to be in a class of teenage girls would be
topless or nearly topless. This did not cause the girls a problem, or the
native boys, only the western teachers, as in the local culture breasts are
not considered in the same sexual way as we think of them in the west. So
now should we refuse to teach these children because they violate our moral
code, and insist that they conform to our dress standards just to help us in
the west deal with our sexual problems?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[E. Mark Ping]

In article <6n5sq7$1ll$1...@supernews.com>, Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu>
wrote:
>Mark Ping)wrote:

>
>> See, the problem with judging on a "case-by-case" basis, is that to
>> judge it, you have to see the movie. Oops! You can't decide afterwards
>> not to watch the movie.
>
>Interesting. So what has happened to the Mormon emphasis on free agency?

It's still 100% there. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding the
quote above reemphasized the fact that the person on question exercised
that agency to decide to not view PG-13 movies. Where has agency been
dispensed with?

>Forget movies, just consider real life.

Um, no, thanks. This discussion is specifically about movies. I
specifically pointed out that movies are not in fact real life. We can
decide to not watch *any* theatrical movies without detriment. We cannot
choose not to participate in life.

>Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make
>clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full
>of extortion and excess.

This has little to do with this discussion. If there is no hypocrisy, but
rather a sincere heart which is attempting to become purified in Christ and
avoid some of the filth in this world which is actually avoidable, then
there can be no criticism. Or do you equally criticise the person who
makes the blanket decision to see no X-rated films?

>Mr 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can
>defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that
>defile the man.

So you'll take a scripture which is speaking specifically of eating with
unwashed hands (i.e. physical cleanliness) and interpret it to mean
abstract ideas/visuals/sounds/etc.?

Okay. How about lust? Does taking in lust cause any problems?

MAT 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Or how about anger? Does anger entering into a man endanger his soul?

MAT 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:...

Here are two examples of sins of which the Lord warns, but nothing "comes
out of the man" to defile him. And then in Mark, the Lord continues:

MAR 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the
man.

MAR 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts,
adulteries, fornications, murders,

MAR 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil
eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

MAR 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

If evil thoughts will condemn me, am I to then be condemned for *choosing*
to not plant the seeds of evil thoughts? I sincerely doubt it.

>Refusing to see PG-13 films is dangerous because it gives us the false
>illusion that we have eliminated the problem when the problem was never up
>there on the movie screen but always within our own hearts.

This simply doesn't follow. Deciding to not see PG-13 movies does not
imlply that I believe that I've eliminated any problems of my soul. It
simply means that I have decided not to voluntarily place myself in a
position to receive material which I have decided is material I don't wish
to see. Period.

And we *all* have weaknesses in our hearts. Does that mean that we should
mindlessly sample everything that exists? Since someone knows he is
morally struggling, does that mean that he should see "Titanic"? After
all, the problem is in his heart. Seeing nudity shouldn't change that at
all. Sorry, I just don't buy this.

>Don't waste effort worrying about the dirty outside world when the true
>dangers are spiritual.

Show me one thing in this world which *doesn't* have a spiritual component?

D&C 29:34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are
spiritual, and not at any time have I given a law which was temporal;
neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I
created.

D&C 29:35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be and agent unto himself;
and I gave him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him,
for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal,
neither carnal nor sensual.

>> Or are you simply advocating that we must experience anything before we
>> make a decision about whether it is good or not?
>
>Yep. See 2 Nephi 2:11.

Sorry, to be gramatically correct, I should have written "everything"
instead of "anything."

NE2 2:11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.
If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be
brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither
good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one;
wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no
life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery,
neither sense nor insensibility.

Clearly Lehi is not teaching here that we must experience *all* evil. It
must exist, and as fallible beings, we will experience some of it.
However, only the Savior decended below all. He does not ask us to bear
all the evil in the world ourselves.

[Bill Polhemus]

Hedgehog wrote:

> Interesting. So what has happened to the Mormon emphasis on free agency?

A false premise on your part. Free agency doesn't preclude choosing the right;
it simply requires that there BE a choice in the first place. Quoting Brigham
Young:

[QUOTE MODE ON]

There is not a man of us but what is willing to acknowledge at once that God
demands strict obedience to his requirements. But in rendering that strict
obedience, are we made slaves? No, it is the only way on the face of the earth
for you and me to become free, and we shall become slaves of our own passions,
and of the wicked one, and servants to the Devil, if we take any other course,
and we shall be eventually cast into hell with the devils.

Now to say that I do not enjoy the volition of my own will just as much when I
pray as I would to swear, is a false principle, it is false ground to take. You
take the man who swears, and he has no more freedom, and acts no more on his own
will than the man who prays; the man who yields strict obedience to the
requirements of Heaven, acts upon the volition of his own will and exercises his
freedom just as much as when he was a slave to passion; and I think it is much
better and more honorable for us, whether children or adults, youthful,
middle-aged or old, it is better to live by and better to die by, to have our
hearts pure, and to yield strict obedience to the principles of life which the
Lord has revealed, than to be a slave to sin and wickedness. All that the Lord
requires of us is strict obedience to the laws of life.

-- Discourses of Brigham Young. Compiled by John A. Widtsoe. Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1978. P. 225.

[QUOTE MODE OFF]

> Forget movies, just consider real life. For example, one day a hooker
> opened her blouse and flashed her breasts at me as I drove by. I suppose
> that means that all Mormons ought to have their eyes gouged out so they
> won't accidentally see any of the little ugly episodes of life.

Ah. Well, were you CRUISING the red-light district in hopes of seeing just such
a sight? In that case, the sin was not in the seeing, but in hoping to see, in
making the conscious choice to be in the "right" place at the "right" time to
see.

You see, FREE AGENCY bespeaks exercise of free will. Where there is no
predisposition to do evil, there is no harm.

> I think a better approach for Mormons is to actually listen to Jesus
> rather than trying to teach Jesus.

That sounds an awfully pompous statement in itself.

You leave me the impression of one who wants to leave ever-elusive, just what it
was that Jesus DID teach.

In essence, what He taught was obedience to the law of God, no less. His mercy
and forgiveness is ever extended to one who will seek to do His will, however
imperfectly. He offers none to those who defy Him and pompously insist on
forgiveness in any event.

Pseudo-christians love to point to the tale of the woman taken in adultery, whom
Jesus frankly forgive, and emphasize only that she was a sinner, and was
forgiven. Mormons like to include the fact, often overlooked, that He commanded
her to "go and sin no more" as a condition of that forgiveness.

Therein lies the chief difference.

> Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make
> clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full
> of extortion and excess.
>

> Mr 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can
> defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that
> defile the man.

Physician, Heal Thyself.

[David Bowie]

Bill Polhemus wrote in message <6n7ucv$51m$1...@supernews.com>...
:Hedgehog wrote:

:> Why is this considered to be a "notch further"? Are mere homosexual

:> yearnings even when not acted upon now considered by the LDS Church a
:> more heinous sin than actual fornication of heterosexuals?

:When I was a young adolescent, and just beginning to get an idea of the
:meaning of these things, a young couple in their late teens or early

:twenties in our ward, "got into trouble."...

<snip>

:Now, cast your thoughts to the implications of such a liaison between

:to males, for example. Would the story have turned out similarly? I
:think not.

Please note that this does not answer Hedgehog's question, but rather deals
with something entirely different--Hedgehog asked about homosexual yearnings
*when* *not* *acted* *upon*.

Your reply deals only with sexual (whether hetero- or homo-) yearnings that
*are* acted upon.

Please respond to the question.

<snip>

David, s.r.m.'s referee
--
Remove the % from my e-mail address to reply
David Bowie http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu PhD student in Sociolinguistics
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!

[E. Mark Ping]

In article <6n5sfv$7dl$1...@supernews.com>, Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>It just seems to me that this man must have known the rating of Titanic
>before he bought the tickets and so he apparently has no general rule for
>himself about avoiding PG 13 films.

Ah, but maybe he does now. Now that PG-13 movies are the category that R
was just a short time ago.

[David Bowie]

Bill Polhemus wrote in message <6n7ufc$dfc$1...@supernews.com>...
:Hedgehog wrote:

:> If I became a Mormon and happened to travel to Europe should I avoid

:> looking at Michaelangelo's David or the Venus de Milo?

:Q1: What is the purpose of existence of David and of the Venus de
:Milo?

Inconsequential for the purpose of Hedgehog's question.

:Q2: What is the purpose of the gratuitous sex scene in "Titanic," and

:of the glorification of the young woman's cuckolding of her fiance?

Also inconsequential for the purpose of Hedgehog's question.

Hedgehog was posing what is, at core, a much simpler but thornier problem:
Is it necessary to "protect" (in whatever meaning) oneself from *all* items
which are possible sexual?

Given that the sculptures of David and the Venus de Milo both show nudity
(and in three dimensions, not just as flat pictures on a screen!), and given
that both of them are sexually attractive people, should a Mormon avoid
seeing them?

If no, then why should (IYO) a Mormon avoid seeing sex scenes in movies?

David, who's not extremely visually oriented

[David Bowie]

Bill Polhemus wrote in message <6n81ie$66q$1...@supernews.com>...
:Hedgehog wrote:
:> somebody (Bill?) wrote:

<snip>

["The story" in the following is the storyline of the movie "Titanic."]

:> > Actually, from what I've read, much of the actual human parts of

:> > the story were only sketchily true at best. For example, there's
:> > no evidence that the poor people were LOCKED in the lower decks of
:> > the ship, that was the director's embellishment to add dramatic
:> > effect.

:> Interesting. So a Mormon would avoid reading or seeing the plays of
:> Shakespeare because they are not 100% historically accurate?

:Shakespeare is not ever been presented as history, so far as I know.

His history plays have been and are presented as showing a somewhat biased
view of history, written as they were to pass muster with the prevailing
power structure of the time.

Shakespeare's history plays were, however, most certainly presented as
factual histories at the time. Hey--for that matter, "Romeo and Juliet"
contains no disclaimers that it's not a factual history, and it certainly
presents itself as such.

But on to more topical issues...

:However, and sadly, in this day and time such events as depicted in

:"Titanic", or "Amistad," or "JFK", no matter how blatantly fabricated,
:are taken as historic truth. They are studied in classrooms as just
:that, and this fact adds to the power of agendized Hollywood directors
:to put forth their own versions of "truth," for a poorly-informed
:public who are not able to make critical judgements to the contrary.

A couple of different issues here.

First of all, people who study historically-based fictional movies (the
three you presented fit into that classification) in the classroom in media
courses certainly study them as fiction. I have yet to see anyone other
than you claim otherwise.

But you seem to be making a broader argument--namely, that poetic license
oughtn't be allowed in movies.

If this is the case, then why does the Mormon church produce fictional
movies?

Consider, for example, short church-produced movies like "Easter dream"
(AFAIK an original screenplay) and "The last leaf" (a movie adaptation of an
O, Henry story). "Easter dream," for one, contains no disclaimer that it's
not a true story.

(At least, i suppose, "What is real?" contains repeated disclaimers
throughout, so it would appear that it would pass muster with you.)

Or how about "Legacy"? That production is based on several different
people, with a dose of fiction thrown in--but nowhere do i see the church
producing a guide on where fiction, non-fiction, and historically possible
though doubtful items begin and end.

So why hold non-Mormon moviemakers to a different--different in the sense of
*higher*!--standard than Mormon moviemakers?

<snip>

David, who took a film course a few years ago and enjoyed it

[Mark Atwood]

[Moderator's Note: Please keep the discussion relevant to LDS religion.]

Bill Polhemus <po...@flash.net> writes:
>
> However, and sadly, in this day and time such events as depicted in
> "Titanic", or "Amistad," or "JFK", no matter how blatantly
> fabricated, are taken as historic truth. They are studied in
> classrooms as just that, and this fact adds to the power of
> agendized Hollywood directors to put forth their own versions of
> "truth," for a poorly-informed public who are not able to make
> critical judgements to the contrary.

Well, in the spirit of fairness, I really must point out that even
before "this day and time", entirely too much of "history" taught in
US public school classrooms was not "truth", but instead was also
"blatantly fabricated", a sort of "national mythology". That
cock-and-bull story about George Washington and his father's cherry
tree is only the most blatant and early taught example.

It wasn't until after I graduated that I learned how the story of
Pocahontas ended, exactly why all the Native Americans at Little Big
Horn wanted Custer dead, or just how bad the Trail of Tears was.
Never even mentioned were such important bits as how the government
functioned between the end of the war for independence (it was not a
"revolution") to the ratification of the current constitution.

I was taught that the USA is the oldest democracy in the world (it
isn't), that the Civil War was about slavery (it wasn't), that Lincoln
freed the slaves (a bit of a stretch), that the constitution makes the
union indivisable (an outright lie), and that the constitution has
never been suspended (another lie).

The only economic downturn discussed in any detail is the one that
begin in the 30s, with the implication that from the 1700s to the
1930s was a period of continuous growth. I learned about the social
life and political turmoils of the 20s, and the formation of labor
unions in my Lit classes, not in History.

These are just a few examples.

Learning the truth about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth
Fairy was nothing to the shock and anger I felt at the realization
that I had been constantly lied to and misled by strategic omission
for 12 years of public education. This wasn't history, it was
mythology at best and propaganda and indoctrination at worst.

And then, to add insult to injury, I was floored again and angered
beyond belief when I learned that the Church is just as guilty of
"spinning" history.

This was all *before* "Titanic", or "Amistad," or "JFK" were released
or "studied in classrooms". So, before you bemoan Hollywood's
"fabrications" and "agenda", I assert that their agenda is more
straightforward, more transparent, and in a certain twisted sense,
more honest and "moral" than the agenda that guided the people who
fabriated the stories I was taught as truth in a classroom.

--
Mark Atwood | He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
m...@pobox.com | earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,
| since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. -- Einstein

[Ann Porter]

>When I was a young adolescent, and just beginning to get an idea of the
meaning of
>these things, a young couple in their late teens or early twenties in our
ward, "got

>into trouble." They were not strictly obedient to the teachings they had
been
>taught, and she became pregnant.

<big snip>

>a lovely, happy ending. It was a wonderful example of the miracle of
forgiveness.
>

>Now, cast your thoughts to the implications of such a liaison between to
males, for
>example. Would the story have turned out similarly? I think not.

OK, let's try another scenario. A young man and young woman "get into
trouble." The young man abandons the young woman to her own devices. She
surrenders the baby for adoption. She works through the repentence process.
She never marries, but continues to serve faithfully in the kingdom.

"Happily ever after," which the LDS culture defines as Temple Marriage, does
not happen for everyone. Some people simply never have the opportunity to
marry. I know many fine women who have high standards and have been single
for many years.

So, using LDS Reality as the basis for our "story," yes, the story COULD
turn out similarly. A young woman finds herself attracted to other women.
In college, she falls away from what she's been taught and has a sexual
relationship with another woman. It ends badly, and she finds herself
longing for the peace the gospel brings. She talks with her bishop. She
talks with her institute director. She prays. She fasts. She studies the
scriptures. She prays some more. Eventually, she feels the love and
forgiveness of her father in heaven for her actions. She continues in
fasting and prayer and lives a chaste life. She serves others and works to
build the kingdom. Her attraction to other women never goes away, but she
never acts on it.

