Why see the movies?
grouch
Church's history is O.K. G
Editorial: Supplying the Demand for Edited Movies
By Jeremy Voros
You don't need to live in Utah very long before you have to confront the movie
issue. Film course syllabi warn "some films screened in this course are rated
R," the Gateway Theaters do not show films they consider to contain
objectionable material, and companies like Clean Flicks turn a profit by
editing movies for people who "prefer to watch them without the sex, nudity,
profanity or extreme violence."
As a Film Studies major, I have always been annoyed by the "Utah Movie Issue."
I have difficulty accepting the fact a professor of mine would have to provide
a less-objectionable alternative to "The Godfather" for a student opposed to
watching an R-rated film. Do English professors have to provide less violent
alternatives to "Hamlet?" The edited films provided by companies like Clean
Flicks and Video II have seemed like nothing less than audacious and
presumptuous alterations of artists' copyrighted works. But recent developments
between Provo-based Clear Play and the Directors' Guild of America have made me
reassess my opinion.
Clear Play is an internet-based software application that provides edited
viewing of DVDs without modifying or copying the original disc. The company's
unique software, developed by three Brigham Young University graduates, allows
an editor to map out a movie, noting frame by frame the sections needed to be
skipped or muted. The changes are logged to a playback file that then alters
how the computer plays the DVD.
There are two advantages to the Clear Play system. First, because the disc is
not physically altered, like a VHS cassette that has objectionable content
spliced from the tape, the service allows users to watch edited versions of a
film they have rented from any video store. Secondly, because the software does
not reproduce an altered version of the source material, it is not a copyright
violation.
A suit filed last month asserts otherwise. The Directors' Guild of America has
filed a suit claiming that Clear Play's service violates the Lanham Act, a
federal statute that prohibits false advertising, trademark infringement, and
unfair competition, and has been applied to protect an artist's right not to be
associated with an unauthorized, edited version of his or her work.
My own sense of artistic integrity leads me to be sympathetic toward the DGA's
annoyance over these services. The principle of the service seems to violate
the intentions of those involved in the production of a film. Filmmakers
sometimes use sex and violence as thematic elements that can be intrinsic to
the message and story of a film. Taking the violence out of Speilberg's "Saving
Private Ryan," or the sex out of Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut," would leave both
films thematically hollow and meaningless. Not all art is meant to be viewed by
the entire family. If you don't want your 13-year-old to see sex or hear
profanity, don't take her to see Eminem's "8 Mile."
Steven Soderbergh, the Oscar-winning director of Traffic, complained, "It is
unconscionable, and unethical, to take someone else's hard work, alter it and
profit from it. Would anyone even attempt to defend ripping pages out of a
book, leaving the author's name on it and then selling it?"
But at the same time, I can't help but feel like this suit is just further
evidence of the entertainment industry's fear of technology that they do not
control or profit from. Like the RIAA's legal wranglings with Napster and its
look-alikes, the DGA's suit against Clear Play seems petty and hypocritical.
The DGA, of which Soderbergh is vice president, complains the editing of films
violates filmmakers' artistic rights. But Hollywood studios regularly produce
optional, edited versions of movies all the time. When a film shows on
television, the studio always edits the frame size, running time and even
content. Films shown on airplanes and cruise ships are edited in the same way.
Swank Motion Pictures, a company that handles distribution of public viewing
licenses for nearly all of the major studios including Warner Bros., Paramount,
Universal, Dreamworks and more, offers edited versions of popular films like
The Bourne Identity and About a Boy.
Perusing Clean Flicks' rental offerings further detracted from the DGA's
complaints of lost artistic integrity. Let's be honest, does taking the sex and
language out of Michael Bay's Armageddon really detract from any lofty thematic
elements in the film? Is anyone going to care if you cut anything out of
Sylvester Stallone's Cliff Hanger?
Rather than suing companies for providing a service that consumers clearly
demand, filmmakers need to start making their already-edited versions of films
commercially available. The entertainment industry needs to stop attacking
companies that do a better job of responding to commercial trends than it does.
Instead of all of their corporate, litigious temper tantrums, Hollywood's big
studios would be better off following the progressive models of these smaller,
local companies. Don't try to control consumers, give them what they demand.