Spencer W. Kimball described fornication as "the sin next to murder." Other
than equating homosexual intercourse with murder, I don't see how it can be
worse than fornication.

Best,
Ann

[Eric Olson]

Bill Polhemus wrote:
> This sounds very much like "situational ethics," is why.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was clearly (I thought) _not_ advocating
"situational ethics," which I would agree is a bad and dangerous thing. To
me, the term "situational ethics" refers to ever-changing normative standards
of what is good and what is bad. In other words, you change your standards to
fit the situation. If you have constantly shifting standards, it is
impossible to engage in the kind of "case-by-case applied wisdom" that I was
talking about. My point was that there is much to be said for the process
of applying our firm standards to ever-changing _circumstances_. Not the
other way around, as you imply.

> And it is typical of "liberal extremism" in our happy day, that a decision made by
> parents for the welfare of their children is now branded "extreme."
[snipping some political rhetoric]
> Would that we would as readily decry the "extremism" in the total disregard for
> morality, ethics, or even moral UNDERSTANDING that is become the trademark of our
> nation's youth. THAT is far more frightening to me, than that some child somewhere
> might be denied the precious experience of viewing "Spice World" or "Titanic."

Wow, you sure have a high regard for the youth of America. I would agree,
however, that there are very serious social problems that plague our youth
today. I live in Los Angeles, CA (aka "Beautiful Zion"), and although I am a
member of the singles' ward in my stake, in my calling I serve in the Young
Men's Presidency in another ward in my stake that, to put it lightly, is
located in a part of the city that is plagued by very serious "social ills."
I work with several young men who live in very rough neighborhoods and who
come from broken or unsupportive homes. To be honest with you, these guys
have much more pressing problems than whether or not to go see the latest
PG-13 blockbuster.

For example, we have a wonderful 16 year-old investigating our church right
now. Yesterday was his first time attending church ever. During the lesson I
was teaching on prayer, this young man told us how he has spent the majority
of his life in gangs, and how when he was _11_ years old, he was in a gang
fight where he was shot 5 times and bludgeoned over the head with a crowbar,
causing severe head trauma. He nearly died, but he made a rather miraculous
recovery, which he now attributes to his mother's prayers. He has been out of
trouble for about a year now, and he is incredibly hungry for the principles
of righteousness in his life right now to help him get his life back on track.
I guess my point here is that no matter how much you dispair over the very
serious problems that the youth of today are facing, just remember that there
is still, and always will be, hope.

And now for a couple more final responses:

> > I can't help but feel sorry for all those poor Mormons outside the United
> > States -- outside the jurisdiction of the MPAA -- who are going to be going to
> > hell now for watching all these "evil" movies.
>
> My guess would be, that the majority of them will be parents who care about their
> children (A.K.A. "extremists") and will make intelligent and good-faith efforts to
> discern what should and should not be viewed by their offspring. They will
> probably seek to apply the principles they have learned as members of the Church.

THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE! I wholeheartedly agree that we
all should be making "intelligent and good-faith efforts to discern" what is
good and what is bad in this life. It's kind of why we're here, isn't it?

> This is, of course, a FRIGHTENING thought to those opponents of such "extremism."
> Perhaps the "New World Order" will have some notion of how best to deal with it.

Huh??

Eric

[ASprin7926]

In article <6n5sfv$7dl$1...@supernews.com>, hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog)
writes:

>
>> Our stake president was seen coming out of Titanic by one of our youth.
>> He is a wonderful man, and he turned to the young man from our ward and
>> publicly apologized to him because the boy saw him coming out of Titanic.
>
>Maybe I am in a particularly cynical mood today, but I wonder how many
>other "questionable" movies this man saw without getting caught and not
>having to apologize.
>

>It just seems to me that this man must have known the rating of Titanic
>before he bought the tickets and so he apparently has no general rule for
>himself about avoiding PG 13 films.
>
>

OK, I'm going to start over here, although it really irritates me to have to
do so, just because you were feeling cynical, Hedge.
This incident happened within the first 72 hours after the film was released.
I assumed that the PG13 rating had to do with the massive amount of death
that 'Titanic' obviously would have to portray, and I'm certain--ABSOLUTELY
CERTAIN--that others assumed the exact same thing. When the stake pres
went to see it, it was too early for someone to have clued him in on the
objectionable scene(s)--I don't know how many scenes were objectionable,
because I haven't seen the film. I happen to be a tightwad when it comes
to going to the movie theater, so we go very rarely. I don't want to spend
a massive amount of money (there are 8 of us) to go into a movie to have
to walk back out because we found offensive material. We did go see
'Mulan'--wonderful movie, nothing objectionable there! ;-)
In any case, Hedge, I find your cynicism to actually be more objectionable
than 'Titanic' probably ever could be. And I've grown weary of it. When
you say you're being cynical, don't you really mean judgmental? The
scriptures say that we don't have the right to judge others. That's to be
left to someone else. I do guess though, that I too am judging, but in
a positive way.
The point of my relating this incident in the first place was that our stake
president also found 'Titanic' to be objectionable, so much so that he
felt an apology was necessary for having seen part of it. No official
statement by the church has been made about PG13 movies--they are
left to our own judgment. So our stake president apologized for his error
in judgment as a public acknowledgement of that error. I find that to be
commendable, not something to be twisted into something it's not. We
all make mistakes, and mine is to waste my time taking further part in
this conversation. I hesitated to jump into it in the first place, but I
surely never realized how my intended point would be taken in such a
judgmental and twisted way. I should have known!

[Hedgehog]

[sent to Bill as well as to SRM]

Bill Polhemus <po...@flash.net> wrote:

>Hedgehog wrote:
>
>> Interesting. So what has happened to the Mormon emphasis on free agency?
>
>A false premise on your part. Free agency doesn't preclude choosing the right;

Nowhere have I said that free agency precludes choosing the right.

>it simply requires that there BE a choice in the first place.

I am troubled by the word "simply" as you have used it.

>Quoting Brigham Young:
>
>[QUOTE MODE ON]
>
>There is not a man of us but what is willing to acknowledge at once that God
>demands strict obedience to his requirements.

Yes. But this begs the question as to whether God has actually revealed
that PG-13 movies are all morally reprehensible no matter what the message
of the movie is.

>But in rendering that strict
>obedience, are we made slaves? No, it is the only way on the face of the earth
>for you and me to become free, and we shall become slaves of our own passions,
>and of the wicked one, and servants to the Devil, if we take any other course,
>and we shall be eventually cast into hell with the devils.

I agree with Young here. If God has not prohibited the viewing of Titanic,
then to allow oneself to become a slave to passionate desires to avoid
PG-13 films simply makes one a servant of the Devil. I'd stop short of
saying that people will be cast into Hell simply for agitating against
PG-13 movies.

>Now to say that I do not enjoy the volition of my own will just as much when I
>pray as I would to swear, is a false principle, it is false ground to take.

Yes.

>You
>take the man who swears, and he has no more freedom, and acts no more on his
>own
>will than the man who prays; the man who yields strict obedience to the
>requirements of Heaven, acts upon the volition of his own will and exercises
>his
>freedom just as much as when he was a slave to passion;

I am more pessimistic about human volition than is Young.

>and I think it is much
>better and more honorable for us, whether children or adults, youthful,
>middle-aged or old, it is better to live by and better to die by, to have our
>hearts pure, and to yield strict obedience to the principles of life which the
>Lord has revealed, than to be a slave to sin and wickedness.

Yes.

>All that the Lord
>requires of us is strict obedience to the laws of life.

Yes.

>[QUOTE MODE OFF]

I see nothing in Young's quote to indicate that what he had in mind was
some sort of revelation on the evils of movies rated by the MPAA as PG-13.

>> Forget movies, just consider real life. For example, one day a hooker
>> opened her blouse and flashed her breasts at me as I drove by. I suppose
>> that means that all Mormons ought to have their eyes gouged out so they
>> won't accidentally see any of the little ugly episodes of life.
>
>Ah. Well, were you CRUISING the red-light district in hopes of seeing just
>such
>a sight?

Nope. It is just one of the side-effects of living in a large city that
one can come across all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances.

>In that case, the sin was not in the seeing, but in hoping to see, in
>making the conscious choice to be in the "right" place at the "right" time to
>see.

So the contention is that people are going to PG-13 movies with the
conscious desire not to enjoy the story line but simply to catch a quick
glimpse of a woman's breasts? I have noticed that newspapers sometimes
print half-page or even full page ads of women clothed in nothing but
underwear. Perhaps in the interests of ideological consistency LDS
Christians should stop reading newspapers.

>You see, FREE AGENCY bespeaks exercise of free will.

This seems like a tautology to me.

>Where there is no
>predisposition to do evil, there is no harm.

Yes. Now the question is whether those seeing (or even those making) PG-13
films are intending to do harm. If not, then LDS Christians can attend
PG-13 films as they wish without guilt.

>> I think a better approach for Mormons is to actually listen to Jesus
>> rather than trying to teach Jesus.
>
>That sounds an awfully pompous statement in itself.

I don't see why. It is a well known aspect of Jesus' character that he
talked to people on the fringes of society. He socialized with men and
women of ill-repute.

>You leave me the impression of one who wants to leave ever-elusive, just what
>it
>was that Jesus DID teach.

I think the problem here is that some people, for whatever reason, do want
lots of external rules and guidelines for their behavior. Part of what
Jesus taught is that rules and guidelines for behavior can become subverted
by human will and twisted.

>In essence, what He taught was obedience to the law of God, no less.

I did a search on the text of the KJV Bible. I find only three references
to "law of God" in the New Testament. All are from the Epistle of Paul to
the Romans and they don't really seem to refer to what you are saying. One
can serve the Law of God mentally, but still be subject to sin. In other
words, Paul is warning us in part against the human tendency to fall into
hypocrisy.

If I wanted verses to sum up Jesus' message, I'd choose something like the
following:

1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his
life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.

>His mercy and forgiveness is ever extended to one who will seek to do His will,
>however imperfectly.

I'd agree. That's why I think it is a mistake for Mormons to get too
fixated on the ratings of films.

>He offers none to those who defy Him and pompously insist on
>forgiveness in any event.

I'd agree here too. That's why I think it is a mistake for Mormons to get
too fixated on ritual.

>Pseudo-christians love to point to the tale of the woman taken in adultery,
>whom
>Jesus frankly forgive, and emphasize only that she was a sinner, and was
>forgiven.

Only Pseudo-Christians bring up that story?

>Mormons like to include the fact, often overlooked, that He commanded
>her to "go and sin no more" as a condition of that forgiveness.

I too think that is an important part of the story, but I am not sure I see
it as being necessarily conditional. Do you have any evidence to support
this interpretation of the story? Did Jesus later hunt her down and kill
her to punish her for sins? Did Jesus force her to submit to gynecological
exams before allowing her to partake at sacrament meetings?

If Christ tells her that she should sin no more, then Christ must have
thought she really was guilty of adultery. Certainly you aren't arguing
that Jesus was upset with her because of her choice of motion picture
entertainment. If Jesus is willing to forgive a woman who actually
committed adultery, then it seems odd to me to argue that Jesus will send
folks to Hell for simply watching a work of art in which the characters
fornicate.

>Therein lies the chief difference.

Difference between what and what? Pseudo-Christians and Mormons? You are
the first person on the newsgroup to be so open-minded as to accord me
honorary Mormon status.

>> Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make
>> clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full
>> of extortion and excess.
>>
>> Mr 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can
>> defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that
>> defile the man.
>
>Physician, Heal Thyself.

Yes. This is my point precisely. One worries about one's own sins rather
than the sins of Kate Winslett (sp?) or James Cameron (sp?). The problem
with barring all PG-13 films is that it tends to make the viewer
responsible for sins of the actors, writers and directors.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

Sent to Bill and to SRM.

From: Bill Polhemus <po...@flash.net> wrote:

>So you consider that the acts of king David in this regard serve as an example
>of
>what TO do?

I don't see that as the issue. Consider Paul's view of the OT.

Ro 7:7-8 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had
not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had
said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was]
dead.

Paul is here saying that even though the intent of the Law was as a warning
_against_ sin, nevertheless it also tended to give Paul information on sins
which he had not thought about on his own and even thus arose temptations
to sin in him that were previously unknown.

In the same way, although David's story is intended to warn us against
adultery and murder, it may be perceived by some people as a blueprint for
how to commit adultery and murder.

>Or is it that you tout "Titanic" as a morality play, and that we are to come
>away
>from it cognizant of the negative consequences of fornication?

So even G-rated movies are forbidden unless they are explicitly didactic
morality plays (presumably with an emphasis on Mormon morality rather than
Jewish or Pagan or Protestant morality etc.)?

>You'll quickly see that the answer to both questions is "no."

Which I suppose is all very well and good if what one wants is a short
answer rather than an understanding of the principles. I have heard that
Joseph Smith once said "Teach the people correct principles and let them
govern themselves." Perhaps Smith would no longer be welcome in some
sectors of the Church today.

>> Interesting. So a Mormon would avoid reading or seeing the plays of
>> Shakespeare because they are not 100% historically accurate?
>
>Shakespeare is not ever been presented as history, so far as I know.

Not ever? Then why are his plays commonly classified as Tragedies,
Comedies and Histories?

>However, and sadly, in this day and time such events as depicted in "Titanic",
>or
>"Amistad," or "JFK", no matter how blatantly fabricated, are taken as historic
>truth.

And so this leads to a ban on the watching of all PG-13 films by all Mormons?

>> Mormon morality always seems to me to be obsessed with quid pro quos. The
>> young man who seduced the girl died of hypothermia and yet that isn't
>> enough.
>
>So he died of hypothermia BECAUSE he had elicit sexual relations with the girl?

Not so far as I know. Did you perceive the heroine to be that much of an
ice queen? ;)

Part of what puzzles me is that on the one hand you want movies to present
the truth--not the truth as the director sees it but rather the absolute
historical truth. Yet on the other hand it bothers you that two people had
sex outside of marriage and nothing bad happened to them in the hours
between the sexual activity and a watery grave.

The plain historical facts are that not every single sexual experience has
sudden and immediate negative consequences.

>Is it not true that it could have shown DiCaprio's character making this
>gallant
>sacrifice, WITHOUT the benefit of having screwed the lady?

If they changed the ending to the Scarlet Letter, I suppose Hollywood can
do pretty much whatever they want. They could have had the boat miss the
iceberg. The two lovers could have been married. The rich snotty guy
could have been converted to Christianity and spent the rest of his days
helping the down and out in the bowery.

>The sex was merely a
>gratuitous effect, calculated to titillate adolescent girls' already-overheated
>fantasies. In our day and time, the guy's GOTTA do her, or it just ain't
>"love."

I think you are focussing way too much on the sex to the exclusion of the
rest of the story.

>> Do Mormons tend to feel that Oedipus Rex suffered sufficiently or is
>> Sophocles also an immoral author whom Mormons tend to avoid?
>
>Oedipus put out his own eyes as a result of having learned the magnitude of his
>immoral act. It is cause and effect. Rough justice was served.

So you agree with me that Mormons tend to demand a sort of a quid pro quo
in the moral sphere. Right?

>The only cause to which the effect was the demise of DiCaprio's character, was
>winning the stupid passage on the stupid ship to begin with.

I hadn't thought of the whole movie as an extended lesson in the dangers of
gambling, but if that works for you, fine.

>He could have made his
>"heroic sacrifice" without having stuck it to her, that you must admit.

How is that relevant to the issue at hand? King David could have made
heroic sacrifices for the nation of Israel without having stuck it to
Uriah's wife. It's funny how this post seems to have gone full circle.

Perhaps some could write stories where all the people would be 100%
virtuous and there would be no interpersonal conflicts. But I feel bound
to point out that from the Mormon perspective such stories would be more
representative of Satan's plan than of Christ's plan for the world. It is
Satan who wanted all to be saved regardless of free agency. It is Christ
who was willing to allow people the option of fornicating or of laying down
their life for their friends as their heart led them to do.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

Sent to Bill and to SRM

Bill Polhemus <po...@flash.net> wrote:

>Hedgehog wrote:
>
>> If I became a Mormon and happened to travel to Europe should I avoid
>> looking at Michaelangelo's David or the Venus de Milo?
>
>Q1: What is the purpose of existence of David and of the Venus de Milo?

The Venus de Milo is a depiction of the Greco-Roman Goddess of lust and
sexual activity. It is my understanding that the image is a Roman copy of
a Greek statue of a prostitute posing nude.

David is a statue of a warrior of ancient Israel who for reasons completely
unfathomable to me is not dressed as a Semitic warrior but rather as a
Greek athelete--that is to say: completely naked. As near as I can tell
there is no plausible reason in the work of art itself for why David is
naked.

>Q2: What is the purpose of the gratuitous sex scene in "Titanic," and of the
>glorification of the young woman's cuckolding of her fiance?

To phrase the question in this fashion is to predetermine the answer. My
dictionary lists the definition of "gratuitous" as "unnecessary or
unwarranted".

Finally, I'd like to point out that seeking the purpose of the artist as an
excuse for nudity is actually the invoking of an "ends-justify-the-means"
argument. This approach is also what I would call "situational" ethics
insofar as nudity in one work of art is not ranked in the same fashion as
nudity in other works of art. If nudity in art is not always a sin, then
it remains for Mormons to establish that it is sinful specifically in
Titanic and that all PG-13 films contain _sinful_ nudity (rather than
sinless nudity).

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6n9b49$qnp$1...@supernews.com>, aspri...@aol.com (ASprin7926) wrote:

> OK, I'm going to start over here, although it really irritates me to have to
> do so, just because you were feeling cynical, Hedge.

It's nothing personal.

> This incident happened within the first 72 hours after the film was released.

I rarely go to films on the first weekend of release. If it is very
important for Mormons to avoid exposure to objectionable films, then I'd
advise never going to a movie before reading some reviews.

> I assumed that the PG13 rating had to do with the massive amount of death
> that 'Titanic' obviously would have to portray, and I'm certain--ABSOLUTELY
> CERTAIN--that others assumed the exact same thing.

I tend to find the concept of death as entertainment as troubling as the
concept of sex as entertainment.

Might I point out that while artwork portraying a dead or dying Jesus is
very common in Roman Catholic artwork, LDS artists seem to prefer a Jesus
in the peak of health.

> When the stake pres
> went to see it, it was too early for someone to have clued him in on the
> objectionable scene(s)--I don't know how many scenes were objectionable,
> because I haven't seen the film.

I see.

> I happen to be a tightwad when it comes
> to going to the movie theater, so we go very rarely.

Me too. I find it much more economical to rent videos than to go to
theaters. I tend to make exceptions only for films where cinematography
or special effects are supposed to be much better on the large screen.

> We did go see
> 'Mulan'--wonderful movie, nothing objectionable there! ;-)

I'll probably wait for the video on that one.

> In any case, Hedge, I find your cynicism to actually be more objectionable
> than 'Titanic' probably ever could be.

I see.

> And I've grown weary of it. When
> you say you're being cynical, don't you really mean judgmental?

Not at all. I really don't care whether Mormon Church leaders go to see
Titanic or not.

> The
> scriptures say that we don't have the right to judge others.

If someone apologizes to me then in a sense that person is making
reference to a real or imagined judgement on my part. I assume that if I
had been physically presesnt at the incident you describe, your stake
president would have included me in audience of the apology.

> That's to be
> left to someone else. I do guess though, that I too am judging, but in
> a positive way.

I understand.

> The point of my relating this incident in the first place was that our stake
> president also found 'Titanic' to be objectionable, so much so that he
> felt an apology was necessary for having seen part of it.

Maybe "apology" is the wrong word. I don't usually apologize to others
for the movies I see or the books I read.

> No official
> statement by the church has been made about PG13 movies--they are
> left to our own judgment.

Therefore your stake president committed no error in watching the film and
hence it is difficult for me to understand the motive of the apology.

> So our stake president apologized for his error
> in judgment as a public acknowledgement of that error.

I find this puzzling. Do stake presidents wear some sort of uniform? Did
he see the movie during hours when he was on duty? Why does a private
error of judgement necessitate a public and apparently official apology?

> I find that to be
> commendable, not something to be twisted into something it's not.

My apologies to you if you thought I was twisting. I often find movies to
be a bit different than I had imagined them before viewing and I don't
generally feel that sort of suprise to be culpable.

> We
> all make mistakes [snip].

Yes. Therefore I assume that even Stake Presidents have made mistakes in
the past. Yet you found his apology somewhat refreshing--one might even
say suprising. Therefore I am puzzled as to why he decided to apologize
about this particular film at that particular time when such public
apologies don't seem to be his normal behavior. In other words, I am
puzzled as to why Titanic seems to be the product of so much
scapegoating. I do not honestly believe it is worse than the average
PG-13 film. People are acting like it is pure pornography.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Michael D. Richey]

I have been told Church policy is to counsel a young couple who has gotten into trouble
to marry, and if that doesn't work, to give up the child for adoption? Can anyone
verify this for me?

I ask because I personally know of a young LDS woman who became pregnant at the age of
16 by a non-LDS young man. When I met her, she was 19 and her little girl was three.
The little girl's father was no longer a part of their lives, and the young woman was
struggling to support herself and her daughter. She met a nice LDS returned missionary
later that year, and they were eventually married in the temple and the little girl was
sealed to them. I wonder what would have happened if her bishop or other leaders had
tried to get her to marry that man, or to give her daughter up. Maybe they did, who
knows?

Bill Polhemus wrote:

> When I was a young adolescent, and just beginning to get an idea of the meaning of
> these things, a young couple in their late teens or early twenties in our ward, "got
> into trouble." They were not strictly obedient to the teachings they had been
> taught, and she became pregnant

(snip)

> .Nevertheless, they were counselled to repent, and to marry so as to make a home for

> the child. This they did, and though it was a rocky start, they eventually were
> able to make a firm family foundation. They later entered the temple with their
> children and were sealed together forever. What could have been a stark tragedy had

[Clarke Echols]

Michael D. Richey (mdr44@***REMOVE_THIS***email.byu.edu) wrote:
: I have been told Church policy is to counsel a young couple who has gotten

: into trouble to marry, and if that doesn't work, to give up the child
: for adoption? Can anyone verify this for me?

General church guidelines are that the interests of the child are
most important. This usually means adoption.

I have a foster daughter who came to us years ago, pregnant and
a high-school drop-out. She gave the baby up for adoption, finished
school in the mean-time while living with us, was out on her own for
a while, then served a mission. She married a return missionary and
has a family now. They are all doing well.

I have a daughter who was pursuing a rather wild lifestyle for a time,
and ended up expecting a child. The father was deported by Immigration
and married someone else. She became active in church, but was soon a
single mom on welfare. Instead of staying in the rut, she enrolled in a
local community college, got a 2-year certificate, transferred to the
university across town, and graduated with a BS in business
administration. She got into the work-study program because that income
would not affect her welfare payments, picked up a lot of experience
to supplement her major in computer information systems, and when a
major computer company came on campus, they pulled her in for an
interview, admitting later that they wanted to embarrass her for lying
on her resume'. Three days later, she had a job offer from them.
Now she's married, happy, and her husband is teaching UNIX to my
9-year-old grandson.

Guidelines are just that. Guidelines. If my daughter had not had
that experience, I suspect she might have not returned to more normal
behaviors. Alcohol and drugs can do that.

---------------------------------------
Clarke "Make them an offer they can't refuse" Echols

Smile. It makes people wonder what you've been up to.

Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out of it alive anyway.

Don't start a war you can't win -- Don't quit until it's over.

Disclaimer: Statements made by me are not endorsed by my employer.
==============================================================================

[moon...@xxmission.com]

WARNING: If you haven't seen "Horse Whisperer" and plan to, be
aware that this post is what is sometimes known as a "spoiler."

Could I butt in here long enough to point out that "Titanic" is
not the only PG-13 movie out there?
I saw a PG-13 flick last weekend: "The Horse Whisperer." I have
an eleven-year-daughter, and I can't wait for a chance to take her
to see it. The show has a lot to say about the relationship of a
teenager to her parents, and at the end, Kristen Scott Thomas' character
falls in love with Robert Redford's character and ultimately chooses to
leave him there on the ranch and go back to her husband in New York.
Egad, fidelity! Can't be letting our kids see that, now can we?
I hope this example serves to demonstrate why we are not "commanded
in all things." The iron rod only existed in a vision. The Liahona
was real.

Bill, who would rather be under-commanded than over-commanded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Remove one "x" from address above to reply, unless you're a spammer. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ann Porter]

>I have been told Church policy is to counsel a young couple who has gotten
into trouble
>to marry, and if that doesn't work, to give up the child for adoption? Can
anyone
>verify this for me?

The church has a video for unmarried parents (or prospective parents) on
this very subject. I believe the parents are encouraged to marry if there
is potential for an eternal family unit. If not, adoption should be
considered. The church "policy" on this, like many others, is wonderfully
flexible - the needs and capabilities of the individuals involved are always
considered.

Bishops are advised not to recommend parenting the child as part of the
repentence process, which seems completely obvious to me.

In the experience you relate, it would be my guess that had the young woman
married the baby's father, she probably would have ended up divorced from
him. And since I don't ascribe to the "one person just for me" theory, she
may have ended up married to someone else later (other than her current
husband).

And if she had placed her child for adoption, the child could still have
been sealed as part of an eternal family/

I'm glad it worked out well for the young woman.

Best,
Ann

[The_Ske...@yahoo.com]

Greetings, all!

Been off for a few days and have mainly been lurking for the past few weeks.
Wow, such a massive thread we've created!

Bravo to Paul Bunch for posting some relevant modern-day General Authority
utterances relevant to our entertainment choices. As a recovering blood &
guts R-rated movie addict, the principles of avoiding things which offend the
Spirit have fueled my own decision to abide by the Church's counsel (is this
another one of those "serious suggestions?") to avoid all R-rated movies.

Like Hedgehog & Raymond Bingham (wazzat you or did I switch names...?), I'm a
bit of a tightwad and have resisted full-fare for big screen entertainment
since they went to $6.50. Matinees are my friend! This alone has contributed
to some of my success, as I see it on this topic.

Regarding possible anti-PG-13 backlash:
But even in my R-rated days, I tried to read reviews and get first-had reports
from indiscriminate movie consumers regarding the overall content of films
before I would go see them. I had earlier found "Grease" to me more offensive
than "Saturday Night Fever" because the first glorified Olivia N-J's turning
into a slut-like tease to gain John T's favor and relationship, while SNF at
least portrayed settling into a loving and committed relationship as being a
happier life than seeking a series of illicit weekend liasons.

So I decided to avoid movies which *glorify* sin. No "Porky's" or other teen
sex flics. No "Young Guns" because of a report that one killing was
presented in a way which made the audience laugh a few moments later. After
a while even the Chuck Norris movies lost their appeal.

My wife saw "Schindler's List" with her dad and recommended it. I knew it
would unavoidably include prisoner nudity and hoped it would portray the
brutal violence of the Nazis without Sam Peckinpaw-style slow-motion
groveling in the muck. When I finally saw it on TV, we quickly realized that
even for broadcast by today's standards, it was NOT, NO WAY appropriate for
my then 6-year old son who had already been quizzing me about THE BOMB and
THE HOLOCAUST.

So here, we have an R-rated film which I honestly believe does fall outside
the spirit of the Church's proscription against that broad category of
movies. I personally sense no hypocrisy in deeming it acceptable for (most)
late teens and myself but not for younger viewers. After all, we talk about
sex differently with our betrothed young adults than we do with our five-year
olds.

When properly applied, I believe the R-rated proscription will find few
exceptions. I am suspicious when we LDS folks look behind commandments for
"reasons" and then construct a complex set of standards which allows frequent
deviations from the overall broad proscriptions.

Many PG-13 movies are trash, and my wife and I already view all of them with
suspicion. Most with sex and violence content seem to be like the R-rated
trash movies of my earlier life.

Thus, my touchstone standard for entertainment choice is whether the
PLOT/STORYLINE glorifies sin. If the reports I read indicate the Director's
work will offend the Spirit, I just avoid it. Even if it has ostensibly been
"sanitized" for TV. I would not be surprised at all if there were a
commandment to carefully scrutinize PG-13 movie choices, or to even cease
seeing them altogether. Though this does risk throwing the baby out with the
bath, I would be comfortable with such a command because of the sheer volume
of other more worthy entertainment, combined with the need to avoid idleness.

However, I would perceive such a commandment as a disturbing sign that we
Saints are quite desirous of being commanded in all things. This, like the
increased filth content of the underlying entertainment, would also comprise a
"sign of the times" warning me to be diligent in my own spirituality.

So, Hedgehog, I accept the sordid stories of the Bible as accounts of what
certain people did, which I should learn from. There but for the Grace of God
go I, you know. Such is far different from depictions of "Here's this sin,
ain't it great?" and "They did the nasty but it's okay because they LOVE each
other so much."

I don't need to see signs of immediate or fairly contemporaneous divine
displeasure to satisfy me. I do not require any quid pro quos for sinners
because I far prefer to see dynamic characters who turn away from their sins.
Now *THAT'S* one thing which has fallen out of favor in Hollywood, isnt' it?
Danny DeVito on "Taxi" was allowed to return to mean and spiteful behavior,
thus "welshing on a promise to God," because the writers and we as consumers
(as a nation at least) are far more comfortable with people who don't change
for the better. There are, of course, many noble exceptions to this general
trend.

I believe that if more LDS people took the GA statments which Paul B posted
to heart, and avoided entertainment which is degrading to the Spirit, we
would never need to hear any warnings to avoid PG-13 movies. We would, as a
consumer bloc, avoid those which are offensive, by being united in viewpoint
by the Spirit. Such is the effect of being Christlike and Spirit-led, and
exercising our agency accordingly.

For those with more tolerant views of sexual content and glorifying violence
in movies on the grounds that you either don't find it offensive or are
strong enough to be unswayed in your behavior by the content, consider this:
As reported many years ago in one peer-reviewed research journal, two groups
of people were asked to rate the offensiveness of ten movies filled with
either sex, violence, or both. Both sets of people on average rated the
first movies they saw as far more offensive than the last. The two groups
saw the same movies, in reverse order from the other group. In other words,
what was offensive to one group when shown first, was less offensive to the
other group when shown last.

If all the filth in entertainment causes you no problems, could it be that you
have only been numbed by your previous exposure?