Don't misread me. I still cannot relate to people who prefer to rent
Albertsons' "E" rated version of "The Royal Tenenbaums" rather than Anderson's
original; I still do not think a professor should feel a need to protect
himself or herself when showing Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" in a film class. But
come on, filmmakers should not be crying about artistic integrity and suing
companies for editing their films when they already do it themselves. Get over
it.
Jeremy welcomes feedback at jvo...@chronicle.utah.edu. Send letters to the
editor to let...@chronicle.utah.edu.
Corey
still maintain that If I buy the movie, and I own it. I can rip any damn
page out I want, and read it up side down if i please. I agree that Pulp
Fiction could NEVER be edited and be even close the same movie, Goodfellas
possibly but its arguable, Godfather I dissagree with you completely. Your
right taking the sex out of stanley kubrick's orgy film would leave it
hollow and meaningless (like it already wasnt) What meaning? What substance?
The real message was sent back to the late director by audiences with a
resounding "WHO CARES". And I can assure you that there is not currently
nor is there any plan to edit it, just like there isnt a planned edit of
showgirls or strip tease. Private Ryan, well I dissagree, You could show the
opening scene, yet skip over the bullet through the soldiers head, for a
brief second. You can tone things down and still have a very moving and
enveloping film. I dont have to go smell it to know the dog took a dump.
(appologies for the graphic nature of that example) As well I dont have to
see Private Pile in Full Metal Jacket have his head splatter all over the
latrine to know just how hard and humiliating boot camp was. It would have
had the exact same effect if there was a pan to matthew modine and you heard
the shot fired. You can argue all you want about "artistic integrity"
nowdays that seems like the biggest oxymoron ever, but it still comes down
to the fact that with exception of the artist themselves, most who are in
their corner are not some artistic idealist protecting the rights of the
downtrodden, but simple minded followers who are ever in search of something
to give meaning to their lives. Not suprisingly this came from a Journalist,
go figure, the oracle of integrity.
Corey
<bak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021119150845...@mb-mu.aol.com...
dangerous 1
Corey wrote:
> There may or may not be a case against these different companies, but I
> still maintain that If I buy the movie, and I own it. I can rip any damn
> page out I want, and read it up side down if i please.
You may be thinking of a "book", not a movie.
D1
Justin
page out of the screenplay.
great post Corey
Justin
"dangerous 1" <dange...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
news:3DDBC74D...@dangerous1.com...
Jeff Shirton
news:LrPC9.65285$%m4.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> There may or may not be a case against these different companies, but I
> still maintain that If I buy the movie, and I own it. I can rip any damn
> page out I want, and read it up side down if i please.
Yes, but the point is that you *don't* "own the movie".
You own: (possibly) the medium (ie. videotape/DVD)
unlimited *viewing* rights.
You don't own *the* movie.
> brief second. You can tone things down and still have a very
> moving and enveloping film.
And if the *producers* of the movie had wanted to do so,
the could have or would have done so.
If *you* want to make a "toned down" film of a particular type
or story line, you are free to do so, you simply can't take someone
else's work and "edit" it. That would be like grabbing an essay
off the internet, removing a few paragraphs, and distributing it
(either under your own name (which it isn't), or under the original
author's name (which it is no longer the complete work the author
intended).
> I dont have to go smell it to know the dog took a dump.
> (appologies for the graphic nature of that example) As well I dont have to
> see Private Pile in Full Metal Jacket have his head splatter all over the
> latrine to know just how hard and humiliating boot camp was.
So why try to take someone else's movie and try to turn it into something
it isn't, and something the original creator didn't intend?
If you don't like the movie, don't go see it.
> Corey
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
clif...@netdoor.com
<jshi...@unlisted.burlington.ca> wrote:
>"Corey" <frsmar...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:LrPC9.65285$%m4.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>> There may or may not be a case against these different companies, but I
>> still maintain that If I buy the movie, and I own it. I can rip any damn
>> page out I want, and read it up side down if i please.
>
>Yes, but the point is that you *don't* "own the movie".
No, but you own the individual copy of the videotape/DVD.
>You own: (possibly) the medium (ie. videotape/DVD)
> unlimited *viewing* rights.
>
>You don't own *the* movie.
No, but you own the individual copy of the videotape/DVD.
>> brief second. You can tone things down and still have a very
>> moving and enveloping film.
>
>And if the *producers* of the movie had wanted to do so,
>the could have or would have done so.
The movie "Tender Mercies" comes to mind. There was one scene
with gratuitous profanity that did nothing to advance the storyline.
I found that one scene detracted from an otherwise excellent film,
for which Robert Duval received the Oscar for Best Actor (and
deservedly so).
>If *you* want to make a "toned down" film of a particular type
>or story line, you are free to do so, you simply can't take someone
>else's work and "edit" it.
You can when you buy it.
> That would be like grabbing an essay
>off the internet, removing a few paragraphs, and distributing it
>(either under your own name (which it isn't), or under the original
>author's name (which it is no longer the complete work the author
>intended).
Straw man. People are wanting to buy the edited versions.
>> I dont have to go smell it to know the dog took a dump.
>> (appologies for the graphic nature of that example) As well I dont have to
>> see Private Pile in Full Metal Jacket have his head splatter all over the
>> latrine to know just how hard and humiliating boot camp was.
>
>So why try to take someone else's movie and try to turn it into something
>it isn't, and something the original creator didn't intend?
Once I own it, I could care less about the original creator.
>If you don't like the movie, don't go see it.
Don't get me wrong, Jeff. I have no use for the sanitised versions
some would seem to prefer. I see Blackhawk Down and Saving Private
Ryan for the gritty realism they present on war. I would not want them
sanitised. But if someone would rather see a film without gratuitous
excesses (which exist in many films), I see no reason to behave like
a bunch of Pharisees.
>> Corey
>
>--
>Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
Say, when did California get it's own address (cogeco.ca) ?
Duwayne Anderson
recently. They pointed out that some LDS film hackers illustrate
their set of values not only by what they cut, but what they LEAVE.
It's interesting some of the stuff they do not take out. Helps you
appreciate their sense of values.
It's like the conversation I overheard in Church a few years back. A
couple of LDS girls were talking about an R-rated film they had gone
to see. They were justifying it among themselves by saying "it wasn't
R-rated because of nudity; just violence."
Well, that's the sort of twisted morality we sometimes face. It's
okay to justify Moses murdering little kids, as long as there are no
un-clad breasts.
As for me, some of the best, most morally uplifting films I've seen
have been R-rated. I encouraged my kids to watch "Saving Private
Ryan." That one film did more than anything I could do to help them
understand the horror of war.
On the other hand, there are *many* PG-13 films that I discourage them
from watching. So, while my kids were getting a lesson about the
immorality of blowing the guts out of your fellow man, their Mormon
friends were smugly watching teen-flick movies with a rating of PG-13
and laughing at enough potty humor to gag a maggot.
If the LDS Church had any moral/ethical fiber/backbone they wouldn't
rely upon industry censors to decide what is or is not objectionable
material. They'd post their OWN rating system, instead of essentially
setting a moral standard that's based on a Hollywood standard for
rating films.
Anyway, nice post. I like the other one you did, too, with all the
quotes from US presidents. Helen could double her understanding of
American politics by reading that one, alone (just kidding Helen, put
your claws back in).
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
bak...@aol.com (grouch) wrote in message news:<20021119150845...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
clif...@netdoor.com
wrote:
>Interesting, Grouch. The Portland paper carried an article on this
>recently. They pointed out that some LDS film hackers illustrate
>their set of values not only by what they cut, but what they LEAVE.
>It's interesting some of the stuff they do not take out. Helps you
>appreciate their sense of values.
>
>It's like the conversation I overheard in Church a few years back. A
>couple of LDS girls were talking about an R-rated film they had gone
>to see. They were justifying it among themselves by saying "it wasn't
>R-rated because of nudity; just violence."
>
>Well, that's the sort of twisted morality we sometimes face. It's
>okay to justify Moses murdering little kids, as long as there are no
>un-clad breasts.
>
>As for me, some of the best, most morally uplifting films I've seen
>have been R-rated. I encouraged my kids to watch "Saving Private
>Ryan." That one film did more than anything I could do to help them
>understand the horror of war.
Agree. The first half of Kubrik's Full Metal Jacket was a sanitised
replay of basic training ( I say sanitised because Kubrik depicted a
'kindler and gentler' DI than I remember). The second half showed a
very unglamorous look at the Tet offensive. The female Viet Cong
sniper was particularly effective.
While I am definitely NOT an Oliver Stone fan, the final scene of
Platoon, where the North Vietnamese overran the American position,
wwas very much unJohn Wayne-like. I asked my cousin, who served
at Ke Sahn, his opinion of the scene. He said it was very realistic.