For those following the subsequent Sexual Ethics thread using DejaNews,
beware! The "Read Thread" or whatever function in DejaNews uses an
unreliable topic search which can tag threads from other NGs onto the one you
are reading. I blithely followed the oral sex thread earlier this year right
into a different NG, and am now getting some pretty rank sex spam about every
two weeks. The infuriating part is that they all either use bogus e-mail
addresses, or have mailboxes that get incurably clogged with messages before
my REMOVE request ever gets delivered.

Just my $.02, many times over. Have I hit $1.00 yet?

Thanks for all of your thoughts.

T.S.

[Jerry James]

On 2 Jul 1998 02:35:49 GMT, The_Ske...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip discussion of PG-13/R ratings]

> For those following the subsequent Sexual Ethics thread using DejaNews,
> beware! The "Read Thread" or whatever function in DejaNews uses an
> unreliable topic search which can tag threads from other NGs onto the one you
> are reading. I blithely followed the oral sex thread earlier this year right
> into a different NG, and am now getting some pretty rank sex spam about every
> two weeks. The infuriating part is that they all either use bogus e-mail
> addresses, or have mailboxes that get incurably clogged with messages before
> my REMOVE request ever gets delivered.

This is most definitely off-topic. Please, DO NOT send REMOVE requests
when you get spam. Much of the time, the mailbox is either bogus or
will have been shut down by the time your mail reaches it. The rest of
the time, the spammer receives your REMOVE request, says, "Aha! This is
a valid email address," and you get even *more* spam as a result. If
you don't know how to track down the right person(s) to complain to,
please just delete the spam without replying to anybody. Here are some
resources for those interested:

General information: <URL:http://spam.abuse.net/>
A campaign to outlaw spam in the US: <URL:http://www.cauce.org/>
A place to find out about & report fraud: <URL:http://www.fraud.org/>
A FAQ file about spam: <URL:http://oasis.ot.com/~dmuth/spam-l/>
How to stop spam yourself: <URL:http://www.stopspam.org/>

So, let's see by a raise of hands how many people think we should eat
spam only in the winter or in time of famine.
--
Jerry "Hormel hates me" James
Email: je...@cs.ucsb.edu
WWW: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jerry/

[Hedgehog]

Recently my wife and I watched a Chinese film called "Farewell My
Concubine". I forgot to check the rating so perhaps it is a R film and
something that Mormons wouldn't have watched anyway, but I suspect it
would be rated PG-13. The film is about the Beijing Opera and the actors
who perform it, but as a result of the story line the film deals with
prostitution, physical violence against children, transvestitism, and
homosexuality. Have Mormons been warned against watching this film as
they have been warned about Titanic? Do Mormons who have seen this film
consider it moral or immoral? If it is generally considered immoral by
Mormons, then isn't it interesting that Mormon morality has become more
restrictive than that of the Communist Chinese government with respect to
depictions of human sexuality?

Peace,
Hedgehog

[jane]

Because of many problems with girls in my ward getting pregnant, all of the
adults in the ward (combined priesthood/R.S. including all adult primary
teachers and YW leaders) were visited by LDS social services and shown this
video. It encouraged girls to marry first. After it was over the woman
from social services fielded questions. My husband asked that since over
(he had the percentage, I don't remember it off-hand but I believe it was
extremely high) of these marriages fail, why does the church encourage
marriage when the best needs of the child will be obviously better met by
adoption with a loving LDS couple. He was answered that was just the way
it was done. There was no message in the video or from the woman that

parents are encouraged to marry "if there is potential for an eternal family

until." I came away with the uncomfortable feeling that the church placed
marriage over the interests of the child. I have always felt that if they
are immature enough to do that, how can they be mature enough to marry? All
of the girls in our ward who had children out-of-wedlock and married the
child's father have failed in their marriages.

Ann Porter wrote in message <6nd9qp$k6n$1...@supernews.com>...

[Peggy Rogers]

Hedgehog wrote:
>
> Recently my wife and I watched a Chinese film called "Farewell My
> Concubine". I forgot to check the rating so perhaps it is a R film
> and something that Mormons wouldn't have watched anyway, but I
> suspect it would be rated PG-13. The film is about the Beijing
> Opera and the actors who perform it, but as a result of the story
> line the film deals with prostitution, physical violence against
> children, transvestitism, and homosexuality. Have Mormons been
> warned against watching this film as they have been warned about
> Titanic?

No. It happens very rarely that a particular film is mentioned by
name. I suspect that I lot of the fuss about "Titanic" has had to
do with how popular it was, and perhaps that it was based on a
historical event that a lot of people are very much interested in.

> Do Mormons who have seen this film consider it moral or immoral?

I would guess (not having seen it) that most would consider it immoral.

Personally, I see very few films. (I prefer forms of entertainment
where I get to _do_ something, rather than just watch.) I sometimes
wonder, though, if (in light of current LDS culture) it is possible
for a committed Latter-day Saint to be a serious student of cinema.
I think BYU has a film department. I know that the making of church
films and advertisements is a small industry. Will these people have
to learn their craft by watching only G-rated films? Or will teachers
have to watch the uncut films, so they can pull out the "good" parts
to show their students? I don't know.

Certainly there is a lot of junk produced out there with R and PG-13
ratings, but it seems to me that students of cinema need to see and
understand the bad as well as the good. And it also seems to me that
there can be important films on serious subjects which could not be
made in such as way as to receive a G rating. We have the enduring
example of "Schindler's List," for instance. (It's always strange
to me when an LDS family boasts "We parents don't watch any movies
that we wouldn't want our children to see." If they think that adults
shouldn't do things that their children aren't allowed to do, how
did they get those children in the first place, I wonder?)

> If it is generally considered immoral by Mormons, then
> isn't it interesting that Mormon morality has become more restrictive
> than that of the Communist Chinese government with respect to
> depictions of human sexuality?

Oh, I can't say that such a possibility would alarm me very much.
I would hope the church would have a higher moral stance than the
Chinese government in a number of areas. :-)

But I want to go back to the question of _who_ is allowed to do and
see these things. My husband sometimes points out, when people are
making a big fuss about the sorts of films or books or rock videos
that LDS people feel they shouldn't be exposed to, that _God_ is
aware of all the bad things that happen on the earth, and _his_
holiness is not a bit compromised by that knowledge. Sometimes I
feel that in our (LDS) attempts to stay innocent of all the bad things
that happen in the world we are turning our backs on the people who
have to deal with these situations (prostitution, child abuse and
the like) as part of their lives.

On the other hand, LDS physicians are still allowed to examine people
who are naked, and LDS patients are allowed to remove their clothing
in the presence of their doctors. What makes doctors (and nurses) so
special in this regard? Is it the clinical setting? The pure and noble
motives of all doctors and nurses? Or what?

And what about students of visual arts? Artists have as much need
as doctors to thoroughly understand human anatomy. I've been taking
drawing lessons for a couple of years from a wonderful LDS man who
is one of the most sweet-natured and innocent people I have ever
encountered. His attitude toward the human body is one of reverent
appreciation, which the nude drawing classes he took in his youth
did nothing to detract from. (His bishop once asked him what he liked
best to paint, and he replied, "Old barns and naked women.") There
is no better way, he tells us, to understand the way light interacts
with matter than to see the way that it illuminates human skin on
human bodies. But right now in Springville, Utah (a community well
known here for its artistic atmosphere and charming museum) people
are trying to get classes in life drawing shut down, under the same
laws that regulate sexually-oriented businesses. From an article in
Friday's Salt Lake Tribune:

SPRINGVILLE--Nude art models or topless dancers, it's all just
smut to Ruth Fuller, one of a group of residents demanding an end
to the use of nude models in classes at the Art Shop.

"Smut is smut, no matter how you look at it," Fuller said.

"There's no excuse for nude models," said Bonnie Vernon, another
opponent of the classes. "In our community, we should hold
ourselves to a higher standard."

I have to wonder about people like that. I should think both of
these ladies have read the New Testament--but they must have missed
the book of Titus, where it says "Unto the pure all things are pure."
(1:15) Otherwise, they might be embarrassed by what they are saying
about themselves. (Yes, David, I know that they _might_ not be LDS,
but I think chances are on the side of their being so.)

In the temple I covenanted to obey the law of chastity. But I have
never been asked to covenant that I would never look at a naked body,
or any representation thereof.

Well, this has gotten to be a bit of a tirade. But I'm tired enough
of these attitudes that today I sent my daughters to Primary in
sundresses with _bare_ _shoulders_, partly because I don't want them
to grow up thinking that their bare skin is equal to smut.

* * * * * * * * * * * Peggy Rogers * * * * * * * * * * *
* krogers?@xmission.com (Humans! remove the ? to reply!) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The lot of humans is explaining." --Durant Gullick

[wr...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <6n5sp1$o4h$1...@supernews.com>,
hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:

Since I opened this bottle of worms, and then went on vacation, my
apologies to those of you wondering what the heck I meant by my
post, and what I was driving at...

Unfortunately I have to post this from Deja News cuz my newsreader's
expired some of the articles which have spawned further discussion.

> In article <6mu71d$7rt$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham)
wrote:
>
> > Now let's take this one notch further. What if the story had been
> > about two young men who fall in love and then die tragically on the
> > Titanic? Would the story have been your favorite then? What if
> > there was no sex or nude scene, but intstead it was full of homosexual
> > yearnings and innuendos.

>
> Why is this considered to be a "notch further"? Are mere homosexual
> yearnings even when not acted upon now considered by the LDS Church a more
> heinous sin than actual fornication of heterosexuals?

I'm not talking of what the LDS church considers to be more heinous, but
rather what most LDS by gut reaction, consider to be more heinous. The
point is that if we took their gut feeling and put a different tinge on
it, we could easily find something more abhorrent and thus condemnable,
that they would denounce it as an evil film. But our society has become
so laxed about fornication that it's not viewed as a sin anymore. Or at
the very least is accepted among LDS as a necessary evil.

It simply isn't so. I'm stating that we don't view homosexuality as a
necessary evil, even in the "yearning" stage, but we are more than willing
to close our eyes during a sex scene so that we can be more "culturally
uplifted", and in the name of "quality entertainment" we can appear more
sophisticated and hip.

> > I can bet you wouldn't find the story AT ALL
> > appealing.
>
> Do Mormons find the Bible to be morally offensive? Consider for example
> how King David murdered a man in order to cover up his acts of adultery.
> Leonardo Di Caprio's character is actually morally superior to that of
> some Biblical characters.

The story of David is a terrible tragedy and is viewed as such, and is
generally viewed as such, especially because we have Nathan's condemnation of
David and even Christ's lament over his tragic choices... The story of the
Titanic lovestory, while tragic that the boat sank, didn't portray the elicit
acts as a tragedy, but rather as a triumph of love over stodginess. With
predictable contempt for morally stable behaviour, two lovers thumb their
noses at something which has nothing to do with their own problems, their
affair, in the real would, would only compound their problems, and certainly
wouldn't "set them free".

It's an INCREDIBLY deceptive message, which is why I think a Stake President
would target it.

[snip]
> > To me it seems incredibly hypocritical.
>
> Just as in Luke 7:39 the actions of Jesus seemed hypocritical to the Pharisee.
>
> > The most sexual organ on the body is not the genitals, but the mind.
>
> Then you should understand that a person can engage in an adulterous orgy
> even while locked in a solitary confinement cell.

Certainly, which makes our choice of entertainment only that much more
perilous to our souls, and to the sensitivities we are trying to develop to
the Spirit. It is a well known fact that sex in film is hardly the same thing
as sex in real life. It is portrayed deceptively with open invitation as if
the act itself is what love is all about. The cosmetically sculpted bodies,
the acts without real consequence, and the amazing gymnastics that are gone
through for just the right camera angle, all draw the audience into a willful
suspension of belief. Unfortunately as a result, that willful suspension of
disbelief doesn't end in the theatre.

> > Actually, from what I've read, much of the actual human parts of the
> > story were only sketchily true at best. For example, there's no evidence
> > that the poor people were LOCKED in the lower decks of the ship, that was
> > the director's embellishment to add dramatic effect.
>

> Interesting. So a Mormon would avoid reading or seeing the plays of
> Shakespeare because they are not 100% historically accurate?

No. You missed my point. There are many who viewed Titanic and proclaimed
they viewed it solely for the historical benefits. These fringe elements,
however, were secondary, and should not, imo, be factored in as a
rationalization to digest filth.

> > But the consequences of their actions was never shown... consequences
> > which are significant...

> Mormon morality always seems to me to be obsessed with quid pro quos. The
> young man who seduced the girl died of hypothermia and yet that isn't
> enough.

Well there were two involved in the act, and there wasn't much remorse in
Rose's character. Perhaps she went through a repentance process, but the
author never felt that was an important enough detail to include into the
story. Thus it is devoid of actual moral impact.

Sure, Jack died. But so did the woman who was crossing the Atlantic for
hope of a better life, with her two children clutched in her arms. The one
praying in the lower decks, who wouldn't leave her husband. The one who
lived a perfectly chaste life, and revered God.

My point, therefore is that as the film currently stands it sent out a very
deceptive and morally bankrupt message, which could easily be misinterpretted.
Because, we LDS, as a people, have become so accustomed to filth in almost
all its forms, we applauded it, and when a Stake president had the guts to
denounce it, a big debate ensued. WHile I admit when I first viewed the film
I was taken into the glitz and aparent sophistication, I also admit that it
left me with a spiritually void bitter after taste that I personally didn't
want in my life. For such, I personally feel the need to repent of viewing
and embracing it as a quality picture. IMO, it's not.

Best regards,

Raymond Bingham

Posted from Deja News, because I was on vacation last week...

[Dodge]

Jane wondered why the church counseled young people who parent children
while yet unmarried to get married. she noted that statistics show these
young people are less likely to remain married than if they had adopted out
the children and married when they were more mature.

The church is counseling the youth to do the 'right' thing rather than that
which is the 'odds-on' bet. The church is trying to teach the need for
commitment, covenant, fidelity, consequences for behavior, and a whole body
of principles which the world at large would say are 'long-shots' at best.

The church isn't trying to counsel them to take the path of least
resistance, rather the path back to God. It is the harder path, but
promises the most growth if followed.

Merrill
Merrill(dot)Dodge(at)Unisys(dot)com

[Ann Porter]

>>The church has a video for unmarried parents (or prospective parents) on
>>this very subject. I believe the parents are encouraged to marry if there
>>is potential for an eternal family unit. If not, adoption should be
>>considered. The church "policy" on this, like many others, is wonderfully
>>flexible - the needs and capabilities of the individuals involved are
>always
>>considered.

>video. It encouraged girls to marry first. After it was over the woman

>from social services fielded questions. My husband asked that since over
>(he had the percentage, I don't remember it off-hand but I believe it was
>extremely high) of these marriages fail, why does the church encourage
>marriage when the best needs of the child will be obviously better met by
>adoption with a loving LDS couple. He was answered that was just the way
>it was done. There was no message in the video or from the woman that

I think we must have seen a different video. The mention of marriage in the
video I saw was there, but it was minimal. I came away from the video with
the strong feeling that the church encouraged adoption unless the
prospective couple really WANTED to marry. I have a friend at LDS Social
Services who said the young women who see the video that I saw usually come
away thinking they have been encouraged to place their babies for adoption.