>On the other hand, there are *many* PG-13 films that I discourage them
>from watching. So, while my kids were getting a lesson about the
>immorality of blowing the guts out of your fellow man, their Mormon
>friends were smugly watching teen-flick movies with a rating of PG-13
>and laughing at enough potty humor to gag a maggot.
Agreed.
>If the LDS Church had any moral/ethical fiber/backbone they wouldn't
>rely upon industry censors to decide what is or is not objectionable
>material. They'd post their OWN rating system, instead of essentially
>setting a moral standard that's based on a Hollywood standard for
>rating films.
If they did, the only thing that would pass muster would be videos
of Conference and the Tabernacle Choir.
Although to be honest, you should be down here in Mississippi with the
Dominant Religious Culture (Southern White Baptist). They were raising
a stink about Beauty and the Beast (it showed too much cleavage of the
French girls in town), Pocohantas (interracial relationships, a no-no
down here), and I forget whay they didn't like Lion King, but they
didn't.
Just goes to show you that there are pinheads in every group.
grouch
>From: clif...@netdoor.com
>Date: 11/23/2002 6:35 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ddf7233...@news.netdoor.com>
Good comments. It is all about religous control, nothing more. Loose control,
loose members, loose money. G
corey
always said to use your judgement and the guideance of the spirit. I love
how critics of the church always have this cynisism when they compare what
the standards are and what some members may choose to do. Dont look to make
yourself feel better about your own justifications by overstating and
overgeneralizing the choices of some people, Id be willing to bet that the
people you have direct contact with that represent a population sampling of
the LDS does not exceed 10000, that being said, 10,000 out of 11,000,000
does not give you some authoritative view point to say that you know how
many people honestly strive to live not only the commandments but also try
to stay within the guidelines such as no R rated movies. Also the choices of
one person or even a number of them, does not determine the moral
fabric/backbone of an organization, if thats the case then what a sorry
state you are in being americans, look around you and see if you would like
to be judged according to the popular opinion of other fellow citizens of
this country. How about David Westerfield, there ya go, so is that what you
are like? You get my point. If you havent yet, you should read the new "for
the strength of youth" to see what the position is regarding movies. I love
how the basis for criticism is always some story like, i over heard these
"Good LDS" girls one time, or my friend said that his bishop said...you know
i have a good scripture for you guys, and its from the bible so that we dont
have any squabbling over authority. Proverbs 26:20,22
Corey
"grouch" <bak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021123151913...@mb-cs.aol.com...
clif...@netdoor.com
wrote:
>The church has not "relied" upon the rating system of the MPAA. They have
>always said to use your judgement and the guideance of the spirit. I love
>how critics of the church always have this cynisism when they compare what
>the standards are and what some members may choose to do. Dont look to make
>yourself feel better about your own justifications by overstating and
>overgeneralizing the choices of some people, Id be willing to bet that the
>people you have direct contact with that represent a population sampling of
>the LDS does not exceed 10000, that being said, 10,000 out of 11,000,000
>does not give you some authoritative view point to say that you know how
>many people honestly strive to live not only the commandments but also try
>to stay within the guidelines such as no R rated movies. Also the choices of
>one person or even a number of them, does not determine the moral
>fabric/backbone of an organization, if thats the case then what a sorry
>state you are in being americans, look around you and see if you would like
>to be judged according to the popular opinion of other fellow citizens of
>this country. How about David Westerfield, there ya go, so is that what you
>are like? You get my point. If you havent yet, you should read the new "for
>the strength of youth" to see what the position is regarding movies. I love
>how the basis for criticism is always some story like, i over heard these
>"Good LDS" girls one time, or my friend said that his bishop said...you know
>i have a good scripture for you guys, and its from the bible so that we dont
>have any squabbling over authority. Proverbs 26:20,22
>
>Corey
This may be so, but GBH has told us not to see R movies.
Duwayne Anderson
> The church has not "relied" upon the rating system of the MPAA.
Oh, sure they have. You think the folks on this newsgroup don't know
the score?
> They have
> always said to use your judgement and the guideance of the spirit.
Here is what your *own* prophet has said on the matter:
"Don't see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any
entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. (President
Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1986, p.45.)
Did you catch that? Need a little help reading it? Sure you do. See
the part that says "Don't see R-rated movies?" It's followed by an
"or." That means there are *other* things Mormons are *also* not
supposed to see, but they are NOT to see R-rated movies.
And, of course, the R-rating is based on an industry standard.
> I love
> how critics of the church always have this cynisism when they compare what
> the standards are and what some members may choose to do.
Don't pretend that your prophets have not *specifically* told members
not to see R-rated movies. What do you have to gain by following Guy
R. Brigg's, Charles Dowis', and Woody Brison's examples by lying about
what the Church teaches?
<snip to end>
grouch
>Date: 11/26/2002 9:16 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a42139e3.02112...@posting.google.com>
Speaking from the pulpit, the LDS High Councilmen continually warn against
watching R-rated movies or movies with high incidents of, what they call,
vulgar actions and bad language. G
clif...@netdoor.com
If they had said that we weren't put on Earth to be entertained, and
that we should be anxiously engaged in building the Kingdom, I could
accept that. But to allow Jack Valenti and the MPAA to determine what
is suitable and what is not just doesn't fly with me. Some of the best
war movies are rated R for violence and language, and yet do more to
show the reality of war than John Wayne ever did.
Corey
argue you have *again* taken only part of what someone says, and twisted it.
Which incedentaly is what you do with every bit of literature or segment of
church history that you feel like criticizing at the moment. Did i ever say
that it was OK to watch R movies. No that isnt what i said. I did however
say that they dont "RELY" upon the MPAA for their definition of what is
vulgur, immoral, pornographic or otherwise offensive. R rated movies
ABSOLUTELY have been deemed as unacceptable as the rating standard itself
tells us that there WILL be material that is offensive to the spirit. BUT it
is not the final authority, and therefore the instruction has been and will
continue to be, USE YOUR JUDGEMENT. That includes the spirit. What that
means is, if something is rated PG-13 but is full of "Potty Humor" as
someone put it, or whatever the offensive material is, or even PG, or on
Network TV, just because it does not have the R rating does not make it
acceptable. My point about Using your judgement and listening to the spirit
implies exactly what you criticized the "Good LDS girls" that were overheard
talking about movies they saw. The whole issue is that the MPAA rating
system is NOT the final word, YOU ARE. That is to mean that YOU should know
what is offensive to the spirit and what isnt, and when it is, change it. So
dont pull out your super duper auto quoting programs that you have all your
anti quotes and all of the volumes of the History of the Church and the
Journal of Discourses on so you can give me a lame quote where we were told
not to watch R movies. IF you are so intelligent, why not actualy read what
I say and respond intelligently to that rather than ramble on about a point
that I didnt even make.
Corey
Corey
<clif...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:3de40792...@news.netdoor.com...
TheJordan6
>>watching R-rated movies or movies with high incidents of, what they call,
>>vulgar actions and bad language. G
>
>If they had said that we weren't put on Earth to be entertained, and
>that we should be anxiously engaged in building the Kingdom, I could
>accept that. But to allow Jack Valenti and the MPAA to determine what
>is suitable and what is not just doesn't fly with me. Some of the best
>war movies are rated R for violence and language, and yet do more to
>show the reality of war than John Wayne ever did.
I remember a few years ago, some seminary teacher advising high-school age
students not to see "Schindler's List" because it was rated R (even though it's
one of the most powerful and socially significant fims ever made).
And then the students watched it in their high school history class.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/26/2002 7:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <vYTE9.148011$1O2.10821@sccrnsc04>
>
>OK first off, in your small meaningless constant effort to find fault and
>argue you have *again* taken only part of what someone says, and twisted it.
>Which incedentaly is what you do with every bit of literature or segment of
>church history that you feel like criticizing at the moment. Did i ever say
>that it was OK to watch R movies. No that isnt what i said. I did however
>say that they dont "RELY" upon the MPAA for their definition of what is
>vulgur, immoral, pornographic or otherwise offensive. R rated movies
>ABSOLUTELY have been deemed as unacceptable as the rating standard itself
>tells us that there WILL be material that is offensive to the spirit.
Corey, which was more "offensive" to your "spirit"?
a) Watching the war scenes in "Saving Private Ryan," which was an accurate
portryal of what hundreds of thousands of soldiers have had to endure, or
b) Listening to Paul H. Dunn's stories about his miraculous survival of a hail
of gunfire in WWll, and then discovering that he made it all up?