Best,
Ann

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Bill Polhemus (po...@flash.net) having written:
>Hedgehog wrote:

>> In article <6mu71d$7rt$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

[snip original question as to whether homothoughts are worse than hetero acts.]

Unfortunately, as I've posted just a few minutes ago, this was not my point.
My point in citing the homosexual yearnings, was to underline the point that
we as LDS have a low tollerance for certain types of sin, while at the same
time have a very high tollerance for other types of sin. Where we can close
our eyes and whistle ignorantly through the acts of Jack and Rose, we would
be aghast if it were the feelings of Jack and Ross... :-)

>Nevertheless, they were counselled to repent, and to marry so as to make a home for
>the child. This they did, and though it was a rocky start, they eventually were
>able to make a firm family foundation. They later entered the temple with their
>children and were sealed together forever. What could have been a stark tragedy had
>a lovely, happy ending. It was a wonderful example of the miracle of forgiveness.

And in all honesty, while I love hearing of stories of people who repent of
sins, seeings as I, too, am one who needs Christ's grace and mercy, I fear
that the overtelling of these tales in the context of this discussion actually
underlines my point more precisely. We are willing to suppose that Jack and
Rose are going to someday get a chance to repent, thus we suspend our revulsion
of sin, and in so doing we miscommunicate things... perhaps even sending
messages to the impressionable that such behaviour is "ok".

>Now, cast your thoughts to the implications of such a liaison between to males, for
>example. Would the story have turned out similarly? I think not.

My point was to demonstrate an inconsistency in LDS ideals. We frown upon any
sign of homosexual yearnings, while are able to turn a blind eye to fornication
if it makes for a good semihistorical accounting, big budget effects and
a warm fuzzy ending with a Grammy award winning song...

In mentioning the inconsistency I was not attempting to justify one over the
other, but rather demonstrate that we should not tollerate any type of sin.

I am reminded of Nephi's or Alma's wishes that one be made repulsed at the
very sight of wickedness. Is that a completely alien wish in our current
culture? It almost sounds strange! That we might shrink at the very thought
of sin should be our goal, but instead we pay up good money and line the
pockets of perverts and those who would destroy our immortal souls.

>Would the restitution for offense against God and Church have included an eternal
>bond between the two? That is ludicrous.

Neither is Fornication a path to eternal family. But your story seems to
end happily, so the message at the end seems to be somewhat misleading. It,
in and of itself, is deceptive, for it doesn't tell the story of the 100
other couples who in like manner, never did achieve happiness, eternal marriage
or familial bliss. Furthermore a man with same gender attraction has just
as much potential for repentance as the couple engaging in fornication.

Further because we don't see the long, tiresome struggle that the man must
make to deny himself of urges which may even seem natural to him, no matter
how abhorrent, we tend to focus on the many that have failed to make the path
back to repentance. Why? Why do we in this case focus on the failures,
where as in the case of the fornicator we are drawn to the exception of the
rule, who somehow manages to (through a similiar hellish path of repentance
and forsaking of base urges) scale a cliff of repentace?

What message does that tell your son (or grandson) who secretly, and for no
aparent fault of his own, suffers from same gender attraction? What if he
falls? Is there no hope?

My point, and yes, I'm being incredibly redundant in repeating it for this
many times. Is that because we tell many tales of repentance among fornication
we tend to ignore it, or at least turn a blind eye to it. While on the other
hand, because homosexuality is alien to most of us, it turns our stomachs, and
we shrink at the thought of such a sin, but in so doing, we tend to communicate
a double standard when it comes to sins.

We simply can't afford to do that... imo...

>To those who like to imply that, somehow, homosexual expressions are on the same
>footing as heterosexual fornication, I like to think back to this example from my
>own experience, and I realize that they are worlds apart.

>Fornication between a man and a woman is a misuse of the procreative instincts that
>are rightly reserved for marriage. However, the same acts between a man and a woman
>who are legally and lawfully married are not only permissible, but are sacred and
>holy beyond expression.

>There is nothing potentially sacred or holy or in any way, shape or form edifying in
>homosexual acts. Not in the eyes of God, and not in the reckoning of the Church.

Isn't there? Or are you simply stating that because you cannot
see any potential for good in the inclinations of homosexuality?

Why is it that some of the most talented artists in this world suffer
from same gender attraction? Could it be that their talents are evidence
of a sensitivity to things, perhaps even talents by which their own
spiritual ailments are a biproduct?

Rex Goode, an LDS member who openly confesses same gender attraction,
wrote in some of his own essays, holding the opinion that perhaps same
gender attraction is evidence of a man's ability to love his fellow man,
beyond the conventions of what culture would dictate is acceptable, but
that it may not, in the very core, be couched in evil.

I'm not suggesting that same gender attraction is something we should
seek out, nor should actions upon such be something we endorse, but I am
suggesting that perhaps the original motivations may be just as slight a
twist on "natural desires" as the couple who followed their "natural desires"
into fornication.

Best regards,

PS. Apologies to those who really didn't want to see this topic
expanded upon...

--
************************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) * "The meek shall inherit the earth, *
*********************************** and the bank shall reposess it." *
* 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion ***************** -- Sawyer Brown ***
*********************************** (from Cafe on the Corner)

[David Bowie]

jane wrote in message <6nqb7d$o5g$1...@supernews.com>...

:Because of many problems with girls in my ward getting pregnant, all of

:the adults in the ward (combined priesthood/R.S. including all adult
:primary teachers and YW leaders) were visited by LDS social services

:and shown this video...

My ward was shown it in such a meeting about a year or year and a half ago,
but we didn't have anyone from LDSSS there--such a representative would have
been a most useful addition, IMO, 'cause some of the questions that were
asked could have probably been answered better.

:...It encouraged girls to marry first...

And this is my problem with the video--it encourages *girls* to marry, but
it says nothing about the *boys* involved. That is, the boys portrayed in
the video were rather two-dimensional characters--they were either nice guys
who agreed to get married, or they were jerks who wouldn't get married.
There weren't any, say, guys who wanted to get married when the girl didn't.

Basically, the video in question makes it seem like the boy involved is
merely a sperm donor who can marry the girl involved, but the girl is an
expectant mother.

<snip really good question about LDSSS policy>

Interesting factoid--i'm friends with a woman who had a child out of
wedlock; although she's non-Mormon, she placed the child for adoption with
LDSSS. It was generally a positive thing overall for her, but there were
apparently some tension-inducing moments, like her LDSSS counselor telling
her--a *non*-Mormon, remember--that she needed to get in touch with her
bishop to work on the repentance process.

Makes me wonder about the training LDSSS counselors receive.

David, whose testimony is not based on LDSSS policy

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to ASprin7926 (aspri...@aol.com) having written:
[snip]

>The point of my relating this incident in the first place was that our stake
>president also found 'Titanic' to be objectionable, so much so that he

>felt an apology was necessary for having seen part of it. No official

>statement by the church has been made about PG13 movies--they are

>left to our own judgment. So our stake president apologized for his error
>in judgment as a public acknowledgement of that error. I find that to be
>commendable, not something to be twisted into something it's not. We
>all make mistakes, and mine is to waste my time taking further part in
>this conversation. I hesitated to jump into it in the first place, but I
>surely never realized how my intended point would be taken in such a
>judgmental and twisted way. I should have known!

FWIW, I found your post to be most informative and helpful. And your
aclamation that the Stake President was willing to admit he'd been
conned into seeing the film (most likely due to hype) and then was
man enough to admit the film didn't provide him any uplift, was very
much my own sentiment. So I empathized with your point, and was glad
to hear I was not the only person who felt this way. Thanks for sharing
this example, even though some in this group think it is overreacting
or take a cynical outlook to such things.

I would have posted an affirmation sooner, but I've been out of town
all this week. Anyhow thanks for sharing your point, it was helpful
to me, regardless of all those who sit around saying "Big deal, naked
body", while missing the WHOLE point of this discussion had nothing to
do with nudity...

Best regards,

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to David Bowie (dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu) having written:
[snip-probably too much]

>A couple of different issues here.

>First of all, people who study historically-based fictional movies (the
>three you presented fit into that classification) in the classroom in media
>courses certainly study them as fiction. I have yet to see anyone other

>than you claim otherwise.

I think the poster had a legitimate point in that sometimes (at least I've
heard such used) LDS use the fact that a film is couched in history as a
license to expose ourselves to entertainment which is best left in the
gutter. At least that was my point in questioning the historical value
of such films. If you go see a film because it is "based on a true
story", you aren't necessarily edifying yourself, as much as you're simply
falling for a marketting gimmick.

[jane]

I hope that I did not make the video sound like it was not very worthwhile.
I do recommend that girls who are pregnant out-of-wedlock see it. Typical
of most church videos, it was well done. I may have made the video sound
like a major point was marriage first (it showed many of the benefits of
adoption). I know the social services woman absolutely did stress marriage
over adoption.

An interesting problem that we discussed in this meeting, was the fact the
many of the grandmothers get involved and do not allow the babies to be
adopted and choose to raise the children themselves. My mother had been the
stake relief society president in a "mission field" stake for eight years
and told me that almost all of the grandparents chose to raise
out-of-wedlock children instead of allowing adoption in that stake (and
there were quite a few out-of-wedlock babies). In some cases these babies
were even adopted by the grandparents (making their mothers also their
"sisters"). I am interested to know what others think about this.

[Ann Porter]

>My ward was shown it in such a meeting about a year or year and a half ago,
>but we didn't have anyone from LDSSS there--such a representative would
have
>been a most useful addition, IMO, 'cause some of the questions that were
>asked could have probably been answered better.

What was the title of the video y'all saw? It sure sounds different from
the one I watched...

Best,
Ann (a new Texan)
>

[Sandi]

jane wrote:

> <snip a bunch of stuff about out of wedlock adoption and grand-parents raising
> babies>

> I am interested to know what others think about this.

I don't think you really want to know how I feel about the issue of
grandparents getting involved with the adoption process but I will try to be
nice in telling you. We tried to adopt a baby through LDSSS only to have the
whole thing blow up in our faces the DAY BEFORE the birth mother was to sign the
papers to relinquish the baby to them. From what I understand, as told to us by
our caseworker, the grandmother talked to the girl that night and told her that
they would support her financially and otherwise if she would just keep the
baby. I can't tell you how much this tore us up. We had waited may years for
this and then we had it yanked right out from under us.

My opinion of the movie that has been discussed is high. We watched it as soon
as our library obtained a copy. I cried through almost the entire thing. It
was well made, IMO, and really gets people thinking when they are faced with
this situation. Or not in that situation for that matter. Maybe it will help
us all deal with people we know who do end up dealing with an out of wedlock
pregnancy.

--
Sandi * "A true friend loves you even when you act like yourself"
***************************************************************
THE ICEBERG * http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/7165/
***************************************************************
Don't forget to check out the Families Are Forever Webring during your visit

[David Potter]

> Best regards,
>
> --
> ************************************************************************
> * Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) * "The meek shall inherit the earth, *
> *********************************** and the bank shall reposess it." *
> * 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion ***************** -- Sawyer Brown ***
> *********************************** (from Cafe on the Corner)

I'm having a hard time understanding this Titanic backlash. I saw the
show with my wife and we both liked it very much. I'm sure the two
parts of the movie that everyone is all up in arms about is where Jack
sketches the nude image of Rose and the scene in the automobile in the
cargo hull.

First there is nothing inherently wrong with an image of a womans body
such as was portrayed in the movie. The scene while erotic was tastfuly
done with Jack showing complete profesionalism in drawing a beautiful
human body without being caught up in the sexual emotions.

Second, from the movie, (as best as I can tell) we do not know what
really went on in the back seat of that car. We do know that it was
passionate, but we do not know that fornication was committed.

As I have read the many comments about this movie, it seems that we as
LDS feel we will be asteemed greatest by our fellow believers if we can
remove any and all elements of sexuality from our lives (other than
those defined, limited moments with our spouse). Human Sexuality is a
natural part of this human experience. It is not limited only to those
moments behind closed doors with your mate. I believe it is important
that it be kept within the prescribed boundaries of the Gospel
principles and covenants, but we have taken it way beyond that and are
dictating a life where this element of our human existance is nearly
completely removed.

dpotter
dpo...@micron.net

[Sandi]

David Potter wrote:

> <snip>

>
> As I have read the many comments about this movie, it seems that we as
> LDS feel we will be asteemed greatest by our fellow believers if we can
> remove any and all elements of sexuality from our lives (other than
> those defined, limited moments with our spouse). Human Sexuality is a
> natural part of this human experience. It is not limited only to those
> moments behind closed doors with your mate. I believe it is important
> that it be kept within the prescribed boundaries of the Gospel
> principles and covenants, but we have taken it way beyond that and are
> dictating a life where this element of our human existance is nearly
> completely removed.
>
> dpotter
> dpo...@micron.net

I for one am not looking to be esteemed by my fellow believers for anything I do.
The reasons we chose not to view these types of scenes is for the same reason you
brought up in your posting. We too believe it is important to keep human sexuality
within the prescribed boundaries of the Gospel principles and covenants. That is
why we choose to not view these types of scenes, i.e. the nude one in Titanic.
Sure we saw it but had we known it was there we would never have gone. I am
probably going to be jumped on here but I don't care. I have always been taught
that the body is something sacred and not to be displayed for the entire world to
see. That those things and I don't care if it was tastefully done, because I agree
that it was, but it is still erotic and it *can*, I didn't say it does, lead to
sexual acts outside the boundaries of marriage.

Also, if you think you can live up to the principles and covenants and still watch
these things then more power to you. But I think that that taking it away would
have no harmful effects. There are plenty of other ways that we can amuse
ourselves that are way more uplifting spiritually.

[Brent]

Sandi wrote:

> We too believe it is important to keep human sexuality
> within the prescribed boundaries of the Gospel principles and covenants. That is
> why we choose to not view these types of scenes, i.e. the nude one in Titanic.
> Sure we saw it but had we known it was there we would never have gone.

I'm just curious because when people get all twisted about IMPLIED sex what they think
about things like:

30 ś And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters
with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two
daughters.

Genesis 19:31
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father [is] old, and [there is] not a
man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

Genesis 19:32
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may
preserve seed of our father.

Genesis 19:33
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and
lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Genesis 19:34
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger,
Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also;
and go thou in, [and] lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Genesis 19:35
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and
lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Genesis 19:36
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Genesis 19:37
37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same [is] the father of
the Moabites unto this day.

Genesis 19:38
38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same [is]
the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Now. It would seem to me that this whole unseemly event could be edited down to:

"Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in a cave. And the children of his daughters are
the Moabites and the Children of Ammon."

And we would have avoided all that nasty liquoring up your Dad and making off with his
DNA.

So why would this R rated scene still be in the Bible? Could it be to show us the
desperate need women had in this culture to have progeny to sustain them in thier old
age? To show us the humanity of that desperation?

Or is it just a dirty part?

Likewise this question can be applied to movies and theater and books and all art.

Is this just titillating? Or does it show me something that couldn't otherwise be
told?

IMHO the sketching scene in Titanic could have been shot and edited WITHOUT showing Ms.
Winslet's breasts. And IMHO it would have been more powerful that way.

The car scene tells us alot about the bond that sex (in or out of marriage) has. It's a
God given tool to bring man and wife together. EVEN WHEN MISUSED that bond can form.
It explains commitment and yes--even out of wedlock--LOVE.

Titanic is a good movie. And the car scene will STILL be in the network cut NBC shows.
I'll let my (by then) 11 year old daughter see the movie on TV simply because the
Sketching Scene will be cut (IMHO) the way it should have been in the first place.

Then I will explain to her that sex outside of marriage is not what the Lord wants us
to do. And that people make mistakes in passionate moments. And that God Loves YOU
and wants you back. And that Jesus is the Christ and that Repentance is a true
principle and works. And you can recover from sin.

And Jack and Rose REALLY loved each other and should have waited.

Best,

Brent

[David Potter]

After my wife and I saw the movie, we had our 8 and 10 year old
daughters who begged us to go to the movie. After much discussion with
my wife, we decided that she would take the two girls to an afternoon
showing of the movie.

After the movie, we likewise told our girls, that that passions and
romance that the two stars of the movie portrayed was good and essential
in this life. We also told them where the line was and that the
creative powers are to be used only in marriage.

Where I differed with you was in the nude sketch scene. We discussed
with our girls, that thier bodies are beautiful, and that there are
certain displays of the human body which we feel are acceptable and one
of those is in the field of art.

[Hedgehog]

In article <6nr203$si$1...@supernews.com>, wr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I'm stating that we don't view homosexuality as a
> necessary evil, even in the "yearning" stage, but we are more than willing
> to close our eyes during a sex scene so that we can be more "culturally
> uplifted", and in the name of "quality entertainment" we can appear more
> sophisticated and hip.

I think if one watches any films merely as a ploy for increasing one's
social standing, then one is sinning--even if the film is rated G.

On the other hand, all humans are sinners and therefore all films about
humans are going to have references to sin in them. For Mormons to feel
that they can't watch films about characters who fornicate, are
homosexual, or are Nazis is odd. Surely Mormons don't refuse to watch
Casablanca because Rick is a smoker and a boozer and is yet the hero of
the film. Is merely watching Casablance a repudiation of the Word of
Wisdom?

Peace,
Hedgehog

[David Potter]

Hedgehog, I seriously question whether those that have been responding
to the issue of morality in the Movie Titanic truely have thier
objection based on the moral issue.

What if Rose and Jack had in fact had a priest on the ship marry them at
the very begining. Do you think those responding to this topic would
have found his sketching her in the nude or thier situation in the back
seat of the car any more tasteful? I don't think it would have made
much difference.

Hedgehog wrote:
>
> In article <6nr203$si$1...@supernews.com>, wr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>

> > I'm stating that we don't view homosexuality as a
> > necessary evil, even in the "yearning" stage, but we are more than willing
> > to close our eyes during a sex scene so that we can be more "culturally
> > uplifted", and in the name of "quality entertainment" we can appear more
> > sophisticated and hip.
>

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) having written:

>In article <6nr203$si$1...@supernews.com>, wr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[snip]

>I think if one watches any films merely as a ploy for increasing one's
>social standing, then one is sinning--even if the film is rated G.

It certainly is a misdirected reason to watch a film, but I don't
know that I'd call it a sin. ANd I don't think it's that far fetched
an idea. I remember social groups, in particular, those immature ones
like high school, in which a person's popularity revolved around one's
knowlege and ability to make "impressive" commentary on pop culture
icons and films and whatever else that is "trendy". The film industry
wouldn't have the budgets it does if it didn't have an absurd ability to
influence trends and surf public appeal and opinion.

In a perfect world, we'd all read books... right?

One of the things I've had brought to my attention frequently when it
comes to entertainment is that the main characters are not the type who
even go to films, watch tv, or sit around on the internet hour after hour,
because a story about them would be pretty boring. No, most tales are
about people DOING something, people who don't exist in real life, but
because they do "admirable things" they are set up to be people we wish
to be like.

When a story is marketted as "based on a true story" it says "Hey this
happened and could happen to you." There's an immediate tie to reality
beyond what a normal story might do...

>On the other hand, all humans are sinners and therefore all films about
>humans are going to have references to sin in them. For Mormons to feel
>that they can't watch films about characters who fornicate, are
>homosexual, or are Nazis is odd. Surely Mormons don't refuse to watch
>Casablanca because Rick is a smoker and a boozer and is yet the hero of
>the film.

>Is merely watching Casablance a repudiation of the Word of
>Wisdom?

Why are there so many lawsuits against tobacco companies if the concept
that their advertisements could NEVER affect behaviour were completely
bogus?

Do you honestly believe that films don't have ability to affect trends
in society?

Are you one of these people who justifies their taste in music as "Well,
I don't really listen to the lyrics."?

People have an affinity to suggestion, whether implied, subconscious or
blatant.

You bring up the Nazis... How was it that a man such as Hitler was able
to convince so many people into committing attrocities? He did much of
it via manipulation of "trendiness". He made it cool to bash detractants
and targetted the youth as his minions. If you were to explain to these
people the crap they were going to do, in plain terms, I doubt that Hitler
would have had the following that he did, but he didn't come right out and
say slaughter your fellow men, no, he said, just look the other way, and I'll
give you the Rhine.

Now, we are being asked to look the other way, while erotic images and
sexual suggestions are being placed in our minds, for the sake of a
"classy", "historically based", entertaining film. ANd if anyone makes
a stink at the questionable messages? They are dismissed as prudes and sent
to the death camps of scorn...

Sure, people sin. But our tollerance of sin allows things to get worse.
When we allow ourselves to tollerate such now, its only a matter of time
before we, ourselves, are entertaining the ideas, rather than actually
steering far clear of those iceberg-filled troubled waters.

[Hedgehog]

In article <6o3837$gje$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

> >Is merely watching Casablance a repudiation of the Word of
> >Wisdom?
>
> Why are there so many lawsuits against tobacco companies if the concept
> that their advertisements could NEVER affect behaviour were completely
> bogus?

Do Mormons smoke simply because they see a billboard advertising cigarettes?

> Do you honestly believe that films don't have ability to affect trends
> in society?

I am not sure what relevance this has to the discussion at hand.

> Are you one of these people who justifies their taste in music as "Well,
> I don't really listen to the lyrics."?

It depends on the piece to which I am listening at a given time. I often
don't listen to the words if they are singing in Gaelic or Latin or
Punjabi. When they sing in English, I often try to hear the words.

> People have an affinity to suggestion, whether implied, subconscious or
> blatant.

Would you prefer there to be no artistic freedom and all works of art to
be approved by an ideology committee? First, such a system seems to
ignore Mormon respect for free agency. Secondly, it makes intermountain
Mormon objections to Democratic party centralization look ridiculous.

> You bring up the Nazis... How was it that a man such as Hitler was able
> to convince so many people into committing attrocities?

Mainly by suspressing books and films he did not like and only allowing
propaganda films and books which supported his party and the state.

> Now, we are being asked to look the other way, while erotic images and
> sexual suggestions are being placed in our minds, for the sake of a
> "classy", "historically based", entertaining film.

Uh, I am not arguing that people should look the other way. It is other
participants in this thread who think that Titanic should not be viewed.
I didn't really have any complaints about it.

> ANd if anyone makes
> a stink at the questionable messages? They are dismissed as prudes and sent
> to the death camps of scorn...

Not at all! I simply wanted to know how the standards which you wish to
apply to new works of art would be applied to classics. Do Mormons feel
the same revulsion at a 5th century BC nude female as a 20th century nude
female?

> Sure, people sin. But our tollerance of sin allows things to get worse.
> When we allow ourselves to tollerate such now, its only a matter of time
> before we, ourselves, are entertaining the ideas, rather than actually
> steering far clear of those iceberg-filled troubled waters.

We? Is this a rhetorical "we"?

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) having written:

>In article <6o3837$gje$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:
[snip]

>Do Mormons smoke simply because they see a billboard advertising cigarettes?

Why do people smoke in general? (Mormons are people, hedge.) Much of it
has to do with popular opinion. I think it's safe to say that wrapping a
leaf into a small bundle and then lighting it, and sucking in the fumes
is not an inherently genetic trait passed on through our DNA. IT IS A LEARNED
BEHAVIOR, and someone's doing the teaching. Furthermore, like the taste of
beer, it often takes a good many times before the body's natural revulsion
of the substances is weakened enough to develop a tollerance and later an
addiction. So... why are people smoking? Tobacco companies went far and
put forth great effort to make it appear appealing and sophisticated. Now
we pay the price of that lovely lie, because it has become a culturally
acceptable, and in some ways, encouraged behavior.

In my own town of Fort Collins there's a guy who's going to get married
this weekend, who's never before met his wife. It's all being hosted by
a radio station and most people are thinking it's a foolhearty publicity
stunt. Many people are asking, "How can you even THINK of getting married
if you haven't had sex with her?" As though one must know if one will be
able to perform sexually in order to be able to get married. This is sad
sick and wrong. It's evidence of a cultural mindset. That before any
relationship is "complete" one must have sex with that person. I think
Titanic did a wonderful job of perpetuating that notion... even though it
is completely contrary to what the Gospel teaches.

>> Do you honestly believe that films don't have ability to affect trends
>> in society?

>I am not sure what relevance this has to the discussion at hand.

This is precisely what this discussion is about... If we go back to the
original post, the comments by the stake president in question were not
at any particularly offensive part of the film but at the widely popular
morally bankrupt notions perpetuated in the film.

If films have ability to affect cultural notions, AND THEY DO, then not
only can a person seeing the film be duped into believing a lie, but their
friends and acquaintances also start embracing the trends set forth therein.
And friends have serious influence on the impressionable.

>> People have an affinity to suggestion, whether implied, subconscious or
>> blatant.

>Would you prefer there to be no artistic freedom and all works of art to
>be approved by an ideology committee? First, such a system seems to
>ignore Mormon respect for free agency. Secondly, it makes intermountain
>Mormon objections to Democratic party centralization look ridiculous.

Huh!? Let's not play coy, Hedge. People are impressionable. Compelling
stories aren't called compelling unless they compel. A lie told enough
times becomes acceptable. This has nothing to do with Free Agency. No
one is suggesting that these films be banned. The only thing we've said
is DON'T BOTHER to go see them. Make a choice in your own life to not
include the filth that comes from PG-13 films.

A poster shared her own experience with telling her daughter about Titanic
and that poster stated that her daughter MADE A CHOICE not to go view PG-13
films in general. Instead of applauding her, many of the people here
ridiculed her decision, and accused her of being closed minded. Okay, so
I applaud her decision... I think that youth making such fine decisions
are less likely to allow their boyfriends a homecourt advantage because he
might "die" if he doesn't get any. She knows what she stands for and makes
a definitive, uncompromising stand for her standards.

Why is it that the average age for sexual encounters in America has
steadily decreased? Why is it that many youth in High School and such
think you really aren't cool until you've done it? Were the kids twenty
years ago just not as "hormonal" as the ones today?

No, it all comes down to cultural acceptance and perception. Films are
a direct result of that. Sometimes that perception is wonderful (such as
the condemnation of racism and classism and violence), but sometimes it
is downright abominable.

LDS strive to be known as a Zion people. We will not find Zion by
patronizing Babylonian temples...

[Ann Porter]

>> >Is merely watching Casablance a repudiation of the Word of
>> >Wisdom?
>>
>> Why are there so many lawsuits against tobacco companies if the concept
>> that their advertisements could NEVER affect behaviour were completely
>> bogus?
>

>Do Mormons smoke simply because they see a billboard advertising
cigarettes?
>

1. I am a Mormon.
2. I do not smoke because I see billboards advertising cigarettes.
3. I still, after 13 years, crave a cigarette sometimes.

Best,
Ann

[Ann Porter]

[Moderator's Note: This may be drifting too far off-topic. Please keep
follow-ups relevant to LDS religion.]

>Why is it that the average age for sexual encounters in America has
>steadily decreased? Why is it that many youth in High School and such
>think you really aren't cool until you've done it? Were the kids twenty
>years ago just not as "hormonal" as the ones today?

No, I think they were just less honest when asked about their sexual
activity.

Best,
Ann

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Ann Porter (a...@cprplus.com) having written:

This is certainly a nice rationalization one can tell oneself if one
wishes to go through life with blinders on and ignore that an actual
moral problem may exist.

Why is it that some feel obligated to soil the way things were in order
to justify the mediocrity we currently are mired in? Never before has
sexual content and suggestion been more rampant, we know from prophecy
and scripture that it will fill the earth in the "last days". And you
read the stuff and think, "How can it be that the parable of the 10 virgins
has half of them being cast off?"

It's easy, we just turn off our lights.

You would think with the advent of birthcontrol the teen pregnancy and
abortion rate would statistically be lower than it was before the pill
was created, so why has it skyrocketted? Has it always been exactly the
same, and people are no longer hiding it?

Now where'd I put that oil?

[Peggy Rogers]

Jerry James wrote:

> So, let's see by a raise of hands how many people think we should eat
> spam only in the winter or in time of famine.
> --
> Jerry "Hormel hates me" James

O
O| |O
| | | |O
| | | | |
O\ | | |o| |
| || | !!!!!!!!!!!
\ \| /
\ /
\ /
| |
| |

Peggy

[Mark Atwood]

ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) writes:
<SNIP>

Raymond, I much enjoyed reading your post responding to Hedgehog's, and
was really looking forward to the end, where I was expecting you to
have a response to his last statement/question.

But you didn't.

Hedgehog wrote:
>Not at all! I simply wanted to know how the standards which you wish to
>apply to new works of art would be applied to classics. Do Mormons feel
>the same revulsion at a 5th century BC nude female as a 20th century nude
>female?

I am really interested in reading various newsgroup participants
reponses to his question..

--
Mark Atwood |He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
m...@pobox.com|earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,
|since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. -- Einstein

[Raymond Bingham]

I uncovered clues pointing to Mark Atwood (m...@pobox.com) having written:

>ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) writes:
><SNIP>

>Raymond, I much enjoyed reading your post responding to Hedgehog's, and
>was really looking forward to the end, where I was expecting you to
>have a response to his last statement/question.

>But you didn't.

That's because Hedgehog was misleading in asking the question. He tends to
want to make a general principle to characterize all mormons about their
treatment of all things naked. And as I've stated a good number of times
it wasn't about "nakedness" at all. It was about eroticism, and the lies
being perveyed in the story, and the influence of media on the popular
culture.

I did make a few short comments on historical artwork, but aparently
you didn't get a chance to see those. The problem with answering all
Hedge's questions in one post is that he often tries to bait the thread
to go a certain way, often a way in which I don't necessarily agree
with, or have the desire to defend one way or the other...

>Hedgehog wrote:
>>Not at all! I simply wanted to know how the standards which you wish to
>>apply to new works of art would be applied to classics. Do Mormons feel
>>the same revulsion at a 5th century BC nude female as a 20th century nude
>>female?

>I am really interested in reading various newsgroup participants
>reponses to his question..

I think the question is misleading, in that we express "revulsion" at
at the fifth century or twentieth century nude anything. It's not the
naked as much as the message. There's a significant difference between
what a film can communicate and a still painting (I know, being an artist
a still image seldom communicates all I wish it could... it's part of the
difficulty in doing sketches and stills.) Oftimes the message being
communicatedin a fifth century piece has long since lost its significance, and
thus is appreciated as a "higher artform". As to whether LDS agree that it
is indeed "higher art" is a matter of personal interpretation. Sometimes
I would suppose that 5th century stuff is just as indecent as 20th century
stuff, and sometimes it may be less offensive, due to lack of context
and the ability to suspend one's belief that the object was intended for
immorality and promotion of eroticism.