Randy J.
grouch
>Date: 11/26/2002 5:49 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3de40792...@news.netdoor.com>
When you are right, you are right. I know, being a WWII survivor. G
corey
have never listened to a paul h dunn talk, and furthermore, why would you
assume that because a person makes a decision to lie, that somehow is a
reflection of others morality, ethics, belief system etc.
Corey
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021126202544...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Duwayne Anderson
> OK first off, in your small meaningless constant effort to find fault and
> argue you have *again* taken only part of what someone says, and twisted it.
Nobody twisted what you said, Corey.
> Which incedentaly is what you do with every bit of literature or segment of
> church history that you feel like criticizing at the moment. Did i ever say
> that it was OK to watch R movies.
Corey said: "The church has not "relied" upon the rating system of the
MPAA."
But they have. They have specifically told members not to watch
R-rated movies:
"Don't see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any
entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. (President
Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1986, p.45.)
> No that isnt what i said. I did however
> say that they dont "RELY" upon the MPAA for their definition of what is
> vulgur, immoral, pornographic or otherwise offensive.
Nope. You said "The church has not "relied" upon the rating system of
the MPAA." In fact, though, they use the MPAA as part of their
definition of what is, or is not fit to watch (see the above quotation
by Benson).
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
clif...@netdoor.com
>>From: "Corey" frsmar...@attbi.com
>>Date: 11/26/2002 7:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <vYTE9.148011$1O2.10821@sccrnsc04>
>>
>>OK first off, in your small meaningless constant effort to find fault and
>>argue you have *again* taken only part of what someone says, and twisted it.
>>Which incedentaly is what you do with every bit of literature or segment of
>>church history that you feel like criticizing at the moment. Did i ever say
>>that it was OK to watch R movies. No that isnt what i said. I did however
>>say that they dont "RELY" upon the MPAA for their definition of what is
>>vulgur, immoral, pornographic or otherwise offensive. R rated movies
>>ABSOLUTELY have been deemed as unacceptable as the rating standard itself
>>tells us that there WILL be material that is offensive to the spirit.
>
>Corey, which was more "offensive" to your "spirit"?
>
>a) Watching the war scenes in "Saving Private Ryan," which was an accurate
>portryal of what hundreds of thousands of soldiers have had to endure, or
>
>b) Listening to Paul H. Dunn's stories about his miraculous survival of a hail
>of gunfire in WWll, and then discovering that he made it all up?
We saw Dunn here in Jackson before he died. He had previously been
censured/rebuked after the Arizona Republic had exposed some of his
'faith promotin' stories', and was an Emeritus member of the 70's
Quorum. And he still managed to recycle a couple of his old stories.
I honestly think he had a problem with reality.
Duwayne Anderson
My, my, my. The Saints really ARE the same the world over. The wife
of the Bishop here in Saint Helens was just having that argument with
the local High School a few weeks back.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
> The most offensive to my "spirit" is your lame attempts to get my goat.
Lame attempts? From your comments, I'd say he got that goat a long time ago.
> I
> have never listened to a paul h dunn talk, and furthermore, why would you
> assume that because a person makes a decision to lie, that somehow is a
> reflection of others morality, ethics, belief system etc.
Corey, you forgot the question. Here. Let me repeat it for you. Randy said:
Corey, which was more "offensive" to your "spirit"?
a) Watching the war scenes in "Saving Private Ryan," which was an accurate
portryal of what hundreds of thousands of soldiers have had to endure, or
b) Listening to Paul H. Dunn's stories about his miraculous survival of a hail
of gunfire in WWll, and then discovering that he made it all up?
Randy J.
Seems like a simple question, Corey. Why no answer?
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
corey
possibly make a choice there? I would also point out that none of you have
made an attempt to answer any of the objections I brought up. Like the fact
that whenever there is a basis sited for criticism, its always, I over heard
someone, or so and so said this, or the bishop said once. Its no different
than if i said that King David committed murder and adultery, and boy I sure
wish the church had some backbone and moral fiber, I mean really a prophet
of God doing things like that? No, regardless of what the prophet does, the
Gospel remains true. My response to this question is, wherin have you been
justified in committing a sin that you deem less "offensive" or harmful than
anothers sin. How can you say well its an accurate portrayal of WWII so
therefore its more offensive to listen to Paul H. Dunn who made stuff up. Is
it wrong to listen to him? Of course not, was it wrong for him to lie? Yes.