That's not to say that all art, regardless of its age is valuable or
of the same artistic value. When I was on my mission we got a chance to
go to Pompeii on P-day. If you ever get the chance to go, please do. It's
fascinating (though they say Ercolano is better preserved). One of the
most disturbing things about the city is that on almost every corner is a
brothel. As a result, when archaeologists digged about they found a number
of "erotic" statues and artwork. From a purely historical perspective it
might be interesting to know that the notions of bestiality, homoeroticism,
fixation with gigantic genitalia, masturbation, and anal sex were all hot
topics of the day, if not practiced. Some of the archealogical "treasures"
are quite controversial, and you're probably not going to find them in an
elementary school kid's history book. School kids have a hard enought times
with the Venus di Milo, giggling and pointing and gawking. As a missionary
we thought it inappropriate behavior to go about touring "Pompeii Erotica",
which is the portion of Pompeii in which these objects were skirted off to
(though I did know somewhat of their existence, though I'm not sure of all
artifacts, because although they made a great effort to make Pompeii "PG"
their gift shop postcards stands had no such tasteful segregation, thus to
get a "decent" postcard you had to view a number of "indecent" ones... even
by today's standards... ;-)

As a God-fearing person, and seeing evidence of the debotchery, I
might suppose that might be one of the reasons Pompeii was destroyed.
It's sins covered in a blanket of searing ash, that we might one day
recover the knowlege of their vile practices and be likewise forewarned
of our own destiny with destruction should we tread the same path.

Finally I think it is possible to take any century art to the
extreme, and in an effort to be cultured, at the very least desensitize
oneself to the sensitivities of others. My wife, for example, made a
life decision that she would never view rated R films. She took a class
once in which the teacher required the students to see a number of films,
and by the time the signup list got around, the only films left were those
with the rating of R. She went to the teacher and explained that she didn't
see rated R films, and asked if she could get into the showings of those
films which were rated PG. The instructor, with her high minded (probably
mentally threatened that someone could actually hold to their values)
attitude, took it upon herself to browbeat my wife, informing her of how
closed minded she was, and how she was depriving herself of this and that.
My wife stuck to her guns, and the teacher eventually let her see another
film, rated PG. I find it alarming that someone claiming to be "enlightened"
or sophisticated, because of their exposure to art, should feel it necessary
to verbally abuse another person who holds different standards. This lack
of sensitivity, only leads me to wonder if sophistication isn't just a
fancy word for sinful pride.

To me I think the finest example of this phenomena, and the warnings
to avoid it, come from the Book of Mormon. In Lehi's dream, he beheld a
building, upon which stood all the fancily dressed people laughing and gawking
and mocking those pilgrims seeking to find a precious white fruit upon the
tree of life, which is the Gift of God. Holding to the Rod, saints followed
the path, eventually partaking of the fruit of the tree. But when they
tasted they looked around, seeing those mocking them, and many shrunk in
shame, lead away into forbidden paths. Yet the Great and Spacious building
upon which these finely dressed people flitted to and fro, had no foundation,
and Nephi beheld it's fall. This is the lie I have been denouncing all the
while. The lie that many of us LDS buy into and shrink away, even trying to
join those in the building. We point our own fingers at our own people and
mock them for seeking something which we ourselves are now ashamed to admit
we too once sought. Our minds have become hardened to Christlike sensitivity
and innocence. When preaching to the people, Jacob lamented that he had to
deliver daggers, by exposing some of the pure minds and hearts to the craven
desires of some in the audience. What a contrast to today, when we say,
Oh it's such a good show, there's only one bad scene in it, and the "swearing"
but otherwise it is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO good. Bullpucky. That's like handing
someone a pitcher of lemonade with a big piece of poop in it and saying,
the lemonade's really good, there's only one bad part in it... and you can
drink around that.

Finally, there's something to be said for a person who takes the time to
become cultured in art. I think it is a valuable lesson, and a worthwhile
pursuit, but not as an excuse to look at nudes. There is plenty of art
which is nonnude. And it is possible to learn just as much from a painting
which doesn't use this technique. A nude painting implies something,
which is, that the artist was at least standing around staring at a nude
form (though I could draw a very convincing nude without the need of a model,
but then I've probably seen more than my share of nudes. :) and painting
and such. As such we learn something about the artist, because all art is
about the artist, at least in some small form. As someone who's seen
Michaelangelo's David, personally, I must admit that I went to see it mostly
to say that I'd seen it, and not appreciating the reasons it is considered
artwork. To me it was a giant naked man, and in that way, I might even
suppose that it was indecent for me to go see it, just as it might be indecent
for me to go see the many nude women statues of Bernini. I didn't appreciate
it for the artwork, but mostly did so because I knew it was "art" without
having a clue as to "why". I see nothing wrong, therefore, with LDS people
taking a stance against "higher art" if there's not going to be a similar
amount of education to go along with the process. The next time I hear someone
criticizing me for denouncing a film which has nudity and they bring up
"Do you think we should ban, michaelangelo's david?" (Which has become a
braindead cry of foul for quite a while, for quite a good number of people
who have NO CLUE.) I am going to ask them, "Just why, precisely, is
Michaelangelo's David considered artwork?"

And then I'll watch them squirm... Most people don't know why something is
art, only that they've been told it is. Most people defend the status quo,
like mindless rats, because they've been fed a bill of goods by what they view
as people who are superior to them, only because these people viewed themselves
as such.

This weekend I took a while to listen to some Opera (the Three Tenors) and
I must say that while the announcer was just glowing with praise, I
could not help but feel that this announcer was programmed to think that
their singing was good. As a person used to clear melodic sounds, their
warbling and shrieking didn't appeal to me as orgasmicly as it did the
announcer. As a result, but not being unfair to it, (I have a brother very
involved in Opera) I listened for a while, trying to learn to like it. It
just didn't appeal to me. As latterday saints it shouldn't be shocking to
find that there are things in the world that don't appeal to us. One of
these things may be the public displayal of all things erotic. We simply
cannot be drawn into those things which will corrode our spirits, we have
a different mission than many of the artists and performers that live in
this world. How is it, therefore, that we must feel obligated to give a
lift to every worldly hitchhiker taking a journey in the opposite direction
to eternal life?! There are plenty of good and wholesome and virtuous
things in the arts, but there are plenty of things which lead astray, and
as LDS we must be willing to put our goal of eternal life above our goal
to look the part of the inhabitants of the Great and Spacious building. For
as in the dream, there is a great rift between the building and the tree,
and one cannot seek one and accidentally achieve the other.

[Harold [Hal] F Lillywhite]

In article <6o0ars$c3q$1...@supernews.com> bjm...@micron.net writes:

>Now. It would seem to me that this whole unseemly event could
>be edited down to:

>"Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in a cave. And the children
>of his daughters are the Moabites and the Children of Ammon."

>And we would have avoided all that nasty liquoring up your Dad
>and making off with his DNA.

>So why would this R rated scene still be in the Bible?

Actually I sort of suspect it is there at least partly 'cause the
Moabites and Ammonites were usually enemies of the Israelites. I
wonder if some of the latter wanted to keep a prominent reminder
around of the somewhat dubious origins of their enemy tribes.
"Nah, Nah, Nah, we came from the fathers God selected but you are
the children of incest. Besides, your Grandma had to get someone
drunk before he could stand to sleep with her."

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Hedgehog]

In article <6o7qi8$of3$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

> >>Why is it that the average age for sexual encounters in America has
> >>steadily decreased? Why is it that many youth in High School and such
> >>think you really aren't cool until you've done it? Were the kids twenty
> >>years ago just not as "hormonal" as the ones today?

> >No, I think they were just less honest when asked about their sexual
> >activity.

> This is certainly a nice rationalization one can tell oneself if one
> wishes to go through life with blinders on and ignore that an actual
> moral problem may exist.

Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

In other words, the only really important moral problem you have to worry
about is your own.

Rather than discussing how a film might affect some hypothetical third
party, perhaps we ought to discuss how it affects Mormons (and
non-Mormons) who actually watched the movie.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

In article <6o5hvm$iq2$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

> Why do people smoke in general? (Mormons are people, hedge.)

But people in general don't have a moral system that condemns smoking.
Mormons do have such a moral system. The issue is whether advertising can
brain wash a person into violating a deeply held moral belief, right?

[snip]

> is not an inherently genetic trait passed on through our DNA. IT IS A LEARNED
> BEHAVIOR, and someone's doing the teaching.

I didn't learn to drive a car by looking at billboards alone. Advertising
is not all powerful.

> As though one must know if one will be
> able to perform sexually in order to be able to get married.

Actually in the Roman Catholic Church ability to perform sexually is a
necessary requirement for a valid marriage.

> If films have ability to affect cultural notions, AND THEY DO, then not
> only can a person seeing the film be duped into believing a lie, but their
> friends and acquaintances also start embracing the trends set forth therein.

I know some atheists who would use the above argument to ban printing and
distribution of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

> LDS strive to be known as a Zion people. We will not find Zion by
> patronizing Babylonian temples...

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the
kingdom of God is within you.

Peace,
Hedgehog

[Hedgehog]

[Moderator's Note: Ahem! Could we try to steer reponses to this thread
back toward LDS issues. Thanx -rkd]

In article <6odrur$19g$1...@supernews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

> That's because Hedgehog was misleading in asking the question. He tends to
> want to make a general principle to characterize all mormons about their
> treatment of all things naked.

Is this an admission that Mormons can have legitimate reasons to watch and
enjoy the movie Titanic?

> And as I've stated a good number of times
> it wasn't about "nakedness" at all. It was about eroticism, and the lies
> being perveyed in the story, and the influence of media on the popular
> culture.

So allow me to rephrase the question: is _eroticism_ in art judged
differently when it is a classic work rather than when it is a recent
release?

> >Hedgehog wrote:
> >>Not at all! I simply wanted to know how the standards which you wish to
> >>apply to new works of art would be applied to classics. Do Mormons feel
> >>the same revulsion at a 5th century BC nude female as a 20th century nude
> >>female?

> >I am really interested in reading various newsgroup participants
> >reponses to his question..

> I think the question is misleading, in that we express "revulsion" at
> at the fifth century or twentieth century nude anything.

Are we already so morally jaded that nudity alone doesn't do it for us anymore?

Not only are there verses prohibiting certain types of nakedness in the
Old Testament, but one of the moral accusations leveled at the Lamanites
by the Nephite prophets was their casual nakedness.

> There's a significant difference between
> what a film can communicate and a still painting (I know, being an artist
> a still image seldom communicates all I wish it could... it's part of the
> difficulty in doing sketches and stills.)

The ancient Greeks didn't produce any movies--at least I don't know of any
that survived. ;) I am afraid we may have to be a bit flexible about
what artistic medium is used to encapsulate the message.

> Oftimes the message being
> communicatedin a fifth century piece has long since lost its
significance, and
> thus is appreciated as a "higher artform".

You are now seemingly defending desensitization while earlier you argued
it was a danger to be avoided.

> I find it alarming that someone claiming to be "enlightened"
> or sophisticated, because of their exposure to art, should feel it necessary
> to verbally abuse another person who holds different standards.

Does this apply to those on both sides of this discussion?

> What a contrast to today, when we say,
> Oh it's such a good show, there's only one bad scene in it, and the "swearing"
> but otherwise it is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO good. Bullpucky. That's like handing
> someone a pitcher of lemonade with a big piece of poop in it and saying,
> the lemonade's really good, there's only one bad part in it... and you can
> drink around that.

Keep this argument in mind for a moment. I'll come back to it.

> Finally, there's something to be said for a person who takes the time to
> become cultured in art. I think it is a valuable lesson, and a worthwhile
> pursuit, but not as an excuse to look at nudes. There is plenty of art
> which is nonnude. And it is possible to learn just as much from a painting
> which doesn't use this technique.

OK.

> The next time I hear someone
> criticizing me for denouncing a film which has nudity and they bring up
> "Do you think we should ban, michaelangelo's david?" (Which has become a
> braindead cry of foul for quite a while, for quite a good number of people
> who have NO CLUE.) I am going to ask them, "Just why, precisely, is
> Michaelangelo's David considered artwork?"

It doesn't matter why the lemonade is supposed to be good if someone has
chucked a turd into it. To argue that the greatness of David somehow
neutralizes the completely gratuitous nudity of the statue is incredible
to me given your insistence on the lemonade analogy. Let's review the
case.

1) There is no good reason in the work itself to explain David's nudity.

2) You admitted that there is plenty of non-nude art to view in
preference to nudes.

3) In the past you have argued that exposure to a morally undesirable
artwork tends to deaden our moral compass.

4) You have argued that artists who do nudes tend to spend a lot of time
looking at nude bodies, presumably this would apply to classics as well as
recent works.

5) You have admitted that most tourists who go to view David do so
because it is the thing to do (i.e. peer pressure) rather than because of
any great interest in art or art history.

Given these five arguments plus the lemonade analogy, I think it is only
fair to turn the question around and ask for a defense of the viewing of
Michaelangelo's David as an act compatible with LDS teachings given that a
hand in a steamy car window is enough to condemn Titanic.

> And then I'll watch them squirm... Most people don't know why something is
> art, only that they've been told it is.

Didn't someone say something recently about using (or rather misusing)
one's artistic sophistication to abuse others?

Peace,
Hedgehog
(whose favorite artwork with nudity in it is Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of
Earthly Delights)

[Reed Jacobson]

Raymond,

I appreciated your post. I particularly liked this part,

>film, rated PG. I find it alarming that someone claiming to be
"enlightened"
>or sophisticated, because of their exposure to art, should feel it
necessary
>to verbally abuse another person who holds different standards. This lack
>of sensitivity, only leads me to wonder if sophistication isn't just a
>fancy word for sinful pride.

I agree that the liberals should not mock the conservatives, and vice versa.

I would like to respond to your comment on "swearing" in movies, however:

>Oh it's such a good show, there's only one bad scene in it, and the
"swearing"
>but otherwise it is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO good. Bullpucky. That's like handing
>someone a pitcher of lemonade with a big piece of poop in it and saying,
>the lemonade's really good, there's only one bad part in it... and you can
>drink around that.

I do watch R-Rated movies and I don't apologize for it. I understand and
respect the position of those (including my wife) who don't. Before I
watched movies that have strong language, I would literally blanch when a
collegue used even a mild four-letter-word. I have found that I no longer
react strongly to the language, although I also have no desire to use the
offensive words myself. In a way, I am glad for that, although I can see how
others would feel differently.

In the sense of your analogy, I would certainly not like lemonade with a big
piece of poop, but if I were touring a local dairy barn and didn't see any
poop, I would think I was at a theme-park barn, not a real one. Some people
are offended by the smell of a dairy barn; maybe they can go through life
never knowing where the milk comes from. I watch movies partly to
vicariously experience worlds I will never visit personally. If I go to
South Boston as in "Good Will Hunting," I will find four-letter-words.

What I care about with profanity is the appropriateness, or "honesty" of the
language."The film "In the Name of the Father" centered around a rather vile
Irish boy who had a filthy mouth. I didn't enjoy his language, but it was
very appropriate to who he was and the relationship he had with his father.
In contrast, I watched part of the TV movie "Hoffa", in which four-letter
words were converted to standard TV euphemisms. I turned it off after about
5 minutes because I found profanity excessive and offensive.

Reed

[Raymond Bingham]

Hedge wrote:

>I (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

>> Why do people smoke in general? (Mormons are people, hedge.)

>But people in general don't have a moral system that condemns smoking.
>Mormons do have such a moral system. The issue is whether advertising can
>brain wash a person into violating a deeply held moral belief, right?

Perhaps being in canada, you are estranged from some of the strange US
notions, but I would seriously question your assertion above. People are
suing tobacco companies because they target children in their advertising.
They are banning such advertisements and they are stating in no uncertain
terms that it IS immoral. I'M NOT SAYING I NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THEM,
but it is happening.

Are you honestly so naieve as to believe that thirteen year olds are
not impressionable? There's a whole music, book and toy industry geared
toward their tastes. Suggesting to their tiny developing minds that they
are not whole unless they have the latest X. Perhaps you have not spent
much time around thirteen year olds (Deacon age in the church) but I don't
know how many times I've heard the expression, "I will DIE if I don't get
X!" Sure it is patently false, unless X is oxygen, kids a generation
past may not have even dreamed that X would exist.

>[snip]
>> is not an inherently genetic trait passed on through our DNA.
>>IT IS A LEARNED
>> BEHAVIOR, and someone's doing the teaching.
>
>I didn't learn to drive a car by looking at billboards alone. Advertising
>is not all powerful.

Didn't you? Why did you learn to drive? Chances are you learned because
it was expected of your culturally, and your friends were doing it... so
you learned to as well... When you went to get your drivers license your
motivations for driving probably were not all that steeped in "furthering
the Gospel of our Heavenly Father." :-)

And that's a terribly poor analogy... There are things you've done because of
advertising. If advertising didn't work do you think companies would not be
pouring money into it? Do you also prescribe to the theory that whomever has
the highest quality product for the best price will naturally surface to the
top and become the leader? Economists of an old school used to believe that
til companies such as Microsoft came along... :-)

What makes Nike's inflatable sneakers, made in sweat shops by Asian girls, any
better than Reebok's inflatable sneekers, made in sweat shops by Asian girls?
It's image. It's that wonderful big lie. It's that great and spacious building
upon which there is no foundation. And the sooner we can cut it down to the
core, and look at things the way they are, THEN we can be honest with one another.

Why is it that almost every parent of a teenager complains that they cannot
buy clothes for their children? Why is it unnacceptable to buy clothing at
Kmart, or to use handmedowns, as opposed to the latest trendy set of clothes.

It's not that complicated, it's because we are a superficial people, which
are prone to following trends and believing what is good is what my peers say
is good.

At one time, it was the ScoobyDo Lunchbox, now its the Leonardo DiCaprio
Notebook and pinups to adorn the locker...

AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHY POPULARIZED SIN IS SO BAD. If one's rolemodels
are out committing fornication and espousing a lifestyle different than the
one you've been raised to believe in... one creates a false dichotomy, an
unnecessary schism.

What I find most disturbing about popular perception of movies is when I state
I haven't seen the film and they state, "Oh, you MUST go see it!" Must I?
All I've been defending in this discussion has been the right to NOT see a
film. And the reasonable motivations behind it, but some people are treating
this just like my friends who say, "You MUST go see it". No one MUST see
anything. It's wrong to suggest otherwise, it's like the teen who cries "I'll
just DIE if I don't get X." While advertisers would like you to think it, it
simply isn't true. It's all disposable income. No one MUST drink Coke, that's
a wonderful little lie. One could survive fine without it never being invented,
but how many people say "I've got to have a Diet Coke."

SO what's next? When will the time come (or is it already here) when the comment
is made, "You must have sex with a person before they get married.", "A relationship
could NEVER survive, if sex is not first had..." Or is what's coming worse?

"Why do we need to be married at all?", "We have a love that transcends traditional
bonds of enslavement." Bleah bleah bleah...

>> As though one must know if one will be
>> able to perform sexually in order to be able to get married.
>Actually in the Roman Catholic Church ability to perform sexually is a
>necessary requirement for a valid marriage.

And how do they determine that? Last time I checked, Fornication was still
a sin in the RCC. Of course, I could be wrong, and they may have tread a
more apostate path...

Either way it simply isn't a prerequisite for LDS marriage. And the topic
isn't about RCC, now is it?

>> If films have ability to affect cultural notions, AND THEY DO, then not
>> only can a person seeing the film be duped into believing a lie, but their
>> friends and acquaintances also start embracing the trends set forth therein.
>I know some atheists who would use the above argument to ban printing and
>distribution of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Once again you unfairly insinuate that I have pernicious motives and
somehow intend the abolishment of such films. I have no such intentions.
I have never suggested that these films need be banned. I am simply
stating that there are GOOD reasons for avoiding them, and that LDS,
in particular, have a serious obligation to reconsider why they attend
such films. Like Joshua said "For me and my house..." I'm making the
same type of comments and justifications. There's a whole set of
"entertainment" that LDS readily don't partake in, and actively preach
against partaking in, and regardless of its legality will encourage its
members not to be involved in... and even so, I've never heard of a single
member being excommunicated for watching a pornography, even by members
who have been addicted to porn. It's what such things lead one to do
where the line is drawn.

By making comments as to the general destructiveness of these films on
our society, I'm not saying we need DO anything about it... I'm not
wielding some sword of politics, rather if in a general case these
influences have been harmful to society then in general it should be
selfevident that they are harmful to LDS. Please stop insinuating I
am trying to abolish entertainment for people who do not believe
likewise, thansks...

>> LDS strive to be known as a Zion people. We will not find Zion by
>> patronizing Babylonian temples...
>Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the
>kingdom of God is within you.

D&C 64:24 - For after today cometh the burning -- this is speaking after
the manner of the Lord -- for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and
they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up,for I
am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.

D&C 133:5 - Go ye out from Babylon. Be ye clean that bear the vessels of
the Lord.

D&C 133:7 - Yeah, verily I say unto you again, the time has come when the
voice of the Lord is unto you: Go ye out of Babylon; gather ye out from among
the nations, from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

D&C 133:14 - Go ye out from among the nations, even from Babylon, from
the midst of wickedness, which is spiritual Babylon.

[Raymond Bingham]

Hedgey wrote:
>I (Raymond Bingham) wrote:

>Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
>but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
>In other words, the only really important moral problem you have to worry
>about is your own.

Luke 10:30-37 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem
to Jericho and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and
wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when
he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on
him, he passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when
he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and
set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence and gave
them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou
spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell
among thieves?
And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go,
and do likewise.

We were talking about a social ill, which brings misery into the lives
of thousands of families each year, and you use the argument that Cain used on
God way back when he slew his brother? "Am I my brother's keeper?" In case you
missed it... you are...
That I could be so naieve and think that I have only my own welfare with
which to concern myself. I have children who will soon be seeking to go and see
these popularized sinfests. And I owe it to them to at least give more thought
to the issue than "Go ask your mom."

>Rather than discussing how a film might affect some hypothetical third
>party, perhaps we ought to discuss how it affects Mormons (and
>non-Mormons) who actually watched the movie.

That's what we HAVE been discussing. Mormons are people. They are humans.
We admit the ability to be titillated, and even attracted to sinfulness, just as
any other human being. We admit that there are hormones in the human body which
drive us to certain types of behaviors. Why, I have even heard suppose that man
can be born with a genetic predisposition to certain types of temptations and
sins. If you prick us, we bleed. Therefore we are just as susceptible to
cultural whims and trends as anyone else, if we do not seek to at least root ourselves
against these winds of whimsy. One of the ways to do that is to make a choice to
avoid one of the many mediums of trends. But it is a choice, and I've never said
that it wasn't.

[Raymond Bingham]

Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) wrote:
>(Raymond Bingham) wrote:

>> That's because Hedgehog was misleading in asking the question. He tends to
>> want to make a general principle to characterize all mormons about their
>> treatment of all things naked.
>Is this an admission that Mormons can have legitimate reasons to watch and
>enjoy the movie Titanic?

The nudity in Titanic wasn't about "art". I don't know how many
times I have to state it. The narrator of the story (The Decrepit Rose)
stated explicitly that the act they were involved with was not an
innocent artist/model relationship. Furthermore her motivations were
not steeped in virtue.

As for other mormons, if they think they can watch it and go away without
any harm, that's fine by me. I've been saying that from the beginning.

I have stated how the film affected me personally and have provided some
justifications behind an utterance of ONE stake president, who, incidentally,
doesn't speak for the whole church, but rather just for his own stake.

I have stated that my "speculation" as to why the STake president would
feel the way he did is purely speculation on my part, and you have tried
to make this a general rule for all LDS. I'll thank you to cease doing
this. For all I know, the Stake president may have had a personal
revelation that if one family in his stake went to see it, they would
die in a horrible car accident, and thus his warning not to go see it
was an actual mortal warning. For all we know that could have been the
full extent of his exhortation.

As for my own opinion as to the film, I think it is morally bankrupt,
and is not the type of thing that uplifts or influences for good.

>> And as I've stated a good number of times
>> it wasn't about "nakedness" at all. It was about eroticism, and the lies
>> being perveyed in the story, and the influence of media on the popular
>> culture.
>So allow me to rephrase the question: is _eroticism_ in art judged
>differently when it is a classic work rather than when it is a recent
>release?

I think it would depend on the motivation of the study. I believe most
eroticism in art, no matter the age, is innappropriate for LDS consumption.
Eroticism places suggestion into the mind which are carnal and lustful
(A thing I don't think most of us need help of in the first place).
Christ likened lusting after a woman to whom one be not married to adultery.
Certainly lusts are the breeding ground for sin. One doesn't randomly
or accidentally end up having an affair, the act is deliberate and
premeditated. That premeditation is where the sin begins, and is offensive
to the Spirit.

Perhaps you are not in the mindset of trying to live worthily of the Holy
Spirit at all times, and thus lusts are simply a way of life to you, and
nothing to be worried about... (Why do I feel we've had this discussion
before?)

>> >Hedgehog wrote:
>> >>Not at all! I simply wanted to know how the standards which you wish to
>> >>apply to new works of art would be applied to classics. Do Mormons feel
>> >>the same revulsion at a 5th century BC nude female as a 20th century nude
>> >>female?

>> >I am really interested in reading various newsgroup participants
>> >reponses to his question..

>> I think the question is misleading, in that we express "revulsion" at
>> at the fifth century or twentieth century nude anything.

>Are we already so morally jaded that nudity alone doesn't do it for us anymore?

You suggested that we LDS express revulsion at the nude form. This is
scarcely the truth. Nudity is a fact of life. One is born naked, and
there are times when nudity will happen. Nudity in and of itself doesn't
necessarily promote erotic thoughts. (Showing pictures of aboriginal
natives with elephantitis bloated bodies for a medical film, or perhaps
an autopsy film, really doesn't create lustful thoughts for me, thus for me
these films would certainly not be considered inappropriate.)

Thus, your question was misleading and poorly stated.

>Not only are there verses prohibiting certain types of nakedness in the
>Old Testament, but one of the moral accusations leveled at the Lamanites
>by the Nephite prophets was their casual nakedness.

And LDS believe in modest dress and behavior. However the human body is
a thing of beauty and sacred, not necessarily repulsive. Suggesting to
the mind that seeing a nude form requires an immoral act, however, IS
wrong. And I think something that need be avoided by LDS, at least it
is stuff I try to avoid. (And such things can occur fully clothed.)

>> There's a significant difference between
>> what a film can communicate and a still painting (I know, being an artist
>> a still image seldom communicates all I wish it could... it's part of the
>> difficulty in doing sketches and stills.)

>The ancient Greeks didn't produce any movies--at least I don't know of any
>that survived. ;) I am afraid we may have to be a bit flexible about
>what artistic medium is used to encapsulate the message.

Precisely my point. We are now in possession of media and tools which are
far more able to suggest illicit and indecent behavior. While the greeks
(or in the case I stated in my last post, Pompeii, the Romans) could act
out attrocious spiritually offensive behavior, they couldn't record it and
play it back over and over again, broadcasting it to all near and far.

If I was a Christian in that era, I could avoid those "red-light districts".

>> Oftimes the message being
>> communicatedin a fifth century piece has long since lost its
>significance, and
>> thus is appreciated as a "higher artform".

>You are now seemingly defending desensitization while earlier you argued
>it was a danger to be avoided.

Not at all. I'm stating a fact of archeaology. When an artifact is found,
one must assume a lot of things about it, in order to figure out for what
the object was for. Imagine if our civilization was wiped out suddenly and
a group of people ruled by a despotic torturous tyrant found some of our
stuff. They might suppose that a "curling iron" was a torture device, and
that torturing people was a common practice in our civilization. They might
suppose that medical charts were for the accurate and detailed use of
torture, and that the belts, knives and whatever else, used in surgery,
were actually the tools of a skilled torturemaster.

The point is that we simply cannot know all the uses and meanings behind
certain pieces of artwork and artifacts. As a result much of what is now
viewed as artwork may have been used for very express purposes and vice
versa. Because we view these things through our own cultural perception
things that may have been illicit and extremely provocative at the time
may look to us as a cooking utensil. And vice versa.

Secondly, there is at least in part, an academic reason to study the
artifacts of the past, that goes beyond eroticism. Even erotic art
may tell us something about the culture of the time, and allows us to
glimpse into the dynamics of failed societies. History serves to help
us avoid mistakes of the past. If we found Sodom and Gomorrah, it
would be interesting, from a purely christian scholarly perspective, to
see how some of the cities we now have on earth, rate up. Are we, the
God-fearing to expect calamities anytime soon?

[snip]

>It doesn't matter why the lemonade is supposed to be good if someone has
>chucked a turd into it. To argue that the greatness of David somehow
>neutralizes the completely gratuitous nudity of the statue is incredible
>to me given your insistence on the lemonade analogy. Let's review the
>case.

Problem is that I never agreed to your initial presupposition. I've never
said that nudity by itself was "evil". So the rest of this discussion
can be snipped. Try and keep up with my points, rather than insinuating
more that what I really mean...

Secondly film is a different media than a statue of a biblical entity
(Although the artist intended it to be a biblical entity, this is highly
questionable, besides the whole naked greek athlete thing, there's
the small detail as to the fact that Jews were circumsized but as I
recall (and it's been while since I actually so the statue, so I can't
be completely certain) Mikey's David is not. So much for the "value"
of it being nude... :-) and a film. Do you think it would be
appropriate for an LDS members to, even if they were invited to do this,
watch their neighbors make love from outside the bedroom window? What
about going up to lover's leap and trying to look in on motorists as they
paw one another? So what makes this okay to do in a film?

Erotic statues are just as inappropriate, but a statue of a nude, needn't
be erotic, as I've mentioned before.

If you're going to argue these points with me, therefore, please try and
keep the facts straight. I've no intention of denouncing one's decision
to take off their clothes in a "modest situation". Stop trying to create
the illusion that I'm trying to be more prohibitive than I am.