Is it against the will of God that you desensitize yourself and your
children to the effects of gore and violence. Yup. I guarantee you that
every one of those veterans HOPES TO GOD, that you never have to see what
they did. Also you really are trying to make the point that there is no
other way to teach your children about war, and the honor that that is
deserved to each of our veterans. I disagree.
Corey
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.02112...@posting.google.com...
Duwayne Anderson
> How is never having listened to Paul H Dunn Not an answer.
Because the question was not "Have you ever listened to Paul H. Dunn."
The question was:
Corey, which was more "offensive" to your "spirit"?
a) Watching the war scenes in "Saving Private Ryan," which was an
accurate
portryal of what hundreds of thousands of soldiers have had to endure,
or
b) Listening to Paul H. Dunn's stories about his miraculous survival
of a hail
of gunfire in WWll, and then discovering that he made it all up?
Seems like a simple question, Corey. Why no answer?
> How could I
> possibly make a choice there?
Simple. Simply look at the question, and address the issues it
raises. The issue is not one of literalness (though Randy does use
the word "was," but one of comparing the ethical morals espoused by
you and other Mormons. Specifically, in this case, presumed
sensitivities to "Saving Private Ryan," compared with demonstrated
sensitivities to a General Authority who lies through his teeth.
So ignore the word "was," and replace it with the words "would be."
Illustrate for us how you compare the ethics/morality of both public
displays.
> I would also point out that none of you have
> made an attempt to answer any of the objections I brought up.
Corey, don't lie on ARM. It will only make you look worse than you
already do. I addressed many of your concerns at length.
> Like the fact
> that whenever there is a basis sited for criticism, its always, I over heard
> someone, or so and so said this, or the bishop said once.
Corey, don't lie on ARM. I, for example, posted a quotation from your
own prophet saying that Mormons are not to watch R-rated films.
> Its no different
> than if i said that King David committed murder and adultery, and boy I sure
> wish the church had some backbone and moral fiber, I mean really a prophet
> of God doing things like that?
Corey, don't use strawman arguments on ARM. It will only make you
look worse than you already do. Many of us on ARM are atheists, and
don't believe in the Bible anymore than we believe in the silly Book
of Mormon. But that's beside the present point. Deal with the
ethical issues.
> No, regardless of what the prophet does, the
> Gospel remains true.
Your gospel is a joke, Corey. Just as your inability to deal with the
issues is a joke.
> My response to this question is, wherin have you been
> justified in committing a sin that you deem less "offensive" or harmful than
> anothers sin.
You are blabbering, Corey. Deal with the issues. Strawman arguments
are not the answer.
> How can you say well its an accurate portrayal of WWII so
> therefore its more offensive to listen to Paul H. Dunn who made stuff up.
I, for one, am offended at people who lie. And I'd certainly not want
my kids to base their moral code on the stories of a liar like Paul
Dunn. How about YOU Corey? That's the question. Where are YOUR
ethical boundaries?
> Is
> it wrong to listen to him?
No, but it IS wrong for him to tell those lies so that others would
base life's decisions, in part, on his lies. And it's also wrong for
people to justify his lies, as if they make no matter.
> Of course not, was it wrong for him to lie? Yes.
Good. I'm glad to see you can admit to this.
> Is it against the will of God that you desensitize yourself and your
> children to the effects of gore and violence. Yup.
Who is "desensitizing?"
Let's see hou "desensitized" you are. Tell us. Was it wrong for
Moses to murder/rape the little ones in Numbers 31?
> I guarantee you that
> every one of those veterans HOPES TO GOD, that you never have to see what
> they did.
Actually, I think they HOPE TO GOD that we do -- that way we are less
likely to rush out to start wars.
> Also you really are trying to make the point that there is no
> other way to teach your children about war, and the honor that that is
> deserved to each of our veterans.
Don't use strawman arguments, Corey. That won't get you out of the
mess you are in.
> I disagree.
Rational people can disagree. The real point of Randy's question was
to illustrate a certain amount of hypocrisy. The same can be said of
your comments if you are not ALSO opposed to reading the Bible, and
justifying the rape/murder of little ones by a man Mormons call a
prophet.
<snip to end>